I'd give the Scientologists, the Nation Of Islam, Falun Gong, and Crazy Jesus Guy a billion dollars each if they promise to stay the hell out of the subway.

I think about this all the time. My foundation would support local theatre arts initiatives- community theatres, touring groups that attend schools, camps and classes.

Literacy, getting parents to read to their kids, and early childhood education.

Literacy here, also. I'm not sure exactly how it'd work, but I fear for the future when I see some younger folks' attempts at writing.

Helping kids in crisis, especially glbt kids.

I'd fund free pet spay/neuter clinics.

I'd do something to help children at risk. Primarily because the thought of any child anywhere being prostituted or beaten or mistreated makes me weep. But also because so very many societal problems can be traced back to people being broken as children. Better childhoods produce better people which produces a better world.

I guess I would have to put together a small group, 2 or three people, that looked deeply at the big and little picture - hunger, health, justice, etc - and then make hard decisions about how the money can "best" be put to use. But I think, before that even began, we'd have to build peramiters such as 'does the scale of our impact matter?' - local vs. global impact, for example, and we'd HAVE to have structures in place to monitor ourselves so that we don't end up in just another conceptual box. Many more details for sure, but that's what I would do.

Failing that, I would buy one of Maines Lighthouses and create a place where people could go to put together the kind of thing I described above. Affording the stay at this center would not necessarly cost a group anything (say a teacher's group would probably pay next to nothing).

I'd probably give it all to medecins sans frontiers.

I'll probably think of something better in a minute, but right now I'm thinking information, media and digital literacy.

Therapy and schools for children with autism. Studies have shown that 25 hours of ABA therapy a week is most beneficial for autistic children. Currently, the state of Florida pays for 2 hours a week. Some states pay for none. Some states are better than Florida (like some New England states, NJ, NY, Pennsylvania). I would dedicate my money to fund more therapy and fund schools for autistic children in Florida.

I'd give lots of money to the Gay Mission Statement Theatre here in town that needs a new facility, parking, offices, and full time staff. I'd serve on the board. Activities would expand to working with existing and developing new GLBT support/programs for the community. They are already well run, edgy, and do great work. I could make it better, even widely renouned!

If I had MORE kazillions than that, I'd give it to an existing organization working for abortion rights here in America. I don't have the legal knowledge to be hands on in that area.

If there were enough kazillions to act globally, I'd support an existing program advocating for developing world women's rights esp. stopping mutilations and honor killings.

I'd start a group that builds nothing but passive solar sustainable housing communities with rainwater collection, tankless hot water heaters, green roofs and space to garden.

I'd also start a foundation that lets adults have some play time for an entire month of every year. That's in addition to their PTO/holiday/sick time bennies.

Failing those two, I'd do what arsey said.

If there were enough kazillions to act globally, I'd support an existing program advocating for developing world women's rights esp. stopping mutilations and honor killings.

Damn right. If billions were poured into educating women in the third world, a lot of other problems would cease.

I would start a foundation to help raise awareness towards the plight facing street children in South America. I would also provide education, health, social and outreach services for these children, getting them off the street, and integrated into society.

Investments in local business development in third-world countries.(I.E. encouraging job growth that isn't directly involved with megacorps, which usually pay sub-standard wages)

Scholarship opportunities for high school kids from my home town, to be payed out to colleges at least 500 miles away. The best thing I ever did was move away from that place.

Nationwide funding for music and arts programs for public schools, from first grade to senior year.

Good question.

I think you have a moral obligation, particularly if it's inherited money rather than earned, to spend most of the money maximising value for as many people as possible. This means forgetting about theatre groups, autism, pets, LGBT rights, and basically everything in the first world, and instead spending money on: HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa, which is a particularly efficient way of cheaply saving a large number of people; simple preventive measures to combat malaria like mosquito nets; female education, which reduces over-population as well as being inherently worthwhile; cheap methods of testing for, and perhaps treating, unclean water. More controversially, I would probably spend money lobbying for nuclear power, genetically-modified foods, stem-cell research and against the subsidies given to the American and EU farm industries. This would have the effect of making a lot of people in rural America and Europe much worse off, but that's an acceptable tradeoff for the vast amount of good it would do for the developing world. In practice, it would probably make sense to focus on two or three items of the above list to maximise economies of scale.

