You get to keep only enough to maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, the rest of it has to go towards improving the world in some way.

Edit: Given the previous rules that you must maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, would you rather choose to opt out and not have the money at all?

  • steeznson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I’d be hesitant to use the money to do anything political in my country. Have watched Musk throw around money during the last presidential election in the states and it’s not a good look.

    So that leaves some kind of charity. Charities benefit from economies of scale so it would be better to give more money to a single charity than to split it up amongst many charities. Probably would have to start my own since I don’t trust many of the existing ones (too much money going on executive pay). Pretty sure dysentery is the biggest killer worldwide so would put half into that, then maybe half into libraries in my country. Libraries are a bit of a selfish choice but they have a lot of social utility beyond just having books (by my own logic I should be putting it all into dysentery too).