This is an oldish book (2009) I picked up; it's a bit dated, and I've heard all of Singer's arguments before, but I guess I just like hearing them.

Singer's out to get everyone to give more of their resources to the poorest of the poor. If you wouldn't pass by a child drowning in a pond, how can you not give a small sum of money to save a child's life across the world?

He attempts to refute all the common reasons we have for not giving more. He emphasizes the goal is not to guilt people, but to create a culture where more giving becomes the norm.

One thing that surprised me, until I remembered how old the book was - he says that of course we don't want to just give people money. That fosters dependence and doesn't change the institutions that keep them poor. I think he has since changed his tune, since his website, https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/, now lists Give Directly as a recommended charity. Give Directly flat out gives money to people. That's all they do. That's why I love them. I am fully convinced that giving poor people money is the best way to go. They don't become dependent. They improve their circumstances. They often start or improve their businesses. And that is how they can begin to change their own institutions. ( )

Effective altruism works for me like veganism: by assuming a few rather uncontroversial ethical axioms, trusting science and reason, and following a handful of simple logical deductions, it seems to me that one cannot but arrive at effective altruism and veganism in the end.

The axioms are such as [my interpretations]: “if there is something that is ‘bad’ in the universe, it is suffering”; “ethics is by definition independent of the point of view of the observer”, “there are gradations of ‘evil’ or ‘bad behaviour’”, “there are gradations in the level of consciousness of creatures” or “more wealth or consumption does not significantly increase individual happiness, beyond a certain threshold”.

Unless one denies science altogether — or chooses to be decidedly incoherent or radically selfish — reflecting sufficiently upon the ideas posited in this book or in [b:Animal Liberation|29380|Animal Liberation|Peter Singer|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386924543l/29380._SY75_.jpg|1547077] necessarily leads to being at least very sympathetic to (negative?) utilitarianism, rationality, effective altruism, veganism, and other related ideas.

This has been my evolution in the last two or three years.

[b:The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty|43624637|The Life You Can Save How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty|Peter Singer|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548004940l/43624637._SY75_.jpg|4787382] makes a good job at introducing these simple ideas to laymen. Peter Singer is a great promoter and an accessible source. And it is indeed very difficult to argue against the figures and the implications contained here, whimsical as they seem at first glance:

“Do you have a bottle of water or a can of soda on the table beside you as you read this book? If you are paying for something to drink when safe drinking water comes out of the tap, you have money to spend on things you don’t really need. Around the world, over 700 million people struggle to live each day on less than you paid for that drink.”

“Today when people give large sums with a lot of fanfare, we may suspect that their real motive is to gain social status by their philanthropy, and to draw attention to how rich and generous they are. But does this really matter? Isn’t it more important that the money go to a good cause than that it be given with ‘pure’ motives? And if by doing the equivalent of sounding a trumpet when they give, they encourage others to give, isn’t that better still?”

“In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency valued a generic American life at $ 10 million, while the Federal Department of Transportation in 2015 set a figure of $ 9.4 million. On all of these figures, the interventions described above [to save the lives of people living in extreme poverty] offer thousands of times better value.”

“In 2017, worldwide net official development assistance and aid was approximately $ 170 billion, while in the same year, consumers spent $ 532 billion on cosmetics. We say that we aspire to end extreme poverty in 11 years, yet we spend more than three times as much on beauty products as the governments we elect spend on ending extreme poverty.”

“Is the fact that other people are not doing their fair share a sufficient reason for allowing a child to die when you could easily rescue that child? I think the answer is clear: no.”

Perhaps the book focuses too much on giving. Giving, giving, giving. Yes, there are also chapters dedicated to criticising development aid and NGO's, to examining the psychological biases that prevent most of us from donating more, to showcasing success stories from several effective organisations — but the impression is that the main goal is to persuade regular people to give money away to charitable causes.

Even if I agree with the message, I fear that insisting so much on that particular point may be counterproductive. There are other strategies and strands of effective behaviour that, all together, may appeal to more readers: reducing consumption and consuming “better”; spreading the overall message; voting consciously and campaigning to further these goals; tackling the suffering of sentient beings other than humans (eg, becoming a vegan); having more children (or not having children at all, I just don't know what is the “right” thing to do vis-à-vis global issues); switching jobs or empowering outstanding individuals to further research and development, etc. ( )

Nice and short appeal to why you should probably be giving more of your income to saving lives. I found many of the propositions to be difficult to reject (which is a good thing). However, in cases where I did disagree, I noticed that Singer's tone regarding those disagreeing with him is far too dismissive. To me, the value in the book lies in its ability to force you to think about at what price you actually value a life that is close to you (friend/family) vs. one far away (stranger in foreign country), and a milder tone might make such introspection easier.

I would recommend reading the book because it's such an efficient read: for how short it is, the book caused me to stop and think about where I personally stand on the ideas expressed a disproportionate amount of times. ( )

Here I stand, still unconverted. And yet, this book is controversial, important, compelling. In a way I read this as a continuation of the consequentialist themes in Scott Alexander's Unsong. ( )

The kind of book you want to put into the hand of everyone you know. Can't recommend highly enough, has definitely made me seriously reflect upon aspects of my life and my attitude towards charity. ( )