Could I take a slightly different tack on this?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the objective is to increase donations to charity? So if, for example, this approach generated $1bn but only from people who would have donated anyway then the gain is zero.

The core questions that we are then addressing are: - how do we convince people to donate more to charity than they would without our intervention? - what stops people from donating the full amount that they would wish to, and how can we remove these barriers?

The first would be tackled by focusing on "marketing" - ie getting the message out there, influencing decision making etc. The second would be tackled by focusing on efficiency.

Clearly the Craigslist idea addresses both of these in its own way but making itself rapidly visible to a large number of people and allowing low effort donations.

I will leave the first item, marketing alone, as I do not feel well positioned to discuss the morals of using psychological techniques to influence increased altruism, and will leave this for others to debate.

For the second I would like to suggest that the Craigslist idea doesn't go far enough. (Being from the UK I have never heard of it!) The internet is entering our lives apace and on-line transactions are becoming a way of life. There cannot be too many processes more efficient than one requiring only a flick of the wrist and a couple of mouse clicks.

I would be interested to hear debate on the feasibility of a more centralised internet-enabled donation scheme funded by the charities themselves that could remove suspicion by gaining notoriety.

Although this is only a slight extension of the idea, image the success that could be generated if present on-line transactions allowed the option to round purchases to the next $1 and donate the difference.

Out of curiosity, are you an actuary?

Hi everyone.

My name is Alan Godfrey.

I am fascinated by rational debate and logical arguments, and I appear to have struck gold in finding this site! I am the first to admit my own failings in these areas but am always willing to learn and grow.

I'm a graduate of mathematics from Trinity Hall, Cambridge University and probability and statistics have always been my areas of expertise - although I find numbers so much more pleasant to play with than theorems and proofs so bear with me!

I'm also a passive member of Mensa. While most of it does not interest me the numerical, pattern spotting and spatial awareness puzzles that it is associated with have always been a big passion of mine.

I have a personal fascination in human psychology, especially my own in a narcissistic way! Although I have no skill in this area.

I currently work for a specialist insurance company and head the catastrophe modelling function, which uses a baffling mixture of all of the above! It was through this that I attended a brief seminar at the 21st Century School in Oxford which mentioned this site as an affiliation although I had already found it a few months previously.

I come to this site with open eyes and an open mind. I hope to contribute insightful observation, engage in healthy discussion and ultimately come away better than I came in.

The phrase "it's over" shouldn't be taken to mean that we can learn no new facts; rather that we cannot go back to a previous state of ignorance.

"As I once said to someone who questioned whether humans were really related to apes: "That question might have made sense when Darwin first came up with the hypothesis, but this is the twenty-first century. We can read the genes. Human beings and chimpanzees have 95% shared genetic material. It's over." "

I don't believe any scientist worth their lab-coat would ever use the phrase "It's over".

One of the central tenets of science is constant questioning and healthy skepticism. Statements which imply that 'since it's good enough to convince you it's the end of the debate' do not endear those of the scientific community to others.

I understand that leaving room for doubt and refusing to ever be 100% certain may be seen as a weakness that people can exploit, but these are the very principles that will make science stand the test of time and should not be casually discarded to remove short term hassle.

I will never let gut feeling blind me in the face of evidence and will always look at any new facts with an open mind - evolution or otherwise - and as a purveyor of such science I believe that it is your responsibility to do likewise.

I am quite surprised that more Karma functions do not track both the Up Votes and the Down Votes and display a running tally of each.

On a relative basis I would be far more interested in reading a post that has had 1,000 Up Votes and 999 Down Votes, than one which has had a single Up Vote.