> The main point the article is making, that not all volunteers are providing a net positive, is an interesting one.
> "By volunteering I would be causing more harm than good, so the right thing to do is nothing."
The right thing to do, as she actually points out in passing in the first part of the article, would be to do what you're good at and send the money to a competent organization.
I remember the Red Cross writing something similar, that basically boiled down to "please stop sending us supply, give us money instead - by sending items you're making our logistics much, much more complicated and deprive the economy of people who need our aid from the money that we'd introduce if we bought stuff locally".
> "By volunteering I would be causing more harm than good, so the right thing to do is nothing."
The right thing to do, as she actually points out in passing in the first part of the article, would be to do what you're good at and send the money to a competent organization.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/65/money_the_unit_of_caring/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...
I remember the Red Cross writing something similar, that basically boiled down to "please stop sending us supply, give us money instead - by sending items you're making our logistics much, much more complicated and deprive the economy of people who need our aid from the money that we'd introduce if we bought stuff locally".