Conspicuous consumption

My hero Peter Singer just wrote a nice little piece about conspicuous consumption called Why Pay More.

I often blog about conspicuous consumption, but rarely name it. To me, it is perhaps the most disgusting and most damaging way of being selfish. In a nut shell, conspicuous consumption is "keeping up with the Jones's" - spending resources on unnecessary or luxury items as a way of signaling status. Examples of conspicuous consumption include purchases of designer clothing/accessories/furniture, oversized living spaces/cars, pedigree companion animals, weddings, lavish vacations, and any purchase you'd want to brag about or that would impress your peer group. Think about purchases or experiences you post on Facebook. Think about your boards on Pinterest. Can you see conspicuous consumption at work in your own life?

The reason that I believe conspicuous consumption is worse than private indulgence is conspicuous consumption places social pressure on others to spend as you spend. Not only do you use your own resources selfishly, but you encourage others to do the same. Even worse, there's a "one-upping" that's expected - you spent 5 days in London, but I spent 5 days in London AND 3 days in Rome. And all that unnecessary spending could have saved lives.

Extremely large, public gifts to charity are also considered conspicuous consumption, as they raise the status of those making the gift. This is the one form of conspicuous consumption I support and applaud, for exactly the reason I stated above: it encourages others to do the same. The charitable gifts made by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet have made way for other billionaires to follow suit.

Conspicuous consumption is deeply embedded in American culture, self-identity, and group-identity. It is extremely important to recognize the way in which conspicuous consumption directs our spending habits, and thus "ties up" money that we should be free to give away.

To change our culture, to value compassion over selfishness and altruistic actions over "stuff", we must celebrate and elevate those who defy conspicuous consumption, like Uruguay's 'poor' president Jose Mujica. And we should feel disgusted and outraged by public displays of luxury and indulgence, not envious.


-Selfish Blogger

Live Below the Line

Chances are, most people reading this blog have no idea what it means to be poor. I know I don't. That's one of the reasons I'm going to Live Below the Line in May.

Live Below the Line is a challenge that gives people in the first world a 5 day taste of what it truly means to go without. For 5 days, people taking the Live Below the Line challenge must feed themselves on no more than $1.50 per day - the equivalent of what 1.4 billion people the world over have to live on. That $1.50 figure is the purchasing power parity rate. That $1.50 does not buy more in the third world than it does in the US. 

I've been looking forward to the challenge, and I've been paying close attention to food prices to try and figure out what I'll eat - I'll have exactly $7.50 to cover 15 meals plus snacks. Rice and beans look like my staple. Nothing canned. Nothing from a box. A $0.50 apple is out of the question. I'm hoping to afford a $0.19 banana. If I can make it to the farmer's market, there is a vendor that sells huge bunches of kale for only $2 - enough kale to last me the full 5 days, and leave me with $1.10 per day for rice and beans. It's going to be tough.

Live Below the Line is also a fundraiser, and I'm asking for sponsors to help me raiser $1,000 for CARE (don't be put off by the dramatic music in the video, it's a great cause).

I hope you will consider supporting me and CARE by giving through my Live Below the Line page or by joining my team and taking the challenge.


--Selfish Blogger

The United States of Charitable Giving

This handy little infographic from mint.com shows which states' residents give the highest percentage of their income to charity. Remember that giving to religious institutions counts, whether or not that money is used to help those in need. It is interesting to note that libertarian leaning states give very little. I'd love to dig down into these numbers to see what giving looks like without gifts to religious institutions. I wonder if libertarian-leaning states, like New Hampshire, appear to give less because they are not tithing, or if they actually give less to need-based causes than the rest of the country.


-Selfish Blogger

I couldn't do it cheaper on my own

I want to push back against an ever-present charity evaluation metric: the percent of total expenses spent on programs versus general/administrative/fundraising (G&A). Its a popular measurement tool that makes intuitive sense: If I give $100 to a charity that feeds hungry families, shouldn't I expect my $100 will feed a hungry family? If only $75 or $50 or $15 of my money fed a hungry family, then what on earth happened to the rest!? Something must have gone horribly wrong. My money was misused!!

