 |
| MacAskill's unfortunte column is titled "This week, let’s dump a few ice buckets to wipe out malaria too". |
Mr.
MacAskill tosses gasoline on the fire rather than water to put it out. I
talked about his prior "philosophical observations about the ALS/Ice Bucket Challenge here.
Now he does it again, doubling down on his ill-formed logic. As he has
unfortunately seized the podium it really is time for some questions from the
audience. You can read his latest
journey into the land of crazy here....if you must.
He
writes, in this ill-conceived column as follows:
"Those who participate in the ice bucket challenge
donate to ALS not, seemingly, because they’ve thought about the many problems
in the world, and tried to figure out how they personally can best address
those problems. Instead, they donate simply because ALS is the originator of
the challenge. This is problematic. We should reward the charities that we
believe do the most good, not those that have the best marketing strategy,
otherwise the most successful charities will be those that are best at
soliciting funds, not those that are best at making the world a better
place".
Outside
of some bad grammar, let's find a nugget or two:
1.
"Instead they donate simply because ALS is the originator of
the challenge".
Where
to start, where to start. Yo' William, my kids did the challenge.
They did it to raise money for a "Walk" regarding ALS. They
didn't donate to ALS because it originated the idea. Somehow you clearly
write a belief that ALS is an entity and not a disease. This stunt was
originated and promoted by those who have an "oar in the water"; a
family member (me in this case) or a friend with ALS. As ALS isn't on
most people's radar, the challenge has, in some small measure, put itself up to
be seen. ALS didn’t start a thing.
2. "We should reward
charities that do the most good, not those with the best marketing
strategies".
I'm
particularly fond of that sentence. MacAskill forgets that the American
Cancer Society spends more money on marketing than has been spent on ALS TOTAL
research each year, as does the Pancreatic Cancer Society, the MS society, and
I could go on and on. He implies that donating to ALS research
"doesn't do the most good" so why give.
Let
me 'splain something to you Willie -(as Ricky
Ricardo used to say). There are two types of ALS in a sense. One
type that you just "get" and another that seems like it runs
genetically (familial). The later is a small percentage of the total;
some say about 10%. For those folks, all the limited research funds have
perhaps isolated the gene that is partially responsible so familial genetic
testing is somewhat possible. For the other 90%, the sum total of
research has produced 1 pill, RILUZOLE, that prolongs life for some by a couple
of months, if it doesn't kill your liver first. That's it.
.
3.
"(funding won't go to) not those that are best at making the world a better place".
I get it. We take the world view here. Until we wipe
out malaria we should do that before we move on to another deadly disease.
That's all I can figure out; the 117 people in the US who died of
malaria...well, they get the golden egg of donations to a worthwhile cause.
Slick
Willie has an agenda not born of anything other than some statistics he pulls
out of his hind end and then constructs silly arguments to support them.
Either that, and/or most likely his own business/charity, that
"80,000 hours" thing that lists the following accomplishments under the "donate to me/us now":
·
Published over 100 blog posts, given one-on-one advice to
over 100 people, and published an article in a major philosophy journal.
·
Seen several 80,000 Hours alumni donate over $80,000
each, and enter jobs at Google, McKinsey, Jane St and Rothschild.
·
Completely updated our brand and website.
Yes I get it now.
Verily. Yup.