If I had earned the money myself, I would probably spend a small proportion of it on something shamelessly self-indulgent, like providing university scholarships, helping the National Gallery keep/acquire art and show it to schoolchildren, and maybe speeding up the construction of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

I think you have a moral obligation, particularly if it's inherited money rather than earned, to spend most of the money maximising value for as many people as possible.

Well said. I think I'm going to cure death. No more death! Death is the leading cause of death, you know.

Gah, I meant to italicise 'small' rather than 'spend' in the second paragraph. And 'cheaply' can be deleted from the sentence about AIDS because it's implied by 'efficient'.

I'd use it to develop some kind of unstoppable & hidden weapon of mass destruction. Some Big Laser thing that carves towns off the face of the earth. Then I'd tell the people of the world that they've got a month to stop killing each other.

Then I'd start sorting out world conflict my way.

On a side note, I'd also use said machine to bully the first-world to redefine copyright in a way that I agree with.

I'd create a foundation that would work on keeping the mod lifestyle at the forefront of design, culture, fashion, music, and food through the year 3124.

Lucky, Glamor, Fashion Week, Food Network, MTV, Clear Channel, and everything else would be stuck in 1984 for the rest of eternity.

Ooo, I know! I'd fund the DVD release of all the shows I loved as a child that have yet to be released on DVD. First up- Square One.

Ooo, I know! I'd fund the DVD release of all the shows I loved as a child that have yet to be released on DVD. First up- Square One.

Can we also have Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?

Yessssssssss. And Roundhouse.

By the way, starting your own foundation is easier than you think. Team Daly has been setting aside some money to start one in 2008: here's a brief article describing some of the options.

How about Get Smart?

Cool article, eamondaly.

And yes, jonmc.

psst jonmc

I haven't been able to find it in any stores, dude.

I think you have a moral obligation, particularly if it's inherited money rather than earned, to spend most of the money maximising value for as many people as possible. This means forgetting about theatre groups, autism, pets, LGBT rights, and basically everything in the first world, and instead spending money on

Think globally act locally? I'd want to do something hands on in my community. Yes, the global issues are very important, but if I can make a difference somewhere, with my skill set, I'd do that first.

"Think globally, act locally" applies to normal people with normal constraints on money, time and resources. Miko's question dramatically reduces those constraints, giving us a vast (but finite) amount of money. Our individual skillsets are now irrelevant - we can afford to hire people who can do every one of our 'skills' better than we can.

By acting locally, we can do a small amount of good for a small number of people, people who are already very well off in the whole scheme of things. By acting globally, we can do a huge amount of good for a huge number of very badly-off people.

The choice isn't between spending 'kajillions' on relatively trivial local causes and leaving it in the bank, it's between supporting trivial local causes and supporting far more productive global causes.

Oh my god, please don't make me have a foundation.

The choice isn't between spending 'kajillions' on relatively trivial local causes and leaving it in the bank, it's between supporting trivial local causes and supporting far more productive global causes

Actually, I have some bad news- there's no choice at all. The money is imaginary. And people can do whatever they want with their imaginary money, just like they can do whatever they want with their real money. This is just a fun thread designed to see what sort of issues care about enough to spend their fake money on. Feel free to spend *your* fake money on whatever *you* want, though. The rest of us will do the same.

Speaking of, I remembered something else I wanted to spend my money on- housing. Affordable housing. I don't know how, exactly, but I'd put together lots and lots of affordable housing and lobby to have predatory home loans declared illegal.

Oh, and I would also provide money to help improve public transit in NYC, IF the MTA could prove to me they actually needed it (I have my suspicions about them...)

I'd have more passion and fire for my local cause. I'd rather do that than send checks and spend the day shopping. And I did say global issues are important. I'd send those checks. Bigger checks. But if I wasn't actively working (I need to work) for a cause, it would seem abstract and I wouldn't feel I was "doing" anything.