Every major charity evaluator - Charity Navigator, GiveWell, GuideStar - use percent of total expenses spent on programs as part of their ranking system. The general wisdom is, the more money spent on programs, the better - 90% or higher is the gold standard, fall below 80% and suspicions about effectiveness abound.

We know that nonprofits must have some overhead expenses. The most effective charities have some paid staff - people who actually carry out the programs like identifying families that need food, then purchasing the food, then delivering the food, then filling out some paperwork to prove the food was purchased and delivered. There are paid staff who collect and organize the paperwork, compile data from that paperwork and create reports to determine how many families were fed, then present the reports to the board of directors and the public. There are staff who solicited your donation by carefully crafting the language of emails, interviewing clients to get compelling stories to share with you, taking photographs of happy recipients to drive home the meaning your gift can have. Someone had to receive your check or credit card donation, properly account for it, send you a tax receipt, and follow-up with a thank you note so, hopefully, you will give again. And the bank or credit card processing company charged that charity some fees for your transaction. Someone had to run payroll to compensate these employees, and pay payroll taxes on their behalf. Someone had to file a tax return with the IRS and the state, and be sure the charity is in compliance with labor laws. Someone had to create and update the website. Someone had to think, hard, about the best way the organization could feed more families. And the staff need office space, computers, perhaps delivery vans and other property and equipment to help carry out their work - and all of that needs to be properly insured.

Lots of these expenses are clearly not program expenses. And that makes us uncomfortable. "I don't want to pay someone's payroll taxes. I don't want to pay for that data entry person. I'm giving money to make a difference for hungry families, so all my money should go to buying and delivering food."

But those payroll taxes and that data entry person is essential to the nonprofit. Someone has to pay for them, or the nonprofit shuts down and there are no programs to speak of.

We create a false dichotomy when we separate the expenses of a nonprofit, classifying program expenses as "good" and G&A expenses as "bad". G&A is not separate from program: it is the delivery system that allows services to reach people in need. Without the delivery system in place - the measurement, the payroll, the legal compliance - hungry families would not be fed, because the nonprofit that feeds them would not exist.

Each nonprofit will have a different delivery system - some may be cheaper than others depending on the type of services they are offering, to whom, and where. Rather than using an arbitrary percentage to determine whether the delivery of services is efficient, ask yourself: could I do it cheaper on my own? Could I get food in the hands of a hungry family for less then $25 or $50 or $85? Maybe if I know the hungry family. Maybe if they are right down the street from me. Maybe if my hourly wage is low. Then yes. I could stop by and see the family to ensure someone will be home (food left on their door-step will likely get stolen, then don't have a phone so I must visit in person), then head to the grocery store and buy $70 worth of food, drive it to the family and drive home, spending $5 on gas, and a total of one hour of my time at $25/hr. Seventy percent on my $100 directly helped the family. But what if that family wasn't home when I dropped by? What if I hit traffic? What if the local grocery store doesn't have fresh fruits or vegetables? The cost for my delivery system can quickly rise. And if the family I'm trying to help is in Kenya, it would cost me thousands of dollars to deliver any help on my own.

G&A expenses are really a societal efficiency - not a waste of charitable gifts. Individuals acting on their own to do good work face high costs. But through a nonprofit vehicle, we can pool our resources to create a streamlined delivery system that lets more of our money do good. I'm happy to pay for the existence of that system, and I think you should be too. The charity delivery system, even if it seems inefficient, is vastly more efficient than what any of us could do on our own.

I hope it goes without saying that I think charities should spend only what they need on delivery systems, not more. I am not suggesting they ignore opportunities for improvement. Instead, I am suggesting that we, as donors, stop ignoring the fact that delivering services costs money. We should recognize that delivery systems are not free, and we should be willing to pay for them.

