Reddit mentions: The best volunteer work books

Peace Corps used to have a bunch of books that were collections of Peace Corps essays.

At Home in the World

Peace Corps: The Great Adventure, 1997

Peace Corps: The Great Adventure, 1999

Peace Corps: The Great Adventure, 2002

Peace Corps: To Touch the World

From the Center of the Earth: Stories Out of the Peace Corps

One Hand Does Not Catch a Buffalo: 50 Years of Amazing Peace Corps Stories: Volume One: Africa

Gather the Fruit One by One: 50 Years of Amazing Peace Corps Stories: Volume Two: The Americas

Even the Smallest Crab Has Teeth: 50 Years of Amazing Peace Corps Stories: Volume Four: Asia and the Pacific

A Small Key Opens Big Doors: 50 Years of Amazing Peace Corps Stories: Volume Three: The Heart of Eurasia

Plus there are tons of memoirs about one person's experiences, like Living Poor: A Peace Corps Chronicle and Nine Hills to Nambonkaha: Two Years in the Heart of an African Village

Good reading!

> Why even have your own charity if you're going to funnel to other charities. By time it gets to people what is left?

To answer this, it is quite common for one non profit to be focused on the raising of money for a related cause. They both raise and then research the best way for that money to be distributed by doing the necessary analysis of the programs in that areas, and then go on to fund them. By donating to their fund you are trusting that they will do the best job in this endeavour.

It makes sense because companies like MAC are not equipped to actually handle AIDS related issues. They are very well equipped to handle fundraising for AIDS related issues.

What is funny is your complaint against MAC of "why even have your own charity if you're going to funnel to other charities. By time it gets to people what is left?" is exactly what the Clinton Foundation doesn't do. They are both well equipped to raise money and create and implement successful programs. They still give grants to other programs as well, so they are a unique foundation in the philanthropic world.


I would recommend to you the book "Doing Good Better" by William MacAskill. He does a fantastic explanation of how normal people can analyze programs and charities and how we can utilize small amounts of donated money to do the most amount of good. Easy read, very compelling and challenges the way most people blindly donate.

> If I weren’t out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity—because you can hardly mention anything I’m not curious about. -Malcolm X


Most Helpful For Me:

-The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho (Fiction)


Uplifting Inspiration:

-Life Lines: Holding On (and Letting Go) (Beacon Press)

-The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine ($0.99 ebook)

-The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ($0.99 ebook; Beacon Press)

-A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power by former Pres. Jimmy Carter

-How Should We Live?: Great Ideas from the Past for Everyday Life

-The Art of InterGroup Peace (Free PDF ebook.)

-Place, Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America (Speaks of the pitfalls of college affirmative action, yet, the lessons apply beyond that as well; Beacon Press.)


Philanthropy/Social Enterprises:

-The Moral Measure of the Economy

-To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India (Buddhist-inspired governing/economics; Beacon Press)

-A Force for Good: The Dalai Lama's Vision for Our World

-Our Day to End Poverty: 24 Ways You Can Make a Difference

-The Power of Partnership: Seven Relationships that Will Change Your Life

-Toxic Charity: How the Church Hurts Those They Help and How to Reverse It

-Charity Detox: What Charity Would Look Like If We Cared About Results by the author of Toxic Charity

-Inspired Philanthropy: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Creating a Giving Plan and Leaving a Legacy


Self-Care:

-Trauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others

-This Is Where You Belong: The Art and Science of Loving the Place You Live

-Everyday Spiritual Practice: Simple Pathways for Enriching Your Life (Skinner House Books)


Children:

-Critical Lessons: What our Schools Should Teach

-Mind in the Making: The Seven Essential Life Skills Every Child Needs

-Three Key Years: Talk - Read - Play - Sing To Support & Help Every Child in America (Free PDF ebook.)


Nature/Wildlife:

-The Ten Trusts: What We Must Do to Care for The Animals We Love by Jane Goodall & Marc Bekoff

-The Souls of Animals by UU Rev. Gary Kowalski

-Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature

It sounds like there are a couple issues here - the disturbing dream itself, and maybe some more general worries that the dream represents.

