（文末视频可能引起不安）The Future of Giving
The Future of Giving
《文 末 附 视 频》
This may not be a word-for-word transcript.
Narrator: Doing good...
“Give me the knife.”
Narrator: ...is increasingly about more than giving away money.
Katie Acosta: I have a spare kidney. Why not share it?
Narrator: A new movement is driving people to choose altruistic careers.
Will MacAskill: We’re just seeing a general upswing in care about ethical career choice.
Narrator: And altruists are looking further than ever before into the future.
Anders Sandberg: We’re trying to make sure humanity survives.
Narrator: Katie Acosta is about to go under the knife.
Katie Acosta: People either think I’m kind of completely nuts or some saint of a human being.
Narrator: She’s giving away one of her kidneys.
Katie Acosta: I have a spare kidney, why not share it?
Narrator: But Katie isn’t giving her organ to a friend or family member, but to save the life of a complete stranger.
“She’s in good hands.”
Katie Acosta: I will be what’s called a “non-directed” donor, so I’m giving to somebody that I don’t know who they are yet. It’s a possibility that I’ll never meet them.
Narrator: Most kidney donations in America come from people who have just died, but Katie is part of a rising altruistic trend. The number of living kidney donors has increased by 16% since 2014. And from 2017 to 2018, donations to complete strangers rose by 31%.
Katie Acosta: It’s just a feeling of purpose. This idea that something I’m doing could have such a big impact on someone else’s life.
Narrator: But for living donors like Katie, saving a stranger’s life is not without risks. Nearly one in 3,000 people die from the procedure.
“So that’s the kidney right there. That’s the one he’s gonna be taking out.”
“Now we are going to prepare the kidney for transplant.”
Katie Acosta: This will most certainly either save someone’s life or increase their quality of life sort of exponentially. And the cost at least to me is nothing when you think about, you know, the kind of effect it can have on someone’s life.
Narrator: Like Katie, an increasing number of young people in Britain say they want to lead more altruistic lives. Research suggests that almost two-thirds of British millennials want to work for a company that makes a positive difference.
Will MacAskill: We’re just seeing a general upswing in care about ethical career choice.
Narrator: This Oxford University professor co-founded 80,000 Hours, a charity that gives career advice to altruistically-minded people. It’s part of the effective-altruism movement that takes a scientific approach to calculating ways of doing good.
Will MacAskill: The kind of old-fashioned career advice was this idea of just you should follow your passion. You figured out what cause you really care about, and then you go and work in that sector, whereas I think the most important thing is to figure out what problems are most important. And then secondly, what does that cause need?
Narrator: Increasingly, the charity is suggesting careers in new fields, such as AI and synthetic biology, that are shaping the world’s future.
Will MacAskill: Some of the areas like novel technologies are much more in need of just very talented and sensible and altruistic people, and so what we tend to recommend is people going into policy careers – often research careers and often working directly in non-profits in some of these key-cause areas.
Narrator: So far, the charity says it has helped 3,000 people make major changes in their career plans, affecting 80m hours of work time. The effective-altruism movement also encourages people to give away a minimum of 10% of the money they earn.
Will MacAskill: Now I’ve made the decision to donate most of my income over the course of my life. In fact, everything above £25,000 per year after tax.
Narrator: Over 4,000 people have signed up to Professor MacAskill’s initiative – “Giving What We Can”. And so far, over $126m has been donated.
Will MacAskill: It’s just becoming much more the norm that people think, yes, everyone on this planet is equal in their moral worth.
Narrator: This thinking is leading some in the effective-altruism movement towards a new focus: the lives of people who will be born in the centuries to come.
Anders Sandberg: We need to save humanity, end of story.
Cassidy Nelson: Yes.
Narrator: Funded by wealthy philanthropists, these scientists are researching threats to the survival of the human race.
Cassidy Nelson: We are trying to look at risks and problems that may be facing us now that may have a long-term effect on the far-term future.
Narrator: This team at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute works in an area known as existential risk. They identify dangers both natural and man-made that could wipe out humankind altogether.
Cassidy Nelson: I work with mathematical models to look at pandemic risk that could be a threat to our species and try to decide on different counter-measures. How would we prevent deliberate biological events from occurring? How would we deal with pandemics that might be much larger than something we’ve ever prepared for?
Narrator: These scientists argue that altruism could be most effective when focused on the value of human life in the far future.
Anders Sandberg: So, why should we care about people who might live in a thousand years’ time? Just as we shouldn’t be discriminating against people who are physically far away in space from us, we shouldn’t discriminate against people who happen to be far away in time. The future human population dwarfs the current population enormously. If we look around us, the world is valuable. But it was valuable yesterday and it will be valuable tomorrow, so we better make sure tomorrow comes.
↓ ↓ ↓
↑ ↑ ↑
↑ 建议在 WiFi 环境下观看 ↑，土豪随意