-Selfish Blogger

Why you should talk about giving

I just listened to a BBC radio interview with Toby Ord, philosopher and founder of Giving What We Can - a charity that encourages people to give away 10% of their income or more. Toby has pledged to give away a little over 50% of his.

Toby, and others from Giving What We Can, talked about the moral argument for donating much of their income. He earns close to £40,000 per annum but lives on only £18,000, including saving for retirement and his mortgage.

Most of those who called in to BBC radio during the interview were quite hostile. Callers said Giving What We Can does nothing but make people feel guilty, and that giving should only be done privately. Some accused Toby and his colleagues of coming on the radio to brag, and insisted they were lying about what they give or how much money they actually have. No one can live on £18,000 a year, one caller insisted.

I'd like to reframe this conversation.

First, the issue of guilt. Your money belongs to you. You can choose to spend your money in whatever way you see fit. Everyday, you are influenced about how to spend your money: from advertisers (buy this new flavor of coffee), from associating with peers (ooo, I like Carrie's new sweater...), and from cultural expectations (it's important to own a three bedroom house in a safe neighborhood). You can spend money according to those influences. You can also spend your money to improve the lives of others. Giving What We Can, like this blog, is hoping to influence you to do just that. Giving What We Can is just one more suggestion in a sea of suggestions about what to do with your money.

So why the hostility? Toby isn't just suggesting a way for you to spend your money. He's asking you to help solve a problem. He is asking you to save lives. If you ignore a commercial advertiser's spending suggestions, you forgo a new item. If you ignore Toby's, someone dies. Someone your money could have saved.

If that makes you feel guilty, congratulations! You have a conscience. You are not a sociopath. And if you want that guilty feeling to go away: donate a little bit of money to a highly effective charity. You'll even feel good about yourself. But don't shoot the messenger. Extreme poverty exists, whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can alleviate suffering by giving to charity, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Next, the issue of bragging. Why go on the radio to publicly state you are giving money away, if not to impress others and toot your own horn? Why, to influence peers and change cultural expectations around giving, of course! Most people do what their friends and family do, and they adopt the traditions of their community. It's why most of us wear clothes similar to our friends. It's why most engagement rings are (still) diamond. It's why most Americans (still) delight over the corpse of a bird on Thanksgiving. We are a social species. We follow the rules of our tribe. And if everyone in your peer group was talking about extreme poverty and giving money to Deworm the World, wouldn't you look into doing the same? If every leader in your community was publicly supporting Mama Hope, do you think others would follow?

There is a growing movement of compassionate people who believe giving money is only the first step to a solution: we have to encourage others to give too. And the best way to do that is to engage in conversation. Simply share information about your own giving, and how you came to the decision to support the charities you support.

I hope to join Giving What We Can by pledging 10% of my income to highly effective charities. Until then, I'm happy to be part of The Life You Can Save where I have publicly pledged 1% of my income. Take a look at all the others who have pledged. I'm in good company.


-Selfish Blogger

The Christmas wish list

When I was a kid, I loved putting together a Christmas wish list. My parents were pretty good about getting me what I asked for, and they made certain I'd get one big ticket item along with some toys, clothes, and sweets.

By the time I was out of college, the Christmas wish list had lost its fun. It has become an exercise in finding items with a range of prices suitable to the varying income levels of my friends and family that I wouldn't hate having around if someone actually ended up buying them for me. I enjoy living a simple lifestyle, and I really don't want more stuff. Some of my friends feel the same way, and we have enjoyed a pleasant I-won't-get-you-anything-if-you-won't-get-me-anything holiday truce for years. Some economists agree that skipping gift-giving all together is a much more efficient allocation of resources.

For friends and family who insist on keeping the obligatory tradition to spend money on loved ones I've found an alternative to the wish list: the fundraising page.

