Happy New Year everyone.

We’ve all probably recovered from our New Year’s eve celebrations by now, and are looking forward to 2010. A lot of people pick this time of year to make resolutions, decide to make changes in their lives and send wishes for a prosperous New Year.

I am advocating that we all change in a certain way, and this time of the year is a good time for me to get an audience, people seem to listen. Or at least skim through. So, for what its worth, here’s my New Year’s message.

I’ve spent the last several months traveling across the world, and met many interesting people. People sometimes ask me if the travel has changed me. I don’t know. Traveling changes you in small ways. It’s not one big mind altering event but a polishing of the edges of your personality. So I’ve probably changed. I’ve noticed some changes. But many these will be incremental changes I probably haven’t noticed, and might not.

The differences between people with affluent lifestyles, and the ones struggling to get by have really been driven home to me. Everyday, about twenty seven thousand children died from poverty, malnutrition and its related causes (UNICEF). About Nine 9-11s per day. And thats just the children.

I think its unconscionable that in this day and age, those of us in the affluent world could allow this to happen. I think that if we could easily save the life of a child, we would. For example, if we saw a child in danger of drowning in a shallow pond, and all we had to do to save the child was wade into the pond, and pull him out, we would do so. The fact that we would get wet, or ruin a mobile phone we have in our pocket, doesn’t really count when it comes to saving a child’s life. However, if I were to ask you, when you were shopping, to buy a six month old model mobile phone instead of the latest one, and use the $80 you save to save a child’s life, you would balk. Why? I think that in moral terms, it is the same thing. A child’s life gets saved, at some material and comfort cost to you.

While people are dying from preventable causes, almost a billion of us live very comfortable lives, with money to spare for things that aren’t really necessary. (You are not sure if you are in that category? When did you last spend money on something to drink, when drinkable water was available for nothing? If the answer is “within the past week” then you are spending money on luxuries while people die from malnutrition or diseases that we know how to prevent or cure.) In the end, what is the ethical distinction between someone who stands by and watches a child drown in a pond and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one — knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?

I’m advocating that we change the way we think about charitable giving. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t enjoy our luxuries. That would be a futile exercise. I’m not going to give up most of my luxuries, such as they are. And I know most of you wouldn’t. However, I think we need to make charitable giving a regular part of our lives. Not by handing out spare change or dropping a few coins in a churchbox or donating a few cans of food. But by regular systematic giving, budgeting for it as part of the expenses in your life, and using methods such as a regular monthly withdrawal from your bank account to enforce this.

If we all gave our fair share, evenly spread out across the affluent world, the burden on each of us would be negligible. But that is not going to happen, so its up to the people who do give to give as much as they can. Theres always an excuse not to give. A valid reason. Mortgage payments. New baby. Saving for a car. But if we don’t do it, noone will. To revisit the drowning child example, imagine it is not one small child who has fallen in, but 50 children. We are among 50 adults, unrelated to the children, picnicking on the lawn around the pond. We can easily wade into the pond and rescue the children, and the fact that we would find it cold and unpleasant sloshing around in the knee-deep muddy water is no justification for failing to do so. The “fair share” theory would say that if we each rescue one child, all the children will be saved, and so none of us have an obligation to save more than one. But what if half the picnickers prefer staying clean and dry to rescuing any children at all? Is it acceptable if the rest of us stop after we have rescued just one child, knowing that we have done our fair share, but that half the children will drown? We might justifiably be furious with those who are not doing their fair share, but our anger with them is not a reason for letting the children die. In terms of praise and blame, we are clearly right to condemn, in the strongest terms, those who do nothing. In contrast, we may withhold such condemnation from those who stop when they have done their fair share. Even so, they have let children drown when they could easily have saved them, and that is wrong.

It is not simply the absence of charity, let alone of moral saintliness: It is wrong, and one cannot claim to be a morally decent person unless one is doing far more than the typical comfortably-off person does.

I’m going to change tack at this point and talk about my actual methodology of giving, and how I decide on which charities are more effective than others.