For dealing with the dream itself, have him try thinking about what he WANTS to dream about right before he goes to sleep. The more he worries about this dream coming back, the more likely it is to come back; but the more he can replace it with another mental image, the more likely it is that will start showing up in his dreams instead.

If he's worried about these issues in the real world as well, it might help to remind him of all the good people out there working to make things better - and that he can be part of the solution too. He might enjoy some books like Heroes of the Environment and Kids Who Are Changing the World, which feature people and their ideas that are making a difference; books like Be a Changemaker and The Teen Guide to Global Action might help him think about how he could get involved in a cause he cares about. Remind him that he has unique talents to contribute to the world, and that he's not alone - there are millions of good people working every day to make the world a better place. The media shows us all the bad things happening in the world, but for every bad thing there are millions of ordinary, every-day good things happening that don't make the news. (Might check out this link for tips about discussing world events in the news too). I think the goal is to empower him to feel like he's part of a huge team of people around the world working to solve these problems - he's not alone in his fears and concerns, and it's not hopeless.

Since you mentioned in a comment that he was reading up on strategies to help deal with emotions, I'll recommend What to do When You're Scared or Worried. You might also encourage him to try some mindfulness exercises, which would be helpful both during the day and when he's going to sleep.

The importance of voting is captured well in Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better, where he makes an argument about using expected value to determine the importance of low probability events. When considering low probability events, you must consider both the small chances of making a positive difference and the impact of that small chance of success in order to determine whether an action is worthwhile.

===

Consider betting. Someone gives you a bet to put down $10 for either:

• a 5% chance to win $500
  
  or
  
  
• a 50% chance to win $40
  
  Which do you choose? The consensus approach of professionals in fields with uncertain outcomes is to use expected value, which is essentially thinking about how to weigh average outcomes. A 5% chance means you win 5 out of 100 times on average. This means you lose $10 95 times = $950 and you win $500 5 times = $2500. So, on average, you win $1550 if you take this bet 100 times. This means on average you will win $15.50 dollars taking this bet once. This is the expected value of the first bet.
  
  ===
  
  With the other bet, you lose $10 50 times out of 100. So if you take this bet 100 times, you lose $10 50 times = $500, and you gain $40 50 times = $2000. Therefore you gain $1500 on average by taking this bet 100 times. Thus on average you win $15 dollars on average by taking this bet once. This is the expected value of the second bet.
  
  ===
  
  Because $15.50<$16, according to expected value, you should take the first bet. In these cases you had to give up $10 every time you wanted to take a bet. In the examples of voting or climate change, however, the costs are significantly less relative to the expected value of a positive or negative outcome, respectively.
  
  ===
  
  This is an excerpt from the book:
  
  
  ===
  
  > [page 83]
  
  > "The authors of the comprehensive accident management plan [for the Fukushima nuclear plant] were correct that the probability of a catastrophe occurring was very small. However, they didn't think correctly about how they should deal with that probability. They assimilated "very small" to zero and promptly forgot all about it. Their mistake was failing to consider that if a catastrophe happens at a nuclear power plant, the costs are huge-- in this case, more than a thousand deaths. Even though the chance of this catastrophe was small, it was clearly worth taking substantial safety precautions.
  
  > The Fukushima safety engineers were trying to prevent harm with their safety assessment, and they failed by ignoring an important but low-probability event. In just the same way, when trying to do good, we need to be sensitive both to the likelihood of success and to the value of that success. This means that low-probability high-payoff activities can take priority over sure bets of more modest impact. It also shows that people are often confused when they say that "one person can't make a difference". Voting provides a vivid illustration.
  
  ===
  
  He then goes on to say that casting an individual vote, calculated by Nate Silver an other notable statisticians to have on average a 1 in 60 million chance of swaying the election (these odds vary widely state to state), has an expected value of about $5,200 to the people of the United States based on some fairly conservative estimates.
  
  
  ===
  
  He applies the same argument to climate change. Even if you believe that there is only a 1% chance that climate change is at least partially caused by humanity, it is still worth acting on when you think in terms of expected value-- that is, weighing that small chance with the incredible damage of the event.
  

