Philosopher William Macaskill The World Is A Darker Place Than It Was Just Five Years Ago

But these are not normal times. Russian TV pundits call for nuclear weapons to be launched against Britain. Fighting continues around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine. China is conducting military exercises around Taiwan. And my partner, William MacAskill, is no ordinary academic: a gap-toothed Glaswegian, he became associate professor of philosophy at Oxford at the age of 28, and seven years later is now an intellectual celebrity – in part because Silicon Valley titans like Elon Musk tweeted their support. “The world is a darker place than it was just five years ago,” MacAskill tells me. “I think the risk of nuclear war now is one in three in my lifetime. . . but I’m even more concerned about engineered bioweapons. And I think there’s a 50-50 chance of a pandemic in the next decade that kills more than 10 million.” But what’s even more striking than these dark possibilities is that MacAskill seems calm, if not happy. He argues that we must not remain passive in the face of these threats. Instead, it implores us to take practical action to improve the world, both for present and future generations, using hard-nosed, rational analysis to work out the most effective steps. In addition, he is convinced that technological breakthroughs mean that today is the right time to start. It’s a message that has won support not only from the likes of Musk, but also from 30-year-old crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskowitz and — most importantly — the community of 7,400 (mostly young) members who have signed up to embrace his “Effective Altruism” pledge to donate time and money to pursue an ethical path. But is this just a feel-good cult? Can it really give hope to a new generation – and lead to change? I arrive at a budget Asian diner on First Avenue to find out. It’s a spartan place, with bare wooden walls, basic tables, a laminated menu and background muzak playing on an endless loop. It seems to suit MacAskill very well: he wears a simple t-shirt, shorts, trainers and a haircut that vaguely reminds me of Harry Potter. If I didn’t know better, I might have thought he was one of his movement students, not his professor — if only because he punctuates his speech with “likes,” “yeahs,” and “ums.” The benefits of cancer treatment are smaller than one might think – if we eliminated all cancers today, global life expectancy would increase by two years Why did you choose the restaurant? He explains that he’s a vegetarian and is currently staying in the corner with his “crew” – reporters for his new book, What We Owe the Future, and others who support EA’s venture and the research behind the book’s concept of ” long-term”. Are they vegan? “Um, I was for a year, but I stopped after giving a talk for the Oxford Vegan Society and quantifying the impact of cutting out animal products.” This seems strange. I know from my own teenagers that kids with a strong moral conscience usually become more, not less, unhappy about eating animal products after meeting vegans. What went wrong? The answer lies in MacAskill’s pragmatic approach to ‘ethics’, which is concerned with cost-benefit analysis and opportunity cost. Before talking to vegans, he studied the impact of eating animal products and concluded that cutting out items like milk has only a negligible effect on carbon emissions or animal welfare — at least compared to other possible actions, such as donating to clean energy charities or animal protection groups. The key phrase here, however, is “compared to”. MacAskill is ruthlessly focused on efficiency and an ethical return on his investment of time and money. For him, “ethics” is not a vaguely vague concept, but something to be discussed with the type of precision usually associated with a PowerPoint-wielding McKinsey consultant. “If you think about carbon emissions and if you throw away or eat meat, the effects of our consumer decisions are very small compared to making targeted donations to charities [fighting climate change],” he says. “The average Briton produces seven to 10 tonnes of CO₂ a year, and even if it was zero, it does 100 times more good to donate £1,000 a year to the clean air task force. The reason is that my life has not optimized for carbon emissions, but the Clean Air Task Force is optimized to reduce them.” So what will he have for lunch? A waitress hands him a multi-layered menu, where all the dishes are vegan and under $20. He looks nervous. “I’m so used to being in restaurants where I only have one choice, so with these choices it’s, um, like, um, yeah.” He finally chooses a seitan skewer and vegan pad thai. I order both the last one and a Vietnamese summer roll. There is