kurz官方對(duì)BV1tx4y1M7sB的回復(fù)，和視頻原作者對(duì)官方回復(fù)的回復(fù)，這里是原文。順便把議案視頻的參考鏈接放在最下邊了，有興趣的可以自己看看。

我正好看到了就把reddit上他們的回復(fù)原文都搬過來了。字這么多一時(shí)半會(huì)翻不出來，湊活看吧，要是有勇士歡迎替我翻譯。

24/JAN/2023

Posting this statement on behalf of Philipp, our Founder and Head Writer, who has Reddit blocked on his devices.

++++++++

Hey, Philipp here!

In December, a video came out that made allegations that we are basically bought off by billionaires. We saw it but decided not to react to it. As we were planning to finally finish our next behind-the-scenes video anyways, explaining how we do business, how we see it, and what the values behind the channel are. But in recent days, the video made the rounds on YouTube and many of you asked us directly to respond. So for now, here is a response to the main claims.

We are a big platform and as such, it is of course ok to criticize us! We welcome it –?although ideally with better research and not out of context in a scandalizing way –?if the video creator would have contacted us, as is usual journalistic practice, we would happily have provided context and information.

So here is a response to the main claims:

Accusation One: Kurzgesagt is billionaire-funded, not viewer-funded.

TL;DR: Not true.
Our viewers provide 65% of our income via our Shop, YouTube Ad revenue, and Patreon, in that order. This enables us to have a substantial creative team and run our YouTube channel. We supplement this with commercial sponsorships (11%) and institutional sponsorships and grants (13%). Licensing and agency work make up the remaining 11%.

Long Version:
First of all, the sums thrown around here are huge –?so to add a bit of context, Kurzgesagt is a large specialized animation studio. Our team consists of over 60 (!) full-time team members, mostly living in Germany. The salaries for the team alone account for hundreds of thousands of dollars every month, millions a year, just to keep the lights on. This means that we are much, much more expensive to maintain than the average YouTube channel.

So, how?do?we fundamentally finance ourselves? Numbers vary year to year, so we added up the last three years, 2020 to 2022, which should give you a fair and current insight.

There are two main sources of revenue: viewers and outside funders. Let’s look at them in detail. The biggest one by far, and the one we talk about the most, is our shop.

During this time our shop accounted for 45% of our revenue, YouTube ads 13%, and Patreon 7%. So this means 65% of our revenue came directly from our viewers. We say we are fundamentally viewer funded, because we are. In the last few years, we focused on our shop and science products – and as we said in our behind-the-scenes videos, together with Patreon that’s our most important source of revenue. Patreon is an important part of our income, but it alone really can’t nearly finance us anymore.

In the last three years, the second biggest chunk was money from commercial partners advertising products – around 11% of our revenue.

We got about 6% from German Public Broadcast for the German Channel during that time, but we ended this partnership by the end of 2022.

Organizational sponsors like the Gates Foundation or Open Philanthropy represent about 13%.

The rest is small things and agency work, like commercial videos for other companies.

In summary: 65% of the total revenue came directly from viewers – 22% from the other sources we just mentioned and 13% from foundations. Let us look at these 13% in more detail:

70% of what the video called “Billionaire money” stems from Open Philanthropy and is not used for any sponsored videos, but for translating our videos and creating videos for Tik Tok. With these funds we have started?Arabic, Hindi, Korean, Japanese, Portuguese, and French channels – it is just too expensive to do on our own. The goal is that these channels become self-sustaining and to reach as many people possible with free information! Then there is a two-year funding for Tik Tok content – it gives us great freedom to explore how to use this platform. The grant includes only two sponsored videos so far – the first one was about all the unborn humans, and the second one is about smallpox and will be out soon.

So really, only 4% of our revenue in the last three years came from videos sponsored by organizations, only 0.9 % from the Gates Foundation/Ventures.

