---
title: "William MacAskill : \"Nous avons vécu 70 ans de paix, mais c’était un coup de chance\""
source: "https://www.lenouveleconomiste.fr/financial-times/william-macaskill-nous-avons-vecu-70-ans-de-paix-mais-cetait-un-coup-de-chance/"
author:
  - "[[Le nouvel Economiste]]"
published: 2022-10-11
created: 2026-07-06
description: "Prophète de l’altruisme efficace, le philosophe explique comment nous pouvons tous contribuer à sauver le monde"
tags:
  - "brain_spew"
---
Normally, it would seem odd to sit down for lunch in midtown Manhattan and calculate the exact probability of a nuclear attack with a philosopher.

But we are not living in normal times. Russian television experts are speculating about launching nuclear weapons against Britain. Fighting continues around the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. China has carried out military exercises around Taiwan. And the one sitting across from me, William MacAskill, is no academic like any other: this Glaswegian, blessed with the teeth of happiness, became an associate professor of philosophy at Oxford at the age of 28 and, seven years later, he is also a celebrity in the intellectual world – in part because Silicon Valley titans like Elon Musk have given him their support on Twitter.

“I think the risk of nuclear war today is one in three in my lifetime... but I'm even more worried about artificial biological weapons. And I think there's a 50/50 chance that a pandemic will kill more than 10 million people in the next decade”

“The world is darker than just five years ago, asserts William MacAskill. I think the risk of nuclear war today is one in three in my lifetime... but I'm even more worried about artificial biological weapons. And I think there's a 50/50 chance that a pandemic will kill more than 10 million people in the next decade.”

But what's even more striking than these grim odds is that William MacAskill appears calm, even cheerful. He affirms that we must not remain passive in the face of these threats; on the contrary, he implores us to take concrete action to improve the world, both for current and future generations, based on rational and lucid analysis to determine the most effective measures. Furthermore, he is convinced that current technological advances mean that the right time to start taking action is today.

## A false student air

This post received support not only from Elon Musk, but also from Sam Bankman-Fried, a 30-year-old cryptocurrency mogul, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, and most importantly, from the community of 7,400 members (mostly young) who are committed to his theory of ’“effective altruism” in order to give their time and money to follow the moral path he has traced.

But is it just a feel-good cult? Can it really give hope to a new generation and drive change?

I arrive at a cheap Asian restaurant on First Avenue to find out. It's a Spartan place, with raw wooden walls, rudimentary tables, a laminated menu and background music played on repeat. This seems to suit William MacAskill well: he wears a simple T-shirt, shorts, sneakers and a haircut that vaguely reminds me of Harry Potter. If I didn't know him better, I might think that he is one of the students of his movement, and not its initiator –notably because he peppers his speech with “like”, “yeah” and “um”.

“William MacAskil wears a simple T-shirt, shorts, sneakers and a haircut that vaguely reminds me of Harry Potter. If I didn't know him better, I might think that he is one of the students of his movement, and not its initiator”

Why did he choose this restaurant? He explains that he is vegetarian and is currently staying around the corner with his “team”– communications officers for his new book, ‘What We Owe the Future’ \[What We Owe to the Future, ndt\], and others who support the ’“effective altruism” and research that underpins the book's idea of “long-termism”.

Is he vegan? “I was for a year, but stopped after giving a talk for the Oxford Vegan Society and quantifying the impact of cutting out animal products.” This seems strange; Having seen it in my teens, I know from experience that children with a strong moral conscience generally become more unhappy about eating animal products after meeting vegans. What went wrong?

## Quantify morality

The answer lies in William MacAskill's pragmatic approach to “morality”, which is a matter of cost-benefit analysis and opportunity costs. Before speaking with vegans, he studied the impact of consuming animal products and concluded that eliminating products such as milk had only a negligible impact on carbon emissions or animal welfare – at least compared to other potential actions, such as donations to clean energy charities or animal rights groups.

