How many people are actually EtG and take it seriously? By that, I mean people who actually maximize their income (in a non-harmful way), not just do a normal job in a high income country and donate.

The more people actually EtG, the more know-how there might be out there.

Besides my more cold-hearted response below: I agree that EtG is lonely. You are lucky if you have one other EtG'er in the same city. EtG is rare. EtG and feeling committed to it, is even rarer.

You don't need to make a donation decision biweekly. That sounds incredibly tiring. You can also set up a recurring donation to the same charity or fund. Or save up and donate once or twice a year. That has the advantage that you can plan some time to think well about your decision.

I can relate a lot to your story.

My first experiences talking about effective giving were so negative that they discouraged me from doing it for years. Maybe it had a negative impact because I communicated so poorly that people were put off and stopped being open to the idea in the first place.

Every time I read on the internet that I should encourage others to give, it felt like yet another moral obligation that I was failing to fulfill.

"You should give it to me instead"

I got this one a few times, and I find it extremely dismissive and disrespectful. Even more so when I think about people in extreme poverty and animals in factory farms.

Another time, the other viewed donating as no better than giving in to beggars... a weakness that has nothing to do with doing good.

Surprisingly, the same people were very understanding or even positive about vegetarianism or veganism.

Nowadays, it has become a little easier to talk about effective giving since I can point to the website of the local effective giving organization. I still avoid being the first point of contact.

I like the post much more now ;) - clearer where you are coming from and, indeed, a conversation starter.

Edit: retracted the downvote.

I agree that preserving democracy is important, but I downvoted this post:

• the ALL CAP title comes across as yelling - and is unclear
• not facts, references to sources. Very little reasoning. Tell us based on what events you believe there is a short term collapse (and that can be in 1-2 paragraphs)
• typos
• no clear call to action. "there is a range of solutions" - why not mention what those solutions are?

I've listened to your podcast and there I learnt things. This post, however, does not provide me any information.

You are saying "Given that these are recent grants, outcome data will not be included in the initial payout reports." - would it be possible for you to share some outcome data of earlier grants?

Question, just to check whether I haven't misunderstood this post:

1. Are the EA Funds (Animal Welfare Fund, Long-Term Future Fund, etc.) "charitable projects" and not "hosted funds" and will GWWC keep supporting them? The EA Funds website
2. Will you continue to maintain an ANBI (tax-deductibilty and tax exemption) in the Netherlands?

It would be very sad if we lost these two things without handover.

I made two small donations via Every.org and regret it. By default, your profile and donations are public, and it's not immediately obvious (a privacy issue—especially if you make a potentially controversial donation as an individual), which I find unethical. Additionally, Every.org sends a lot of spam if you miss the opt-out button. These are known as UX dark patterns.

Next time, I'll email the charity to ask if I can use conventional payment methods (if the donation is large enough) or simply refrain from donating.

Being public about one's donations can be beneficial, but donors should have easy control over what they make public and what they don't. I encourage organizations to think twice before using Every.org.

Thankfully, our local effective giving organization and the GWWC platform don't have these issues.