Is it plausible that we are completely disregarding all of our values for that little of our income? Even if you think we could be influenced for the right price - which I know we aren't - I hope we can agree that this is not a plausible amount of money that we would throw away all values and reasons why we launched this channel for!

But then you could ask: Why do we work with organizations like them at all?

We choose the foundations we work with carefully and make sure our values are aligned. It is at the heart of kurzgesagt’s worldview that humanity is at its core good, that we made enormous progress but have stark challenges ahead and we should improve the world by applying clear thinking, science and technology for the benefit of all. And if organizations want to fund videos that help us spread this message, this aligns with our values.

We have been transparent about these partnerships and how we have contracts with every grant giver or sponsor that specifically bars them from any editorial influence. A sponsor has to sign a contract that makes this clear or we don’t work with them. We agree on video topics together, but they neither influence details, nor 'outcome' or conclusions. The final decision is always with us, for everything.

In an article I wrote in 2017, I explain how we handle sponsorships –?it still holds true if you are interested!?Link to the article.

There has been criticism that we haven’t mentioned these partnerships prominently enough – not something we really heard a lot about in the last few years – but we will talk internally about how we can make this clearer.?We have nothing to hide here and we are proud of these videos.

Accusation Two: Kurzgesagt is working in an unscientific way and uses sources that are also funded by the grant givers.

TL;DR: We don’t work unscientifically but diligently fact-check our videos ourselves and work with scientists from around the world.

Long Version:
Let’s take one of our main sources we work with for our channel that was mentioned explicitly: Our World in Data (OWID) –?they have been mentioned specifically because they too received funding from the Gates Foundation –?and this is perceived as a conflict of interest.

We don’t see it like that. OWID is one of the best sources of information on the internet, for data like demographics or climate change, used from the New York Times to the Washington Post. Their website is, just like Kurzgesagt, free for everyone, and extremely well-sourced and you should check it out and see for yourself.

It is not just us who rely on OWID for many things, it is one of the most respected sources for accurate information for journalists around the world. They are also a registered non-charity (horrible term), meaning that they are not operating for the profit or gain of their individual members or as a whole.

So the real question here is did sponsors use associated experts to enact influence on us, to change the narrative of our videos?

In general, we treat all data equally, skeptically, no matter the source. Over the years we have made the experience that no singular expert is reliable on their own – often different experts disagree with each other, even if they work in the same department. Science is complicated. So we always take a critical look anyway. Kurzgesagt has SIX full-time fact-checkers in-house. Our sources lists nowadays are exhaustively detailed with up to 60 pages. We always look for primary sources and take peer-reviewed papers. We work by a six-eye principle – which means that internally three of our in-house fact-checkers check every video.

External experts come on top of this process –?it is not that we just get a bunch of information from them and then uncritically build a video around that. We do the work.

But we see how that leaves room for these kinds of suspicions – and you know what, that is kind of fair. Our audience are not scientists, but human beings, who typically don't want to review pages of sources. After all, even if we think our videos are researched as well as we can, and even if we think they are not compromised –?if they are not perceived that way, all the work is in vain. We will discuss and look into how we can make our diligent process more transparent!

The problem with this sort of discourse on Youtube is that it is absolute good vs evil and there is no space for constructive discussion – “Kurzgesagt should have been more transparent” turns into “Kurzgesagt is literally bought by Billionaires”.

Ok – that was it for now from me. This should cover the main points and the text is long enough already.

As I said in the beginning, we will release a video about our business and our company values soon –?and after that, I’ll do a public AMA on Reddit where everybody can ask me anything! There is nothing to hide and I’m happy to answer any questions you guys will throw at me then!
Thanks for reading

– Philipp
–?Founder, CEO and Head Writer of Kurzgesagt

?

視頻原作者回復(fù)：

?31/JAN/2023

Below is my response to Kurzgesagt's response to my video.

