Good Ancestor Movement’s Post

"What effective altruism — or any particular school of philanthropy — offers is a set of questions. It’s a prompt to ask why we’re drawn to certain causes, why some issues elicit our sympathy and others do not, whether the groups we’d like to support are actually having any effect. It’s possible to take those questions and steer charitable choices in different directions, some optimized to save the maximum number of years of healthy life, some driven by a desire for a fairer economy or a more beautiful world. There’s nothing wrong with the desire to measure the value of our giving. But there’s also nothing wrong with thinking expansively about that value, or the tools for measuring it. Maybe a neighbor giving to another neighbor is what one fractured street needs. Maybe making someone else’s life magnificent is hard to price." #philanthropy

Good read. Years of fundraising for arts and culture has soured me on optimized giving. Nonprofits ameliorate the uneven impact of capitalism full stop. If anyone not in the sector wants a day in the life of managing and maintaining a nonprofit, give a shout! We do our best. What is more effective than effective altruism? Reduced income inequality. History + data approved! https://lnkd.in/e4ZMxT2m

Much to unpack in this article, but one major takeaway for me is the desire to quantify the impact of a feeling. Much like the effort to evaluate the impact of the arts by economic standards, Efficient Altruism seems to be attempting to help the wealthy make philanthropic decisions without the squishy context provided by what drives emotional connections. To paraphrase the test for obscenity, the test for philanthropy might need to be “I know it when I feel it.” https://lnkd.in/eud3TwZU

Philanthropy in education plays a vital role in fostering global citizenship and addressing the challenges of our time. As Nelson Mandela so aptly said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Supporting education is not just about funding schools—it’s about empowering the next generation to innovate, build bridges, and create meaningful change. This New York Times article raises an important question: should our giving be optimized solely based on data? While it’s crucial for nonprofits to demonstrate their impact, the article reminds us of something else—“we need charitable causes that make people’s lives feel meaningful, radiant, sacred.” Education not only delivers measurable outcomes but also shapes individuals who are driven to make a difference in the communities where they live and work. By investing in education, we empower future leaders to build stronger, more compassionate, and impactful societies. #Philanthropy #GlobalCitizenship #InvestInEducation #FutureGenerations #MakeADifference #InnovationThroughEducation #SupportEducation https://lnkd.in/dwRFsNT4

✨ Should charity always be optimized? ✨ This fascinating piece by Emma Goldberg in the New York Times dives into the tension between effective altruism—focused on measurable impact—and more personal, community-driven approaches to giving. It got me thinking: as fundraisers and donors, how do we balance the desire for efficiency with the need to preserve the humanity of philanthropy? Are we losing something essential when we focus solely on the "most good for the most people"? Or is it possible to blend data-driven giving with causes that make our communities more connected and in touch with the challenges we're working to overcome? I’d love to hear your thoughts! How do you approach your giving—or guide others—in this age of optimization?

https://lnkd.in/g8PVf62p As a person managing grants (aka working in philanthropy), I found this piece to be very interesting. Optimized philanthropy is the newest face the “deserving poor.” Adding historical context would strengthen this very well written article.

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on how we choose where to give our charitable dollars. A recent New York Times piece explored “effective altruism,” a growing movement that encourages us to optimize our giving based on data and measurable impact. This concept is transforming how some donors approach charity—more calculation and less spontaneity. As someone who works in the nonprofit world, I appreciate the power of metrics. But I also know how important it is to hold space for the personal side of giving. There’s something deeply meaningful about supporting a local organization that’s been quietly serving your neighborhood for decades or offering help to someone you meet face-to-face. These actions might not fit neatly onto a spreadsheet, yet they build community and nurture our shared humanity. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all formula for doing good. Data can guide us, but our hearts should have a say, too. As we enter the holiday season, let’s remember that real impact often happens when compassion and connection meet thoughtful generosity. https://lnkd.in/eBuBmD_m

Thinking about the role of billionaire philanthropy as we film for nonprofits and NGOs On one hand, there’s no denying the incredible good that comes from the money these individuals donate—lives are changed, communities are uplifted, and real progress is made. But there’s another side to this coin that’s hard to ignore. Until billionaires start paying their fair share in taxes, it’s tough not to see some of this philanthropy as more about PR and less about real change. It’s a double-edged sword, for sure. Yes, the money does immense good, but imagine the impact if they contributed more to the public systems designed to help everyone, not just the causes they choose to support. It’s a complex issue, and I’m still sorting through my thoughts on it. But one thing I know for sure is that we need to keep asking these tough questions and pushing for a world where everyone pays their fair share—because that’s how we create lasting, meaningful change.

This piece in Saturday's NYT hit a nerve: "What if Charity Shouldn’t Be Optimized?" As an Enneagram Type 1, I've long been drawn to paths that feel "optimal:" the most effective way to load a dishwasher, the best place to park to avoid the postgame traffic jam, the right way to lay out a room to encourage conversation and interaction, and so many more. But I'm not sold on the idea that everything ought to be optimized. Exhibit A: charitable giving. I've explored effective altruism and admire its attempt to create the maximal impact possible. What I fear, however, is that this thinking creates a concentration of support for proven models where a dollar in creates an expected and validated unit of output. Supporting what works is great, but not if that's *all* that's getting love from institutional and individual funders. There are so many amazing *small* nonprofits that are doing incredible work, often in support of populations that have immediate needs and don't have the luxury of waiting for systems change. They need love. There are wonderful civic organizations--arts, culture, music, food and more--that create the kind of vibrant communities that we all want to live in. They need love. In our work at TrueVentures.org, we are continuing to think about how to make the best decisions possible in how we allocate our resources and support. And, continuing to fund social innovation at the earliest stages, well before our partner organizations would ever show up on the radar of effective altruists, will always be at the core of our mission. https://lnkd.in/eseihSgK #philanthropy #nonprofits #charity

Interesting take on Effective Altruism in the The New York Times that speaks to the larger issue of measuring the impact of charitable giving. The article's idea is something akin to the fact that not everything that is given in the name of charity has to be maximized in effect. I agree and sure, lots of things qualify as charities these days; not all of which help support those who need it most. Additionally, emerging nonprofits that do important work and are closest to the issues may not be the most efficient now but are also in need of funding. But if, as a taxpayer, you're subsidizing someone else's giving then wouldn't you want it to have the most impact? I'd argue that giving isn't only about the giver and the receiver, it's about the person who subsidizes the gift, too. Also, with the cost of the tax deduction estimated at $50 billion annually, shouldn't the sector be accountable for some type of measurement to validate that deduction? #effectivealtruism #philanthropy Emma Goldberg #charity #charitablegiving #csr #corporatesocialresponsibility #socialimpact