[perl4ever]

There may be a tradeoff between the distance of someone you want to help and effectiveness - how much do you really know about their problems or the solutions you are funding? Have you ever tried to figure out requirements for a project at work that depend on a group of co-workers on another continent in a different culture?

There's also so many faraway causes, how do you prioritize?

The people I know, and the problems that I or they have, are not necessarily the most important in the world. But I have a better chance of doing something appropriate about them, because I'm not limited to vague stereotypes.

Trying to help with something that you know about firsthand also increases the odds that you will be addressing a problem which is common but overlooked by society because there isn't enough money, glamour, or self-actualization involved.

I strongly believe that a personal connection is not just a gimmick for these reasons.

[franga2000]

The exact opposite argument can also be made here: they weren't remotely funding some specific measure that they think could solve the problem, which admittedly could be distorted by distance. They are funding an organization whose goal is solving that problem and has experts who are close to the issue. It's basically outsourcing.

[perl4ever]

>It's basically outsourcing

It is basically outsourcing, yes. I'd think on HN of all places people would appreciate how wrong that can go.

I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Dian Fossey if you haven't.

[franga2000]

Interesting read, and I definitely wasn't trying to say that outsourcing was great. But if you do your due diligence, your chances of actually fixing the issue you care about are much higher if you pick a reputable organisation to donate to, rather than funding actions directly.

Since philanthropy is usually fueled by emotions, you might be tempted to fuel actions to stop trophy hunting of endangered species, but according to many sources (see the wikipedia page and its references), that might actually be detrimental to the conservation efforts. Similarly, you might fund the planting of trees to restore forests, while those cutting existing forests down with no regard for the environment face no opposition (sound familiar?).

There's a lot of harm possible if you outsource to the wrong people, but if you do your due dilligence, a dedicated group of experts will be able to use your money far more effectively than you could.

As for "fixing the issues close to you" - you need to realise, that people who have money to throw around are rarely close to, let alone experts in, any such issues. They might want to help the homeless, for example, but if they just buy up a bunch of apartments and let them live there, they might not be solving much. Someone working with the homeless on a daily basis would know to put money towards rehabilitation, education and finding them employment first (from what I've heard - I, too, am not an expert).

[perl4ever]

>your chances of actually fixing the issue you care about are much higher if you pick a reputable organisation to donate to, rather than funding actions directly

I wasn't questioning the merits of working in groups.

However, the only way to have done "due diligence" practically speaking is to engage with an organization that operates near you and deals with something that you have experienced or known someone who's experienced.

Meeting the people who work for an organization, volunteering your time to work with them, observing what they do in your community, is how you do due diligence.