400 Bad Request

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

Additionally, a 400 Bad Request error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


Posts Tagged ‘United Kingdom’

Mission Possible: The Best Veterans’ Services In The World

Saturday, November 12th, 2016

Foundation road copymhl-125-wide_edited-3

Upbeat–and Sometimes Miraculous–Stories From the Holy Land.

By M.H. Levine

A military center combined with amazing education. Programs that help build strength and leaderships skills in young people..and events, community and counseling  for–and actual joyous celebration of–Veterans. This is the mission of the Israel Air Force Center in Herzaliya. 

Spending on Military and Education has always been at odds in the United States. One seems to happen at the expense of the other, in our tug of war politics.

Certainly not so at the IAF Center–run by the IAF Center Foundation–which is breath of fresh air in terms of honoring military personnel. If there is another building somewhere in the word that honors military personnel and veterans so well, I’d love to see it.

“At the IAF Center, we believe in investing in human capital — building this young generation of Israelis into the leaders of tomorrow. Leaders, especially in the IAF, can never lead alone. They rely on the men and women around them. That’s why we teach team building and encourage friendship amongst our participants.” (Picture and caption: IFC Center Foundation).

Could the solution for Veterans Services in the United States involve this kind of private/public funded localized center that is gleaming, first rate, celebratory and kind…?

In keeping with the idea of a military that spends less in the United States, but way more effectively…and an educational system upon which we begin spending a little more BUT ALSO WAY MORE EFFECTIVELY…it would amazing to see a few centers like these spring up, spread across different branches of the American Military. If such a thing were to happen,  each new Veteran’s Day would be a happier day for more and more American veterans…year after year.




Foundation Road Bill Gates On Energy Part 2

Saturday, February 27th, 2016

Foundation road thumbnailI’m sure you have read about climate change and maybe studied it in school. You might be worried about how it will affect you. The truth is, the people who will be hit the hardest are the world’s poorest. Millions of the poorest families work as farmers. Changes in weather often mean that their crops won’t grow because of too little rain or too much rain. That sinks them deeper into poverty. That’s particularly unfair because they’re the least responsible for emitting CO2, which is causing the problem in the first place.

Scientists say that to avoid these dramatic long-term changes to the climate, the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent by 2050, and eliminate them entirely by the end of the century.

When I first heard this I was surprised. Can’t we just aim to cut carbon emissions in half? I asked many scientists. But they all agreed that wouldn’t be enough. The problem is that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for decades. Even if we halted carbon emissions tomorrow, the temperature would still rise because of the carbon that’s already been released. No, we need to get all the way down to zero.
That’s a huge challenge. In 2015, the world emitted 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to produce energy. This is a mind-boggling number. (It’s worth remembering, because it will come in handy. For example, someone may tell you they know how to remove 100 million tons of carbon per year. That sounds like a lot, but if you do the math—100 million divided by 36 billion—you’ll see that they’re talking about 0.3 percent of the problem. Every reduction in emissions helps, but we still have to work on the other 99.7 percent.)

How can we ever reduce a number like 36 billion tons to zero?
Whenever I’m confronted with a big problem I turn to my favorite subject: math. It’s one subject that always came naturally to me, even in middle school when my grades weren’t that great. Math cuts out the noise and helps me distill a problem down to its basic elements.
Climate change is an issue that has plenty of noise surrounding it. There are those who deny it is a problem at all. Others exaggerate the immediate risks.
What I needed was an equation that would help me understand how we might get our CO2 down to zero.
Here’s what I came up with:

That might look complicated. It’s not.
On the right side you have the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we put in the atmosphere. This is what we need to get to zero. It’s based on the four factors on the left side of the equation: the world’s population (P) multiplied by the services (S) used by each person; the energy (E) needed to provide each of those services; and finally, the carbon dioxide (C) produced by that energy.
As you learned in math class, any number multiplied by zero will equal zero. So if we want to get to zero CO2, then we need to get at least one of the four factors on the left to zero.

Let’s go through them, one by one, and see what we get.
The world’s population (P) is currently 7 billion and expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050. No chance it’ll be zero.
Next, services. This is everything: food, clothing, heat, houses, cars, TV, toothbrushes, Elmo dolls, Taylor Swift albums, etc. This is the number that I was saying earlier needs to go up in poor countries, so people can have lights, refrigerators, and so on. So (S) can’t be zero, either.
Let’s take a look at (E). That’s the energy needed per service. There’s some good news here. Fuel-efficient cars, LED light bulbs, and other inventions are making it possible to use energy more efficiently.
Many people, and you may be one of them, are also changing their lifestyles to conserve energy. They’re biking and carpooling to save gas, turning down the heat a couple degrees, adding insulation to their homes. All of these efforts help cut down on energy use.
Unfortunately, they don’t get us to zero. In fact, most scientists agree that by 2050 we’ll be using 50 percent more energy than we do today.
So none of the first three—population, services, and energy—are getting close to zero. That leaves the final factor (C), the amount of carbon emitted per each unit of energy.


Effective Altruism: Peter Singer’s “The Most Good You Can Do”

Thursday, July 9th, 2015
“The Most Good You Can Do” Author Peter Seeger

Australians give more than $2.2bn a year to charities – but how well is that money spent? This conundrum is tackled by the philosopher Peter Singer in his new book The Most Good You Can Do.

Singer espouses the benefits of a growing movement called “effective altruism”, which demands targeted, evidenced-based giving that does the most good to alleviate poverty and reduce suffering.

Singer’s book is full of vignettes of people such as his former student Matt Wage, who decided to embark upon a career on Wall Street purely because he could earn more money to give away.

