Doing good isn\u2019t easy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s certainly not as easy as it frequently seems<\/a>. Donating to good causes doesn\u2019t necessarily lead to a better world, especially if the main drive is little more than a warm feeling. This is not infrequently the case with surface-level empathy-driven \u2018doing good.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, a warm feeling as the sole driver of doing good may easily lead to a negative balance. If the do-gooder is steeped in one (sub)culture and the recipient in another, things can quickly lead to paradoxical effects. The money then gets into the wrong hands, heightening corruption for instance, or worse, unknowingly breaking down cultural assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From my time as a young physician in a third-world setting, I share relevant experiences. That didn\u2019t make me a bad person, nor does it make others into \u2018bad people\u2019 who try to help with the best intentions \u2015 even if these intentions turn out wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A big however, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One needs to keep thinking.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A warm heart must be combined with a rational mind. Otherwise, it\u2019s dangerous. This is especially the case when \u2018depth\u2019 is involved, which frequently happens when transgressing (sub)cultures. The more they are mutually distinct, the bigger the challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, keep the warmth…<\/p>\n\n\n\n in combination with science and professionality.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In bringing together this threesome lies a huge challenge \u2015 no intrinsic contradiction. Each of the three is needed to make the other two realistic. One can see them as three subcultures (in any case, frequently behaving this way) that need to be combined in one profound synthesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just imagine two of them without the third, and take as an example any not strictly technological philanthropic project. Then bring back the third, and you may notice the strength it creates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is so more than anything in the case of in-depth philanthropy. I dare say AureLisa<\/a> is an example domain, hopefully soon in both ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Going for the end goal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With a profound philanthropic end goal, the road toward it may be varied, including capital from various sources \u2015 from crowd-funding and grants to venture and purely philanthropic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This needs the end goal to be extremely clear \u2015 even so, stormy weather is ahead. An additional challenge is that combining \u2018profound\u2019 and \u2018clear\u2019 makes things even more challenging. It just needs to be done, probably being the most crucial aspect of the endeavor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cooperation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You may have noticed this term in the subtitle. Surely, \u2018help\u2019 is also an applicable term, and gratitude is always beautiful. \u2018Cooperation\u2019 reveals there is no serious philanthropy without serious mutual responsibility, especially<\/em> in-depth. I hope this text has already helped you to see why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, in-depth philanthropy is specifically recommendable if it can keep projects more grassroots. I think social media \u2013 at least partly \u2013 are telling examples. Several social media could have made a more human-friendly (and less egotistical) impact by having more philanthropic roots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The philanthropist wants a better world. It is the recipient\u2019s responsibility to help make it so \u2015 not letting mere ego<\/a> stand in the way. A \u2018friend of humanity\u2019 should be precisely that, nothing less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asking for a donation<\/a> may then be a joy for all involved.<\/p>\n