Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences. Longer summary

Scott examines why people support government-funded foreign aid rather than just donating directly, pushing back against the 'other people's money' argument. He considers and critiques several explanations: the force multiplier theory (seizing opponents' money), virtue signaling through voting, psychological free-riding on knowing problems are solved, coordination problems requiring bundling, transaction costs that make voluntary systems impractical, and time-inconsistent preferences where people's long-term values differ from their moment-to-moment impulses. Scott concludes by proposing a thought experiment where tax forms include an opt-out box for foreign aid, predicting most people wouldn't use it, suggesting the issue is more complex than simply wanting to spend others' money. Shorter summary

Scott argues that taking the Giving What We Can Pledge to donate a fixed percentage of income is the single most impactful decision most people can make, eliminating donation stress while maximizing charitable impact. Longer summary

Scott advocates for taking the Giving What We Can Pledge, arguing that committing to donate a fixed percentage of income (typically 10%) to effective charities is one of the most impactful decisions someone can make. He describes how he used to feel stressed and irrational about charitable giving before discovering the pledge, and explains that having a predetermined commitment eliminates the guilt and decision fatigue of responding to individual fundraising appeals. The post emphasizes that for most people, financial donations are their most powerful tool for changing the world, and that making a binding pledge - rather than relying on willpower for each donation - is the key to actually following through on altruistic values. Shorter summary

The post highlights the effectiveness of bednets in combating malaria in Africa, citing impressive statistics and encouraging donations to continue this progress. Longer summary

The post discusses the significant impact of malaria control efforts, particularly the use of insecticide-treated bednets, in Africa between 2000 and 2015. It cites a Nature study and comments from Giving What We Can, highlighting that bednets have prevented around 450 million cases of malaria and contributed to saving 6.2 million lives. The author expresses enthusiasm about humanity's progress against malaria and shares that they donated a thousand bednets, encouraging others to donate to the Against Malaria Foundation. Shorter summary

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes. Longer summary

This post discusses the counterintuitive success of conservative religious movements compared to liberal ones, exploring the idea that demanding commitments and strict rules can actually strengthen religious communities. Scott examines this concept in the context of atheist religion-substitutes, noting their tendency to avoid placing rules on members. He contrasts this with the approach of Giving What We Can, which requires a specific commitment from members. The post concludes by considering the potential of 'nomic' subcultures based on rule-following as a possible direction for secular community-building. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the moral obligation to engage in politics and activism, comparing it to other forms of doing good, particularly charitable giving. He argues that while many feel pressured to be politically active, donating money to effective charities is often a more impactful way to help others. The post suggests that instead of feeling guilty for not doing enough, people should aim to give 10% of their income to charity as a reasonable and achievable goal. This standard, promoted by organizations like Giving What We Can, is presented as a balanced approach to making a positive difference without falling into despair or inaction. Scott concludes by recommending readers consider joining Giving What We Can. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of infinite debts in personal and societal contexts, proposing a practical approach of paying manageable 'interest' rather than attempting full repayment. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of infinite debts and their implications in personal relationships and society. Scott starts with an anecdote about a patient wanting her son to take care of her, then extends this to societal obligations. He discusses the problems with both accepting infinite debts and denying them entirely. The post concludes by suggesting a practical middle ground: paying a manageable 'interest' on these debts without trying to clear them entirely. Scott uses examples like caring for elderly parents, societal obligations, and charitable giving to illustrate his points. Shorter summary