Effective altruists have worked out, Singer argues, that you can comfortably live without, say, 10% of your income and provide a net benefit to the world. He spoke to Guardian Australia about the book.

Oliver Milman: How would you describe effective altruism in a nutshell?
Peter Singer: It’s people who want to make a significant contribution to making the world a better place. That’s the “altruism”. “Significant” can mean 10% of your income, but for some people that can mean time or another contribution.

The second part is thinking about how to maximise what I’m giving – the time, the money, the skill – to make the world a better place. That’s where the head part of it comes in.

So are most people giving to charity for essentially selfish reasons?
There are a lot of “warm glow” givers. There are a lot of people giving without doing any research at all about whether their gifts are effective. So that’s a big problem.

I’m not so worried by people’s motivation. Maybe people do it because it makes them feel good. I’m not going to say “it makes you feel good so it’s not a sacrifice, you’re not an altruist”. I think that’s the wrong way to think about altruism.

We want to think that people who help others are altruists. We want people to feel good about giving, not good because they’ve got a bigger yacht than the next guy.

You talk about charities using pictures of children and animals, rather than hard details, to elicit a response.
It’s what people say about newspapers – the public gets what it deserves. People are prompted by the smiling faces and in some cases are even put off by too much detail and transparency, it’s hard to blame the organisation for doing this.


What’s pleasing is that there is a new breed of organisation that is appealing to the savvier group of donors who want information, they want hard information about what’s happening with their money, they want transparency.

Should there be a data-driven approach?
It’s fairly data-driven and certainly some people are like that. It’s not an accident that a lot of people into effective altruism are from the hedge fund area, computer-based stuff, startups and the like.

It’s all very pragmatic, isn’t it?
In the way of achieving an effect, yes, it’s completely pragmatic. Charity is a huge thing, in the US it’s $230bn a year, so it’s pretty big by any standards. And yet a lot of it isn’t going to the right place.

What information should altruists be looking for?
Firstly they should be saying “we chose this particular intervention because the data showed us”. So, they chose to distribute a certain number of bed nets in malaria-prone areas because there is data showing that is an effective way of preventing people getting sick and dying.

Take a larger organisation, such as Oxfam. I’d like to see them say, “We have a large number of projects and we chose these projects as a result of the following process.”

Who decides whether Oxfam would spend money on a rural savings and loans program in rural Mali and that it would spend money on assistance for relief from a cyclone? How were those decisions made?

Oxfam’s supporters don’t know the answer to that and it would be good to see the data upon which those decisions were made. Preferably, there would be independent evaluations of those projects.

I’m hoping the word gets around that if you do this, do it well, you’ll get money and organisations not providing the data won’t be on recommended lists. In a way I’m looking to shame organisations.

Is a lot of money wasted?
Yes. I’m not saying there are a lot of charities where it’s doing no good at all, but if you are giving to a charity to save a life for $100,000 and there’s another charity that could save a life for $5,000, then I’d say you’ve wasted $95,000.

Not all lives are considered equal though. People generally see their family and people around them as more important than people in faraway countries.

Yes, if there’s anything universally true of every culture, people pay more attention to the needs and interests of their close kin.

I’m not trying to fight that. That would be hopeless. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to stop there, that people’s altruism isn’t only related to kin and reciprocity, that there’s an element of it for distant strangers. It shouldn’t just be a plateau and then falls off a cliff if you’re not related to me or are my friend.

Why should people care about distant strangers?
Because you can make a big difference to their lives at a small cost to yourself, you are making the world a better place.

Even if we assume that your welfare is going to drop a little bit, and the welfare of several other people rises a lot, you are living in a better world. I think we ought to think about that, it should be a motivating factor.

Assuming you are a comfortable middle-class person, you are spending a lot of money on things that don’t make a huge difference to your life. Whether you change your curtains or buy a new car or new clothes, those sort of things make a pretty small difference. Whereas making a big difference to someone can be so much more fulfilling, so much more worthwhile. Even from a broadly self-interested sense, you’re better off.

How would you class how public policy in Australia is going at the moment?
I think the cuts to foreign aid are deplorable. I say that in a non-partisan way because it was the second Rudd government that started it off, because there had been bipartisan support for moving to 0.5% of gross national income, then that Labor government said they’d postpone it. I think it’s shameful that Australia gives so little aid.

Look at Britain. David Cameron pledged to reach 0.7% and he did it, despite financial problems.

Maybe the political atmosphere has got more poisonous in Australia, maybe that gives people licence to attack others on matters that should be bipartisan, like foreign aid. I don’t know.

Does that debate, where we demonise the poorest, those fleeing persecution, impact upon peoples’ altruism?
The debate about asylum seekers is very unfortunate, but in a way there’s a loss of sense of proportion in how we are doing in accepting refugees and by that standard we are doing OK. That’s something we should be positive about.

Even after the aid cuts, we are giving more than the Americans, by proportion, so we aren’t doing badly, but I wouldn’t like to compare us with the Americans. They are very anti-government, more anti-government than us and more anti-government than anyone should be.

We should compare ourselves to reasonably affluent nations such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and of course Britain. Australians, generally, think we are better off than Britain, so why can’t we give as much aid as them? We should do better.

What change would you like to see in an ideal world?
The ideal scenario is when people think “am I living ethically?” they aren’t thinking “have I stolen something, have I lied or cheated?” or whatever – usually you can tick those boxes and say no.

I’d like people to think more “have I done something significant to make the world a better place?” That could be through reducing animal suffering, reducing the risk of catastrophic disasters by acting on climate change or dealing with an epidemic.

Whatever you’re doing, you need to make sure it’s as effective as possible.