Humanism Now | Empowering Conversations with Voices for Reason, Compassion and Change

40. Nick Cooney on Going Beyond Good Intentions & the Ethical Impact of What We Leave Undone

• Humanise Live | Hosted by James Hodgson • Season 1 • Episode 40

Share episode

“Focusing on the positive outcomes gives you agency; you can literally see the progress happening and that keeps you moving forward.” - Nick Cooney

Nick Cooney is a social entrepreneur, alternative‑protein investor, and author. He joins Humanism Now to discuss to unpack the hidden moral cost of doing nothing. Drawing on insights from his new book What We Don’t Do, Nick explains why inaction outweighs mis‑action, how to count the suffering we can prevent, and why business, capital and compassion must pull in the same direction.

Topics we cover

✔︎ The four‑quadrant framework of action vs inaction
✔︎ Measuring impact: turning empathy into numbers
✔︎ Beating overwhelm with data‑driven altruism
✔︎ Alternative proteins and the end of factory farming
✔︎ Lever VC’s investment thesis & the business case for good
✔︎ Animal suffering as a neglected moral emergency
✔︎ Effective altruism, long‑termism and their critiques
✔︎ Habits that keep the “do‑more” muscle strong

Connect with Nick

Resources

Send us a text

Support the show


Support us on Patreon

Advertising opportunities

Click here to submit questions, nominate guest & topics.

Follow Humanism Now @HumanismNowPod

This Podcast is produced by Humanise Live.

Humanise Live makes podcasting easy for charities and social causes.

Contact us to get starting in podcasting today at www.humanise.live or hello@humanise.live

Music: Blossom by Light Prism

James Hodgson:

Welcome to Humanism Now. I'm your host, james Hodgson. Here at Humanism Now, we often explore how to live well and do good in the world, how to use our limited time, energy and resources to make a meaningful difference. But what about the things we don't do? What if inaction choosing not to act causes more suffering than anything we ever intended? Our guest today, nick Cooney, argues that the greatest ethical cost we face may lie in what we fail to do. In his new book, what we Don't Do In Action in the Face of Suffering and the Drive to Do More, nick explores how we can overcome overwhelm and take action that truly counts.

James Hodgson:

Nick is a social entrepreneur, investor and author whose work spans social impact, food systems and philanthropy. He is the founder and managing partner of Leva VC, a global fund investing in alternative protein companies. He also chairs the Leva Foundation, a non-profit focused on building more humane and sustainable food systems. Previously, he founded and ran the Humane League and co-founded the Good Food Institute, and he has served in an advisory role for high-impact philanthropy and ethical giving. He's the author of several books, including Change of Heart, veganomics and how to Be Great at Doing Good, and his latest, what we Don't Do Inaction in the Face of Suffering and the Drive to Do More. Nick joins us today to talk about the psychology of altruism, the ethics of inaction and the business case for doing good, and what it really means to take action when time, energy and resources are finite. Nick Cooney, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Nick cooney:

Thanks, james, great to be here. I appreciate it.

James Hodgson:

So, in what we Don't Do, you argue that inaction may cause more suffering than action and that we often overestimate the moral weight of our actions, while overlooking the consequences of inaction. Why did you choose to focus on inaction and how did this idea first take hold for you?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, it's always an idea that if you haven't thought about it before, it takes a good 30, 60 seconds to really understand what the point is, what the message here, the reason why I thought it worth taking the time to write this book and think through and talk through and write through this topic is indeed what you mentioned, that from an impact perspective.

Nick cooney:

If we're thinking about the impact that our choices and our lives have on the world around us, on those who are suffering, those who are in need, et cetera, elsewhere in the world, I really do feel that for most of us, for those of us in Europe, in the States, in a more developed world, more developed economies, that it really is those choices of inaction, the things we choose not to do with the excess money we have, the extra time we have, the extra mental energy we have.

Nick cooney:

It's those choices or sort of default settings of not acting that allow a lot more harm to occur in the world than any bad things we might do individually. So we might feel guilty about this or that small action we take, so we might feel guilty about this or that small action we take, but really it's the failing to use more of our excess money, excess time, excess energy to help those who are in ever think about this. There's no other books, full-length books, that have been written on this topic. It's not a point you hear in discussions or in part of the public discourse around ethics, right and wrong, et cetera, and so it was kind of both that neglect and this of the idea and the huge importance of this topic that think through it a bit further, write about it in the book.

James Hodgson:

What we don't do and I think one of the main challenges is the scale of global suffering certainly feels enormous today. It feels like either we are much more aware or there is just much more suffering and many more issues that need to be dealt with and that have our attention. And so I certainly felt, you know, initially, looking at the book and the premise, that initial challenge of, yes, I'd love to show more action, I'd love to be more engaged, but it can feel very overwhelming. So how should we aim to stay motivated to act, rather than being paralyzed by that feeling of overwhelm?

