This conversation is closed.

Can world-changing projects be crowdfunded? (Aka, why don't people donate?)

The internet offers the opportunity to connect a large number of people, for a common cause. If these people each contribute a small amount of money, you have crowdfunding. Crowdfunding has been used successfully to support independent bands, startup companies, and business/humanitarian projects in the developing world. But what about crowdfunding something really big? Renting the whole Amazon rainforest for instance (to protect it from logging)? Or saving tigers from extinction in the wild? Or supplying the entire developing world with efficient cooking facilities (to reduce harmful soot emissions)?

A big obstacle, to any such scheme, is that people often agree a cause is worthy, but do not give any of their own cash towards it. Why do we act that way?

- Is it because we’re conditioned to avoid giving? (E.g. “Don’t give to the homeless man, it will only make him dependent on charity”)
- Is it because, to give to one cause, would feel like an admission that we should be giving to all of them?
- Is it because we feel unsure of how well our donation would be used? (Or is this just an excuse?)
- Is it because we put our own affluence ahead of the causes we espouse?
- Is it because many worthy causes are seen as issues “owned” by particular groups at the left-most end of the political spectrum, alienating those genuinely caring people who happen to have different political views?

I don’t know. But I do know that if we could make large-scale crowd funding work, it could be our best tool to change the world – unencumbered by the hidebound caution of our elected leaders, driven only by the passion of ordinary people.

For a cause you believed in, would you donate to large-scale crowdsourcing? Why or why not?

  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: Well, for one thing, when you donate to a cause, you start getting bombarded with requests to continue donating. That can get tiresome.
    • Jan 20 2013: I think most causes make a mistake, when they ask for one-off donations. Those with world-changing goals should ask for monthly recurring donations: you sign up once, and each month a small amount (say $10) gets charged to your credit card. To what extent would that address the concern you raise?
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: Thank you, Leo. It's a great idea except I hesitate to provide my credit card number because of fear of identity theft. Also what if the organization counted on your money and then you wanted to stop, would they put you through hell?
  • Jan 22 2013: Interesting thread! empowers people to advance new medical treatments by bringing leading medical researchers and private donors together via crowdfunding!

    CureLauncher puts the most money into new treatments and connects people to leading medical researchers who are saving lives. Each person chooses where their donation is used and 91% of that money goes directly to advancing the treatment.

    Yesterday (Jan 21st) CureLauncher was featured on Stupid Cancer talk show in New York. Here is a link:

    Transparency, power of choice and clinical trials lists are some of the benefits!!!

    Awesome organization powered by people who really care about advancing treatments to ultimately find cures for those in need!!!
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2013: Multinationals can donate to world-changing projects via crowdfunding; and money comes with conditions. Sometimes it is not just about putting money down for a project, its about actually believing in it.
  • Jan 19 2013: There are already a few crowd-funding websites of that sort. Kickstarter ( is one of the more famous ones. For example, they have many projects related to food ( that require funding.

    If you like one of the proposed projects, donate! If you have a good idea, the means to execute it, and are only lacking funding to start it, apply, and describe your project.
    • Jan 19 2013: Have they funded any really big problems? (Billions of dollars, rather than tens or hundreds of thousands?)

      For some things, such as Fritzie's examples below, organisations with the means to execute the idea are already well established, so I presume they can't go on Kickstarter. But, they are not getting ENOUGH support to really change the world.
      • Jan 20 2013: As for Kickstarter, depends on what expectations you have to qualify for "really change the world".

        In any case, charity is not a new concept. Even historically, charities have addressed many different scales of needs, including billions of $. "Crowd-funding" is just a newfangled term for it.
        • Jan 20 2013: True. The concept is not new. My question was intended to be specifically about mass-participation, large-scale crowdfunding. The kind of thing where, odds are, most people in your street would be contributing. I don't think it's ever happened before on that scale, and I wonder why not. Especially given that most people are indeed concerned (to some degree) about the world's major problems. Why doesn't that concern translate into near-universal support for charities? An more importantly, what could be done to create such support?
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2013: People do join with others every day and week in funding such projects! The Amazon Rainforest may not be offered up for rent, but, just as one example, the Nature Conservancy uses what you might call crowdsourced funding to buy coral reefs and other lands to protect them from exploitation. I don't want to point to particular organizations, but in terms of tigers have you looked at organizations like the World Wildlife Fund that "crowdfund" in this way?

    There are so many as well as services that will tell you how much of the finding collected actually goes to the purpose and how much is retained for administration and publicity of opportunities to crowdfund.
    • Jan 19 2013: Good point. I should clarify that my question is not about the existence of such organisations, but about whether their support can be grown to a massive scale. For instance, 2010 annual revenue of WWF was about $700 million and about $500 million for the Nature Conservancy. Global total spending on conservation has been estimated at $10 billion annually (including government aid), but the REQUIRED annual spending, to halt human-induced extinctions, is estimated at around 10 times that figure!

      Tellingly, the necessary 100 billion could be raised if every citizen of the OECD countries gave only $10 per month.

