I often see claims of an area being neglected, under-supported, or underfunded. But what do these claims really mean? They tend to break down into two categories: 1) neglected compared to how it should be, 2) neglected compared to other areas. I think both these ways of viewing neglectedness are pretty undescriptive and not very useful for making real decisions in philanthropy. However I do think there is a more useful way of considering neglectedness.

Neglected absolutely

“It would take $9.2 trillion per year to stop climate change and we are only spending $15 billion a year on it!”

This pretty common claim is that X area is neglected relative to how it should be funded. In many ways this claim is objectively true! 0 people should die due to lacking a $3 bednet; no easily and cheaply prevented disease or suffering should be around. But really, when a charity makes an appeal like this, it is equally true for virtually every issue in the NGO sector. We can whine all day that the NGO sector should be bigger and more should donate (I agree with this more than most), but in practice charitable giving [...]

---

First published:

Source:

Linkpost URL:
https://measuredlife.substack.com/p/everything-is-neglected

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.