filmov
tv
How a crypto emperor shook charity || William MacAskill || THE A TEAM
Показать описание
How a crypto emperor shook charity || William MacAskill || THE A TEAM
#englishexplanation
#theateam
#news
#today
#crypto
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
IDEA ~ AADITYA
PRODUCER ~ AKSHIT SAROHA
SPECIAL THANX ~ANURAG VAIDHWAN
LIKE SHARE AND COMMENTON OUR VIDEO
SUBSCRIBE OUR CHANNEL FOR MORE UPDATE
INFO ABOUT THIS VIDEO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The year is 2002. William MacAskill is an undergraduate student at Oxford and like most undergraduates, he’s loving life. He is downing beers, climbing roofs and playing the Saxophone in a funk band. You know, typical college student stuff!
But one day…everything changes.
MacAskill finds a paper from 1972 titled ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’. It’s written by an Australian ethical philosopher Peter Singer and has a simple premise — “If you have money, you have an obligation to donate and help those who are less fortunate.”
MacAskill is shaken! Reading the paper gives him just the clarity he needs to turn his life upside down and find a purpose.
He starts saving money instead of spending it on beer. He starts thinking deeply about wealth and equality. And 10 years later, he spearheads a movement called ‘Effective Altruism’ (EA) with a relatively simple goal — put money to the best use possible! He asks people to be more generous with their wealth. But unlike traditional charities, he wants their generosity to be effective. He wants them to adopt a rational and mathematical approach while resolving moral quandaries.
And the idea stuck.
At its core, EA looked at 3 key things.
How much good can you achieve by working on a problem
How solvable is the problem
How neglected is the cause
Let us give you an example.
Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge? It was all the rage back in 2014. You had to empty a bucket of ice water on your head, record the video and share it on social media nominating three other people to do the same thing. It wasn’t just a fun activity. It was meant to get people talking about a deadly neurodegenerative disease called ALS. And it worked. The Ice Bucket Challenge helped raise $115 million for ALS that year. People donated!
Sounds like a brilliant way to raise money for a worthwhile cause, no?
Well, an effective altruist would disagree. Quite vociferously, in fact.
You see, according to them, ALS already gets a lot of attention. It’s not entirely neglected. So it doesn’t satisfy point three. Also, developing a cure could take several years since progress has been slow. So it’s not easy to solve. There goes point 2. And you could argue that by donating more money to ALS, you’re depriving other more worthy causes of money.
And that’s not us speculating. Here’s what the co-founder of the effective altruism movement, William MacAskill, wrote in 2014: “The key problem is funding cannibalism. That $3 million in donations doesn’t appear out of a vacuum. Because people on average are limited in how much they’re willing to donate to good causes, if someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities.”
In his opinion, the Ice Bucket Challenge did more harm than good.
So, what does an effective altruist consider as a worthwhile cause then?
Well, there’s malaria.
Yup, as the official website of effective altruism put it, “The Against Malaria Foundation is one of the most effective global health charities in the world, and the single most common donation target for EA Survey respondents (as of 2018).”
Why’s that?
Well, there’s the humanitarian element — 450,000 people die from malaria each year. And 70% of deaths occur in children under the age of 5.
So, how can money effectively save lives?
Just $2 can buy a mosquito net. And using a net can reduce malaria cases by 50%!!! Also, every $1 million that goes into fighting malaria can improve the GDP of that country by $12 million. Very little money can have an extraordinary impact.
That’s exactly what the EA wants! It ticks all 3 boxes— highly effective, quickly solvable, and a cause that not many people find appealing.
So far so good?
Alright then. Because here’s where things take a turn. The Silicon Valley folks soon got in on the EA movement. And considering they were already making a lot of money, the idea appealed to them. Earn-to-give became the mantra and MacAskill became the toast of the town. People read his books, invited him to conferences, and they were eager to listen to his ideas.
But then November 2022 happened…
MacAskill woke up and found that his world was falling apart. There was a glitch in the matrix.
