What We Owe The Future by William MacAskill

“Traditional philanthropy aims to alleviate the symptoms of societal problems, but Effective Altruism goes further by trying to address their root causes.”

William MacAskill, a Scottish philosopher and a guiding force in the Effective Altruism movement, has been challenging traditional notions of philanthropy by advocating for thoughtful and strategic giving.

Born in Scotland in 1987, MacAskill earned his PhD from Oxford University, where he now lectures as an Associate Professor in Philosophy. But there’s so much more to his story than academia. Aside from his philosophical pursuits, MacAskill has actively worked to encourage a more intentional approach to philanthropy. He does this through his writing, his teaching, and his direct work with charitable foundations. 

MacAskill’s contributions to Effective Altruism, a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others, are significant. He co-founded two non-profit organisations, Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours, both of which hold the principles of Effective Altruism at their heart. 

What we owe the future by WM has a good chance of being the worst book I’ve ever read. I’ve read a lot of books but there is a finite number of them. I don’t remember every book I’ve read. But of the books I remember reading – this is the worst one.

It starts badly. It gets worse.

At the beginning of the book is a ‘thought experiment’ where you are invited to imagine that you were every single human that has ever lived. I am not quite sure what the point of this exercise is. I found it neither interesting nor informative. But I imagine the idea was to sort of make you care about every human, dead, alive or yet to be born.

What follows is a rather incoherent set of ideas about how long the human race can expect to exist, and what this implies for how we should strategise our altruism. The thought process takes some strange turns. For example it is seriously suggested that we should keep some coal mines in a state of readiness to provide a fuel source for people to rebuild civilisation if it should collapse at some point in the future. It’s hard to see how that makes any sense to anyone but someone with a coal mine they want to sell. 

There is also the suggestion that if you want to be charitable you should work hard at your career to earn plenty of money so you can give more. This, the book suggests, is more effective than trying to change your lifestyle to be more sustainable or more equitable.

As the book went on I became more and more suspicious of how often its optimum altruism strategy coincided with what the rich and powerful would like you to be doing. In the end, I concluded that it was simply an argument to not rock the boat and support the status quo. I doubt future generations would thank us for that.