Nick cooney:

Yeah. So I'm sure the answer to this is going to vary a little bit person to person, just based on, you know, each person being motivated by different things. But for me, like to speak, what's very helpful for me to not feel that sense of overwhelm is to focus on the positive outcomes generated. So, just as somebody whose life is really focused on making as much money as they can, they have this kind of easy way to count what they're viewing as success, right, dollars in the bank account, how much you made this year, etc. It's a very quantifiable way of looking at what your goal is and feeling, hopefully feeling progress against your goal. For me, I have a very similar mindset around doing good in the world, which is, for me, my goal is to reduce suffering for as many folks as I can, have as much positive impact as I can, and there's ways to count and quantify that. And so, for me, taking that numeric, quantified kind of results, number of results driven approach is very helpful because it allows, I think, think psychologically, what it does is a few things. One, it focuses on the positive right You're focused on the good things done, not that endless universe of bad things and people in need right. So first, just you're focusing your attention on the positive things done. Two, it gives a sense of agency because you can see that progress happening. You can see I did this and then I was able to do, and then this. I think it gives that sense of I do have the ability to impact the world positively. And third, the gym I go to there's a little sign that hangs up in the locker room that says what gets measured gets improved.

Nick cooney:

And I think that's true, and I think in this area as well, when it comes to this idea of trying to do good in the world, if we're measuring and quantifying and our mind is really focused on that, the good that we're doing, I think it just provides extra motivation to keep getting to the next level, the next level for those who have a kind of success oriented, achievement oriented mindset in life in general.

Nick cooney:

So I think for me, paying attention to that and focusing on that, and then the things that go into improving those numbers, what else could I do that's more effective than I'm doing now? How could I be a bit more efficient with my time? How could I be more efficient with the money I do have to donate? Then it's kind of games way too light of a word to use there but there's kind of like a creative, thoughtful sort of ongoing puzzle. I figure out this puzzle of how to achieve the stronger performance next year than I did last year. So for me it's those things that, I think, keep me motivated and, at least 97% of the time, in a pretty positive mindset about work to improve the world, as opposed to dwelling too much on that truly endless universe of the bad things that are out there that we'll never be able to address.

James Hodgson:

That's a really proactive and pragmatic approach to take to make it more manageable. And I know you introduced this concept of the four quadrant framework around action and inaction and so I wondered could you talk us through that a little bit and maybe also introduce some of the metrics which you yourself use to kind of measure success?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, absolutely so to speak to the four quadrants and give a real life example. That turns this like somewhat vague sounding idea of the ethics of inaction or what we don't do, just to make it concrete and real. So I use a fictional anecdote near the start of the book and I'll just give the 30 second version of that fictional anecdote because I think it's quite helpful for displaying what I'm talking about here and also those four quadrants you mentioned. Back in the 1500s there's this very wealthy merchant in France in a smaller town in France. He's done well for himself. He's an older fellow, done well in business, made a lot of money, saved up a lot of money. So he lives a very comfortable lifestyle by all external measures. Seems like a good person, nice to his kids, good to his wife and his family. Gives some money to support some local artists and the church in his town, fair in his business dealings, you know that doesn't cheat folks, you know doesn't get in fights, those sort of things. Like well, general measure. Seems like a good guy living a good life.

Nick cooney:

Then one winter starvation hits the town. There's some really bad weather, some natural disasters, and most folks in the town are sort of peasant farmers where kind of scraping by on subsistence farming and with these natural weather incidents and loss of a lot of the crops, suddenly there's a lot of people in the town that are on the brink of starvation, and so some of them start knocking at this fellow's door let's call him John knocking at John's door, asking him hey, we're running out of food. Please, I know you have extra, anything you can give. Can you give us some food, some money? And John says, like, please, I know you have extra, like anything you can give. Can you give us some food, some money? And John says, yeah, no, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do that and closes the door. And that kind of happens throughout the winter People asking for help and John choosing not to help them, even though he has the ability to do so at no significant expense to himself or his family. Right Like he wouldn't be out on the streets, he wouldn't be starving, his family would still be safe, he could give a lot more, but he chooses not to help them and, as a result, over the course of that winter, dozens of folks die from starvation in this town.

Nick cooney:

Now, at the end of John's life, let's say we're at John's funeral and people are talking about him and the life he lived. I think most of us, if we were reflecting back on, was this a person who lived a good life, an ethical life? We would give him those positive thumbs up, those positive check marks for the things I spoke about earlier right, being fair in his business dealings, a generally kind person, et cetera. But I think if we were doing that sort of just instinctual ethical accounting for did this guy live a good life? Did he make ethically good choices? We would view this one big black mark being there. If he had this ability to save the lives of these people who were starving, had no significant negative impact or risk to himself. And he didn't do it and that was a real ethical failing.