no alcohol. Instead, we opt for New York City’s best tap water (for him) and an iced coffee with soy milk (for me). Would he rather we buy a sandwich — and ask the FT to donate the difference to charity, I ask. Would that be a more effective way to be moral? Laughs. “When I was younger, unnecessary luxury spending and eating meat really got me, and it still does sometimes,” he says. “But the question for me now is, is this emotional reaction useful or not?” I conclude that cheap pad thai is ethical. The kickbacks are coming. My iced coffee is very sweet, but I’m wary of being seen to waste it, so drink with caution. The summer roll, however, is delicately delicious and MacAskill declares that his seitan souvlaki “is really great!”. He always had simple tastes. The child of two middle-class professional parents, he grew up in a comfortable but modest household in Glasgow and decided at an early age that he desperately wanted to devote his life and his formidable intellect to helping others. If you asked me to list the top 20 changes I want to see in the world, then the overthrow of capitalism is not one of them. There are much bigger issues Why didn’t he do this by trying to, say, cure cancer, I ask. The ambitious, bright kids in his circles often wanted to be doctors. MacAskill shrugs. “Cancer is one of the most resourced and funded areas of medical research and the benefits of treating cancer are smaller than one might think – if we eliminated all cancers today, global life expectancy would increase by two years,” he says. a walking Wikipedia. “For me, I think the best use of my time is to focus on more neglected areas and [champion] the application of good philosophical ideas to the world’. He shares these ideas with students and other fans through lectures, books, and the Center for Effective Altruism. It could be a profitable venture at a time when top-tier public intellectuals are in high demand, particularly in America. But MacAskill decided he would only spend £26,000 a year on himself, “after tax and including savings”. Everything else he gives to charity, after carefully analyzing where his money can have the greatest transformative impact. This is usually found in widely neglected, underfunded areas rather than more modern causes. “I also have luxuries,” he says. “I bought an electronic keyboard and speaker during Covid-19. . . and went on a surfing holiday in Newquay [Cornwall]. But I want to use my money for donations.” Ginger Root 1164 1st Avenue, New York NY 10065 Summer Roll $7 Seitan Skewer $8 Pad Thai x2 $29 Iced Coffee $4 French Roast Coffee $3.50 Total (with tax) $56.07 His philosophy does not demand so much austerity from others. People who sign the EA’s main pledge are asked to give at least 10 percent of their income to charity — similar to the principle of “tithing” advocated by the Christian church (and found, in various forms, in other religions) . They are also expected to follow “ethical” career paths. A key theme of EA is that the typical career involves 80,000 hours of work, and so we need to figure out how to “invest” that wisely, whether through activism, government work, research, or whatever. However, EA also embraces the concept of “earn to give” — taking on high-paying jobs to generate more money for donations. MacAskill’s friend Bankman-Fried is a poster child for this. Apparently he’s always cared deeply about animal rights, so a few years ago, “Sam asked charities if they’d rather he work for them as an employee or work for donations,” MacAskill recalls. “They said to donate!” So Bankman-Fried created a foundation, with the help of MacAskill. But doesn’t this approach have great ethical risks? Does it not justify extreme wealth — or give graduates a moral license to choose high-paying careers? After all, left-wing writers like Anand Giridharadas have criticized America’s focus on philanthropy, arguing that it is being used as a way to avoid more radical reform of an unequal system. And in countries like Sweden, people usually expect the government to improve society using taxpayer funds — not philanthropists who get tax breaks for their donations. “I never said that everyone has to earn to give – it’s probably only true for maybe 10 percent of people,” MacAskill clarifies hastily. “Others should work as researchers or in government or for activists. There is a huge amount that I hate about the current system. But if you asked me to list the top 20 changes I want to see in the world, then the overthrow of capitalism is not one of them. There are much bigger issues.” But how do graduates know which careers are worth 80,000 hours of their time, and when is it really “ethical” to earn to give? MacAskill says the case for intentionally earning to give is high in the field of…