I was recently in contact with an organization that promotes effective altruism by promoting the idea of suggesting to others to donate 10% to designated charities that were most effective in their projects. At first blush this seemed like a great program and I supported it. The issue for me was the voluminous research involved to define specifically their definition of most effective. Conceivably, one could debate the effectiveness of donated dollars in one direction versus another into perpetuity. Is AIDS medication a more effective way to spend donated dollars than mosquito netting in Nicaragua? It would depend on whether you were asking people in a village in Uganda or a pueblo outside of Managua. The debates continued as to whether mosquito netting was more effective than the eco-friendly hand cranked washing units that we are now providing to indigenous women in Peru. My contention was that an apples and oranges comparison is ludicrous. Both are necessary in the areas where non-profits are working, why not support both endeavors? Funds existed to do so painlessly. But no.
The notion that dollars are most effective in one area or another has gotten down to virtual hair splitting. In the end far less gets accomplished because those who could and would donate are being confused with the reams of back and forth debate as to what is most altruistic. There is no perfect time to act and if you wait for it, nothing ever happens. The fact of the matter is most people only needed such an excuse to donate nothing. And that is exactly what happens.
Non profits, by nature of their focus, are dependent on donations from compassionate individuals. Larger NGOs have teams of people whose entire occupation is to solicit funds from corporations, individuals and create fundraiser activities. Smaller NGOs such as Changes for New Hope are at the mercy of compassionate individuals who have found us either by our website, social media presence, encountered us face to face while on vacation or have seen one of our interviews. The journey from encounter, to interest, to following, to involvement, to participation and support is a long, winding road. Life gets in the way and we get forgotten. Most people, in recent surveys, have stated that they know all the names of the Kardashians but could not name the vice president of the United States. They could tell you week by week who was "Dancing with the Stars" but unable to tell what the letters AIDS stood for. How do we get these people to care? Are most in agreement with Stalin's statement that a million people in need are just too vast of a sea of concern to care about? Because we can not help all people, does it become the reason that we do not help any?
Imagine if just 10% of the working people in developed nations shared a dollar each month out of their abundance toward helping to alleviate the suffering in the world. The impact of those billions of dollars would eradicate millions of people's issues. Pocket change could cure diseases, dig wells in drought areas, feed the hungry, provide vitamins that saves eyesight and prevents anemia, vaccines for children against preventable diseases and provide educational materials in schools which has proven to eradicate impoverishment better than anything else.
But the pocket change stays in the pockets. Is compassion that alien of a concept? Donating to charity is easier now, in a cashless society worldwide, than ever before. Transparency of charities as well, are visible to everyone. There is enough time, resources, people and solutions available to fix the problems and challenges facing the world. Why aren't we stepping up?
How do we get people to care?