Nick cooney:

That's really what we're talking about when it comes to what we don't do, and so the four quadrants I talk about there is. We could I would posit in one way we could think about the ethics of what we're doing or not doing on these two axes so good and bad, do and don't do. So there's the good things we do, there's the bad things we do and of course those matter right. We should try to do more good things. We should try to do fewer bad things. But then there's also the bad things we don't do, us refraining from causing harm when we could and maybe could get away with it. But we do the right thing anyway, and that's important, that's valuable. And then the good things we don't do. So good things we do. Good things we don't do. Bad things we do bad things we don't do.

Nick cooney:

And of those four quadrants as we were chatting about earlier, I certainly think that today, in the world we live in, today and this was definitely not the case hundreds and thousands of years ago but today that that I call it the fourth quadrant good things we don't do, good things we have the ability to do but don't do.

Nick cooney:

It's that quadrant that is sort of the most practically consequential for others around us, for those who are in need, those who are suffering that we have the ability to help, and therefore probably also ethically the most consequential for us, because it's just most consequential for the world around us. And so that's really the ethics of an action, it's the good things that we don't do. To speak to quantifying it, your second question there for me, the way that I think about it is and of course there's different ways to think about it, but I think of it a lot around suffering. So I think there are two main things that are in my mind in trying to do good in the world. So one is help the greatest number of individuals and that includes obviously people, but also animals, non-human animals, other species that feel pain and feel pleasure in a very similar way to us.

Nick cooney:

I think, therefore, their suffering matters. So just the number of individuals that I'm able to positively impact and then how much those individuals are positively impact right, is it somebody that has a smile for 30 seconds that otherwise wouldn't have it because I hold the door for them or say something nice to them? Or is it somebody that goes from experiencing extreme suffering to being relieved of that extreme suffering, somebody that would have died, that doesn't die, that has a much more bleak future to a much more positive future? So it's the number of individuals benefited and then how much they benefited. That's kind of the two things, and put those two things together you could think of it as or I would think of it as, the amount of suffering reduced in the world or the amount of happiness increased. That's really that number and metric that I have in mind in thinking about charity and philanthropy and how I use my time and money.

James Hodgson:

And it sounds like there's another dimension that you mentioned there, which is in sort of the trade-off as well the cost.

James Hodgson:

As mentioned, we all have limited time, limited resources, but even if we want to do as much as we can to be active, to be doing good, we have to invest.

James Hodgson:

We have only a certain amount of tokens that we can use in terms of our time and our resources, and I thought the examples you gave was quite interesting because obviously you know, giving someone a smile for 30 seconds to open the door for them, that doesn't really cost anything. Actually, you probably get a little bit of a proud feeling yourselves and a bit of happiness to see them smile, whereas really having an impact on some of these larger issues. There's a bit more of a trade-off there, and I guess this leads into another question that I had as well, in terms of how do you sort of add into this equation time for yourself or allowing yourself some respite from feeling like you need to be active all of the time in order to make sure that you yourself are enjoying life and actually stay motivated, stay energized and stay fulfilled in order to do more good? Is that part of the equation?

Nick cooney:

For sure, and I would say probably two main ways that I think about that in my own life. So one I do recognize, and I think it's both ethically fine and understandable that all of us want to be happy and live an enjoyable life. There's a lot of people around the world that have sacrificed that. I mean soldiers going to battle. They are choosing to be willing to sacrifice their own life. Sometimes they know they're going to be sacrificing their own life for what they view as something that is for the greater good. Parents who choose to work grueling long hours in a sweatshop in certain countries so their children can go to school and have a brighter future. Long hours in a sweatshop in certain countries so their children can go to school and have a brighter future. There's a lot of people that very knowingly and consciously choose to dramatically reduce the happiness of their own life or to give up their own life for the sake and benefit of others, and I think we do view that as a very generally speaking, a very noble thing. So I think it's worth keeping in mind that so many people do that for other causes. There's some value, some very real value, into the willingness to self-sacrifice for the good of others, including when it comes to giving of our time and money and energy. That being said, I also respect, both in myself and others that desire to live a happy life, to have enjoyment, spending some of our time doing those things that make us happy from a self-interested perspective.

Nick cooney:

Separately, though, even if you were like totally altruist, right, like you were a robot just programmed to do the most, a human robot programmed to do the most good you possibly could in the world, it's still the case that you would want to take some of that time for enjoyment, rest, relaxation, et cetera, because ultimately, if you don't do that, you're not going to be as effective as you can.

