This is awful. He starts with people giving away money and wanting it to do the most good rather than be wasted and goes from there to trollies running over pe

This is awful. He starts with people giving away money and wanting it to do the most good rather than be wasted and goes from there to trollies running over people, leaving drowning kids to die, butchering people for their organs, and bulldozing cities. This appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities of chaos and uncertainty. Just to point out two very real examples that run counter to this thinking: Recent studies of benefit programs that give college scholarships to top academic performers it was found that these programs are entirely dominated by girls with essentially zero male participation. This was unexpected, unintended, and raises some major issues regarding gender balance and equity. But in the context set up in this talk both of these outcomes are essentially the same and not differentiable. This is also all hovering near the issue of how best to execute philanthropy. One of the big issues in this space is how much workers involved should be paid. Currently dominant thinking is that charity work as good and wholesome and no money should be wasted and so pay for charity workers tends to be a fraction of what people with similar skills would make at the same or similar jobs in industry. However, experimentation has shown that paying charity workers similar amounts to what people earn in industry jobs results in increased productivity and mission successes. So there is a very interesting open question about exactly how much charity workers should be paid. It seems that in this piece the argument is being made that the entire issue is fundamentally grotesque and immoral. So the issues related to making philanthropy are real and do not in general involve trollies, drowning children, people as potential organ banks willing or not, or the bulldozing of cities. This is really just another sad and tired example of philosophers completely missing the point of pragmatic action.