Someone I know relatively well is actually in the news!!! Before you shoot the messenger I totally disagree with him. I think that charity should come from the state, not from the individual, and what we need is political change, not handouts from individuals. Would you give a third of your salary away to charity? Oxford philosopher Toby Ord has pledged to do so – and wants you to join him Ord: 'I realised I could give away £1m without missing out.’ Photograph: Graham Turner As far as I can tell, Toby Ord is not wearing a hair shirt under his nice overcoat. But then he isn't as worthy as I expected. A moral philosopher, Ord has pledged a third of his £30,000 salary as a research associate at Oxford University this year to charity, and will give away 10% for the rest of his working life. "I worked out my total future earnings would be around £1.5m," he says, as we sit on a bench under a horse chestnut tree. "I worked out how much I would need to live on and I realised I could give away £1m without missing out." He wants you to join him. On Saturday, Ord, 30, launched his society, Giving What We Can, to encourage others to give 10% of their income away. Type your salary into its calculator, and it might tell you that you are among the richest 1% of the world's population (if you earn more than £24,000, or, as Ord puts it: "We are all millionaires compared with those living on a dollar a day and we can prevent untold suffering if only we choose to"). I suppose it is a case of priorities. The society's website quotes UN estimates that £28bn could provide water, sanitation, basic education, nutrition and healthcare for the world's poorest people – the same amount Europeans and Americans spend on perfume and pet food annually. What treats will Ord forego? He says he wants an iPhone, but other than that can't think of much. "The things I gain most from – spending time with my wife, with friends, listening to beautiful music, reading beautiful books – don't cost money." But if everyone stopped spending, wouldn't our economy collapse? "In ethics, there's this idea by Immanuel Kant: 'What if everyone did it?' But it sometimes is a bit irrelevant. Not everyone is going to sign up." And he is the first to admit that his lifestyle makes his pledge easier. He doesn't have children or elderly relatives and his wife earns a good salary as a junior doctor (though she has pledged to donate too). But what if your passion is Christian Louboutin shoes, or illuminated manuscripts? "Absolutely. Other people might be making a much harder sacrifice." Studies show that helping others enhances one's own wellbeing, so this isn't entirely altruistic. "It's the least I can do," says Ord. "I am motivated by helping people." givingwhatwecan.org
So give 40% of my salary to the government then from the 60% remaining another 3rd of it?? So basically give away half my wage?? No thanks your on your own with this one pal.
Why, for giving money to charity? If it gives him satisfaction then leave him to it I say. For some people there are more important things than money.
It's interesting that people want to provide "water, sanitation, basic education, nutrition and healthcare for the world's poorest people", and on the face of it it's a laudible ambition. However, the world's population is already increasing at an unsustainable rate, and like any resource there is a finite number of dependents this planet can support. All people like Toby Ord will achieve with this is to reach that finite number quicker, at which point all Hell will no doubt break loose. I'm all for supporting those less fortunate than myself, but unless and until the world's population is controlled attempts to save every unfortunate soul on the planet will simply take us all one step closer to the day of reckoning . . .
Most of the ways of "controlling" population are pretty extreme, that's a dangerous route to go down.
His heart is in the right place, but I think he comes across as too much of an idealist on this one. And for that matter, I don't think he should be comparing the wealth of the people in his country to those of people working in sweat shops in third-world countries. Hardly the same thing, now is it?
Not something i would do but it's his money so let him get on with it.Surely unemployment would rise as people are spending over 30 % less therefore firms would have to lay staff off as takings are well down.
Really? You consider contraception to be 'extreme' do you? I'd suggest that's the most common way of population control.
Yep. That's what used to annoy me about people who were so enamoured with Mother Theresa, she'd help the street kids while campaigning for their to be more because of her anti-contraception stance.
That's a bit Malthusian isn't it. If you improve sanitation, education and healthcare in less developed countries then you'll find that birth rates go down as people learn about family planning, women get careers etc. and they don't feel pressured to have many children because they can be assured of the safety of the ones that they create. You can also work towards a society where the children don't have to bring in an income so they aren't an economic advantage. That is the ideal in alleviating poverty. In some European countries the fertility rates are falling below replacement level. As societies progress in terms of their economic situation it is the general result that the population levels out and indeed may even fall (based on natural increase only, not including immigration) Then there's the theory that every human is a resource in itself. As we are faced with new resource problems we come up with new answers. Scientific discovery will elevate the earth's maximum population beyond what we expect. Our estimation of "finite" is constantly increasing as we come across new food production methods and environmental modification (eg. De-rocking processes in Mauritius which took a population close to starvation in the 1950s to becoming a thriving country now) I believe quite the opposite to what you are saying is true. It is the poorest populations who will overpopulate the world if they are left as they are.
And that's a bit Utopian. It simply isn't going to happen. I heard on the news today that the population of Africa has passed the 1 billion mark for the first time, by the time the infrastructure to feed, educate, sanitise and accommodate that 1 billion people is in place it will be 2 billion. The population of Africa has doubled in the last 27 years. I didn't say any different, of course it's the poorest, least educated parts of the globe that will continue to overpopulate, the very areas where the climate is least hospitable for human beings, where water is always at a premium and there's never enough food.
Well you seemed to be suggesting enforced population control, as shown in Africa you can't force people to use contraception. But the only solution to that would be to move them and as we have nowhere to put them that's a non-starter. People have lived in those areas of Africa since the Human race began. If it's too Utopian to try to educate them and get them to use contraception then what can we do?
A - (Tongue in cheek bit) That's where the abolition of slavery and genocide has got us B - (Serious bit) Yes we can't afford to feed one so let's have ten ! Geldof and his mates will soon organise the next f#cking benefit gig More's the pity.
Nowhere did I suggest anyone should be forced to do anything, I merely pointed out that for all his principles this chap is p*ssing in the wind, no amount of charitable contributions will halt the headlong race to world overpopulation, it seems to me that the die has been cast.
Of course it has. Population growth is unstoppable. Sadly the only things that hold it back are large scale wars, plagues or famines. The wars of the future will be fought over water supplies as much as anything else.
It was merely the impression I got from your post, I agree that overpopulation is a massive problem but as Zippy says the only things that slow population increase down involve the deaths of innocent people.