!!!!!

Well, if it's a local issue, there is an elaborate, but thin, set of skills that are required to pull this off. I was confused at first, because I thought you were referring to a generic "national" issue, which is, while important, totally off-the-table. (But then again, this is /r Lostgen)

The primary thing I would consider is

• Who is the decision maker that is needed to be persuaded?
  
• What would it take for that person to be persuaded?
  
• ...and if the person won't negotiate, then what kind of "stick" can you poke at him to persuade him.
  
  I have as much expectations about Americans in politics as do Children in politics, so people get "shocked" when it is stated openly.
  
  But one of the things to consider is that if a party isn't coming to the table to negotiate, that nonviolent repercussions are necessary to encourage negotiation.
  
  For instance, doing the stuff of the Civil Rights movement in 1963 would get you locked up in 2015 still, but we encourage the former while condemning the latter.
  
  Momentum is useless; contact information is what is valuable. Everytime you get a phone number, consider that a follower + 3-7 sympathizers.
  
  If people show up at a meeting, and are enthused, that means nothing to me, other then I picked a good place to do a speech.
  
  But if I have contact information....
  
  ...let me put it this way. I worked in DC for a bit, and it takes about ~12 dedicated people to control a district of 550,000 people. These people then network with networks, until they are capable of getting the congressman elected.
  
  Furthermore, it doesn't take a tremendous amount of work to pull this off, but again, the average american isn't even CAPABLE of admitting the need for leadership, so the Dem and Reps are "the one eyed leading the blind."
  
  There are so many question marks, my mind is racing, but I would think of it this way.
  
  
• Build a solid core of "organizers."
  
• Have those organizers create a network between "interest groups"
  
• Find a clear objective with a clear "opposition" to that goal, and get them to agree to that demand.
  
  Fuck. If you do those three things at a larger and larger scope, you form an entire political appartus, and get a footnote in history.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Building-Powerful-Community-Organizations-Personal/dp/0977151808
  
  Get this book. I wish I had known you were referring to local issues, then I would have given an entirely different set of answers. "Protesting" means something different then Organizing.

POLITICS:

• • For something a bit more specific, to get a feel for what Chinese politics can look like in all it's specificity, I'd recommend The Politics of Compassion by Bin Xu. It's fascinating look at one of the worst natural disasters so far experienced this century; the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. One of China's poorest provinces, it was the least prepared to deal with the kind of disaster which befell it. Over 90,000 people died. In it's wake, a massive, national movement to assist the survivors swept into the province alongside state officials. Different groups and peoples from across the country worked hand in hand. It was not just China, but humanity at it's best. Soon, however, uncomfortable questions started to get posed. How could so many buildings simply collapse? Why was the initial response so fumbling? As the issue of corruption started to rear it's head, and civic activism started to appear like civic opposition (and under the conditions of a massive economic crisis, no less), the CCP moved to quash the political reverberations. Xu's account is told with great humanity and an even hand, and is half sociological analysis, half narrative.
  
  
• • I know this is getting pretty damn long, so the the final book I'll recommend is A Death in the Lucky Holiday Hotel by Pin Ho. If you want to read one book about elite Chinese politics, read this one. Basically, it's a look at the rise, and fall, of Bo Xilai. Bo was a handsome princeling in the style of JFK, the son of Revolutionary hero, former mayor of a hardscrabble city in that northern Rust Belt I'd mentioned. He then went on to become Secretary of Chonqing province - a sprawling megapolis in Southwest China which had seen exceptional economic growth. Chonqing was the poster child for the growth story of the 2000s - once irrelevant, then home to a massive complex of American auto manufacturers, which shocked the city's economy into life - Bo's new turf was promising for an ambitious politician. Bo Xilai himself was a neo-Maoist, championed by the Chinese New Left, who gained national prominence by using the funds from the '08 stimulus for systemic reforms (the so-called "Chonqing Model") and a bare-knuckles campaign against the powerful Triads who effectively ran large swathes of the city (not to mention the web of corruption around them). He was one of the 7 on the Politburo Standing Committee, and had a national base of support cultivated via his natural charisma and savvy use of the internet. But then it all came crashing down. In a byzantine factional struggle between Bo and Xi Jinping, a scandal broke which would end Bo's political career; it involved illegal capital flight, the murder of a British business man, and the vagaries of the Chinese court system. From the perspective of today, it appears as the first shot in Xi's ongoing anti-corruption drive - which is spilling over into global financial markets today.
  