#englishexplanation
#theateam
#news
#today
#crypto
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
IDEA ~ AADITYA
PRODUCER ~ AKSHIT SAROHA
SPECIAL THANX ~ANURAG VAIDHWAN
LIKE SHARE AND COMMENTON OUR VIDEO
SUBSCRIBE OUR CHANNEL FOR MORE UPDATE
INFO ABOUT THIS VIDEO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The year is 2002. William MacAskill is an undergraduate student at Oxford and like most undergraduates, he’s loving life. He is downing beers, climbing roofs and playing the Saxophone in a funk band. You know, typical college student stuff!
But one day…everything changes.
MacAskill finds a paper from 1972 titled ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’. It’s written by an Australian ethical philosopher Peter Singer and has a simple premise — “If you have money, you have an obligation to donate and help those who are less fortunate.”
MacAskill is shaken! Reading the paper gives him just the clarity he needs to turn his life upside down and find a purpose.
He starts saving money instead of spending it on beer. He starts thinking deeply about wealth and equality. And 10 years later, he spearheads a movement called ‘Effective Altruism’ (EA) with a relatively simple goal — put money to the best use possible! He asks people to be more generous with their wealth. But unlike traditional charities, he wants their generosity to be effective. He wants them to adopt a rational and mathematical approach while resolving moral quandaries.
And the idea stuck.
At its core, EA looked at 3 key things.
How much good can you achieve by working on a problem
How solvable is the problem
How neglected is the cause
Let us give you an example.
Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge? It was all the rage back in 2014. You had to empty a bucket of ice water on your head, record the video and share it on social media nominating three other people to do the same thing. It wasn’t just a fun activity. It was meant to get people talking about a deadly neurodegenerative disease called ALS. And it worked. The Ice Bucket Challenge helped raise $115 million for ALS that year. People donated!
Sounds like a brilliant way to raise money for a worthwhile cause, no?
Well, an effective altruist would disagree. Quite vociferously, in fact.
You see, according to them, ALS already gets a lot of attention. It’s not entirely neglected. So it doesn’t satisfy point three. Also, developing a cure could take several years since progress has been slow. So it’s not easy to solve. There goes point 2. And you could argue that by donating more money to ALS, you’re depriving other more worthy causes of money.
And that’s not us speculating. Here’s what the co-founder of the effective altruism movement, William MacAskill, wrote in 2014: “The key problem is funding cannibalism. That $3 million in donations doesn’t appear out of a vacuum. Because people on average are limited in how much they’re willing to donate to good causes, if someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities.”
In his opinion, the Ice Bucket Challenge did more harm than good.
So, what does an effective altruist consider as a worthwhile cause then?
Well, there’s malaria.
Yup, as the official website of effective altruism put it, “The Against Malaria Foundation is one of the most effective global health charities in the world, and the single most common donation target for EA Survey respondents (as of 2018).”
Why’s that?
Well, there’s the humanitarian element — 450,000 people die from malaria each year. And 70% of deaths occur in children under the age of 5.
So, how can money effectively save lives?
Just $2 can buy a mosquito net. And using a net can reduce malaria cases by 50%!!! Also, every $1 million that goes into fighting malaria can improve the GDP of that country by $12 million. Very little money can have an extraordinary impact.
That’s exactly what the EA wants! It ticks all 3 boxes— highly effective, quickly solvable, and a cause that not many people find appealing.
So far so good?
Alright then. Because here’s where things take a turn. The Silicon Valley folks soon got in on the EA movement. And considering they were already making a lot of money, the idea appealed to them. Earn-to-give became the mantra and MacAskill became the toast of the town. People read his books, invited him to conferences, and they were eager to listen to his ideas.
But then November 2022 happened…
MacAskill woke up and found that his world was falling apart. There was a glitch in the matrix.
0:06:28
0:00:20
0:00:21
0:00:28
0:00:15
0:00:32
0:00:09
0:00:13
0:00:15
0:00:43
0:00:34
0:01:01
0:00:33
0:00:18
0:00:16
0:00:16
0:12:18
0:00:35
0:00:32
0:00:16
0:00:39
0:00:47
0:07:49
0:00:59