Hi,
I have been thinking deeply about how important it really is to publicly advocate for one’s ethical commitments—specifically veganism and charitable giving—and whether there is a moral expectation to be socially active, publicly visible, or research-oriented beyond one’s private contributions.
On a personal level, I tend to keep these parts of my life relatively private. For reasons I cannot fully articulate, I feel a sense of embarrassment or discomfort when the topics come up openly. I don’t want people to assume that these choices are the defining features of who I am, or that they represent my entire identity. While I care about reducing animal suffering and aligning my financial contributions with evidence of impact, I also want to live a balanced life that isn’t dominated by the need to signal or defend these values socially.
As a result, very few people in my personal life know about my dietary choices or how I choose to donate. This is due to a feeling of shame. I desire to avoid being perceived as preachy, moralizing, or overly self-identified by these commitments. I am secret about my actions not because I care about being humble, but because I feel like talking about it makes me cringe.
At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that public advocacy can correlate with broader behavioral change at scale. Consider, for example, Veganuary, an annual campaign that encourages people to try a vegan diet for the month of January. In 2024, more than 1.8 million people globally signed up to receive support and guidance to try vegan eating, and surveys suggest the actual number of participants could be as high as 25 million worldwide when unofficial participation is included. Vegconomist Importantly, follow-up surveys show that many participants report lasting changes; in the 2025 campaign, around 81 % of respondents planned to at least halve their consumption of animal products long-term, and nearly one-third planned to remain fully vegan after the challenge. Veganuary While these figures do not prove causation, they suggest that public, communal experiences can influence behavior at least for a significant subset of participants.
In addition to community outreach and educational content, deliberate advertising and public advocacy within the Effective Altruism ecosystem has been linked to increased donations and engagement with high-impact causes: for example, GiveWell’s measured marketing efforts—including paid ads on podcasts and donor outreach—have historically shown that every dollar spent on advertising can return more in first-year donations, with past campaigns tracking hundreds of thousands of dollars raised relative to their ad spend. GiveWell Furthermore, targeted messaging trials for Giving What We Can’s Effective Giving Guide found that specific “effective giving” messages and short videos generated higher click-throughs and email signups per dollar spent, indicating that advertising can efficiently bring new donors into the funnel. Effective Altruism Forum These kinds of advocacy and promotional activities complement EA’s broader outreach (e.g., books, media coverage) and contribute to directing substantial funds—such as the hundreds of millions GiveWell channels to evidence-backed charities each year—by making effective giving concepts more visible and actionable to potential donors.
In terms of awareness, the general public remains largely unaware of concepts like effective giving: surveys show that only about 1 % of people have heard of effective altruism, and less than 10 % are familiar with charity evaluators that promote evidence-based giving. Rethink Priorities As such, a lot of people including my friends and family and what not have never really heard about this.
The idea that public advocacy is necessary to create large-scale change also clashes with my sense of personal boundaries. Participation in forums, debate threads, academic or quasi-academic research discussions, and other social circuits often feels like a significant investment of time and emotional energy. While some people thrive in these spaces, I find them draining, and I am skeptical that adding my voice would materially change outcomes for people who have deeply entrenched views or who are not already receptive. Anecdotal polls within vegan communities, for instance, show that only a minority attribute their decision to go vegan directly to online comments or debates, with many saying that personal motivations like health, environment, or ethics played a larger role. Reddit This reinforces my sense that maybe public advocacy isn’t the most effective route for everyone.
In addition, I also don't feel energetic to do a lot of research that a lot of others utilize in this forums to talk about the best things to do and what to donate to etc. For example, I see a lot of people discuss about all sorts of AI related issues and my attention span is so fried that I don't really feel motivated to learn more about things. In general regarding charity, I just find it more attractive to donate to charities that I can see quick simple stats (like ooh $5000 to save one life), rather than go down several rabbit holes. I don’t want to feel obligated to spend hours reading and engaging with research just so I can publicly argue why one cause or charity is better than another. I value evidence and careful thinking, but I don’t want that to become an endless cycle of consuming and summarizing information for others.
From an ethical standpoint, this brings up a difficult moral question: is it enough to quietly donate to causes I believe do the most good and live in accordance with my values, or do I have a moral obligation to try to influence others directly as well as to stay updated on the most recent data? I see compelling data showing that structured campaigns and coordinated giving (like Veganuary and GiveWell’s recommended charities) correspond with measurable participation and impact. But I also see how much of this movement remains misunderstood or invisible to the wider public, and how people outside these communities often react negatively when they feel pressured or lectured.
For many individuals, quiet participation—giving thoughtfully, living according to one’s values without evangelizing, and letting long-term habits speak for themselves—can still contribute meaningfully to change. One can argue that public advocacy and research can enhance awareness and shape norms, but it does not prove that every individual must be a public advocate in order to be effective. For many people, private participation may not only be acceptable, but also the most sustainable way for them to contribute without emotional burnout or social resentment.