Set a goal to raise money for they worthy cause of your choice, and direct your friends and relatives to spend their money on something useful - like moving a family in Kenya into the middle class - instead of on another ill-fitting sweater. Shift your gifts to someone who could really use a little something extra, and enjoy the warm feeling of making someone else's life better.

Your loved-ones may be more receptive to learning about the struggles of others around the holidays - it's a great time for outreach. Set-up your fundraising page and spread the word about what you want for Christmas. This year, I've set up a page with The Adventure Project. In addition to doing great work, their message is upbeat and presented in digestible graphics with short, punchy descriptions. Perfect for enticing giving from those who may not be familiar with the struggles of families in extreme poverty.

If the fundraising page may not go over well in your family, think of other approaches to moving money spent on gifts to money spent on charity. My best friend and I created our own tradition for birthdays and holidays after reading The Life You Can Save. We donate to a charity in the other's name and also give each other an affordable item under $10.


-Selfish Blogger

Extra money

I've yet to come across a person, no matter how wealthy, who thinks "I have so much extra money sitting around, I just don't know what to do with it all." We live a lifestyle according to our means (and sometimes beyond our means). An increase in income means an increase in spending - more dinners out, nicer clothes, a more expensive car, a larger living space in a wealthier part of town. We have wish lists of the luxuries we'll buy, the vacations we'll take, once we get more money. We always want more, so we spend what we make. While our wish list things are nice to have, they are far from necessities. And more to the point: you could spend that money to save lives instead of marginally improving yours.

June Walbert over at USAA has some simple ways to save $1,000 a month (and it doesn't mean moving to a small apartment or getting rid of your car). Her article is written in the context of saving money for an emergency fund, but the concepts apply to saving money to reach your philanthropic goals. What will you do with the money you save?


-Selfish Blogger

New Charity Endorsed by Givewell

Givewell, a charity evaluation and ranking organization, has recommended a new charity: GiveDirectly.

GiveDirectly transfers money directly from you, the donor, to poor people in Kenya to spend as they choose.

I'm excited to see Givewell add a third charity to their recommended list - one of my big objections to Givewell is that they are too small to evaluate a suitable number of charities. I find it fascinating that they have endorsed a very young charity. GiveDirectly is less than two years old. After listening to one of their conference calls, I've learned that Givewell believes direct cash transfer requires a lower burden of proof for effectiveness than other interventions (like vaccines, or clean water programs).

Still, endorsing a charity with less than two years of data feels like a big departure from Givewell's work in the past. Essentially, the leadership at Givewell believes in the theory of change behind GiveDirectly and is impressed by the GiveDirectly leadership. This is the same way that most donors and foundations decide on their giving. On a certain level, I don't object to Givewell doing the same. But Givewell has purposely set themselves apart from the wider philanthropic world by claiming a superior evaluation model and process that almost assures their recommended charities do more good with your money than other charities.

It will be interested to follow the response to Givewell's endorsement of GiveDirectly, and I am eager to learn more about the impact of direct money transfers.


-Selfish Blogger

It's Giving Tuesday!

Good morning! Have you ever found yourself sitting around the house thinking "I need a good excuse to give some money away"? Well today is your day! Giving Tuesday is here! Now you can give away your money with bunches of other people on the same day. Lookayou!

And if you find yourself saying "I don't have any extra money to give away," consider one of these quick money-finding tips: skip Starbucks, make your lunch a PB&J, sell that thing you've been meaning to put on Craig's List. With any luck, you've scrapped together $5-10 that you can donate to the worthwhile charity of your choice.

I might make a gift to The Adventure Project, or perhaps The Fistula Foundation, or maybe even International Planned Parenthood Federation... Where will your money go?


-Selfish Blogger

80,000 Hours

"How can I make the world better?" is a question every compassionate person has asked themselves - sometime in response to a very specific situation that involves the suffering of another, or sometimes in the abstract. For me, career choice has been part of my answer to that question. I saw two possibilities in front of me: either I make a lot of money in the for-profit world while helping (essentially) no one, or I make less money in the nonprofit world while helping others.

