Thank you very much to both of you, Will and Matt. I think youâve given everybody a lot to think about and I imagine that there are some questions that people have in their heads. And so we have a little bit of time to ask questions now or comments, discussion, anything of that sort. >> One here, yes? >> One of the things that you talked about and that we talked about earlier [INAUDIBLE] is that >> Let me repeat the question. So you've suggested that if you don't work for the charity there'll be somebody else as effective, or almost as effective if you will, but isn't it possible that you might be the person who is the most effective. And if that's the case, then is that the path that you ought to take? >> Yes, great question and as I was really keen to stress this is some general arguments doesn't apply to specific cases. And so a couple of days ago I talked to Harvard Business School. These are people who had really been incredibly successful, generally in the for-profit sector, and they're obviously incredibly talented, have great experience, and they're now thinking about working in nonprofits or social enterprise. And for them it really might be that because they're so well-skilled and well-experienced, they can actually can go and work in the very best organizations. And not only that, they can also really make a big difference. So again I said, Against Malaria Foundation has budget of $8 million and imagine if you make that 10% more effective. That's 800,000 pounds every year. It's probably more than you can donate. So if you do have the skills to work for both the very best charities, and the skills such that actually you're able to make a really massive impact on those charities, then definitely you can do a lot of good. One specific way you might be able to do that, even from now, is by working as a gavant maker within the charity. So someone who's deciding what causes they pursue. Where this is often just very badly done, but you can be a geek, you can do your homework, you can find out which are the causes that are most effective. And that could mean that even working in the nonprofit sector, you could make a really substantial difference right from the beginning. >> In that last case you mentioned, are you thinking about a large charity that does a number of different things, some of which are highly effective and some are not? >> Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. So many of these mega-charities will do a whole variety of programs and, in many cases at least, they don't really take a particularly evidence-based approach to choosing causes. And so you could really get to know the best evidence and make sure they don't fund the least effective things and spend more money funding the most effective things. >> Okay. Any other questions? Yes? >> So you mentioned that there 800,000 physicians in the United States, which is obviously a very big number. >> So the question refers to the fact that you said there are 800,000 physicians in the United States, and suggested that if you didn't become one, there would be somebody else to do more or less the same work that you had. But the questioner is saying there's a shortage of physicians in the United States, so in that sense, there is more to be done and you wouldn't be replaced if you didn't become one. >> Okay, yes, so again, a great question. It's kind of at this stage that we probably want to stop kind of battling with abstract arguments as maybe I'm inclined to do as a philosopher and just start to look at the data. So I met a doctor in the UK, and was also graduate from Cambridge. Actually just did the analysis. So looked at very many countries, looked at how many doctors they have, what their health outcomes are, and did a regression consoling for things like wealth and education and so on. In order to work out actually what's the difference of what a marginal doctor has in the US. And it's certainly not nothing. The answer it gives about three quality adjusted life years every year. So that's really something. Over the course of a 30 or 40-year career, that might be equivalent intuitively to saving three lives or four lives which is still awesome. But putting it in context of how much good your donations can do, that's about equivalent to donating $150, $200 every year. And so in terms of the difference you can make between your donations and direct work as a doctor, we actually can just look at the data and assess that directly. And certainly not that you do no good as a doctor, but your donation is just swamped the kind of direct benefit that you can do and have. Anyone have a question for Matt, by the way. As the first couple have gone. Oh, you do? >> Yes. >> Yep? So I guess my question is sort of similar to a question about [INAUDIBLE] but in this case [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. So this question is from an engineering student who is imagining that the way he would be able to have the most impact is to go into engineering and do something there. And refers to the example of the invention of the transistor was it? As something that made a huge difference to the world. Rather more than you would in finance, so, what do you think about that? >> Yeah, so I think definitely if you could do something like invent a transistor or something then probably you should go ahead and do that. I think a lot of the people who have done the most good in the world are people who were doing something sort of random and they came up with some awesome. You mentioned Norman Borlaug, he was the guy who did the short stalks right? Yeah, he basically made crops way more effective and it saved tons of people. And so if you can do something like that then definitely you should go do that. I think you have to think about what's the average case? Am I really, does the average engineer really do that much more? And actually, I think it's a difficult question. Maybe the answer is yes, but my gut sort of says, well probably not. But I don't know. It's difficult. Okay, down here? >> So as you [INAUDIBLE] >> How would you consider where animal suffering fits given that you've been talking, basically, about global poverty? >> Yeah, so maybe two aspects to that question. One is how does animal suffering compare in terms of a cause earlier to human suffering in the developing world? And second is how can you do the most good for our animals suffering? On the first side I'm very convinced by Peter Singer's arguments that there's no qualitative difference between non-human animal suffering and human suffering. Where if you study evolution, we're just gradients on a kind of evolutionary spectrum. I mean in terms of the severity of suffering, cage set hens, factory farm pigs as well suffer absolutely immensely. And it's something where at least potentially you could have an awful lot of leverage. So it's certainly a very plausible cause area. In terms of how to do the most good terms of animal suffering, I think again learning to give is a very promising route and a lot of people in the animal activism movement have chosen to do that. Another thing that's very plausible is going into politics. So, if you can go into politics, toe the party line, and be just the model Democrat or model Republican on all issues apart from one which is getting rid of caged hens or getting rid of factory farming or factory farmed pigs, then you could have this absolutely massive impact. And maybe your chance of achieving that is quite low, we've tried to work out for Oxford students the chance of becoming MP or Prime Minister. For some it can be as low as one in 100 for Prime Minister. That's kind of incredible. But even that's still low. But the difference you can make, if you're successful, is absolutely huge. And in so far that this is something we just have a one off legislative change that would have continuing benefit, that would also be something that could potentially do a huge amount of good. >> Okay. It would be interesting to hear more about how you could have a chance of becoming Prime Minister as low as one in a hundred. [LAUGH] Perhaps this says something about the tendency of students at Bayard College in Oxford to become prime ministers, of which I think there is a bit of a tradition. But might be harder here, I don't know that there's any particular institution that has that kind of stranglehold on the presidency.