In the end, I’m left wondering whether moral responsibility is best fulfilled through public visibility and persuasion, or through consistent, private commitment to impactful actions. One can argue that both paths have roles to play, and that measurable change can arise from collective efforts that are not always visible on social media, forums, or public discussion boards. Perhaps it is okay—ethically, practically, and personally—to focus on donating to high-impact causes I believe in and living quietly in accordance with my principles, rather than feeling obligated to fight every online battle or attend every discussion.
Thanks.
Heya!
I think public advocacy can be a sliding scale of participation and does not immediately go from 0 to 100. It does not require fighting every online battle.
Why fight battles anyway, 99% of people havent even heard of effective giving despite all of GWWC / TLYCS / 1FTW's online outreach. There are only ~11,000 pledgers worldwide. The London Effective Giving Community WhatsApp group is 100 people. Besides myself I rarely see other private individuals posting on social media about EG unless they work for an EG organisation.
Want to gently push in favour of starting with small-scale advocacy: You currently might find it draining to engage publicly, be it online or in person. I did too when I started out and still do sometimes.
You can always start low-touch with people in your immediate circle: "what did you do last weekend?" "Just some volunteering and donation things" and let the conversation flow from there.
Best argument against this is you might have a counterfactuallly better use of your time versus trialing effective giving / vegan advocacy. Since you're earlier in your career you might want to prioritise building your credibility - less people in your personal life might take your EG / veganism seriously if they don't consider you serious people. Or you're working on a more ambitious initiative. Or you have personal commitments. Or you want to avoid burning out if advocacy will stretch you too thin.
Happy to DM on this for some of your more sensitive topics. Wishing you a Merry Christmas /good holiday season.
Hi, thanks for the comment.
I guess I will continue to not really feel obligated to talk about either topic (regarding EA or veganism).
I guess I may talk about it later on among my immediate circle if and only if I ever feel enthusiastic about it and never feel obligated to do it.
However, I especially won’t be talking about EA because I feel hypocritical because I haven’t donated in a while (last donation was months ago, I donated like 10% of three biweekly paychecks before stopping). I won’t donate for a while since Im just starting my career and think it is a rather bad idea to already start donating large sums of money I should be saving.
Somewhat unrelated, but I feel the main blocker for attracting more EAs is not really just outreach (I mean sure its advertising is sparse) but I kind of feel it should feel more welcoming (like its ads on Instagram talk about 10% pledge and I feel like 99% of people will be turned off by the idea of donating 10%. Tbh, I don’t even think most Christians donate 10% even though the whole 10% pledge is inspired by the concept of tithing).
Yeah but I guess even though its a contradictory concept I guess theres a distinction between paid advertisements vs retweeting things because I feel advertisements may actually have some influence while retweeting or discussing about EA can feel like tiring slacktivism that brings 0 results other than wasting time and energy.
Thank you for the discussion.
Glad you're forming your own views on what feels like an obligation and what does not.
Some thoughts gently encouraging advocacy. Not because it's an obligation, but solely because of its impact:
Understand the feeling of being a hypocrite, but please know that I - and most people on this forum - wouldn't call you that! We all have our own circumstances
Quick note that the number on the GWWC website is about one order of magnitude lower
But of course these are averages, and the people you inspire could give significantly more/less, or significantly more/less counterfactually
Although that's an estimate of how much counterfactual value "GWWC generates" from each pledge, which is less than the full value of the pledge. Elsewhere, it is called GWWC-attributable value. The full value is more like $47-60K on best guess.
My understanding is that $47k is the estimated time-discounted average lifetime high-impact donations from a 10% pledger, but does not discount for the fact that many pledgers (especially the largest donors giving much more than 10%) would have donated significantly with or without a 10% pledge, so only a fraction of that is counterfactually due to the existence of the 10% pledge and pledge advocacy (whether by gwwc or by others)
I think all comments here are accurate.
If I take 10% of the median London annual salary (£4.75K) then assume they work 30 more years (£143K), this roughly in line with GWWC's headline figure.
At 1%, if we assume annual inflation = annual salary increases = annual negative discounts on cost-effectiveness of top charities we still get ~£14K LTV of a 1% pledge. Maybe apply -£4K discounts on pledge dropouts or changes in life circumstance to £10K.
How you wish to apply % attribution to GWWC's infrastructure / paid ads / in-person advocacy / the local EA meetup / online forums is probably a messier science and hotly debated. Good thing OP and I aren't doing this outside a personal capacity.
That said I'd bet that OP's co-workers and mine have much limited exposure to EA, so the counterfactual upside of personal advocacy is much higher, no matter if you take from the $10K headline or $4.7K time-discounted high-impact donation per 1% pledge.
At the end of the day £10K will still go to high-impact nonprofits, and it would have been a community effort :)