Nick cooney:

Right, like if you think about the best professional athletes that have the best work ethics in their sports, they put in a huge amount of time. They really optimize their life decisions around athletic performance, training, building up the right mentality, practice, all those things, but they don't spend every hour doing it. They have some R&R, rest and relaxation time, in part because it's important for rebuild, resting and rebuilding. And so I think, again, like I have a very real respect for, just like, the selfishness of wanting to have a happy life, right, the self-interest. But even if you were that altruistic robot, you still need to take that time to be the most effective that you can be in the the altruism domain I like the analogy of it being training as well.

James Hodgson:

You can train hard, but then you need that time to rest and recuperate and prepare for the next training session. Do you have an overarching philosophical worldview that has influenced the thesis of this book?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, so a few things. So I'm not religious but I was raised Catholic. So I'm not religious but I was raised Catholic. And one thing that stuck with me after no longer being religious when I was younger, was this idea that not that there's a sort of transcendental nature to this, but there's good things and there's bad things, there's doing good and there's causing harm, and we should do good and we have the responsibility to do good. That definitely stuck with me from being raised Catholic. And then, secondly, you call utilitarian philosophy and philosophical consistency. So when I was 16 or 17, I read a book by the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard called Purity of Heart is to Will. One Thing At the time I was 16 years old, was still religious, and the book is kind of a religious book but the point of the book was also one that stuck with me for the rest of my life, which is basically this idea that if you believe a certain thing and that certain thing is really important and really consequential, then you should take that to its logical conclusion.

Nick cooney:

And in that book he's again, he was writing from religious perspectives that had to do with Christianity, but I think that there was a very good fundamental insight into that. That stuck with me. If it is, for example, to the point of our discussion today, if doing good is important and helping others is important and it is the case that if I take X amount of dollars out of my bank account, they don't really need to get by and to live a decent life and they give it to someone who really is in need and that can dramatically improve their life, that's a really important, really consequential thing. If those things are true and I think they are true what is the logical conclusion of that? What does that mean for the other life choices that I make, for the overall use of my time, of my money, of my energy, et cetera? I'm really just thinking that through to its logical conclusion.

Nick cooney:

I would say those are two things from, I think, two ways of thinking that I absorbed in adolescence, childhood, adolescence, you could say that have stuck with me and then, as I mentioned, kind of like a broader utilitarian lens. I think that certainly shapes my thinking of the idea of when it comes to doing good. And obviously this is messy, right, I mean life is messy, life is very complicated, but generally speaking, better to do a lot more good for a lot more people than a lot less good for fewer people, right, I think it just increases the amount of happiness and well-being in the world in as much as we can figure out that and work through the nuances and complexities of actual real-life decision-making. So I would say those would be the sort of philosophical, ethical, influential underpinnings of how I think about doing good in my own life.

James Hodgson:

And I would imagine listeners may be thinking there's quite a lot of overlap here with some of the ideas that were behind the effective altruism movement and I just wondered obviously effective altruism has had a bad rap in the last few years but you share some of the initial sort of philosophical ideas that were behind that. Do you identify with the effective altruism movement and do you still see value in the ideas behind the initial course?

Nick cooney:

Yeah. So separating the ideas from the sort of culture and identity aspects On the idea side yes, I mean my way of thinking would definitely be pretty closely aligned, very closely aligned, with the very general basic elevator pitch principle of factor altruism, which is that sort of utilitarian idea of when it comes to doing good in the world, we should try to do the most good for the greatest number and we should try to think carefully and critically and quantitatively about how to do that so we can help the most individuals, reduce the most suffering. I'm very strongly aligned with that. I would say the identity that can go along with being part of a sort of small group, and the in-group mentality of folks who band together under common shared identity, and then where that leads, I think that can be a bit different. So I've never called myself an effector of altruism. I don't think I will, just as I think I would probably do with a lot of other identity-based ways of thinking and identifying. I think that when one does that, there's the real tendency to move in a certain direction right. There's always a group think mentality that comes in right and there's always a certain identity, attracts a certain type of person, a certain type of personality and when you get a lot of those together under one sort of group identity, things can veer in certain directions. Some are very positive, others perhaps not as positive or a bit frivolous. And so I think you could look at the sort of in-group discussions in the effective altruism space.

Nick cooney:

Not that I'm on the inside right, but from my interactions with folks who are, I think, much more aligned with that identity and embedded in those groups, I think one could look at the outside, at some of the conversations, some of the areas of focus, some of the conclusions, and I would view some of them as like silly or misguided or just kind of a waste of time.