      In other words, while excellent organisations exist, like those you mention, the average man or woman in the street is NOT donating to them. Perhaps I should rephrase my question as, how can we make donating to significant causes the norm, rather than the exception, amongst citizens of the developed world?
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2013: One piece of data to look for is the correlation between charitable giving and either economic indicators or confidence. Data shows that in the US giving, both nominally and as a proportion of income, increases with income.
        I don't know how the data look for other countries.
        Another important dimension is accountability by organizations that collect money so people are confident that what they contribute is used for what they expect rather than for administration. I assume organizations that rate well on the sites that provide this information for large numbers of charities do better than those that don't.

        I think you are right that most people realize they cannot contribute to every worthwhile cause. One family may prioritize conservation spending while another focuses on education for girls.

        While some people have an ideological stand against charity, my guess is that this position is held by only a minority of people- that most believe in giving to some causes that are most important to them, either through volunteering, sharing, or giving. There is probably research on this point, but I have not searched for it.
        • Jan 20 2013: I suspect "accountability" is one of those things that many people (myself included for many years) use to justify their decision to give nothing. But it's a red herring: why refrain from giving $10 because you're not sure whether $6, $7, $8 or $9 of it will reach the final destination. No matter what the answer, it will still be more more than if you give NOTHING!

          As for research, Americans (always the easiest group to find stats on) give just slightly under $1000 per person per year, on average. The largest share of that giving, at about 33%, goes to religious organisations (typically the giver's own place of worship). The smallest share goes to Animals and the Environment, at only 3%. So, while I take your point that some people (perhaps Americans in particular) do indeed willingly give away money, I would question their choices about which charities to give to. The world's biggest problems seem to lie in the area to which the least is given: animals and the environment.

          Am I really saying that people should give more to the environment, possibly at the expense of churches? I would point out that all the world's religions have been around for thousands of years - not one of them is about to die out. But tigers, pandas and blue whales are! Surely we should invest a greater proportion of our giving to those efforts that will prevent irreversible loss. And surely, if you believe those creatures were created by a creator, that's all the more reason to make sure that we don't destroy what he has created. Isn't it obvious what His priorities are, if the Creator put into the natural world thousands of amazing species but, strangely, not a single cathedral?
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: I don't think accountability is a red herring. It affects the organizations to which people will donate and causes many to prefer to give in kind (like giving food to a food bank) rather than giving cash.

        You know what your priority is for charitable giving. Others may choose differently.
        • Jan 20 2013: Do you think questions around accountability, instead of affecting _which_ organisation a person gives to, may lead that person to decide not to give at all?
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: As I have not researched this specifically, my response can only be speculation. My speculation is that monetary donations could be reduced in favor of in-kind donations and that the volume of monetary donations could be less because of worries about accountability than they would otherwise. I doubt that the fact that some organizations are not good stewards would prevent people who are inclined to give to refrain from giving to anyone.

        Researching the question would probably be enlightening.
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2013: Am I correct to assume the new term "crowd-sourcing" includes only free-will offerings as distinct from taxes?
    • Jan 19 2013: correct.
    • Jan 19 2013: Correct. (Although widespread taxation for worthy causes might be another way to solve global problems, although I suspect that might be even harder to achieve than donations from individuals).
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2013: I suspect many average Joe-bag-o-donuts types, like me, consider the taxes taken from our paychecks are being used to fund "worthy causes" and "world-changing projects" and we are, therefore, not motivated to take some of what remains, if any, and donate it. That's why I asked about taxes being considered to be crowd-funding.
        • Jan 20 2013: Fantastic, your viewpoint is exactly one of the ones that I'm trying to understand! :-) Are you happy with what the government is doing with your money? Is there any major issue which you care about, and which you feel the government is not doing enough about? Would you give, say, $10 per month towards that issue, over and above your taxes - if you knew that most other people in your country would also do the same?
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: Whoever constructed the term "crowd-funding" made a mistake by excluding taxes. The seminal, prototype of funding by the masses is taxes. What we end-up with is a new version of fund raising added to Girl Scout cookies, panhanding, selling pencils, telemarketing, the Fireman's Ball, and infomercials. As the amount collected increases so does the amount actually spent on the declared purpose decrease. This is because of administrative costs, graft, corruption, stealing, and misappropriation. So, no, I would not trust a crowd-funded multi-billion dollar enterprise any further than I could throw it. :-(
        • Jan 20 2013: What if there was no "one organisation"? Returning to Fritzie's examples of conservation organisations, what tens of billions were donated every year to such organisations, but you, as the individual donor, got to choose which one received your money? (And you gave it directly to your chosen organisation, no middle-man.)

          I imagine a "market" of conservation services, in which organisations such as WWF and Nature Conservancy compete for your donation. The competition will keep them honest, and hedge the worlds bets, since each will take a somewhat different approach from the other. The ones that appeal most to donors get the most funding (which I would argue is a better model that we give our money to the government in taxes and then our elected representatives argue amongst themselves about what to do with it).

          (As Fritzie pointed out, all of the above exists today. My point is that it needs to be scaled up by a factor of about 50, if it is to actually meet its potential, to really make a difference, )