Kurzgesagt's official response:?https://old.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/

Original video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI

Hello Phillip,

Thank you very much for your response. I wasn't expecting it considering it's been about more than a month since my video was published.

I would love for this to be a part of a larger conversation about funding transparency and content integrity. I would also like to point out to everyone participating in this debate that it is possible to both enjoy your favorite content and remain critical of some its problematic aspects. Let's engage in a healthy discourse without resorting to dismissal and dishonesty.

Onto the official response.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my video. However, your response is largely insufficient as it dismisses several major points and focuses only on two isolated points. Allow me to go over this first and then address your counter arguments.

In your response, you counter argue against two points

?

·???????? the funding of Kurzgesagt videos

·???????? working with scientists financially connected to your sponsors

However, there is a range of?key points you miss out?and they even more important than just those two on their own. Namely, you don't address:

?

·???????? criticism of?Kurzgesagt?sponsor disclaimers and the suggestion they should come at the begging of your videos, and not in the outro or in the description only as you disclaim currently.

·???????? criticism that Kurzgesagt is?not transparent enough about revealing connections between their sources, scientists they consult?with and Kurzgesagt's sponsors.

·???????? criticism that Kurzgesagt (or any other informative outlet)?should not be receiving funds from entities that have financial agenda?(profitable or charitable) in the areas you cover in your videos

·???????? criticism that Phillip Dettmer told his viewers through Reddit comments that Kurzgesagt does not let sponsors comment on your scripts, but there are?several instances where sponsors had input on your scripts in certain videos.

·???????? criticism that Kurzgesagt relied on a sponsor-backed commercial entity for a major citation in Kurzgesagt's source document for a video on climate change

·???????? criticism that Kurzgesagt portrays topics that align with their sponsors' interests through the lens that benefits the sponsors' views and interests.

Let me address your counter-arguments.

On funding

In your first counter-argument, you claim that 65% of Kurzgesagt's income is from your viewers. There are several major issues with this statement that I think require your further clarification.

First, you chose a period of three years, from 2020 to 2022.?Why are you limiting your numbers to just the last three years? My video evaluates your estimated revenue streams from the moment of Kurzgesgat's incorporation in Germany in?September 2015 until about fall of 2022?when my video was finalized. Comparing numbers from just the last three years to the evaluation of a seven-year estimate is not a fair comparison.

This historical context matters, because in your response you are a large animation studio with 60 employees. But back when you where awarded grants from the Gates Foundation, Open Society, and Templeton, you went from just 5 employees to less than a half of what your workforce is today or even at the time my video was released. According to your company documents in Germany, Kurzgesagt had 10 employees in 2016, 14 in 2017, 22 in 2018, 30 in 2019 and 37 in 2020.

Also, in your 2017 Medium article on Kurzgesagt's dealing with sponsors, you admit that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was your biggest supporter.

Most importantly, my argument wasn't that Kurzgesagt is "billionaire funded and not viewer funded" as you state in your response. In a response to another critical video of Kurzgesagt climate change series, you?commented?that Kurzgesagt is an "almost entirely viewer-funded" channel. What?my video is arguing against is your statement that Kurzgesagt is "almost entirely viewer funded". And what my evaluation showed, and what you also seem to admit, is that you did indeed received more funds from billionaire entities than your Patreon supporter. Admittedly, Patreon funding is not the only revenue stream that can be considered as coming from viewers. So let’s take a look at your claims in more detail.

There are several major problems with your numbers. You claim that out of the 65% of funds that come from your viewers, 45% is revenue from Kurzgesagt shop, 13% is ad revenue from YouTube and 7% is Patreon.

Setting aside that these numbers are just for the period of the last three years arbitrarily chosen by you instead of the full seven years of your company's existence, there are several troubling discrepancies.

First, to count YouTube ad revenue as viewer funds is profoundly misleading.?YouTube viewers do not have funds?they support channels with, unless they are channel members or have a premium YouTube subscription, in which case, they don't generate ad revenue at all.?YouTube ad revenue is funds from advertisers?paid to Google, which YouTube than distributes to creators on split basis. It is NOT funds from viewers. Viewers do not choose which ads are played.

