Peter Singer

You could get some basic health care, which might be life-saving.

You could sleep under malaria nets to prevent your children getting bitten by malarial mosquitoes and small children die from that.

So, you know, there's a whole range of important things that you could do that would make a huge difference, would transform your lives perhaps.

And what's $1,000 to middle class people in affluent societies?

Well, you know...

Maybe they have a less luxurious holiday than they would have because they're trying to save a little bit of money.

It's not a big deal.

So I think if people really think about that and think about what it is like to live in extreme poverty and how much better life can be if you can do some of the things that I just mentioned,

then more people would be prepared to say, oh, well, that's something good that I can do.

I like the idea that I'm transforming other people's lives for the better.

And I don't really mind what I'm having to give up to donate that sum.

And on the contrary, perhaps I find my life more meaningful and more fulfilling because I know that I am having a positive influence on others.

Yeah, and there's an in-between alternative, which is that companies and businesses might consider doing, because this is a very rough estimate, but the profits of companies and businesses worldwide is roughly $10 trillion, and your calculation is pretty good, really.

So if companies were to give 10% of their profits, if they were to tithe profits, that could be that trillion dollars that is going to be enough to bring

everybody out of extreme poverty.

So there are really those three options, I would say individuals, companies and governments.

Now, in one way, it would be fairest if governments did it because governments have progressive taxation.

And that would mean that the wealthiest who could most easily afford to donate significant sums would be doing the most.

And the poorest would be doing the least.

And that would be the right outcome.