The compassionate individuals behind a new nonprofit called 80,000 Hours have offered a third option: make a lot of money in the for-profit world, and give most of it away.

In the your life, you will spend about 80,000 hours at work. Shouldn't you use that time to make the world better? I've chosen to work in the not-for-profit world so that my 80,000 hours are put toward helping others, rather than increasing my own wealth. But lots of compassionate people are drawn to the nonprofit sector. Even with the low wages, I've not seen charities struggle to fill open positions. But every nonprofit struggles for money.

What if more compassionate people were to take high-wage jobs, then fund the salaries of nonprofit employees? Instead of accepting a $40,000 annual salary and directly delivering services at a nonprofit, I could accept a $120,000 annual salary in the for-profit world, keep $40,000 for myself, and give $80,000 to pay TWO people to directly deliver services at a nonprofit. I could double my impact!

I haven't posted in the last year because, in addition to working full-time, I've been going to night school and studying for my CPA license. I may be leaving the nonprofit sector, and I may be earning a six-figure salary in a few years time. How I spend the rest of my 80,000 could be drastically different, and much further removed from helping others. Will I have the self-discipline to give most of my money to charity, and continue living a modest-wage lifestyle?


-Selfish Blogger

The Money That Flows to Religion

"What was the total amount given to charity last year?" is a familiar question to anyone who's done fundraising training, and a handy motivating tool for fundraising instructors. When the question is posed, those new to the fundraising game guess embarrassingly small numbers. "$10 million", "$2 billion", "$10 billion!!!!" while the instructor writes their guesses on the board. Finally, the answer is revealed to a (mostly) shocked audience. "Over $300 billion was given in the US last year. And guess what folks, this number doesn't drop much during a recession. Is $300 billion enough for you to do your work? Enough for everyone in this room to do their work?! Let's figure out how you can get some of that $300 billion!" And then comes the breakdown of where that money goes, in the form of a handy pie chart.

Obviously there are shifts each year, but in the 5 years I've been looking at these pie charts based on Giving USA studies, the shifts have been minimal. The pies I've seen have 10 slices, give or take. Education and health/human services are two of the largest slices of pie, around 15% each. Animals/Environment (always lumped together) usually fall to the very bottom with about 2%. The largest chunk is always the same, and it's always far above the rest. No less than 1/3 of all charitable giving in the US, more than $100 billion annually, goes to religion. And when I say religion, I don't mean Catholic universities (education) or Jewish hospitals (health), I mean proselytizing and church building.*

$100 billion is pretty darn close to what we need to cut world poverty in half, and it's not been easy to get it. Are mega churches and televangelist salaries the best way to spend our charitable dollars? Does the vatican need your money more than a hungry child? And when the "charitable" work of religion includes lies to prevent condom use in AIDS stricken regions of the planet, I hope most people will agree that at least some of that $100 billion is causing great harm by going to religion instead of going to reputable nonprofits who are providing life saving services.

When the fundraising classes discuss why religion dominates the charitable contributions in this country, lot's of ideas get thrown around. But the inevitable answer landed on is always "because they ask, and they ask every week". I'm not sure if this is the whole answer, but there is no doubt it's a big part of it. People give because they are asked. And churches never hesitate to pass the collection plate.

I wonder if we can grab on to religion's ability to ask and use it to do real good. Here's my idea for the readers: make your own collection plate. Take a dollar from your wallet each Sunday and set it aside for a good cause. Once a year, you've got $52 just waiting to help someone who really needs it.

I know not everyone will do this. But I've taken enough fundraising course to know one thing for certain: the top reason people don't give is because they are never asked. So I'm asking. I'm asking you. Will you give $52 more this year than you gave last year? Will you save $1 a week to help someone truly in need?

List of reputable charities to consider:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/organizations

If you decide to give, tell us about it.