  Seems like enough rant for today lmao. Hope that helps

For how to make moral decisions in the 21st century economic context see MacAskill's Doing Good Better.

It sounds like you're also looking for some certification of being "truly moral", avoiding guilt, and not being "an awful person". Well, as for the proper extent of sacrifice, there are two prevailing views:

• The pragmatic view, which says that you balance between the full indirect positive and negative outcomes of your choices. The actual amount of labor that goes into manufacturing a set of clothes is very small compared to the amount of benefit to the world you can provide by working harder, feeling better, looking like a decent person, etc, so the harm is justified. (tbqh, boycotts force child laborers into prostitution, but that's beside the general point)
  
• The permissive view, which says that we should only do good things up until the point where the personal costs are too high. So maybe I should take some simple, important steps to improve the world (like working on valuable projects at work, giving a third of my spare income to charity, going vegetarian) but I shouldn't radically change my lifestyle and identity on a daily basis with an intrusive set of rules or excessive frugality.
  
  If you still feel guilty and awful even after following either of these two paradigms, then you might have scrupulosity issues which philosophy isn't meant for solving. But most people are pretty comfortable and strong once they accept one of the paradigms, in my experience.

I'm just gonna slide in and hijack this thread...

If you think this is good (and you totally should), just wait until you hear about Effective Altruism (EA)! In essence, it's the idea that we should do the most good we can with the limited resources that we have, and in order to do the most good we need to rigorously evaluate the causes we donate to. GiveWell, probably the most notable EA charity evaluation site, recommends the Against Malaria Foundation as one of its top charities based on extensive research assessing the overall impact-per-dollar that donors can achieve.

If you'd like to learn more about EA, check out Giving What We Can and read about how much good you can do with your Monsanto/Koch/Illuminati shill bucks. And if you'd like to delve a little deeper, check out Dr William MacAskill's Doing Good Better, which makes a compelling case for evidence-based giving, and which challenges many orthodoxies about how to do good in the world, including a defense of the long-term positive impact of sweatshop labour.

I'm in a similar situation and stand to gain multiples of what I'd need to retire 30 years ahead of schedule in the next few years. I strongly recommend looking into "effective altruism." If you only "like" your job, maybe you and her would find more satisfaction in figuring out how to maximize your positive impact on the world. Start with this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660

I'd absolutely not continue working my current job if my current job didn't bring me a huge amount of fulfillment or was otherwise my highest and best use of time to "do good" in the world.

Take a year off to read, think, ponder, and then re-engage on your own terms in a thoughtful way. At least that's my plan.

As far as social pressure, I will continue to appear to be a productive member of society, be on various boards, have projects, volunteer, etc. As far as our friend group goes, they don't need to know the specifics of my situation. Social pressure solved.

> If I don't personally run around and organize an EVENT then no one will independently work in it.

This is, in a nutshell, every community garden ever. Every community garden I've ever encountered has one or two spark plugs at the top will make everything go. They are supported to varying degrees by people lower down in echelon, but ultimately a successful community garden is going to have a manager at the top of wants to get stuff done, and who insists upon it, and has the people skills to make it happen..

The best and most cohesive community gardens are those that are grouped around a central organization such as a church, scout troop, neighborhood watch group, and similar social units where people already have strong social bonds towards each other in the sense of cooperation. These are the most successful operations.

It's the ad hoc loosely organized gardens such as those composed o, for example, f people who happen to live in the same apartment complex that fail, since nobody wants to pull weeds in July, and nobody feels a sense of commitment towards the larger project as a whole.

So you want to know whether to give up. That is completely up to you. If you feel like you're flogging a dead horse, and you enjoy flogging dead horses, and keep going. If you feel like there's something worthwhile here other than flogging a dead horse, then keep going.