I do not give any money to religious charities, or charities run by religious organizations. Most of the time their charitable activities usually come with strings attached, such as focusing on people who share their particular belief system, or providing incentives to people to convert to their belief system as part of the charitable giving. Sometimes their ideologies actually do more harm than good (such as spreading misinformation about condoms). I think if you want to help someone, it should be free of such strings. Charity should be done because its the right thing to do, not because of fear, or expectation of reward in the afterlife.

I do think religious charities do do one thing well. They’re great at making giving to charities, as well as volunteering for charitable activities a regular thing. Multiple solid surveys by philanthropic research organizations show that churchgoers give a much greater percentage of their income to charitable causes than non-churchgoers like me. However, if churchgoers are asked to pass a plate full of the generous donations of their friends and neighbors and either add to it or not, 52 times a year, while non-churchgoers have no such regular and public nudge — I’d say something other than virtue is in play. I think the difference has much more to do with whether or not you have systematic opportunities for giving than some “gap in virtue.”

I don’t agree with those who insist religious people give primarily out of fear or guilt. That may be in the mix, but most I know give because they are challenged and encouraged to do so, because generosity feels wonderful, and because the habit of giving turns giving into a habit.

Also, when religious folks give through religious charities and churches, it registers as an expression of their worldview. I want that too. I want my contributions to “count” as a visible expression of my secular humanism.

Did you know: Three of the four philanthrophists who gave the most to charity in the last hundred years were atheists or agnostics. (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie. The exception is John Rockefeller. Source: New York Times)

So, one of the charities I most actively support is a relatively new one, that I encourage you to check out. It provides a method for secularists, humanists, atheists and the non-religious to give collectively, as a group. Its called “Foundation beyond Belief” (http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/). It’s mission is: To demonstrate humanism at its best by supporting efforts to improve this world and this life; to challenge humanists to embody the highest principles of humanism, including mutual care and responsibility; and to help and encourage humanist parents to raise confident children with open minds and compassionate hearts.

Being a humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. — Kurt Vonnegut

I do also want to talk about how I decide which charities to give money to. Those of you that know me know I’m not interested in vacuous awareness raising attempts, commemorative days that mean nothing and fundraisers that seem to spend most of their intake on the event itself. I’m interested in real results and solutions that work. Even if its not an ideal solution.
Some questions I ask of charities:
- How much of the money is actually spent on providing services to the recipients? What are the administrative costs?
My personal benchmark is that less than 25% of funds raised spent on administrative costs and fundraising efforts is acceptable. I accept that NGOs need effective management, and to get that, the managers should be compensated well.
- Are the goals of the organization long-term development or short-term relief?
This is important to me personally. I do think that we need to provide short-term relief efforts in many cases, however, long-term projects and development are going to ultimately be most effective. I believe organizations that promote literacy, skills training and women’s rights are going to have the most impact on poverty in the long run.

I try not to be swayed by emotional appeals. For me, charitable giving isn’t about one-time donations, I usually don’t make those. I try and find organizations whose goals appeal to me, and that I can work with for a very long time. And then I stick with them.

It is important to do your research before giving. The internet is filled with great resources. Organizations like the Better Business bureau and GiveWell are good at evaluating the efficacy of charities. Think of GiveWell as an auditor for charities. They’re a great place to start. From the GiveWell site:

GiveWell is an independent, nonprofit charity evaluator. We perform in-depth research on charities to help people accomplish as much good as possible with their donations.

Unlike existing evaluators, which focus solely on financials, assessing administrative or fundraising costs, we focus on how well programs actually work – i.e., their effects on the people they serve.

I’m not going to pretend that the world’s problems that can be solved by throwing money at them. They’re much more complicated than that, with many more factors. But the money helps. I think its unconscionable that we allow people to starve to death and children to fall victim to ignorance in this day and age. Its now 2010, but for hundreds of millions of people, it may as well be the year 1600, in terms of quality of life, and life expectancy. What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. We would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life. Perhaps as we celebrate our new year, we can take a minute, and a few dollars to spare for the bottom billion. How much is a human life worth to you?

_______

I would like to note that I have adapted and plagiarized parts of this post from the writings of the philosopher Peter Singer, who has been a strong influence on my thought processes.
I have also taken information about the Foundation beyond Belief from their website, as well as the blog of their founder, Dale McGowan.