-Selfish Blogger

*I should mention that I've never actually read the Giving USA report myself - it costs money to get your hands on - so I can't be certain how they classify each category. I'm simply repeating the definitions that my fundraising instructors have used. I assume they are right.

Share a Cup of Coffee

My first fundraising job was for a university. For three hours each night (during dinner time) I called university alumni and asked them for money. Sometimes it was difficult, but I was pretty good at it, and I learned a lot about why people give and how to successfully ask for that gift - skills that are essential now that I'm the Executive Director of a nonprofit.

The year I started making those calls, the university set the goal of increasing the alumni giving rate from a tiny 7% to a more respectable 13%. It didn't matter how big the gifts were, we just needed to get more alumni to become donors. (Most people don't know this, but the US New and World Report rankings of universities include alumni giving rates. Increasing our rate wasn't so much a goal for increasing income, but rather a goal for improving our national ranking).

Our campaign was ingenious, and a concept I have used since. One alumnus conceived of and paid for the whole campaign, and it went something like this:

Share a Cup of Coffee with Your University
Think of how much you spend on those fancy coffees. Would you be willing to share a cup of coffee each month with your university? Save the money you spend on one cup of coffee each month, and at the end of the year that's a substantial $25 gift. Share a cup of coffee with the university by making a $25 contribution to support our annual fund.

It worked. In about 18 months we had nearly doubled our annual giving rate to 13%.

There's something I really like about this campaign. It presents the idea of simple sacrifice as a way to give. You don't have to have extra money laying around to make a gift (who does!?), you just have to reallocate some of the money you're already spending. It subtly shows that we actually do have extra money laying around! If you spend $3 on a cup of coffee, when you could make that coffee at home? That's extra money. If you buy a soda with your meals out when you could get water for free? That's extra money. If you are having meals out at all! That's extra money, and you can afford to give to charity.

When I volunteered to do training for a chapter of my sorority, I put it to the test. Speaking to 70 college women attending a state school, I showed that they had money to give to our philanthropy using the coffee example. Instead of falling on deaf ears, the sorority engaged in a lively discussion about where else they could make cuts in their budget in order to make meaningful gifts to charity. Designer bags, weekly manicures, alcohol, everything was on the table. Rather than feeling put out at the suggestion they should give up something they enjoy to give to charity, they felt empowered. As "poor" (I use the term loosely) college students, they had more money than they knew to help an important cause.

When you feel like to you don't have money to give to charity, remember this example. There are things you buy - yearly, monthly, maybe daily? - that are extras. They are luxuries. And when set against the backdrop of our world, where children die because they don't have enough food or clean water, those luxuries are selfish.

Here's a stagering figure that Peter Singer presents: for $125 billion, we could cut world poverty in half. $116 billion is what American's spend on booze annually.

What are you willing to give up to save a life?

-Selfish Blogger

Jay Leno: Philanthropic Hero or Materialistic Villain?

Yesterday I had the chance to watch a taping of The Tonight Show. Tapings aren't particularly exciting if you've grown up in LA. They usually involve long lines and 6 hour waits without access to food (or bathrooms). But this taping was a different story.  We had VIP tickets, allowing us to skip the morning line-up and waltz in at 2:30 for a 4:00 taping. Once we were in the studio, the audience warm-up started (a normal part of the live taping experience) where a series of comedians, upbeat staffers, and musical performances got the audience fired up and ready to laugh when the real show began! When Bryan Branly, backstage host at The Tonight Show, came out to get us going, he said something that piqued my interest. There's a website about Jay Leno's garage and, whether you're a gear-head or not he said, everyone should check it out. So I did. 


It should be no surprise to Leno's fans that he has a massive car collection of rare, custom, and antique automobiles. Leno is known for regularly driving cars from the collection on the streets of LA because, as the website says, "Jay makes his purchases not as museum pieces, but because he enjoys driving the cars and motorcycles… all of them!"


