A difficult optimization problem (Score 1)

While it's human nature to try to optimize an outcome (doubly true for the Slashdot crowd) charitable giving isn't something that can be effectively optimized due to its intangible nature. One cannot prove that feeding the homeless is any more noble than rescuing abused animals or supporting artists to improve the local culture. They are all incomparable and they are all noble (YMMV depending on your values.) Numerical comparisons are problematic as well. One could isolate only those charities with low overhead (and thereby maximizing the impact of the donation), but there are many noble charities that may not have the most efficient operations (either they lack skilled management, or the nature of their operations are simply costly.) To solve the problem of optimizing your giving, I propose this: - Assume that all charities are incomparable and thus, more or less equal (unless, of course, they are scam charities. Try to weed those out.) - Give more to fewer. By reducing the number of recipients for your donations your increased amount is probably more meaningful for each receipent. Also, you'll have less paperwork for doing your tax deductions (not to mention that small donations (usually those $50) get you no tax receipts.) - Choose charities that are meaningful to you. Whichever ones you choose will be the right ones. - Don't fret about the ones that weren't chosen.