TPS, of course I can't compel people to spend their money efficiently, but there's no reason at all why I can't disagree with the way they choose to spend it. Too many charitable foundations get away with making inefficient choices because people are afraid to criticise them. And as for the fact that the money is imaginary - well, so what? Miko asked 'what kind of foundation would you set up?', and that's exactly the question I answered.

rainbaby, it seems as if your first priority for your foundation is to make you feel good about yourself. Fair enough, but you can't claim that there's anything 'charitable' about it.

Too many charitable foundations get away with making inefficient choices because people are afraid to criticise them.

Then why don't you go bother some of the people that actually have money and leave this thread alone? You're being a dick.

College scholarships for bad kids - smart, interesting kids with creative brains and bad grades. Dramatically increased preschool opportunities for everyone - good preschools. Money for parents to stay home with their small kids. Money for underfunded urban and rural schools. NORML. Buy land for nature conservancies. Money for bad artists.

Actually, what my foundation would do is buy a bunch of land, grow pot on some of it, have schools & artist residences on some of it, keep the rest completely pristine and then when those kids get out of college debt free, they can go educate the rest of the world.

By acting globally, we can do a huge amount of good for a huge number of very badly-off people

That's actually a rather hard thing to pull off. When you want to act globally, the amount of money required is up near the stratosphere because not only do you have to spend money on fighting/curing/fixing whatever "wrong" you see, you also have to spend time fighting cultural norms, societal pressures, spend money and time and energy promoting stable governments, stable economies, fix economic inequalities, develop ways to increase public education and communication, change agricultural patterns, blah blah blah.

It also requires quite a bit of time which is why the only "global" things a person could fight would be diseases and they only really effective way to fight a global disease is to find a cure or extremely cheap and effective treatment that is easily portable, easy to manufacture, and can be applied to a mulitude of situations.

And also remember that the vast majority of those "causes" that you mentioned earlier that you would push for are also extremely opinionated and subjective. They're things that you think apply globally but I could easily point to another person who could disagree with your points and support something else and their views would be as just as valid as yours.

The value of a local "trivial" foundation (and, believe it or not, there are really no charity that should be labeled trivial if it's an organization that improves the quality of someone's life), is that it's small, local, and can have goals that can produce real results without requiring the massive resources of, say, an entire nation. Look at the current goals of Gate's foundation when it comes to malaria in Africa - it's a very valid and global goal but the amount of money required to fund it is incredibly large and the amount of resources required to complete even the "small" task of eliminating malaria from one african nation is complex and complicated. The goal is worthy - but the task is herculean and should be acknowledged as such.

There is a reason why throwing money at a problem does not, respectively, solve every problem. Money can't change every issue in the world that would benefit the most people.

leave this thread alone?

Heaven forfend that anyone politely disagrees with anyone else! The way I see it, Miko asked what kind of foundation we would set up given the choice, I answered that question and gave reasons for my choices, rainbaby disagreed with some of my reasoning (which is fine), and then you called me a dick.

Note to self: never play Monopoloy with matthewr. Dude takes fake money way too seriously.

College scholarships for bad kids - smart, interesting kids with creative brains and bad grades.

This has always been my dad's dream, MGL. He's always said he thought it was sad that there were no scholarships for kids just for being "neat." (As in "what a neat kid!" not orderly-type neat.)

If working hard and intimately on a day to day basis about something I feel passionately about that also creates a greater good in my community makes me feel good about myself, then how is that wrong? I don't see how a flow state, hands on, pretend foundation choice is selfish in any way. I know the need first hand, and I could do meaningful work. Plus, I've repeated that I would be generous with the donations for larger issues that I can't offer practical help with.

College scholarships for bad kids

Somehow, the first time I read this, it read "College scholarships are bad for kids".

stynxno
When you want to act globally, the amount of money required is up near the stratosphere

Yes, and Miko specifically said in the question that "[we] have kajillions to give away".

If she'd asked "how would you spend a few million pounds", I would have answered differently, of course.

[my causes are] subjective ... I could easily point to another person who could disagree with your points and support something else and their views would be as just as valid as yours.

Because of course everyone's opinions about world development are equally valid? Nonsense! Given the aim of helping as many people as much as possible, choices can be evaluated objectively (not with 100% accuracy, but still objectively) with the use of statistics and knowledge about the developing world.