What are we to make of Jay's extravagant collection that consists of over 100 cars and motorcycles in his 17,000 sq ft garage? His collection obviously does some good: it brings joy to individuals, preserves history, and provides a handful of undoubtedly well-paid jobs for specialize mechanics. But does that outweigh the good that his collection could do? What if Jay sold his collection and used the proceeds to educate girls in Africa, to make micro-loans to women in India, to build and staff health clinics in the poorest regions of the world? There are measurable, effective, inexpensive ways to change lives, to bring people out of poverty, and Jay has the resources to fund some of them. Certainly Jay Leno has the right to spend his own money as he wishes, but his choice to spend excess wealth on cars is a selfish choice - one that places individual pleasure above the suffering of many.


Yet Jay gives generously to charity, sometimes out of his garage! In 2009, Jay auctioned off one of his custom motorcycles for $120,000 to support Bailey's Cafe, an inner city arts program in New York. Bailey's serves a community in great need, even if the poverty of inner city youth in New York is nothing compared to the third world, where poverty can mean no clean water, no clinics, no food stamps, and no police protection. But Jay gives to charities that work around the world too, like the Starkey Hearing Foundation, which provides hearing devices world wide in countries like Rwanda and Burundi. Jay donates to a whole list of worthy causes that work to make the world better. Is it fair to criticize a rich man for buying a few toys when he gives so much to others?


So Jay Leno: Philanthropic Hero or Materialistic Villain? Probably neither; maybe a little bit of both. I think we should praise the real good he is doing in the world. Jay gives far more than I will ever be capable of giving, and so likely does more good than I will ever be capable of doing. But I think it is equally fair to look at his extravagant collection and recognize that he is choosing to use his wealth on fun and status at the cost of feeding hungry children or providing life-saving vaccines. By promoting this kind of materialism through his celebrity and website, Leno acts as another voice supporting the consumer culture that makes ownership of possessions more enticing than truly important acts that change lives and save lives. 


I challenge the philanthropic, generous-spirited Jay Leno to make a bold, public step in his giving: for each dollar you spend adding to your collection, announce an equal sized gift to a charity that lifts people out of poverty. By making your gift publicly, you will encourage others to give too and help encourage a culture that values generosity and equality.


Remember: If you can afford more than one car, you can definitely afford to save lives.


-Selfish Blogger


P.S. Jay, in case you don't know where to start, this list of charities has been vetted and reflects only those who have demonstrated high effectiveness in their work with the world's poorest populations.

The Life You Can Save... if you care to try

The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer changed my life. And that was by design.

My best friend, the common catalyst for most of my moral-lifestyle-shifts, gave me her copy of The Life You Can Save in December. I read through it quickly, often fighting back tears as Singer carefully lays out a solid case for giving to the world's poorest people. The commonly heard arguments against giving (like aid creates dependency and aid encourages poor people have more babies) are honestly and fairly addressed. Before I was half way through the book, one thing was entirely clear to me: my daily choices are unforgivably selfish.

The opportunity cost of my lifestyle, my spending choices, is a human life. Every dollar I spend in a restaurant, on faster internet, or for new clothes is a dollar spent with heartlessness, because I don't need any of those things. I live in a world where 10 million children die each year from poverty - and I am in a position to help. How can I justify what I spend to maintain my comfortable middle-class lifestyle when I could instead pay for oral rehydration therapy (some salt and sugar dissolved in water) and save one of the 3 million who die of diarrhea each year? What kind of a person am I if I have the ability to save someone's life, but choose to turn away?

This blog is an exploration of a consumer culture that tells us to define personal worth by accumulation of wealth rather than good deeds; institutions and religions that claims to serve the poor but whose actions say otherwise; the giving and spending habits of the mega-rich, celebrities, and politicians; and my own morality.

It is my hope that a thoughtful, public discussion of the issues surrounding poverty and the role of the wealthy (that's us) will encourage me to do more, and encourage others to join me.

-Selfish Blogger