Second, you claim that 45% of revenue from viewers is from Kurzgesagt’s shop. This revenue can be considered as coming from viewer funds and the proportion is surprisingly large. However, if you are speaking of this in terms of revenue, do you mean means gross income? That is revenue before you account for the cost of designing your merch items, cost of production, shipment, customer support, dealing with returns and taxes. However, a more relevant number would be the net profit from the merch sales, after all costs and taxes have been subtracted. Only this revenue is actually available as?funding?for your videos. In contrast, depending on the contract, up to 100% of revenue from grants and sponsors goes directly to video production. The only exception that is known to the public is one of the two Open Philanthropy grants (about $6,000,000 in total), that was also dedicated towards translation of your currently existing videos into foreign languages alongside video creation (more on that later).

How much of your merch revenue is actually available and/or used to fund YouTube video production?

To conclude this point, since YouTube ad revenue should not be counted as viewer funds, and it is unlikely that all of all your Kurzgesagt shop revenue is available to fund video production, I find your claim that Kurzgesagt is "almost entirely viewer funded" is incorrect. Even if all of your merch revenue was available for video production (highly unlikely), 52% is far from "almost entirely viewer funded". Your channel is viewer funded, it is also ad funded, merch funded, sponsor funded, billionaire funded and at the time of my video, it was public knowledge that it was also funded as a PBS in Germany.

Let's address your counterargument, that 70% of funding my video criticizes comes from Open Philanthropy and you claim was not used for any sponsored videos but for translating Kurzgesagt videos.

Kurzgesagt received two grants from Open Philanthropy -?€2,413,800?and?€2,658,344. Here is a direct citation from the publicized grant awards:

"to support the?creation?of videos on topics relevant to effective altruism and improving?humanity’s long-run future. In addition to video creation, Kurzgesagt intends to use this funding to?translate existing videos into a number of non-English languages."

"to support the?production?of short-form video content for platforms like TikTok and YouTube Shorts. Some of this content will feature topics relevant to effective altruism and improving?humanity’s long-run future."

Both of these grants?fund "video production"?and only one grant also dedicates a portion of the total sum to translation. So by the very least, more than half of the $6,000,000 grant from Open Philanthropy has been dedicate to make more videos. Whether it's shorts on YouTube or Tiktok, they are still videos.

I assume good faith on your part here and guess that this is a semantic distinction without difference. You claim only two videos were?sponsored?by this grant, but the grant?funds?a lot more videos (or shorts) than that. So to dismiss the Open Philanthropy grant would be disingenuous.

After this, you go on to explain how none of this funding is significant enough to influence your values. This is a preposterous statement and if anyone tried to accuse you of that, they would have to provide extraordinary evidence that is unlikely to even exist. Which is why I have never made that claim in my videos or anywhere else. I think Kurzgesagt perfectly aligns with the values of their sponsors. That doesn't make it immune to influence. It arguable makes it even worse. It is?because?of your values that you receive all this significant funding. The problem is, that any channel that would try to go against your values, would not receive such funding and would not have enough resources to compete with you.

Fox News, for instance, was created as part of News Corp by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch to make content that appeals to conservative viewers. No liberal journalists were paid to suddenly regurgitate conservative viewpoints. Conservative journalists and news anchors were paid to do that. That doesn't make it magically not a problem anymore. It still is problematic because it amplifies specific views on a national television that are not proportionately reflected in the true demographics or don't stand the merit of arguments.

The problem with?billionaire funding is that they get to amplify their own ideas irrespective of their merit, simply because they can dump money into media companies to make content about it**.**?My critique is that this how billionaires fund influence,?not that they make people say something they don’t believe in. To take it back to Kurzgesagt, you took a grant from the Gates Foundation, during which you made a video praising big pharma for their big step to "save the humanity" and donate their medicine for free. In your video, you leave out a ton of historical context from the real story, mainly that big pharma companies were reluctant to make any donations at all and address neglected tropical diseases for years or decades.