If someone comes up with evidence that suggests that there's a more efficient way of maximising global welfare than preventing HIV/AIDS, my hypothetical foundation would switch to that.

[my causes are] extremely opinionated

Well, of course! My foundation would spend money based on my opinions. Were you expecting my foundation to spend money in support of someone else's opinions? Note that my choices aren't arbitrary - they are, to the best of my knowledge, the most efficient ways of doing good. If someone else with a different opinion can demonstrate that their choice does more good, that's fine. If they can't, ignore them.

The goal is worthy - but the task is herculean and should be acknowledged as such.

I don't think anyone's ever claimed reducing the spread of AIDS is easy...

Money can't change every issue in the world that would benefit the most people.

The question was 'you have lots of money. what would you spend it on?'. Whether money is a solution to all problems is neither here nor there.

rainbaby, you're falling into the trap of comparing 'doing some good in my local first-world community' with 'doing nothing'. You should be comparing 'doing some good in my local first-world community' with 'doing lots of good in the third world'.

Note to self: never play Monopoloy with matthewr. Dude takes fake money way too seriously. Guess you can't play monopoly with stynxno either, the dude with the longest comment in this thread.

Money for parents to stay home with their small kids.

Yes! I love this and have always said I would do this if I could. Pay a family's mortgage/bills for a year to enable a parent to be the primary caregiver to their baby.

I'm not saying "doing nothing" I'm saying I crave involvement and would FEEL like I wasn't helping as much as I could by just writing a check. Re-read up-thread. Plus, why can't I do both? I said I would, and it's pretend money anyway.

matthewr, I think there is great value, yes, personal (selfish?) value, in working for a cause you feel passionate about with people who share the same passion. Would you imagine yourself hands on in your global disease eradication project? How? Are you a doctor or an Administrator, or a Fundraiser? I think approaching this question with a what do you believe in, what do you feel for, what are you passionate about might yield better pretend foundation results than your logical approach.

LoriFLA is a nurse. Hence Autism. She knows the problem, and would have insight into approaches to solving it. It's a sensible, upstanding answer in my opinion, not trivial at all.

I crave involvement and would FEEL like I wasn't helping as much as I could by just writing a check

In the context of the (hypothetical) opportunity to fight AIDS and malaria on a global scale, thus saving millions of lives, do you really think your (hypothetical) 'need for involvement' matters?

Would you imagine yourself hands on in your global disease eradication project?

If I had the chance to eradicate disease, I'd like to think I wouldn't be worrying about my feelings about being 'hands on' or not. It's my foundation, but it's not about me.

[autism] a sensible, upstanding answer in my opinion, not trivial at all.

I wouldn't dream of saying autism is trivial. I said the problem of autism in America is trivial relative to the problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa. This is objectively true. If you are given a vast amount of money to tackle the world's problems, autism in the US is important but should not be at the top of your list, assuming you want to as much good as possible.

I don't know that I'd start a foundation. I'd just give money to charities I already support. In my case that would mean the Indiana Down Syndrome Foundation, Best Buddies and a couple of the local animal shelters. I would also like to start up a scholarship fund for an art school...possibly for older students. Art school is effing expensive.

The choice isn't between spending 'kajillions' on relatively trivial local causes and leaving it in the bank, it's between supporting trivial local causes and supporting far more productive global causes.

And I'd finally like to point out that I agree with you, that MOST of my fake kajillion money would go to big picture issues. To other, established foundations. MY foundation would be local and of personal importance to me. I don't know anything about stopping honor killings, other people do, why would I start such a foundation if one already exists? That's why the local was first on my original list and it expanded outward from there. I didn't throw the global stuff in as an afterthought.

Gosh, I'm glad we aren't one big filthy rich family with an ailing matriarch. We'd all have to lawyer up about now.

Ok, I'm stopping quibbling about pretend money now. Interesting discussion.

Oooh me! me!

Predictably, I'd give a lot of money to scientific research. Stem cell research, cancer, HIV, and lots of money for non-sexy stuff like flu vaccinations and antibiotic resistance.

I don't know that I'd start a foundation. I'd just give money to charities I already support.

