17min @theeconomist clip -See what three degrees of global warming looks like

text from youtube "If global temperatures rise three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the results would be catastrophic. It’s an entirely plausible scenario, and this film shows you what it would look like. 00:00 - What will a 3°C world look like? 00:57 - Climate change is already having devastating effects 02:58 - How climate modelling works 04:06 - Nowhere is safe from global warming 05:20 - The impact of prolonged droughts 08:24 - Rising sea levels, storm surges and flooding 10:27 - Extreme heat and wet-bulb temperatures 12:51 - Increased migration and conflict 14:26 - Adaptation and mitigation are crucial "

10min @theeconomist clip - Election 2020: what a Biden victory could mean for #America

12min @thinkgoogleuk clip - #Trends that have been accelerated by the global #pandemic - - Fast Forward Episode 1: Robin Bew, MD of the Economist Intelligence Unit

text from youtube "These are challenging times for businesses and individuals in the UK. In this series, we want to help UK businesses plan for the future by looking at the trends that have been accelerated by the global pandemic, and share expert perspectives.

In episode 1, Gerald Breatnach, Head of Strategic Insights at Google UK, talks to Robin Bew, MD of the Economist Intelligence Unit, the research and forecasting arm of the Economist Group."

7min 43sec @theeconomist clip - The carbon cycle is key to understanding climate change |

8min 17sec @the economist clip - #Covid-19 : the right way to leave #lockdown

13min @theeconomist clip - How the obsession with #homeownership ruins the #economy

text from youotube "Many dream of owning their own home, and thanks to huge financial incentives in the rich world many have been able to so. But government policies to encourage home ownership were a huge mistake. Read more here: https://econ.st/2v6sHo6

6min 27sec @theeconomist clip - What does gun violence in America look like?

text from youtube "Mass shootings dominate the gun-violence debate in America, even though they account for less than 0.3% of gun-deaths. At The Economist's Open Future festival in Chicago three leading campaigners against gun violence explored the problem and what should be done to stop it.

Read more here: https://econ.st/37wOzH4

26min @theeconomist clip - #Charity : how effective is giving?

text from youtube "Today’s super-rich are putting record sums into tackling the world’s most pressing problems. But how altruistic is this golden age of charitable giving? Read more here: https://econ.st/3aHRmjc


Today’s super-wealthy are richer than ever. And they’re giving away their billions like never before. Philanthropists are putting record sums into tackling the world’s most pressing problems. And unlike the mega-donors of the past today’s philanthropists want to see the results in their lifetimes. But how altruistic is this new golden age of giving? Have these mega-donors become too powerful?

The way charities work is increasingly under the microscope. Donors large and small are demanding better bang for their buck. This is leading to innovative new approaches to doing good which are redefining notions of altruism.

Hilton Douglas is an outreach worker for Urban Pathways, a non-profit benefiting from a recent explosion in charity amongst wealthy Americans. There are record numbers of homeless people in New York and every day Hilton tries to help some of the worst affected. In 2018 spending by charitable foundations reached a record $75bn in America. The charity Hilton works for is one of 250 that are backed by New York’s largest and best-known foundation Robin Hood.

Robin Hood provides a small percentage of Urban Pathways’ total income. But the foundation also donates strategic and operational assistance. Urban Pathways runs outreach programmes and a drop-in centre and provides a roof for around 850 men and women each night.

Every year Robin Hood stages America’s biggest, glitziest fund-raising gala where it raises over 60% of its annual funding in three hours. While the average annual donation to the foundation is $108 the gala has helped Robin Hood become renowned as the charity of choice for hedge-fund managers and bankers. Over the past 30 years it’s raised and spent around $3bn fighting poverty in New York.

Paul Tudor Jones founded Robin Hood. An investor and hedge-fund manager worth around $5bn, he believes private philanthropy leads the state in dealing with society’s problems. Journalist Anand Giridharadas spent three years exploring the motivations of America’s wealthy philanthropists. He has concluded that some of their business practices create the very social problems their philanthropy tries to address.

Since 2011 former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg has donated over $500m to campaigns to replace coal with clean energy in the US by 2030. But in taking on the battle against climate change Mr Bloomberg has also taken on other billionaire philanthropists on the opposing side of the debate. For decades oil barons Charles Koch and his late brother David have given billions of dollars to non-profit organisations in order to promote scepticism about global warming. The Kochs’ donations have had a huge impact on strengthening the climate-change denial lobby in America. But Michael Bloomberg’s donations to his campaign Beyond Coal have proved an influential counterbalance. So far these have helped retire 289 coal plants, more than half the countries total.