“For him, the notion of what is “moral” is not a vaguely vague idea, but something that must be debated with the precision that one usually associates with a McKinsey consultant brandishing PowerPoints”

The key phrase here, however, is “compared to”. William MacAskill invariably focuses on the effectiveness and moral return of his investment of time and money. For him, the notion of what is “moral” is not a vaguely vague idea, but something that must be debated with the precision that one usually associates with a McKinsey consultant brandishing PowerPoints.

“If you think about carbon emissions, and flying or eating meat, the impacts of our personal consumption decisions are very small compared to targeted donations to charities \[fighting climate change\], he explains. The average Briton produces around 7-10 tonnes of CO2 a year, and even if it were zero, it's 100 times more good to donate £1,000 a year to a task force working for cleaner air. For the good reason that I am not made to manage carbon emissions, while the Clean Air Task Force can act to reduce them.”

## On the usefulness of emotions

What will he eat this afternoon? A waitress hands him a laminated menu, where all the dishes are vegan and for less than $20. He seems nervous. “I'm so used to being in restaurants where I only have one option, so with this whole list of choices, it's, um, like, um, yeah.” Finally, he opts for a skewer of seitan and a vegan pad thai. I also order this dish, and a Vietnamese spring roll. There is no alcohol; instead we choose the best tap water in New York (for him) and soy milk iced coffee (for me).

“When I was younger, non-essential and luxury spending and eating meat really pissed me off. But the real question for me now is whether this emotional reaction is helpful or not”

I ask him if he would prefer that we buy a sandwich– and ask the ‘Financial Times’ to give the difference to charity. Would this be a more effective way to act morally? He laughs. “When I was younger, non-essential and luxury spending and eating meat really pissed me off, and it still annoys me sometimes, he says. But the real question for me now is whether this emotional reaction is helpful or not.” I conclude that cheap pad thai is “moral”.

The entries are coming. My iced coffee is way too sweet, but I'm afraid I'll be accused of waste, so I sip it carefully. The spring roll, however, is really delicious and William MacAskill says his seitan skewer “is, like, really great!”.

He always had simple tastes. The child of two working, middle-class parents, he grew up in a comfortable but modest home in Glasgow and decided at a young age that he desperately wanted to dedicate his life, and his formidable intellect, to helping others.

“Cancer is one of the most funded and resourced areas of medical research, and the benefits of curing cancer are less than one might think –if we eradicated all cancers today, global life expectancy would increase by two years”

Why didn't he do this, say, while trying to cure cancer, I asked him. The ambitious and brilliant children around him often wanted to be doctors. William MacAskill shrugs. “Cancer is one of the most funded and resourced areas of medical research, and the benefits of curing cancer are less than one might think –if we eradicated all cancers today, global life expectancy would increase by two years”, he declares, like a walking Wikipedia. “For me, I think the best use of my time is to focus on more neglected areas and support the application of good philosophical ideas all over the world.”

## Effective altruism through carefully targeted giving

He shares these ideas with students and other admirers through lectures, books, and through his Center for Effective Altruism \[Ndt\]. It could be a lucrative business at a time when high-flying, publicly known intellectuals are in high demand, especially in America. But William MacAskill decided to spend just £26,000 a year on him, “including after taxes and savings”. He donates everything else to charity, after carefully analyzing where his money can have the most impact. These are generally largely neglected and underfunded areas rather than more fashionable causes. “I also allow myself small luxuries, he admits.I bought a synthesizer and a speaker during the pandemic... and went on vacation to Newquay \[Cornwall\] to surf. But I want to use my money to donate.”

“William MacAskill decided to spend just £26,000 a year on him. He donates everything else to charity, after carefully analyzing where his money can have the most impact”

His philosophy does not demand as much austerity from others. People who sign for the main commitment of effective altruism are invited to donate at least 10% of their income to charity – much like the principle of tithing defended by the Christian Church (and which we found, in various forms, in other religions). They are also expected to follow professional “moral” paths; A key theme of effective altruism is that a typical career involves 80,000 hours of work and therefore one must figure out how to “invest” those hours wisely, whether through activism, government work, research or otherwise.

