everybody wants to fix the world

on doing good, doing it right, and the many models to create an impact

1. young, spirited, and ready to fix the world!

we’re trying to not be a hater on this curation today. but we need to talk about doe-eyed, most often white and privileged, young people trying to fix the Third World. we’ve definitely come a long way from catholic missionaries in africa providing ‘education’ to the backward, but how much of modern-day activism is well-intentioned, and when does it start going into obnoxious posturing?¹

And, to be sure, a lot of those grads are doing powerful work. But a lot of them, let’s be real, are not. They’re making big mistakes — both operationally and culturally — in countries they aren’t familiar with. They’re solving problems for people, rather than with, replicating many of the mistakes that the world’s largest development agencies make on a much smaller scale. They drop technology without having a training or maintenance plan in place, or try to shift cultural norms without culturally appropriate educational materials or trusted messengers. Or they’re spending the majority of their days speaking about the work on the conference circuit, rather than actually doing it.

this is a good piece that also gets into some recommendations on how to do good by leaning into systems complexity, as opposed to looking for quick fixes.

CLICK HERE: The Reductive Seduction of Other People's Problems

and hey it isn’t just individuals²; another excerpt:

---

2. if only the richest were doing the goodest

billionaires can be polarising. once upon a time, elon musk said he could end world hunger (money-wise, the math adds up) and do better than the world food programme. he dropped that, obviously. all billionaires are evil but some are more evil than others? or does the benevolent type, a ratan-tata-esque persona, well and truly exist?

I don’t know if I believe the sentiment about the impossibility of a moral billionaire, and the cultural differences between an American and an Indian billionaire are vast. But these questions are the conundrum at the heart of this exercise. Does the very existence of these individuals preclude them from moral authority? Or is it in the way they show and use their wealth? Is the only way to justify being a billionaire using the wealth in quiet ways?

CLICK HERE: Can the Truly Moral Billionaire Please Stand Up?

---

3. so does any good thing i do even matter?

easy to feel jaded then, i know i often do. you’re not a billionaire so you can’t really eradicate poverty and you’re going to cause more harm if you start doling out charity handouts. how does one do any good then?

doing good may just come from…being good :)

Goodness is not powerless. It is patient, steady, and relentless. Gentleness is bold because it refuses to become what it stands against. Kindness is radical because it thrives in a world that tries to smother it. The loudest voices will fade, but the quiet work of care, connection, and courage last.

we show up, we express kindness, and we build connection. and that’s how we change the world?

I’ve also had to remind myself of this fact: Real lasting power doesn’t come from having a yacht with a smaller yacht inside it (a real thing, by the way).

Lasting change —the kind that actually shapes hearts and futures — still happens in the small, consistent acts of ordinary people.

Teachers. Librarians. Caregivers. Neighbors. Kids. People who do what’s right, not for money, not for status, but because it adds to the collective good of humanity.

History shows us that real, lasting change isn’t a single act.

this essay beautifully captures this hope <3

Goodness is Not Powerless

---

4. kindness makes the world go round

i wish i knew how to describe good poetry well, but you know how sometimes poems hand you an emotion and you already know what to feel after you read it? this one lets you travel. and explore. and then feel like you’ve come back home. it’s my favorite kind.

“we have so little of each other, now”. oof. just, oooof.

---

5. philanthropy is broken and it appears we do know a better model

we get into a little nerdy territory for our final article today. this is a marquee piece that talks about exactly why the global philanthropy model is broken³.

aid money has ballooned in the last few decades, with many human development indicators worsening. wealthy donors will always have conflicts of interest. they will lack lived experience. and will always be limited in so far as they try to replace the government’s role.

we know that cash transfers & universal basic income work:

Carnegie was also mistaken in assuming that his “poorer brethren” cannot be trusted to use cash wisely, as demonstrated by a growing body of research about unrestricted cash transfers (UCTs) and UBI. Since 2008, GiveDirectly has distributed $580 million in UCTs to 1.4 million people around the world and rigorously tracks the results. The recipients almost unanimously use the gifts wisely to improve their lives. Spending on “the indulgence of appetite” was nearly zero. Instead, randomized control trials of UCTs have shown improvements in savings, nutrition, education, and mental health, as well as reductions in stress levels, child marriages, teenage pregnancy, and domestic violence. And studies such as a randomized controlled trial of UBI in Stockton, California, have also shown that cash transfers enable “greater agency to explore new opportunities related to employment and caregiving.”

and we also know there is no meaningful philanthropy without policy change:

The government’s ability to expedite or derail social progress is also evident in comparisons between the cost effectiveness of philanthropy and lobbying. Annual philanthropic contributions vastly exceed political contributions and corporate lobbying: During the 2020 election cycle, philanthropy exceeded political contributions by a ratio of roughly 40:1. In 2022, for example, the US fossil fuel industry spent $180 million on federal lobbying and political contributions to preserve federal subsidies and obstruct climate-change regulations. In the same year, charitable contributions to nonprofits to combat climate change totaled $7.5 billion. But whose dollars had more impact?

this is a long piece, but one of the most comprehensive takes on proposing an alternative model, one that is focused on self-determination & empowerment. highly recommend even if you don’t work in this space.

CLICK HERE: Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong

---

i know i said we won’t try to be a hater today.

until next time & new reads!

🌻

~ rufus

1. you’re being rewarded for reading this footnote. i can’t believe this exists: https://humanitariansoftinder.com/

2. in fact, it would be irresponsible to not mention the incomparable grand-scale-fkery the World Bank / IMF created with their debt packages and forced liberalisation in emerging economies (i wonder if they were run by doe-eyed young lads too)

3. the recent cuts in USAID and UK Aid are still bad news, esp. for humanitarian efforts, but indeed an opportunity to re-imagine development assistance