This guy is a total fraud. He believes that climate change is a bad thing, yet cites no evidence he has weighed up the pros and cons of climate change.

What if you fly to fight climate change? What’s the alternative, riding a bike across country and taking 2 weeks to do it while consuming a whole lot more food/water and producing more waste? CO2 awareness is good, but it should be holistic and consider the cost of NOT taking a flight. Not taking a flight does not suddenly/necessarily zero out your CO2 waste… Now celebrities flying for cheesecakes? Yeah, we should have a CO2 tax on crud like that.

Climate change is good for the planet, so don't waste your money on doing something that doesn't help.

Ik geef ze nooit wat kunnen me de pot op elk goededoel is er vooral voor hun eigen portomonee

Very nice subject and video explaining the same. Video really helps understand the subject very well. Lot of handworks put here.

Fantastic!

All the best Professor.

Geweldig!

Cbf is ook commercieel

🙌 *promosm*

Excellent work multiply it by 1 million. Create a point of contact in every country. Let AI help you.

Mr. Smeets, deed u ook een sociologisch onderzoek gerelateerd aan de geografie? Speelt de plaats waar men geboren is een rol? Niet alleen de bankrekening aub want dat is zo eenvoudig.

When there is a large amount of money is envolved every invester, banker, government is interested. An effective watchdog on different levels is the only answer to keep the project incorruptible. Transparancy is key. Poverty strikes the most vulnerable. Involve 60% of women in your investment. Women tend to be more cautious.

The attitude of tsedaka in Judaism is impressive. Giving is an act, a mindset, a connecting loving kindness. 🌳

Hoe heeft oorlog een impact op je donatie?

Armoede ligt niet altijd bloot op de straat. Mensen zijn trots en beschaamd om geld of hulp te vragen. Banken spelen een immense rol in armoedebeleid en ontsnappen vaak aan hun verantwoordelijkheid…

Promo_SM

Nice study.

The title says "does having a lot of money [...]", but the socio-econonic status is infered from the car's worth/age, and in other studies from a composit of income, education and occupational prestige, correct? From the brief look at the papers, it's not so easy to disentangle income and education for instance, as I can imagine that these two dimensions might have widely different effects on someones pro-social behavior. Even so, within education (i.e. MD versus business school) could already spell out someones pro-social attitude. Also, isn't the highest cuttoff for cars and or income a bit low? in the main study the highest category was cars above 44k. That doesn't really constitute "rich" I think, seeing how there are cars going up to 200k (such as the Ferrari's as mentioned in this video). Similarly, the "higher income donate more" tops off at income above 60k, while that's arguably not really "rich". I mean, I wouldn't consider a postdoc rich, nor a full prof actually. There are quite some ranges above this, especially when you reach the levels where one could financially attain things some other people really will never be able to reach. Otherwise intersting stuff. Would love to hear your opinion on when "richness" CAN become problematic, what the upper bounds are. Especially interesting when you reach exceptional levels of wealth and power (power for instance in the sense of having a particularly position in a company with many means at your disposal).

Wat geeft die Harmienke Kloeze slechte antwoorden zeg! niet eens luisteren naar de vragen, maar er om heen proberen te praten.

leuk filmpje.hoe lang loopt het project al?