However, effective altruism also advocates the concept of “earning to give”, that is, taking well-paying jobs to generate more money for donations. Sam Bankman-Fried, a friend of William MacAskill, illustrates this. He's apparently always been deeply committed to animal rights and so, a few years ago, “Sam asked charities if they would rather he work for them as an employee or work for donations, remembers William MacAskill. They said donations had to be made!”. Sam Bankman-Fried therefore created a foundation, with the help of William MacAskill.

“Individuals signing up for the main commitment of effective altruism are encouraged to donate at least 10% of their income to charity –much like the tithing principle championed by the Christian Church (and which we found, in various forms, in other religions)”

But doesn't this approach carry great moral risks? Doesn't it justify extreme wealth– or does it not give graduates a moral license to choose high-paying careers? After all, left-wing authors like Anand Giridharadas criticized the United States' emphasis on philanthropy, saying it was a way to avoid more radical reform of an unequal system. And in countries like Sweden, people generally expect the government to improve society by using taxpayer funds –not those of philanthropists who receive tax breaks for their donations.

## Health and development, two areas to prioritize

“I never said everyone had to win to give – this probably only applies to maybe 10% of people, William MacAskill hastily explains. The rest should work as researchers or in government or for activists. There are a lot of things I hate about the current system. But if you asked me for a list of the top twenty changes I want to see in the world, the overthrow of capitalism wouldn't be one of them. There are much bigger problems.”

But how do graduates know which careers deserve 80,000 hours of their time, and when it's actually “moral” to win in order to give? William MacAskill believes that the case for such an approach is particularly compelling in the area of “global health and development, because there are enormous obstacles to implementing measures that we know are very effective, but for which we do not have the necessary funds, such as the distribution of mosquito nets”. He would like to see a lot more Bill Gates, for example.

“There are huge obstacles to implementing measures that we know are very effective, but for which we do not have the necessary funds, such as the distribution of mosquito nets”

But in the field of artificial intelligence, “it's a bottleneck of ideas, not money” – so the real priority is for people to take jobs in government regulation or laboratories, in order to pursue change through useful actions. The key message is that there are many ways to be “moral”, even if you are a former Facebook founder or a cryptocurrency millionaire. Which, of course, reinforces the appeal of effective altruism.

Our starters disappear and two plates of pad thai arrive. The food is as unpretentious as the prices, but tasty. William MacAskill pokes a noodle with his fork and tells me that, relative to the number of inhabitants, it is in Scandinavia that the effective altruism movement is probably most established, more than anywhere else (in absolute figures, the San Francisco Bay and London are the largest support areas). He believes this is because effective altruism views both government and private sector actors as drivers of reform, and recognizes that the latter must be involved when it comes to tackling large-scale problems.

## Anticipate future disasters

This brings us to his book. When the environmental education movement emerged about a decade ago, its followers were primarily concerned with immediate, real-world problems, such as fighting hunger in poorer regions. After all, William MacAskill argued at the time, we all have a moral duty to help the poor, even if they live far away, since we are linked by a common bond of humanity.

But today, William MacAskill also worries about another neglected group of humans: our potential descendants. We generally ignore them, even more than the living poor. But he considers it immoral. Our actions today will be decisive for how our successors live – if they live at all. We therefore have a duty to reduce our carbon emissions, avoid nuclear or biochemical war and monitor the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

“We are more likely to die from a global catastrophe caused by artificial intelligence than from a car accident”

“Last week, a survey was conducted among leading researchers in the field of AI. According to them, we are more likely to die from a global catastrophe due to artificial intelligence than from a car accident”, he notes, before listing a series of statistics from prediction platforms such as as Metaculus and academic experts on the high – and increasing– risks of other disasters. “We just experienced 70 years of peace \[without nuclear war\], but it was a bit of a fluke. And we're also lucky that biological weapons were never used. But the science of probability tells us that this will not last.”