That's one of the main things a foundation can do.

Matthewr, I think your motives are definitely honorable, but you also have to recognize you're espousing a utilitarian philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think there is room for a lot of kinds of philanthropy and for a lot of ways to change the world. Changing the thinking and intellectual capital available in the first world may be indirectly more powerful in some ways than the direct application of dollars to individuals in the third world. It may be because hundreds of 'neat' kids get a college scholarship that the sudden innovation in drug therapy or delivery systems arrives, making it infinitely easier to help the suffering elsewhere.

I'm also of the opinion that while we can reduce human pain and misery, we will never eradicate disease completely, nor will we eliminate many other kinds of suffering. It is for that reason that I believe enriching culture is also extremely important. Given that our lives will always be led in the valley of the shadow of death, what things can lend them nobility and meaning even though we know without a doubt we are all mortal? Music, arts? Education, mutual aid? Innovation, ingenuity? Encouraging human development is worthwhile, whether the results are material or non-material. If we did not do that, we would basically be holding culture, scientific research, and personal and spiritual development at a level of stasis until we could bring the entire world up to the same par of health and wealth that the first-world nations enjoy. If such a policy had been in place in the past, we wouldn't have utilitarian things like GMOs or promising AIDS treatments to argue about. All of those things have benefited from acts of charity at every stage which were not necessarily directed at improving conditions worldwide -- acts of charity like the funding of public libraries and colleges, scholarships, grants to research institutions which allowed them to explore theoretical potentials, think tanks, policy research organizations, and in fact millions of small acts of support which may have inspired, enlightened, or assisted young people as they chose their line of work and began to believe in themselves. Who can say whether that was seeing a painting in a museum, hearing an old blind oud player at a cultural festival, seeing a film documentary on hunger, or even just getting the chance to join a youth-development group and start becoming exposed to ideas greater than those normally available?

That's why I believe in a charitable spectrum in philanthropy. Not all worthwhile results are quantifiable, and even those that are rely on people, who are by nature whole and complex and require many kinds of support - financial, spiritual, social, emotional, structural.

Some of the things in this thread could actually be fixed through legislation. Women should have a LOT more maternity leave in the US... but that's another thread.

Changing the thinking and intellectual capital available in the first world may be indirectly more powerful in some ways than the direct application of dollars to individuals in the third world.

Yes, and I think provided you take a sufficiently far-sighted view, this is perfectly compatible with a utilitarian philosophy.

Earlier in the thread I said something along the lines of "[we should forget about] basically everything in the first world". I should have made it clear that this was in the context of the examples I was talking about (theatre groups etc) which exclusively benefit the first world¹. I later mentioned nuclear power, GM crops and stem cell research as things to fund, all of which initially benefit the first world and not the third. We also have to take a rational approach to comparing alternatives, and balance the very high payoff of funding a college kid who later cures a disease with the very low probability.

I'm also of the opinion that while we can reduce human pain and misery, we will never eradicate disease completely, nor will we eliminate many other kinds of suffering. It is for that reason that I believe enriching culture is also extremely important.

I understand this argument, and it applies in lots of cases, but AIDS is an exception. In the first world, when we cure one disease, people live a bit longer and then die of another disease. In that case, perhaps we're justified in looking at the bigger picture and divert funds from curing the next disease to enriching culture. HIV/AIDS is nothing like this, as this astonishing graph illustrates. It's not just 'the next disease'.

Music, arts? Education, mutual aid? Innovation, ingenuity?

Of course this matters. But helping enrich the first world's culture probably has little effect on the the culture of the third world. If you want to assist third world culture, I would say the single biggest obstacle in your path is infectious disease and the appalling life expectancy. Culture cannot possibly flourish when life expectancy is plummeting. Preventing AIDS is probably the best possible way of allowing third culture to develop. Africans are the people who can best enrich African culture, and they can't do that if they spend their short lives fighting AIDS.

[if it wasn't for charity] we wouldn't have utilitarian things like GMOs or promising AIDS treatments to argue about.

