In the past few weeks a photograph of Tony Blair and his buddy Bill Clinton sharing a panel with a scruffy kid wearing a T-shirt, baggy shorts and trainers has been doing the rounds. The April event was in the Bahamas and funded by an outfit called FTX — a supposedly “user-friendly crypto exchange”—– owned by the scruffy kid, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF from now on). Blair and Clinton are looking very pleased to be there, providing confirmation of the aphrodisiac effect of great wealth, because the lad who was playing host was apparently as rich as Croesus, or at any rate worth US$32 billion.
And this was real wealth, it seemed. After all, the venture capitalists at Sequoia — who had backed Silicon Valley success stories such as Google and PayPal — had given him the green light (as well as some of their investors’ money). A few months after Blair and Clinton made their pilgrimage to the sun-soaked and regulation-lite Bahamas, one of Sequoia’s partners offered a breathless endorsement of SBF and his crypto exchange.
“Of the exchanges that we had met and looked at,” she wrote, “some of them had regulatory issues, some of them were already public. And then there was Sam.” And FTX, which, Sequoia felt, was “Goldilocks-perfect.”
Photo: AP
And then, suddenly, it wasn’t. In fact it was effectively bankrupt. And it had been managed, said the administrator brought in to sort out the mess, using fraternity-house accounting principles, which kind-of squared with SBF’s sartorial style. The thousands of get-rich-quick schmucks who had invested their savings on various FTX exchanges, however, were not impressed and may even now be having to pawn their handmade suits.
All of which is par for the course for the crypto racket, except for two things. The first is that SBF is a proclaimed effective altruist, ie a believer that the most important moral imperative is to make shedloads of money in order that one can give it away to do good.
The second is that he is a confirmed subscriber to “longtermism” — the idea that the far future should be given at least as much weight as the present in moral and political decision-making. This year alone he had, according to the Economist, funneled more than US$130 million into the movement via the FTX Future Fund, a non-profit organization that provides grants to projects aiming to secure humanity’s long-term future.
Photo: Reuters
This strange convergence of a philosophy of philanthropic giving with a concern about existential risk to humanity’s future is intriguing. The philosophical roots go back to Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher who teaches at Princeton and now describes himself as a “hedonistic utilitarian.” He is famous for (among many other things) a 1972 essay, “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” in which he argued that affluent people are morally obliged to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in western cultures.
Singer’s article had a life-changing impact on William MacAskill, a philosophy student at Cambridge and, as a New Yorker profile of him puts it, shunted him “on to a track of rigorous and uncompromising moralism” — which, translated, means very challenging to live with.
As a postgraduate student at Oxford he gave away most of his stipend, lived very frugally and started a moral crusade called “effective altruism” (EA), the idea that people ought to do good in the most clear-sighted, ambitious, and unsentimental way possible. So, for example, if you’re a young well-intentioned graduate wondering whether to take a job working for a charity or become a trainee in an investment bank, then the latter is the effective altruistic way of doing good, because in the end you will have far more loot to distribute.
Photo: AP
There are various ways of looking at this. At one level, it could just be conscience-salving ethics-washing: making one feel good while earning colossal amounts of money financing the burning of the planet. But at a deeper level there’s a hard-headed edge to it. Instead of having to be cruel to be kind you need to be rational to maximize the benefits of your charity. That, presumably, is what motivated some young hedge fund guys at Bridgewater to set up GiveWell, a nonprofit group that tries to identify the most effective giving opportunities using hard data rather than emotions or moral sentiment.
“We search,” says their Web site, “for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar.”
If you wanted a posh term for this mindset you’d say it was an offshoot of utilitarianism called consequentialism — charity based not on explicitly moral principles, but on pragmatic assessments of the consequences of a gift. What will do the greatest good for the greatest number?
And this, it turned out, was catnip to the current crop of young tech billionaires who have become obscenely rich while still in their 30s or 40s and love to flaunt their credentials as super-rational technocrats. These are folks who don’t necessarily want to have their names on boring old university buildings or make donations to established foundations and art galleries. Instead they want to be involved in some way and to see their money getting results and making a measurable impact. Nerds with hearts, you could say.
Not surprisingly, MacAskill’s little crusade started attracting serious money from them — maybe amounting, some think, to more than US$30 billion. Dustin Muskovitz was an early supporter. He was a co-founder of Facebook and an early contributor to EA, finding that MacAskill’s philosophy aligned nicely with Open Philanthropy, the foundation he set up with his wife to specialize in “strategic cause selection.” As Silicon Valley money poured in, so too did the tech industry’s engineering mindset, obsessed as it is with two things: efficiency and optimization. But with them also came the valley’s obsession with humanity’s long-term future, whether it be on Earth, Mars or some other extraterrestrial location.
At this point, two questions come to mind. First, what exactly has this guy been smoking? And secondly, what’s driving this focus on the infinitely-longterm future at the expense of more immediate and soluble problems? Whose interests are being served here? MacAskill has become the poster child for something; but what is it? Without us noticing it, longtermism has become a well-funded movement.
If a coherent movement is indeed being constructed round this longtermist philosophy, then one reason for taking it seriously is that we have been here before — in what Philip Mirowski christened the “neoliberal thought collective.” When Hayek, Von Mises and co embarked on their project to realign the world along market-friendly lines, they were regarded as continental cranks. And now their ideas rule the democratic world. Keynes was wrong: in the long run we are not all dead.
On those rare days in Kaohsiung when the air is crisp and clear, the eastern horizon is dominated by a green wall that towers high above the Pingtung plains. This is the ridge running from Wutou Mountain (霧頭山), up to Beidawu Mountain (北大武山) at 3,092 meters. Many make the trek up to Beidawu, but very few walk the top of this wall over to Wutou, and for good reason: it is an unmarked, overgrown death trap with no reliable water and steep slopes full of rotten wood and crumbly rock. Last week, news emerged that a French couple called for rescue
Last week, the presidential campaign of Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) tapped Cynthia Wu (吳欣盈), the granddaughter of Shin Kong group founder Wu Ho-su (吳火獅), as his vice-presidential candidate. Wu and her vast wealth seem to fly in the face of Ko’s claim to be offering new, cleaner politics. She wasted no time putting the peasants in their proper place. Asked last week by a reporter if she would publicly reveal that she had given up her US citizenship, Wu tartly responded that it was an issue between herself and the US government. The following day, when
Hitting tennis balls across a tree-lined court in Thailand’s mountainous north, Connie Chen’s weekly private training session is a luxury the Chinese national could barely afford when she lived in Shanghai. China implemented some of the world’s toughest COVID restrictions during the pandemic, putting hundreds of millions of people under prolonged lockdowns. In the aftermath, younger citizens — exhausted by grueling and unrewarding jobs — are taking flight to escape abroad. With a relatively easy process for one-year study visas, a slower pace of living and cheap living costs, Thailand’s second-largest city Chiang Mai has become a popular destination. “During the pandemic, the
Comedian Xi Diao says he knows he should avoid talking politics on stage, but sharing a family name with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) makes it hard to resist. Even his name is politically sensitive, the Melbourne-based amateur comedian tells audiences, setting up a joke about a group chat on the Chinese messaging service WeChat being shut down as soon as he joined it. The 33-year-old civil engineer gets nervous laughs whenever he breaks a de facto rule of Chinese comedy: Don’t say anything that makes China look bad. To most comedians, that means no jokes about censorship, no mentioning the president’s
RSS