Nick cooney:

But again, I think that's more just like a human culture thing. I think at its heart this idea of effective altruism, the idea that we shouldn't just give to feel good, we should try to have the most positive impact with what we're doing. I 100% agree with that idea and that general principle. And in terms of actual impact again leaving aside the kind of sillier aspects or waste of time aspects that in my view don't achieve a lot you could certainly look at groups that are in that effective altruism world that have achieved a huge amount of good. They've moved a lot of money to really effective causes. They're brought about very positive changes in the world. So I think, like any cultural group, there's some great aspects of it, there's some not great aspects of it, and I would personally piece apart the fundamental idea, with the cultural manifestation of the humans that flock together under that banner and what they choose to do and how they choose to think.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, it's always the humans, isn't it, that unfortunately spoil the good ideas. But I'd love to shift and talk a little bit more about what you've built with Leather BC. As mentioned at the start, is that the founder and managing partner of Venture Capital Fund, which is focused primarily on investing in sustainable and humane food innovations. I mean, it's just a fascinating area. So how did you come to be involved in this sector and see this as an opportunity?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, so I've worked professionally in and around the food and ag space for pretty much my whole career. Further back, a lot of that most of it was on the nonprofit side, so starting a couple of nonprofits that most of it was on the nonprofit side, so starting a couple of nonprofits that were focused on generating improvements in the food system from the corporate side, the public policy side, the public consumer choice side. Also did some work on promoting entrepreneurship in the US. Further back, so food and ag has always been my main area of focus, and the reason for that is is because I do view it as an area that is hugely consequential in terms of suffering, often from the animal suffering side, but certainly ties into human suffering as well. From the environmental impact side, in terms of climate emissions food nag represents a very large chunk of global carbon emissions and then also from the public health side and that's, I'd say, one one of the human aspects of the food and ag system just the incredible level of loss of life and loss of mobility and healthiness and happiness from poor food choices and food systems that don't work as well as they could. So it just seems like it seems to me for a long time, since college years, to be a critically important area where one could do a lot of good, and that's my focus on that area For Lever VC and the investment fund.

Nick cooney:

So I began investing in the food and ag space in 2015 with a family office vehicle and then, in 2018, started setting up Lever VC, which, as you mentioned, is an early stage venture capital fund focused on sustainable food and ag companies and investing in those globally. And for me, there are two reasons for doing that One, the straightforward financial opportunity. And for me, the financial opportunity is interesting because it's a way to make a lot of money that you could then do good things with that money. Right, I would love to make as much money as I can and be as financially successful as I can, because I can then turn around and do good, productive things with that money that make the world a better place. So I think, just the real financial opportunity there started to be more investment into food and ag in the early 2010s and that really ramped up by 2018, 19, 2020. And so it was clear there was an opportunity here A lot of companies having successful exits like real financial opportunity for someone that knew the space and could invest in it in a generally smart way, hopefully. And then secondly, from the impact side, lever BC is not an impact fund, it is a returns-driven fund. But the categories we focus in within food and ag are all categories where, to the extent a company succeeds, there are significant positive benefits for the environment, in nearly all cases, for human health and animal welfare as well. So that ability to achieve positive impact within the context of a returns-driven investment fund, I think that's the other thing that really makes me interested in that space.

Nick cooney:

I think, if we think about where we are today versus where we will be or could be 100, 200, 300 years from now, maybe even 30 years from now, I think to get to a much better world from a food system context, a lot of the benefits will come from better technology.

Nick cooney:

So, just to give examples, if we have companies that can produce meat without live animals in the supply chain and satisfy people's sort of innate, evolutionary driven cravings for meat and how good it tastes, without having to have animals suffer for that, that's going to be a great step forward. If we can have ingredients that help satiate our again sort of evolutionary driven desire for salt, for fat, for sugar, but without the really devastating health impacts that too much salt, sugar, fat have on us as people like those. If we can have advancements that reduce the environmental harms, I think technology improvements in those areas are the best hope for progress, more so than getting the majority of people to, day in and day out, make individual decisions to sort of buy that healthy, environmentally sustainable, like animal friendly versions of food products. And so I think that I think, therefore, investing in and helping financially support and support in some other ways companies developing those technologies is one that, aside from the financial return benefit, is an area of an area of the potential for very, very high impact in the long term.

James Hodgson:

And these are all very exciting areas. I just wondered, I mean, is there any particular area that you find most exciting in terms of, like the actual, you know, potential end to animal farming? Do you see a tipping point, long stop point at which that will be a thing of the past?