America has witnessed the spectacle of its most-renowned philanthropists battling it out over one of the world’s most important political issues. It raises a fundamental question. How much political power should wealthy but unelected philanthropists wield?

While powerful and wealthy philanthropists are increasingly giving away their money. Fewer people on average are giving in the developed world than two decades ago. It’s a decline that’s coincided with scandals that have rocked some of the world’s best-known charities. Little wonder charities are now experimenting with innovative new approaches to persuade donors to part with their cash.

In the past ten years effective altruism has contributed over $100m in donations towards Against Malaria Foundation. The charity says this has helped fund the distribution of 50m bed nets worldwide, protecting 90m people and saving around 30,000 lives. But effective altruism, EA, has its critics who say giving is not a science and that there is more to charity than cold hard numbers. This scientific approach to charitable giving and work is on the rise and is assuming innovative new forms. It’s being used by some of today’s class of billionaire philanthropists. How this plays out alongside their rising power will help to redefine the impact of altruism. And how it’s perceived. "

6min 48sec @theeconomist clip - How making #babies is being transformed by #science

text from youtube "Science is enabling women to have children later in life as new technologies transform IVF success rates. But an increasingly globalised IVF trade also poses dangers.

Science is changing how and when families are made. Women are going to be able to have both career and family in a way that we’ve never seen before. New technologies are transforming IVF success rates. AI allows us to look at features of the embryo invisible to the human eye.

Dawn and her husband, Mike, who is 66 are proud first-time parents in Nova Scotia, Canada. They married in 1977 and tried for a baby for decades. Attempts to conceive naturally and to adopt failed. So five years ago Dawn turned to IVF and donor eggs for help.

In Canada, as in America, industry guidelines discourage embryo transfers to women over 55 who face a higher risk of prenatal health conditions including pre-eclampsia, hypertension and diabetes. Dawn considered surrogacy. She looked abroad to developing countries with less restrictive guidelines and legislation.

International fertility consultant, Crystal Travis directed the couple towards Georgia, one of the world’s least regulated fertility markets and one of the few countries that allows surrogates and donors of eggs and embryos to be paid. After medical tests, Dawn had an embryo made with a donor egg and donor sperm implanted.

The total number of fertility clinics around the world is estimated to have increased by almost 70% in the last ten years. The value of the global fertility industry is predicted to rise from $25bn today, to $41bn by 2026. Many believe there needs to be more regulation of an increasingly globalised IVF trade including Dr Danielle Lane, a fertility specialist based in San Francisco.

However, Dr Lane is using new technology that will allow more women to have children later in life. In 2017 the number of women freezing their own eggs in America jumped by nearly a quarter in one year alone. Dr Lane believes this will help some women balance their careers and families more effectively in the future.

There is another technological development that might accelerate this trend towards older parents. Today Dr Michelle Perugini is unveiling a new artificial-intelligence application at the Lane Fertility Institute. The application is designed to improve the chances of selecting embryos that will lead to successful pregnancies. This application is awaiting regulatory approval in America. If it delivers on its promise, it could help make IVF more accessible.

As the science grows, so will the opportunities for more would-be parents to start families later than ever before. There will always be decisions to be made about career and family. But the ability to plan them out is so much better now than it was even a decade ago."

6min 24sec @theeconomist clip - How #kidnapping became a big #business

text from youtube "Kidnapping has created a growing insurance industry, which regulates ransom demands and saves lives. But it's a complicated business model in which poorer victims are losing out. "

19min @theeconomist clip - What will be the biggest #stories of #2020 ?

text from youtube "The battle for the White House, a possible global recession, Beethoven the eco-warrior, nurses taking centre stage and a controversial Olympic Games. These are The Economist’s predictions for the top stories of 2020. Find out more here: https://econ.st/2MxvZ9U"

12min @theeconomist clip - #Doping in #sport: why it can't be stopped

text from youtube "Many sports' reputations are being tarnished by doping scandals. The International Olympic Committee and The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) should be responsible for tackling drug cheats—but are they at the heart of the problem? Read more here: https://econ.st/2Weuels

Click here to subscribe to The Economist on YouTube: https://econ.st/2xvTKdy

It was one of sport’s darkest episodes. Following the Sochi Winter Olympics of 2014 Russia was proved to have carried out a vast state-sponsored doping operation. The scandal didn’t just expose an epidemic of foul play it called into question the credibility of a system that’s supposed to guard against doping and protect honest athletes.

