The Most Efficient Way to Save a Life – The Atlantic.
if ever u have wanted to give to charity but not sure which charity to give to, nor how effective that charity is, or even whether that charity might be the victim of ‘doing good and unintended consequences’, this article might answer you.
the author has to decide whether to give to save lives, or to improve lives. he decided to save lives. i myself would prefer to improve lives. like that deworming charity he mentioned which deworms children and improves their school attendance. rather than a charity that gives textbooks…
there is a charity called givewell, that evaluates other charities to see how effective they are.
They have four broad criteria, in Hassenfeld’s words: “effectiveness” (does the charity make a difference?), “cost-effectiveness” (how much difference does the charity make per dollar received?), “room for funding” (can the charity use your donation in the near future?), and “transparency” (is the charity forthcoming about its spending and its results?). Its top-ranked charities for this year include GiveDirectly, a radically simple approach to sending no-strings-attached cash to extremely poor households, and the Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes insecticide-treated malaria nets in sub-Saharan Africa.
the givedirectly is the one that appeals to me, sending no strings cash to extremely poor households. u might say that can be abused, and it might be ‘giving a person a fish , instead of teaching him to fish scenario’… but i feel money directly to a very poor household can be 1000% effective for that household. the potential for fraud is there, but the charity has rated them very highly so they are keeping on top of it.
alifesgayventure 