Nick cooney:

Yes, I do, I do, I, you know, as long as humanity survives and doesn't destroy itself in the you know in the meantime, like when is that? I don't know. Is that 50 years from now? Is it 300 years from now? Is it 10,000 years from now? I think hard to say, right. But yes, I mean, I think, if most of like, if you picture, if anyone listening pictures the future, let's call it 2000 years from now, just to give a really long number out. Do we envision in that future world 60 billion animals crammed into dirty factory farms being raised for us to eat? Probably not, I think. If we picture that future, probably we picture humans are smarter than they figure out a better way to do it, and so I think we're going to get there for sure for at least ways to replace most animal agriculture. I think the question is just how long does that process take? And I do think there's some technologies there that are super promising.

Nick cooney:

We've invested in companies producing real meat proteins via fermentation, which is already a very common technology in the food sector. It's basically using yeast or other basic microorganisms to produce other things. It could be animal proteins. Today we use it to produce vanilla as a flavoring. We use it to produce rennet, which is in pretty much all hard cheese products, other things as well, other enzymes. There's now companies using it when we've invested in using it to produce meat proteins as an ingredient input for the pet food space. We have some investments in the cultivated meat space, which I think is a long-term category. It's one that will continue to take time to develop no-transcript egg protein, dairy seafood protein without the need for live animals and get all those attendant benefits. It's going to take time to further develop and build markets for those, get the price points right, get the marketing right, et cetera. Like humans are very slow to change, especially when it comes to what we eat.

James Hodgson:

But I think, we'll get there and I think those technologies are the really exciting unlocks for that sort of transformative change in that part of the food system, and do you see animal rights as central to your philanthropic worldview, or is this more about the overall impact on people and planet that actually the treatment of animals has? And I just wanted, by extension, do you think this is something that we will see become more prevalent in humanist and secular communities and our sort of ethical worldview going forward?

Nick cooney:

Yes, I mean I would tweak the term to animal suffering because that's how I think about it, but if you've subbed in that phrase of animal suffering for me yes, yeah, that is indeed for me. From the charity and philanthropy side, again on the investment fund, it's a returns driven investment fund invest across a range of categories. But when it comes to charity and philanthropy, that I personally do, and where I've sort of most personally invested, metaphorically and practically indeed, it is in reducing animal suffering. And it's not because I, you know, not somebody that grew up with pets or would call myself like an animal lover or something like that, it's really just. I mean, there is just such extreme animal suffering and animals really do suffer in ways that are not dissimilar from humans, at least many animals particularly on the physical side, but also some of the psychological sides of things. It is such an excruciating level of suffering that so few people pay any attention to, and then each of us have the ability to change, to reduce a very significant amount of that suffering, that neglectedness, the size of the problem and the ability to create change. It's that combination of reasons that led me at a.

Nick cooney:

Probably coming out of college is when I decided, came to the viewpoint and decided that's really where my focus was going to be If you really reduce the suffering of those who are suffering very tremendously for more normal people like yourself and myself, right, like you know, we're not billionaires.

Nick cooney:

There's. We can help some, you know, maybe it's a couple, maybe it's a couple dozen, maybe it's a couple hundred, which is great, which is super valuable, and I do some in that area and I'm glad others are working in that area as well. But when it comes to animals, especially farm animal suffering in particular, each one of us as individuals can literally reduce excruciating suffering and save the lives of hundreds of thousands to maybe millions of animals every single year over the course of our life, just because of how massive the problem is and how cost efficient it can be to create improved marginal pieces of that pie. So, yeah, it's that reason that for me, that indeed animal suffering is where a lot of my philanthropic time charitable giving, charitable attention, time, money, energy go outside of my kind of day-to-day work on the investment side.

James Hodgson:

And one of the things that's come out, picked up quite a lot in where you're focusing your energy and your passion for philanthropy, is having quite long-term goals. I mean you mentioned, you know, we could be talking 300 years before we finally fully end animal suffering or, you know, solve some of these issues. And it brings me back to the point about the sort of you know, the moral calculations that we're making with how we choose to spend our times. And so how do you sort of balance the immediate impact that we can have, helping someone or helping another being today, versus investing time in long-term projects, which is going to help a far greater number but it may be only realized in future generations?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, yeah, you asked about we were talking about effective altruism earlier. There's a part of that effective altruism movement I think the term they would use is long-termism of taking this really long, like hundreds year long view and trying to make those decisions today based on that. I think it's some really great insights that come from that way of thinking. For myself, I think I am more towards the short-term side, but not like the today side, right. So when I think about best use of my own time, money, energy, I'm more thinking impact in the next, like three to 10, 15 years. I'm not really thinking hundreds of years out, even though I referenced that for the, say, the cultivated meat space earlier. That's really where my mind is and maybe that's not the best approach. But for me I think if you think too short term like am I feeding a person today, I think there's the obvious downsides of that right, like it doesn't create systematic change. That just prevents that in the future, and so I think things that can pretty reasonably, pretty surely reduce a lot more suffering three years from now and all subsequent years versus today, to me it just seems like pretty clear that okay, like generally speaking, that's where most of our time and energy should go.