Yes, but nowadays by far the biggest driver in pharmaceutical development and scientific research is the private sector. That's why, although I would support lobbying for stem cell research to be legal, and for government support of GMO and nuclear power, I'm not sure I would do much to directly support research into them. The market is certainly better at allocating research funds than my foundation would be, and there's a real danger of charitable investment 'crowding out' private investment. I think the role of the foundation is to provide for gaps in the market, not to try to replace it.

All of those things have benefited from acts of charity at every stage which were not necessarily directed at improving conditions worldwide -- acts of charity like the funding of public libraries and colleges, scholarships, grants to research institutions which allowed them to explore theoretical potentials, think tanks, policy research organizations, and in fact millions of small acts of support

Yes, the law of unintended consequences dictates that lots of charitable acts aimed at the first world will ultimately have large benefits for the third world. But that's not really an argument against taking a global utilitarian view. Explicitly donating with global welfare in mind surely has better returns on a global scale than donating to first-world causes does, even if first-world causes sometimes have positive externalities^ for the third world. This is probably the crux of my argument.

As an aside, I was interested (genuinely, not snarkily) by the fact that although you mentioned utilitarianism in a way that suggests you disapprove of it, your whole comment is ultimately framed in terms of utilitarianism. When you're arguing for X, you say X will ultimately (albeit in an unpredictable and roundabout manner) result in the greatest good of the greatest number.

¹ Yes, of course there's a minuscule possibility that someone could be motivated by a New York theatre group to go out and cure cancer, but it's so remote that we can essentially ignore it. Ultimately, theatre groups are a very inefficient way of curing cancer.

I don't necessarily disapprove of utilitarianism, I just wanted to surface the point of view that you are espousing, because it does have a name and is only one way of thinking about the uses of philanthropy. My argument was framed within the terms of your argument - since you are a utilitarian, you might be able to conceded that there are many roads to the greatest good. I actually don't believe in an absolute way the idea that the peak performances in many fields made possible by investment in the first world should be neglected in favor of solving all of the problems of the third world. I'm wary of that idea as a universally applied principle and wary of investing in material culture as the universal solution to human problems. I may also feel that governmental structures rather than private foundations are best equipped to deliver aid.

In any case, you mention that you think foundation money should fill gaps rather than duplicate financing available through the private or governmental sector. Many people who have posted here and many foundations do see their brand of funding as filling gaps, while other efforts toward eradicating the problems that most concern you continue to move along. Short of devoting every single charitable dollar raised in the developed world to eradicating disease in the developing world, how are we to apportion funds that have been designated for giving? I have trouble with mounting a moral attack on the people who manage large foundations who don't share your sense of urgency about the third world. The money is theirs to give in whatever way they see fit, as long as the application is useful in some way. Would you feel it's all right to divert money from the coffers of Make a Wish or the Knight Foundation (which funds projects defending and expanding freedom of speech and of the press) or the Hewlett Foundation, which seeks to create greater political will to move environmental policy forward? I think your approach demands that you say yes, every available dollar from the developed world must be pulled from your local dance company, public hospital, free clinic, and library until the world's populations all meet some standard of health and quality of life...set by whom?

I agree that attending to the problems you most wish to address is vastly important and worthy; I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that any other charitable work fails to meet a 'moral obligation.'

Ultimately, theatre groups are a very inefficient way of curing cancer.

I really disagree there. It's not at all easy to demonstrate, but people who think prolifically find sources of thought and inspiration almost everywhere, and they tend to disproprortionately patronize cultural institutions, so I take very seriously the idea that some very important transactions are taking place within the arts.

All in all, I'm not sure that adding millions and millions of people to the rolls of the living, but leaving them a culturally bankrupt world where arts and education are judged frills for the wealthy, is the greatest end.

People have a right to donate to whatever they like, and the state and the people have no right to (posthumously or otherwise) forcibly reallocate their funds. But equally, we have a right to make moral judgements about the usefulness of their chosen cause. I haven't talked much about existing foundations because your question was about a new foundation, but I suppose my position is that people have a right to give to whatever cause they like, but giving to charity isn't an automatic stairway to the moral high ground.

In particular, the benchmark for judging the morality of a charitable cause against isn't no charity at all, but rather the opportunity cost^: the value of the optimal alternative charitable cause.