Furthermore, there is a long record to criticize big pharma for, but Kurzgesagt only made a video praising it. The issue is, there are more than enough channels criticizing big pharma, but Bill Gates is not gonna fund those videos because he has financial investments in those companies and a personal belief that solutions ultimately need to have a profitable business model.

What you do in your videos when you take money from conflicting sponsors, is that you present the topics through the lens of your sponsors as if that's all there is to say about it. You do not go out of your way to eliminate this bias.

On conflicts of interests

In your final counter-argument, you claim that Kurzgesagt does not work unscientifically because your videos are fact-checked. Here are several problems with your response.

First, fact-checking does not replace scientific method. You are story tellers, not scientists. Your scripts are stories, not scientific papers. There is no peer-review process in your research. Fact-checking doesn't replace the need for peer-review process. Your videos are NOT science education. This is also according to your admission in one of your Reddit?comments.

Second, you don't go out of your way to diversify your sources and the pool of scientists you verify with. Your scientists are credible people with amazing academic achievements, but your scientists predominantly come from Western institutions (mainly UK, USA, Germany) that receive significant funding from the same billionaires that fund your videos. Note: this estimate is only evaluating videos funded by billionaire sponsors as listed in my video critique.

A lot of credible organizations rely on Our World In Data. But maybe they?shouldn't rely on them so much.?Because Our World In Data was founded and is lead by primarily by people from the Effective Altruism and Longtermism movements, both of which receive significant billionaire funding. It can all be good and credible science, but it's science from a single perspective. This is a very common problem in Western academia and research - a lot of the research disregards or dismisses data from non-Western sources. Geographical bias is prevalent. There is the orientalism problem, as presented by Edward Said, that criticizes Western academia for their generalization of non-Western cultures, primarily Middle Eastern, Asian and African.

Fact checkers have perspectives too. And there are issues they might be more lenient on than others. Fact-checking does not eliminate bias. Your sponsors have financial investments in for-profit businesses and they want to benefit from more exposure to their interests. That's the core reason why shouldn't take money from them if you want to cover the their interests. Otherwise what you do is well-produced, nicely animated, fact-checked advertising.

Lastly, a core critique in my video is that?you told your audience that Kurzgesagt does not let sponsors comment on your scripts. But you have made multiple videos were you consult with direct employees of your sponsors or in a few instances, you let sponsors be the only listed scientists in your scripts. I have shown in my video instances of a video sponsored by William MacAskill, a video made with Max Roser and the Gates Foundation, and a video on vaccine side effects that features a Gates Foundation employee among scientists you consulted with.

Strawmaning your opposition is a dishonest practice

Towards the end of your response, you make a final claim that the discourse of my video deals in absolute terms of "good vs evil" and that “Kurzgesagt should have been more transparent” turns into “Kurzgesagt is literally bought by Billionaires”. This is the most intellectually dishonest statement in your statement to the point it makes taking your response as good faith extremely difficult.

Never did I imply in my video or anywhere else, that Kurzgesagt is bought by anyone, no less billionaires. You are quite literally, making a strawman. You are arguing against an argument that has never been made by me. For how much you claim authority for your "fact-checking" practice at Kurzgesagt, this is a gross debate tactic.

Similarly, I have never used the term "evil", no to mention the proposition of "good vs evil". Again, you are going out of your way to portray a caricature out of my arguments and my character. I can only gather you did this to fuel aversion from your own community towards any criticism laid against your funding and conflict of interests at Kurzgesagt or even when it comes to private and billionaire funding in general.