If you haven't read this book yet, it has some good insights. I receive no financial compensation for this, it's just a nifty book.

https://www.amazon.com/Start-Community-Food-Garden-Essential/dp/160469484X

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

Below is a link to one of the bigger studies that is often cited. I don't think it does justice to the full weight of the evidence and aggregated research that Brooks' book provides, but I do want to provide something to easily read for free:

https://www.philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#advanced

I've never seen a single study that has ever shown the opposite to be true, but I'd be open to reading what anyone knows about and can provide a link to. Again I want to help change OP's mind, but not based on false premises. I'm open to my mind being changed too!

These:

Citric Acid - Put a teaspoon in your dishwasher and your glasses will be bright and sparkly.

A Roku - Cut the cable bill and stream Amazon.

This Book - Simple and to the point. Follow them and you will achieve more

Flashlight - Everyone needs a good one

This Book - so you stop driving 80 in your neighborhood

This Book - Because I think you will like it based on a comment or two of yours

And buy a $79 Amazon Prime subscription so you get free streaming content for your Roku and free two day shipping for the rest.

Anything left over? Buy your sister something.

Yes it does, if enough people care and/or important people care.

There are a lot of businesses that have put a lot of effort recently into environmental sustainability since it's a "popular" thing to do. It's popular precisely because people care.

If you go through your whole life with a defeatist attitude like that, then you're right, you'll never make a difference.

I highly recommend this book if you're interested in understanding what complexity theory (a.k.a. chaos theory) says about individuals enacting change in society.

Congratulations, and thank you for giving back to the BSA.
My recommendations:

• Show up as often as possible, in uniform
  
• Learn to "step back and let the scouts fail" so they can learn to succeed. (This is really a much harder lesson to learn than it seems)
  
• Get your BSA training. (It's honestly not all that great training, but it's a great opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders)
  
• Go to roundtables/district meetings (again, to talk to other leaders)
  
• Read "The Scoutmaster's Other Handbook."
  
• Listen to Clarke Green's podcast.
  
• Consider WoodBadge in about a year or so (after you've gotten used to the leadership position).

There's a series called "50 Years of Amazing Peace Corps Stories" that's really good.

• One Hand Does Not Catch a Buffalo (Africa)

• Gather the Fruit One by One (The Americas)

• A Small Key Opens Big Doors (Eurasia)

• Even the Smallest Crab Has Teeth (Asia and the Pacific)

Read the comments.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

The relationship between ideology and donations is spurious.

Religious people tend to be conservative.

Religious people also give to charity.

So, if it looks like more conservatives give to charity, it's because they're religious, not because they're conservative.

In fact, religious liberals are similar to religious conservatives when it comes to charitable giving.

I would say no. I would recommend this book instead: "Doing Good Better" https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660/

Easier read and meant for a general audience. What we owe each other is pretty dense.

The field is very new so there aren't that many resources out there. Here are a few books I would like to recommend for getting to know the field:

Building Social Business

How to Change the World

I am in the process of learning and developing the skill-set for the field as well. If you are really interested, we can share what we learned through reddit.

Also, this makes a fairly unassailable case that more charity exists than welfare now, and that's long after states have dissolved mutual aid societies, charity hospitals, and food co-ops as they once were.

I don't have data on hand, but no reasonable person would claim that less well intentioned but mistaken redistributive programs would mean less charity. I'd say pretty much everyone would be forced to take the initial guess that it would be more charity in that case, not less. There's more held by people to be given away, and no pretending that an authority will take of it instead the people.

I mean, I'm an atheist, and a generous one .. so this book clearly makes me uncomfortable. People like me in most ways are not as generous as I am, for some reason. Your book explains the overarching reason. This one explains the individual data.

If you "stopped reading" at where I said "leftist," then you would have never made it to the part where I talked about the GOP. How are you going to let me catch you in a blatant lie within your first sentence, lol.