So is there a lack of will to catch the cheats? Doping isn’t just a Russian problem it’s a global problem. In 2011 an anonymous survey asked more than 1,200 athletes whether they had used performance-enhancing drugs. The result, which was kept quiet for six years, was astonishing. 44% admitted to doping but typically only 1-2% of samples test positive.

Just like the Olympic motto athletes want to be “faster, higher, stronger”. Performance-enhancing drugs promise just that. But all drugs come with health risks and crucially, they tip the balance in competition. The sports governing bodies, especially the International Olympic Committee or the IOC say they want to stop the cheats.

Back in 1999 the IOC declared war on doping. It created the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA. WADA was set up to be the anti-doping watchdog and to write the rulebook that would dictate best practice globally. But WADA’s independence is questionable. 50% of WADA’s funding comes from 190 governments and the other half comes from the IOC. And WADA’s average annual budget of $27m is less than 2% of the IOC’s revenue in an average year. WADA has around 120 employees. Only seven of them are tasked with conducting investigations into doping schemes worldwide.

With no power to enforce WADA relies on the national anti-doping agencies and sports federations to do drug testing. But different countries have different means, ability and yes, political will, to catch dopers.

The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics were a huge success for the Russian team. Two years later and just weeks before the opening ceremony at Rio 2016 something happened that no one had anticipated. Grigory Rodchenkov, the head of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory turned whistleblower. His admissions captured in the Oscar-winning Netflix documentary “Icarus”, thrust Russia’s actions into the public consciousness like never before.

WADA had been investigating allegations of Russian doping since 2014. But it wasn’t until July 2016 that it published a report conducted by independent lawyer Richard McLaren. Russia tampered with urine samples of athletes in a thriller-like, cover-up operation. They even mixed in salt and coffee to contaminate doped samples. More than 1,000 Russian athletes were accused of doping. Russia was categorical in its denial.

WADA was determined that Russia should pay the full price. But the IOC rejected WADA’s recommendations. The IOC allowed individual athletes to appeal against the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or CAS. The result? Over two-thirds of the Russian team were allowed to participate. Two years later the IOC cleared 169 Russian athletes to take part in the Winter Olympics. But were those outcomes entirely due to concern about the rights of individual athletes? The answer may lie in a complex web of politics and power in sports.

Alexander Zhukov, Russia’s deputy prime minister doubled up as president of the Russian Olympic Committee. Pavel Kolobkov was deputy minister of sports and part of WADA. And then there’s Vitaly Mutko. He was sports minister during the Sochi scandal but he wasn’t sacked for this embarrassing episode. In fact he was promoted to deputy prime minister. But placing influential people in positions of power isn’t just a Russian affair. The IOC has two bodies that are predominantly dedicated to fighting doping. WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, CAS. Like WADA, CAS was also established by the IOC. These two bodies are meant to be independent but an intricate network of rules and people has raised questions.

Despite its $5.7bn revenue per Olympic cycle the IOC is registered as a non-profit organisation and benefits from Switzerland’s lenient association laws which means it has a lot of leeway in how it runs itself and raises the question is anyone governing the governing bodies?

So can anyone hold the IOC to account? "

5min 49sec @theeconomist clip - Could deepfakes weaken #democracy ?

text from youtube "Videos can now be faked to make people say things they never actually said. Could this weaken democracy...and can you spot ALL the deep fake interviews in this film?

These videos are all deepfakes. Synthesised content created using artificial intelligence. Deepfakes will make for even more complicated arguments about what is fake news and what is real. And if seeing is no longer believing the very real question is could deepfakes weaken democracy?

Bill Posters is the artist behind these deepfake videos known as the Spectre Project. To test Facebook’s response, Bill posted the deepfake videos on Instagram, a social-media platform owned by Facebook. The company downgraded the videos’ visibility. But that didn’t stop this fake clip of Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, going viral. That showed the potential for spreading disinformation online through deepfakes. A danger that’s likely to increase as long as tech companies and politicians remain unsure how to deal with it.

Image manipulation is already exploited by autocratic regimes. It’s a dark art that goes back to Joseph Stalin who made his enemies disappear. AI today is capable of making deepfake videos like this where comedian Bill Hader morphs into Tom Cruise. As the technology advances the danger is that deepfakes will be used to mislead voters in democratic countries.