Nick cooney:

If we think really far out, like a hundred years out, a thousand years out, for me it's just a much, much murkier picture, both like A is the world going to be around or look anything like it looks like today?

Nick cooney:

I don't know, maybe not. But then also B, can I really tie what I do today to impacts 100 years from now? Like, obviously, historically we can look back and we can see those threads, but in terms of our ability to make choices today that have any like even couple percentage point likelihood of having a very certain impact a thousand years in the future, I think it's just so hard to say so. I think that's why, for me, I do try to be slightly future looking and very happy with changes that could create a lot of good two years, five years, 10, 15, 20 years from now, but I'm fairly skeptical of making those decisions based on potential impact a hundred years, 200 years down the line and, with that in mind, if there was one issue in the world which you know we could all focus our efforts to solve, what do you think is the most pressing?

James Hodgson:

I know it's so hard with so many things happening in the world, but you know, if you think well, here's one thing that we could try, put our efforts together, solve for the next five years, and that'll set humanity up for success given my comment earlier.

Nick cooney:

Like you might guess, like the animal, suffering is a topic that for me seems like one where, if there was some concerted effort, it is clear that a huge amount of good could be done. Like not reducing it entirely, but like a sizable chunk of time, capital, energy, from good people that care and want to make a difference. I do think that's an area where one could reduce the greatest amount of suffering. Forget that, leave that aside, and we're just talking about humanity itself and human flourishing, which I think is a bit of a different thing overlapping, but a different thing. It's a great question. You know my mind is so much in the things that I pay attention to that I certainly haven't thought about this as much as others in other areas, but I think the framework of how I try to think through it is what are those real causes of the greatest amount of human suffering that, if addressed, would have really good knock-on effects? And so what are some things that come to mind? I mean, there's the obvious level of people living lives of desperation, either physically or emotionally. Right. There's physically just, people have virtually no money, on the brink of starvation, and like there's this day-to-day grind and the suffering that comes from that. That's fairly easily addressable. Maybe not a hundred percent of it, but I think we fairly easily, with money and time, could address 80, 90, 95% of that, including on the emotional side. And I think there's certainly a lot of people globally and an increasing percentage. I mean this is a gut-based opinion or a guess, but my gut-based guess would be that probably the level of like emotional distress and like people living like really deeply unhappy lives is probably increasing numerically because the population is growing and probably is a percentage of the population with, at least in the West, with people not having as close in the communities and families and sense of belonging and so forth. So I think there's a lot of that very quiet desperation, be it depression or things like that, that are out there. I don't know how easy it is to address, but I think it's clearly a big issue.

Nick cooney:

Those are a couple of things that come to mind, I think from a long-term perspective. I think one very fundamental question which there's not an easy solution to, but I think from the most fundamental level what is a root cause of many of these negative aspects of the world Human? What evolution has left us with as individuals right. Our minds were shaped by evolution. Our mind, what led us to survive over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, first in our earlier forms and then in the savannah, as early hominids and early humans, and the mind that's shaped by that, by those evolutionary forces, shaped to survive in those environments, is not a mind that's been shaped to make the best ethical decisions that help others or to make the best decisions for their own lives, which is why we have people in countries like the UK, in the US, that have everything they need to be really happy, really healthy, but make decisions that lead them in a super different direction.

Nick cooney:

There's cultural elements to that, there's political system reasons that contribute to that, but a lot of it comes back to just human proclivities. Same reason we don't care about strangers and foreigners and we don't give more money to charity. We're just not hardwired that way. And so I think, in the very, very long run for humanity, in addition to trying to improve the culture and cultural systems that make us happier, healthier, more flourishing, caring more about others, in addition to try and improve technologies that enable that and political systems that enable that, I think also one question is like are there ways in the long run to improve just our mental hardwire, our inclinations.

Nick cooney:

I mean, imagine a world where we like sugar but we didn't have this craving to eat as much candy and drink as much soda as we wanted, where we like salt but we didn't like French fries were not the most appetizing thing on a restaurant menu. Imagine a world where a hard wiring was not. No matter how much money I have, I'm only going to give one or 2% of it to charity. I'm going to keep the rest for myself and my family. In a world where those inclinations were a bit different, the instincts were a bit different, I think we could have a much, much better world. How do we do that? I don't know. I don't know. Can it be done? Well, I have no idea, but I think for the long, long-term interest of humanity, that's one area I think about as well.