My video has more than 70 references, it is a result of more than three-month-long open source investigation into publicly available documents, peer-reviewed papers, reports and news articles. It is really disappointing seeing you trying to dismiss this criticism with strawman arguments and mischaracterizations.

Final thoughts and an invitation

The main critique in my video, which you haven't addressed in your response, is that by the very least, Kurzgesagt (or any channel or outlet) should disclose their sponsors upfront - that is before the content starts or in the outro. Kurzgesagt only make sponsor disclaimers in the outro or even in the description only, after the main content had already been consumed.

For my final statement, here is a short version of what I propose channels should do to uphold integrity and good ethics:

?

·???????? Do not receive funding from sources that profit or have a financial agenda (for profit or charitable one) in the same topics you cover

·???????? Disclose all your sponsors UPFRONT (before the video starts) in a brief disclaimer

·???????? Disclose conflicting relationships among your sources (i.e. sources owned, funded or operated by sponsors or sponsor-affiliated entities).

Educators, entertainers and journalists are not scientists. They don't have a way to eliminate bias from their funding source like scientists do through an independent peer review.

I think this is an important discourse and I encourage everyone to continue it. These are issues that are fundamental to our democracy, trust in institutions and social justice. It is unfair when someone's voices are unheard because others were funded to make theirs louder.

I would be more than happy to have an open discussion about this with anyone. Including you, Phillip. If at any point, you would be so inclined,?I would love to have a conversation with you in an open discussion or an interview format. If not you, then anyone else at your company or anyone you might want to send my way. I think if we sat down and talked about this, despite our differences, it would show our audiences and the public that healthy discourse is possible and fruitful. We may disagree, but that doesn't make any one of us less worthy of being heard.

In the meantime, I will continue to be critical of what I believe should be criticized. I will continue doing so by supporting my claims with references to credible sources.

Thanks to all who participated in this discourse honestly and in good faith.

All the best,

THO

TL;DR

Kurzgesagt is literally evil, they are literally bought out by billionaires, the earth is flat and birds aren't real. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

?

原視頻參考鏈接：

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20221108134548/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNWWrDBRBqk

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-diseases-neglected-pharma-idUSTRE80T0LO20120130

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Declaration_on_Neglected_Tropical_Diseases

[3] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Ideas/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2012/01/private-and-public-partners-unite-to-combat-10-neglected-tropical-diseases-by-2020

[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/r-fight-against-neglected-tropical-diseases-needs-big-pharma-push-who-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

[5]?https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gates16dec16-story.html

[6] https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/93/1/179/307584?login=false

[7] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673609608850/fulltext

[8] https://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8760199/gates-foundation-criticism

[9] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762308

[10] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/

[11] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jan-07-na-gatesx07-story.html

[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/02/10/bill-melinda-gates-have-spent-billions-dollars-shape-education-policy-now-they-say-theyre-skeptical-billionaires-trying-do-just-that/

[13]?https://apnews.com/article/melinda-gates-north-america-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-us-news-ap-top-news-a4042e82ffaa4a34b50ceac464761957

[14] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

[15a] https://medium.com/@Kurzgesagt/kurzgesagt-sponsorships-on-youtube-3121a45b0fe9

[15b] https://web.archive.org/web/20221122151542/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KQYNtPl7V4&lc=Ugw7oaypQ3qALcugYzh4AaABAg?

[16] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2015/11/opp1139276

[17] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/kurzgesagt-video-creation-and-translation/

[18a] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/kurzgesagt-short-form-video-content/

[18b] https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?