Aviv Ovadya is the founder of Thoughtful Technology Project. He worries about another problem that deepfakes could be used as an excuse to help politicians escape scrutiny. He believes the ultimate threat from deepfakes could be that more and more people opt out of democratic politics. A phenomenon he calls “reality apathy”

So what can be done to fight back? A group of scientists at Cambridge University are having a go. They have developed a computer game to teach people how to spot disinformation. Dr Sander van der Linden, the game’s designer, believes it will help people to distinguish fact from fiction. Dr van der Linden’s team have drawn inspiration from preventative medicine in their hunt to cure fake news.

Deepfake technology means that faking videos is becoming as easy as faking words and photos. Until people learn to look at video with a more critical eye there’s a danger that deepfakes could be used to undermine democracy."

10min @theeconomist clip - Why is there still poverty in #America ?

text from youtube "In America almost 40m people—one eighth of its population—live in poverty. Why does the richest big country in the world still have so many people living in profound need? Find out more here: https://econ.st/2ofmd33

11min 24sec @theeconomist #Climate #Change: can nature repair the planet?

text from youtube "A closer look at one of the most familiar responses offered to the climate crisis. What is the real story behind trees and climate change? See our research here: https://econ.st/32HXvXY "

28min @theeconomist clip - How bad is the crisis in #democracy ?

11min @theeconomist clip - How to help America's poor

6min 29sec @theeconomist clip - How could #veganism change the world?

Text from youtube "Interest in vegan food and its associated health benefits has been booming across the rich world. A global retreat from meat could have a far-reaching environmental impact.

By 2050 the world's population could approach 10 billion - and around 60% more food could be needed to feed everyone. The environmental impacts of the food system are daunting its responsible for about a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions and uses about 70% of all freshwater resources, and it occupies about 40% of the Earth's land surface.

Food rated emissions could increase to 50 percent by 2050 and fill up the total emissions budget that we have in order to avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

Interest in vegan food has been booming across the rich world. A major study has put the diet to the test - analyzing an imagined scenario in which the world goes vegan by 2050. If everybody went vegan by 2050 we estimated that food-related greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 3/4.

Cows are the biggest emission contributors. Bugs in their digestive system produce methane and deforestation for their pasture releases carbon dioxide - these gases warm the planet. If cows were a country, they'd be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter.

5min 23sec @theeconomist clip - Does egg freezing give false hope to prospective parents?

text from youtube "The fertility business is booming—egg freezing is being sold to a generation of men and women increasingly interested in deferring parenthood. But is optimistic marketing giving false hope? "

5min 21sec @theeconomist clip - What does a cashless future mean?

text from youtube "Many countries are going cashless at great speed. What are the advantages of ditching hard cash and what are the dangers? Read more about a cashless future here: https://econ.st/2Mwhipb

Somewhere in the near future physical money will become like these - Relics of a different age. And will only be found in places like this. In other words hard cash will disappear. It will become electronic - transferred by things like these.

So what’s the rush to get rid of cash? And what’s the cost?

Let’s face it money is cumbersome for consumers and banks. Operating in cash costs countries about 0.5% of their GDP every year. But cost isn’t the only incentive to move towards a cashless future. Digital payments aren’t just easy - they are neat. Having every single payment automatically recorded is efficient. But there’s a downside.

Electronic-money trails can allow governments and private companies
to access and harvest personal data. But there’s another threat that is worrying banks - cyber-attacks.

Still many countries are fast moving towards a cashless society. In Sweden the number of retail cash transactions per person has fallen by 80% in the past ten years. The trend is even evident in far more cash-loyal societies. China’s digital payments rose from 4% of all payments in 2012 to 34% in 2017. The trend is inevitable but a gradual transition is key.

Some people may find it harder to grasp how much money they have without the physical representation of it. Not everyone knows how to use internet-banking technology. And people living in remote areas where internet cover is patchy may find they have to drive for miles for their basic needs. And there is another sector of society that relies heavily on cash.

Going cashless is just the latest evolution of money in the modern economy. But it raises a fundamental question - what is the value of money if it doesn’t physically exist?

The move towards cashless societies is well under way. But governments need to ensure that, as cash is phased out, the vulnerable in society aren’t left behind. They need to navigate carefully the many pitfalls that a digital economy will bring."