Does he want to join a survivalist shelter? I know some tech moguls buy bunkers. “Not personally. But I think we should create more security systems against worst-case scenarios all over the world.” It lists desired actions: governments and NGOs should start monitoring wastewater for new pandemics; health systems must build massive stocks of personal protective equipment; someone should build airtight bunkers for scientists to allow them to survive a pandemic and create vaccines; ngos and governments must fund research and development of innovations to combat disasters.

## William MacAskill, apostle of long-termism

“One thing excites me a lot at the moment: it's a new bulb with a light whose very special wavelength sterilizes surfaces, he explains, as an example. It costs $1,000 today, but with enough R&D we could bring it down to a dollar. If we had building standards that require these devices to be installed everywhere, like we require chlorine in water, we could sterilize the air and get rid of diseases.”

He speaks with so much passion that I understand why his ideas have become so popular among young people. But is this type of futuristic project really as important as, say, feeding hungry children today?

“The fact that Elon Musk tweeted his support didn't really help me in some corners of Twitter”

William MacAskill pauses and admits that “some members of \[his\] own tribe” do not appreciate his embrace of long-term thinking, because they fear that it will harm their current fight to improve the world, or that it makes them prone to complacent technological utopianism. “For example, the fact that Elon Musk tweeted his support didn't really help me in some corners of Twitter”, admits William MacAskill. In front of him, next to his dish, he placed two cell phones. When I ask him why he allows himself this “luxury”, he replies that he recently decided to acquire a personal phone to use only on weekends, with Twitter and emails disabled, “for my mental health. Otherwise, I spend Saturday evening reading the negative comments”.

But he remains convinced that long-term thinking is necessary. “A lot of things we should do for the future are also good in the short term, he insists. Think about covid. This was a wake-up call. But since then, governments have done nothing to respond. This needs to change.” I nod; This seems entirely reasonable. I wonder if he has children. Does he want it? He shakes his head and says probably not – not because he disapproves of having children for climate change reasons, but simply because he thinks “\[his\] books are like \[his\] children”.

The bill comes, even though we've only eaten half our meal, and we're getting ready to go. I then notice that William MacAskill asked the waitress for a doggy bag to collect all the uneaten leftovers. I hasten –while feeling guilty for not having thought about it– to turn around and do the same.

“He remains convinced that long-term thinking is necessary. “A lot of things we should do for the future are also good in the short term, he insists. Think about covid. This was a wake-up call. But since then, governments have done nothing to respond. It has to change”

The next day, while eating the cold pad thai, I feel a slight feeling of “kindness”. I know this move will do nothing to avert the threats of climate change or nuclear war – as William MacAskill says, the carbon emissions saved are insignificant. But we all need to find ways to become a little more aware of our footprint on the world. And reasons to hope for a better future, especially now.

[*Gillian Tett, FT*](https://www.ft.com/gillian-tett)


© The Financial Times Limited \[2022\]. All Rights Reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in anyway. The new Economist is solely responsible for providing this translated content and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation.

**Also read**

[Can "effective altruism" maximize the impact of charitable giving?](https://www.nouveleconomiste.co/laltruisme-efficace-peut-il-maximiser-limpact-des-dons-caritatifs-63706/)  
[An exclusive interview with Bill Gates, Midas philanthropist](https://www.nouveleconomiste.co/financial-times/une-interview-exclusive-de-bill-gates-midas-philanthrope-20522/)  
[The council that helps philanthropists distribute their wealth](https://www.nouveleconomiste.co/le-conseil-qui-aide-les-philanthropes-a-distribuer-leur-richesse-90874/)  
[MacKenzie Scott or disruptive philanthropy](https://www.nouveleconomiste.co/mackenzie-scott-ou-la-philanthropie-disruptive-90143/)