So I disagree with "The money is theirs to give in whatever way they see fit, as long as the application is useful in some way." in two ways. First, it's always theirs to give however they want. Second, the test for morality is opportunity cost, not merely doing anything at all useful.

On Make-a-wish:
I would actually be quite happy if all their budget was (hypothetically, not forcibly) diverted into something more productive. They strike me as one of the most inefficient, naive, irrational, feelgood charities. They do some good for a tiny number of people, but it's trivial compared to the amount of good their money could do elsewhere.

Also, as a purely practical point, you can't devote ALL third world charity to the most immediate cause and then wildly switch everything to the next cause when the first is fixed. Therefore you do need some charities working for free speech in the third world even while the majority fight AIDS.

On theatre:
I'm not saying that theatre groups do nothing to help cure disease, just that they are a massively inefficient way of doing it. There's just no way that $1m spent on a theatre group produces better returns than $1m spent on more resources at staff at Johns Hopkins, for instance. Again, it's more theatre groups vs more people at Johns Hopkins, not theatre groups vs nothing. I can't really think of anything more to say about this particular issue, other than to mention that the good people of Johns Hopkins would be very surprised if someone told them they were, dollar for dollar, no better at curing disease than an improv group.

On population:
adding millions and millions of people to the rolls of the living

I should add as a caveat to 'greatest good of the greatest number' that I absolutely support measures to reduce fertility in the developing world. Reduced fertility is strongly correlated with development (the causation works both ways). I happen to think that the current dominant way of dealing with excess fertility (abstinence and condoms) is hopeless and doomed to failure, and we're fundamentally tackling the wrong variable at the moment: we're focussing on reducing the supply of unwanted children, when we should be reducing the demand for planned children. Establishing functional credit markets so people can save for retirement rather than relying on children, raising female education and employment, providing functional insurance markets, increasing free schooling and decreasing infant mortality are the way forward. But that's a topic for another day, and it's midnight here so I'll call it a night.

The thing I take issue with is your suggestion that there's a "moral obligation" that applies when you run a foundation that somehow doesn't apply at any other time. If you feel so definite that applying money to third world disease is the central moral obligation, what are you doing now to ensure that that happens? Opening the wallet is one way to do that, but influencing those who have a wallet is another. It's your own decision what you'd do with the money, but I don't think you can really instruct others as to what their "moral obligations" are, since you don't share their morals. However, you do have your own set of morals. What are you doing to eradicate AIDS in Africa right now? You don't need to have money to advance that cause.

The attraction, for me, to having the power of big money is being able to significantly advance causes I care about.

Also, as a purely practical point, you can't devote ALL third world charity to the most immediate cause and then wildly switch everything to the next cause when the first is fixed. Therefore you do need some charities working for free speech in the third world even while the majority fight AIDS.

Without freedom of speech in the first world, we wouldn't even know that third-world AIDS needs fighting. I think your awareness that advances on one front will be tripped up by lack of development on another front is exactly the reason I'm for simulataneous rounded philanthropy in all areas at once. No point in saving a society from AIDS only to have the same people corralled in prison camps or annihilated in ethnic violence. No point eradicating ethnic violence if there is not an exampled better way of life to aim for.

I honor your sense of "moral obligation" but I question your set of morals. Not everyone will agree with you about the most urgent causes or the best possible ends for which to aim. We live in a real world of competing interests and desires and possible solutions. I think you'd have avoided this debate if you said "MY moral obligation would be to eradicate etc. etc" than "I think you have a moral obligation, particularly if it's inherited money rather than earned, to spend most of the money maximising value for as many people as possible." If it's always someone else who has the obligation, it's easy to generalize about what they should do. If you feel strongly about it, I hope you are doing something to further this cause, in the way I know some people posting here are living their causes, promoting the ideals they'd like to see replicated in society.

I'd fund research on infant colic, which is not understood at all; there's little research, and many children are shaken to death because they are crying. And the boy had it many years ago, and it was awful for everyone. And research on treatment for mental illness.

I try to make changes locally, and I also give money locally and globally, because giving might make a little difference, and because it changes me. It makes me feel generous and noble, and maybe it helps others a little.