[19] https://ourworldindata.org/funding

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_World_in_Data#Funding_and_collaborations

[21] https://web.archive.org/web/20221108134123/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

[22] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief

[23] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/global-poverty-united-nations.html

[24] https://theconversation.com/why-the-world-banks-optimism-about-global-poverty-misses-the-point-104963

[25] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/01/global-poverty-is-worse-than-you-think-could-you-live-on-190-a-day

[26] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal

[27] https://newint.org/features/2019/07/01/long-read-progress-and-its-discontents

[28] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

[29] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2820%2930196-0/fulltext

[30] https://oxfam.app.box.com/s/1rp115i9uiwmvsa11mwaa00vwc6ic437

[31] https://qz.com/1402301/bill-gatess-1-billion-energy-fund-is-expanding-its-portfolio-of-startups-fighting-climate-change

[32] https://www.wired.com/2015/11/zuckerberg-gates-climate-change-breakthrough-energy-coalition/

[33] https://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation

[34] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/

[35] https://www.wired.com/story/the-potential-pitfalls-of-sucking-carbon-from-the-atmosphere/

[36] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/08/1027908/carbon-removal-hype-is-a-dangerous-distraction-climate-change/

[37]https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf

[38] https://grist.org/technology/orca-the-largest-carbon-removal-facility-to-date-is-up-and-running/

[39] https://climeworks.com/roadmap/orca

[40] https://www.ft.com/content/8a942e30-0428-4567-8a6c-dc704ba3460a

[41] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah4567

[42] https://fortune.com/2021/03/13/future-of-farming-bill-gates-impossible-foods-founder-pat-brown/

[43] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mcdonald-s-french-fries-carrots-onions-all-foods-come-bill-n1270033

[44] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bill-gates-should-stop-telling-africans-what-kind-of-agriculture-africans-need1/

[45] https://observer.com/2019/12/bill-gates-foundation-sold-beyond-meat-stock-third-quarter-before-market-crash/

[46] https://futurism.com/bill-gates-and-richard-branson-invest-in-lab-grown-meat-startup

[47] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mcdonald-s-french-fries-carrots-onions-all-foods-come-bill-n1270033

[48] http://hannahritchie.com/rationalising-respiration-in-livestock-emissions/

[49] http://hannahritchie.com/

[50] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/carbon-engineering-co2-capture-backed-by-bill-gates-oil-companies.html

[51] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/bill-gates-bec-climate-fund-plans-to-invest-15-billion-in-clean-tech.html

[52] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Energy

[53] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-youtube-news-20180202-story.html [54] https://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/research/hear-from-our-researchers/labtalk/oxford-vaccine-group

[55] https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-database/pilot-study-testing-global-neuronal-workspace-gnw-and-integrated-information-iit

[56] https://www.templeton.org/grant/forgetting-and-forgiving-exploring-the-connections-between-memory-and-forgiveness

[57] https://www.templeton.org/grant/summer-seminars-in-neuroscience-and-philosophy-ssnap

[58] https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-database/major-transitions-evolution-cognition

[59] https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-database/0303

[60] https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-database/0266

[61] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/future-of-humanity-institute-work-on-global-catastrophic-risks/

[62] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/future-of-humanity-institute-general-support/

[63] https://www.korbinian-rueger.de/

[64] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=&organization-name%5B%5D=longview-philanthropy

[65] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=&organization-name%5B%5D=center-for-effective-altruism

[66] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=&organization-name%5B%5D=global-priorities-institute

[67] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=&organization-name%5B%5D=80000-hours

[68] https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=&organization-name%5B%5D=giving-what-we-can

[69] https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/

[70] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/27/bill-gates-dismisses-criticism-of-high-prices-for-vaccines

[71] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/20/pharmaceutical-companies-pneumococcal-vaccine

[72] https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents-show-bill-gates-has-given-319-million-to-media-outlets/278943/

[73] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html

[74] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/not-many-speak-their-mind-to-gates-foundation/

[75] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/americas/17iht-gates.4.10120087.html

[76] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/science/16malaria.html

[77] https://www.politico.eu/article/bill-gates-who-most-powerful-doctor/

前40給鏈接都得一個(gè)個(gè)點(diǎn)開復(fù)制，因?yàn)閅ouTube簡(jiǎn)介鏈接會(huì)截短，我要個(gè)贊不算過分罷（