James Hodgson:

And just before we wrap up, how do you advise in the book that we try to overcome some of these natural hardwiring faults that we potentially have or maybe not faults? Just how do you advise that we, through in our daily lives, try to overcome these natural inclinations and become more mission focused? Stay mission focused. Stay proactive. Do you have any daily or weekly habits that you can share with listeners that might help them on their journey to being more proactive?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, yeah, I would say two things at a high level. So one would be just taking the time for reflection. I'd be like no one's going to do this if it doesn't, or a few people are going to do it consistently if it doesn't sort of make sense for them and like see the reason. So I think just taking that time for reflection which we don't do in nearly all areas of our life because we don't have that much time right when we do operate on autopilot most of the time in most domains and we have to, but in this area of doing good in the world, I think I would certainly encourage people to spend more time just thinking about that, like thinking about the fact that the amount, the difference between what you really need financially to get by and survive and be healthy enough and happy enough versus how much you have time, like similar, like what time do you have available, what energy do you have available and what is the good outcomes that those things could do in the world around you. I think just reflecting on that and kind of reflecting like the long-term goals of your life and about having a positive impact. So I think just that A that reflection of what really matters because I think when we reflect on it like let's just use a prosaic example I could go out to dinner tonight and spend 30 to 50 $60 on a with my wife and have a good, good meal, interesting time out, good drink, be in a different environment for two hours. It would be fun, it would be enjoyable. Or I could take that 30 $56 and put it to a really effective charity and cure someone in blindness by taking away the cataracts that have wrecked their vision. Those are two outcomes I can create in the world Hour and a half of a bit more enjoyment from my wife and I.

Nick cooney:

Or give somebody a vision back for the next 10, 15, 20 years of their life. The time to reflect that that is really the choice I'm making when I choose how to spend my time and money. That reflection can then lead me to realize okay, I do like going out to eat, I'm going to do that sometimes, but I would in many cases actually rather restore vision to that person. That's just more when I reflect on what I want to achieve with my time, with my money, with my life. So I think, just that reflection that we have this ability to create so much good that we're making choices to do or not.

Nick cooney:

Do that when we spend time and money and energy. That self-reflection, I'd say, would be number one and number two just practice right. Like how does one go from being a couch potato to a marathon runner? Start with small steps and then try to build up over time. It's really kind of building that muscle memory, having a goal that we're shooting for and then getting a little better over time over the long run. I'd say those would be the two highest level ways that I would suggest thinking about it and approaching it.

James Hodgson:

It's really great advice. Thank you so much and before we go, just our regular closing question what's something which you've changed your mind on recently and what inspired that change?

Nick cooney:

Yeah, I think it would. I mean I can give a couple examples, and these examples are probably off to be with the use of power and resources. You know, when I was in college, I wrote an essay about why prisons should be abolished, and I was pacifist and view myself as a pacifist and would have arguments with my, my dad, about why, like one should never fight and like never use violence, regardless of the circumstances. And you know, I would probably have had a similar view around money as well. I think, as time has passed and I mean my internal story as to why my view has evolved here is seeing a lot more of life, realizing the extent to which there are people who unfortunately choose to do very bad things.

Nick cooney:

The importance of trying to move power, be it financial power, be it physical power, into the hands of the best actors that could be there like no one's going to be perfect, but the better actors, rather than having those things concentrate in the arms of the worst actors, is a valuable and important thing.

Nick cooney:

And then it's going to concentrate somewhere, and so trying to move it as much as possible towards those that are more benevolent, more benign, more likely to do good things and use those, use money, use power, use authority, use influence for good rather than for ill or for neutral, that there is a real value in that.

Nick cooney:

So I think that over time has made me have greater appreciation for both at times state power to defend lives or defend countries or groups from really bad actors, as well as for those who do try to amass be it influence, be it financial power, et cetera, and then turn around and use that to do a huge amount of good.

Nick cooney:

I think a good example of the latter is would we live in a better world if Bill Gates did not make however many billions he made and donated the way he did, versus someone else making that money or versus everyone in the world just getting 30 cents? I think we live in a much better world because that capital did aggregate in the hands of somebody who was much, much more thoughtful and caring than others and he systematically used that to create a huge amount of good in the world. I mean, that's not like a policy prescription, right. Obviously the world is very complicated, right, but in a world where the natural tendency is for power to agglomerate, I guess one thing I've shifted over time is having much more appreciation for when that power can agglomerate in the hands of better actors than worse actors.

James Hodgson:

Nick Cooney, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. The book what we Don't Do is available now, but thank you very much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Nick cooney:

Thanks, so much Appreciate it.

People on this episode

Head Shot

James Hodgson

Host
Head Shot

Nick Cooney

Guest

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

What I Believe Artwork

What I Believe

Humanists UK
Humanize Me Artwork

Humanize Me

Bart Campolo
Sentientism Artwork

Sentientism

Jamie Woodhouse