What I was referring to in that statement was the book called Who Really Cares which was written by a liberal who wanted to research which states, conservative or liberal, gave more to charitable organizations. Spoiler alert, to the liberal author's dismay, nearly all of the top 30 states that contributed to charity and the poor were conservative states. The author infers that, because liberal (leftist, really) states believe that the government should take care of everyone, they don't actually donate as much or contribute to charity. In other words, they are all talk but truly do not care about others. I thought it was worth mentioning because it's another phony aspect of leftists on how they pretend to be "compassionate to human life" yet give less to charity and want to murder unborn (and born) babies. You can read the book yourself here: https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Who+Really+Cares&qid=1557952596&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Doing Good Better by William MacAskill is a book all about how to use your time and money to do the most good. It's a practical book written by a pragmatic writer who was one of the forerunners of the effective altruism movement.

It's a must read in my opinion.

Think you mean Doing Good Better by the author of the OP article. Great book.

I second this. They take the effective altruism stance to making a difference, and choosing your career accordingly. In addition to the 80,000 hours website, I recommend the book Doing Good Better, by Will MacAskill.

edit: fixed link; not good at mobile

Check out All You Need Is Love by Elizabeth Cobbs-Hoffman. It is a decent history of the Peace Corps and gives a fair representation of what they're trying to do and how well they've done it from their inception to the present.

I would recommend researching community organizing strategies. I recommend this book by Linda Stout as well as this one to develop a foundational understanding of what is necessary to launch a successful campaign. You also want to be sure that you don't become competitive with other groups advocating for the same goal but develop complementary strategies.

For anyone who lives in the South Loop/Dearborn Park or is just interested in local history, I'd recommend this book: At Home in the Loop. CPL has copies as well.

http://www.amazon.com/At-Home-Loop-Community-Chicagos/dp/B005Q7GD6M

There's a really good book called Doing Good Better that talks about where to put your money to have the most impact. iirc, he's behind GiveWell, which ranks charities.

This is one of the most supportive groups I've ever seen. Studies have shown that conservatives donate about 30% more than liberals do; I suggest a book called "Who Really Cares" https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

There is a lot of work being done in this area at the moment.

Here's a good book to read on the subject:-

https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660

Or a video by the same chap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qslo4-DpzPs

And their work...

http://www.givewell.org/

It's an argument for utilitarianism ultimately, and if you believe that's the way to go, then just go with their current best pick.

https://www.againstmalaria.com/

Ah, yeah, I did see that Kristof op/ed. I don't necessarily agree with some of his conclusions but it was still an interesting read, and he does make the point that it's more complicated than it seems.

Also, Kristof cites the 2006 book Who Really Cares, which makes the argument that conservatives tend to donate more to charitable causes than liberals and where, I suspect, Takuwind is basing their claim on. I'd have to read the book to have a meaningful opinion on it, although I do want to point out that an academic paper published in 2013 disputes some of the findings in the book.

Never read it, but if you can find a PDF might be an interesting read:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

Doing good better

Beliefnet mentions the book and the research, so I linked to it.

Would you be happier with just an Amazon link to the book and no detail?

Here's a direct link to the 1996 General Social Survey also mentioned.

I suggest the book "who really cares?" for further reading and to be able to defend yourself in debates like this in future.

Ah yeah, here it is

Not totally clear what you are looking for. But a couple of general options for you:

• Book on starting a community garden - deals with logistics
  
• An organization that helps families on foodstamps to grow gardens
  
  

And that is a lie. And you know it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

http://rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals-versus-conservatives-how-politics-affects-charitable-giving/

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

> Consider ethical consumption, like switching to fair-trade coffee, or reducing how much meat you buy. Suppose someone stops buying chicken breasts, instead choosing vegetarian options, in order to reduce the amount of animal suffering on factory farms. Does that person make a difference? You might think not. If one person decides against buying chicken breast one day but the rest of the meat eaters on the planet continue to buy chicken, how could that possibly affect how many chickens are killed for human consumptions? When a supermarket decides how much chicken to buy, they don't care that one fewer breast was purchased on a given day. However, if thousands or millions of people stopped buying chicken breasts, the number of chickens raised for food would decrease-- supply would fall to meet demand. But then we're left with a paradox: individuals can't make a difference, but millions of individuals do. But the actions of millions of people are just the sum of the actions of many individual people. Moreover, an iron law of economics is that, in a well-functioning market, if demand for a product decreases, the quantity of the product that's supplied decreases. How, then, can we reconcile these thoughts?

