Hacker News Reader

Just to back you up, the idea that risk aversion is not applicable to charitable giving and that you should optimally give to only one charity is fairly uncontroversial amongst the Effective Altruism movement, and has been talked about since before that movement had a name:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/1997/0...

View on HN

It's an interesting article, but I'm not sure I buy it. Boiled down, it sounds like the author is arguing for philanthropists to have only one cause. But maybe I care equally about helping this generation with hunger and future generations with saving the rainforest. I get that I could help hunger more by redirecting my rainforest money, but why is it logically the case that I should?

Also, I find it interesting that the article discusses multiple causes, but not multiple organizations within one cause. There are hundreds if not thousands of organizations focused on cancer - to which do I give my donation? Only one?

> But maybe I care equally about helping this generation with hunger and future generations with saving the rainforest.

This is exactly the "delusion of grandeur" being argued against in the article, though:

"[people donate] as if they were thinking, "OK, I think I've pretty much wrapped up the problem of heart disease; now let's see what I can do about cancer."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com