“I pledge to spend N hours/year evaluating how I could do the most good in the world and what the personal cost to me would be, and publish my results.”
The N hours is still a cost rather than a result, which I dislike. I think the ultimate goal would be a moral aesthetic sense on when you’ve researched “enough”, and pledge to satisfy that. But this gets you one of the main advantages of the GWWC pledge, that it prompts you to donate and to think about your donation, without the cost of locking you in to a numbers. Yes, the pledge is fine with you donating more, but there is no mechanism for deciding when you should do so.
“I pledge to spend N hours/year evaluating how I could do the most good in the world and what the personal cost to me would be, and publish my results.”
The N hours is still a cost rather than a result, which I dislike. I think the ultimate goal would be a moral aesthetic sense on when you’ve researched “enough”, and pledge to satisfy that. But this gets you one of the main advantages of the GWWC pledge, that it prompts you to donate and to think about your donation, without the cost of locking you in to a numbers. Yes, the pledge is fine with you donating more, but there is no mechanism for deciding when you should do so.
I like this! Especially if combined with a Schelling day for doing the thinking (possibly one winter and one summer?).
Seattle did this the last two years: https://jsalvatier.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/meetup-retrospective-donation-decision-day-2014/