> The answer lies with expected value. If you decline to buy some chicken breast, then most of the time you'll make no difference: the supermarket will buy the same amount of chicken in the future. Sometimes, however, you will make a difference. Occasionally, the manager of the store will assess the number of chicken breasts bought by consumers and decide to decrease their intake of stock, even thought they wouldn't have done so had the number of chicken breasts bought been one higher. (Perhaps they follow a rule like: "If fewer than five thousand chicken breasts were bought this month, decrease stock intake.") And when that manager does decide to decrease their stock intake, they will decrease stock by a large amount. Perhaps your decision against purchasing chicken breast will have an effort on the supermarket only one in a thousand times, but in that one time, the store manager will decide to purchase approximately one thousand fewer chicken breasts.

> This isn't just a theoretical argument. Economists have studied this issue and worked out how, on average, a consumer affects the number of animal products supplied by declining to buy that product. They estimate that, on average, if you give up one egg, total production ultimately falls by 0.91 eggs; if you give up one gallon of milk, total production falls by 0.56 gallons. Other products are somewhere in between: economists estimate that if you give up one pound of beef, beef production falls by 0.68 pounds; if you give up one pound of pork, production ultimately falls by 0.74 pounds; if you give up one pound of chicken, production ultimately falls by 0.76 pounds."

From Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better

The point is that if you buy that product, they will order more. Not 100% of the moeny goes to the slaughter house or the farm, obviously, but if you buy it it increases demand and they will restock more.

To quote Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better!

>[page 87]
"On many issues, I find that people hold the following two views:
If many people did this thing, then change would happen.
But any individual person doesn't make a difference.
Holding that combination of views is usually a mistake when we consider expected value.
Consider ethical consumption, like switching to fair-trade coffee, or reducing how much meat you buy. Suppose someone stops buying chicken breasts, instead choosing vegetarian options, in order to reduce the amount of animal suffering on factory farms. Does that person make a difference? You might think not. If one person decides against buying chicken breast one day but the rest of the meat eaters on the planet continue to buy chicken, how could that possibly affect how many chickens are killed for human consumptions? When a supermarket decides how much chicken to buy, they don't care that one fewer breast was purchased on a given day. However, if thousands or millions of people stopped buying chicken breasts, the number of chickens raised for food would decrease-- supply would fall to meet demand. But then we're left with a paradox: individuals can't make a difference, but millions of individuals do. But the actions of millions of people are just the sum of the actions of many individual people. Moreover, an iron law of economics is that, in a well-functioning market, if demand for a product decreases, the quantity of the product that's supplied decreases. How, then, can we reconcile these thoughts?
The answer lies with expected value. If you decline to buy some chicken breast, then most of the time you'll make no difference: the supermarket will buy the same amount of chicken in the future. Sometimes, however, you will make a difference. Occasionally, the manager of the store will assess the number of chicken breasts bought by consumers and decide to decrease their intake of stock, even thought they wouldn't have done so had the number of chicken breasts bought been one higher. (Perhaps they follow a rule like: "If fewer than five thousand chicken breasts were bought this month, decrease stock intake.") And when that manager does decide to decrease their stock intake, they will decrease stock by a large amount. Perhaps your decision against purchasing chicken breast will have an effort on the supermarket only one in a thousand times, but in that one time, the store manager will decide to purchase approximately one thousand fewer chicken breasts.
This isn't just a theoretical argument. Economists have studied this issue and worked out how, on average, a consumer affects the number of animal products supplied by declining to buy that product. They estimate that, on average, if you give up one egg, total production ultimately falls by 0.91 eggs; if you give up one gallon of milk, total production falls by 0.56 gallons. Other products are somewhere in between: economists estimate that if you give up one pound of beef, beef production falls by 0.68 pounds; if you give up one pound of pork, production ultimately falls by 0.74 pounds; if you give up one pound of chicken, production ultimately falls by 0.76 pounds."

The point is that by continuing to purchase it it is keeping up demand. Where exactly each dollar you spend goes is besides the point.