Philanthropy - Do you agree with more with Bill Gates/ Buffet or Elon Musk?

[Angra Mainyu]

The point to be made is this. Throughout the history of earth, animal extinction has been the rule and survival has been a rare exception. It might be climate change, an asteroid, a big nuke war, artificial intelligence, or something else not yet considered by science. But we are probably doomed to die and that is not what I am saying, it what the smartest among us (Hawkins/Segan) have said.

Leaving the chances of extinction for later, we are doomed to die. In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone alive today will die some day. However, that is no good reason for us no to invest money in staying healthier, or getting better if we are ill, etc., nor is it a good reason for billionaires, governments, etc. not to invest money on hospitals, medical research, etc.

As for the odds of extinction throughout the history of earth, there is some ambiguity. Some species cease to exist but they leave descendants. Are you counting a scenario in which, by means of genetic engineering, among others, our species ceases to exist, but the descendants of present day people still exist?
If so, then that raises the odds of extinction considerably, but I don't see the problem with that sort of extinction.

Else, as Bomb#20 already pointed out, there is relevant information about humans that points into a different direction.
With regard to some of the scenarios you mention:

1. Climate change.

That one does not look like an extinction risk. It can make life tougher in some regions, though technology may compensate or more. But even if it manages to kill millions earlier, it seems to me it's not even close to causing an extinction of humans. Let me point out that even in the worst case scenarios considered by scientists, a warmer Earth will be vastly more friendly to human life than Mars is (even after a few centuries of modifications), so if it's possible for humanity to survive on Mars (in the next few centuries, perhaps), then it's possible to survive on Earth.

2. A big nuke war.

That is very unlikely to happen. Even comparatively small ones have not happened. People generally don't want to get killed, see their families killed, their country destroyed, etc. Moreover, even if a big nuke war happened between countries with present-day nuclear levels, at least from what I read, extinction is still very unlikely. Do you have any sources that support a different assessment? Or are you thinking far bigger and widespread arsenals? If so, they might not even be made. Sure, at least most present-day nuclear powers will improve their arsenals, and there will be new ones, but that's not enough for widespread arsenals that are far bigger than present-day ones, and more precisely, big enough to make extinction likely if they were used, at least as far as I know.

 

[barbos]

Both Gates and Buffet are old and use their money to buy feeling good about themselves. Gates Foundation has long been criticized for the way they spend their money. I would add that Africa has been mishelped by the west for a long time. Sure it helps short term to send food and stuff to Africa. but in a long run it's useless, what they need is better governance and less corruption.

Musk when he gets old will probably end up the same way.

 

[Axulus]

Both Fates and Buffet are old and use their money to buy feeling good about themselves. Gates Foundation has long been criticized for the way they spend their money. I would add that Africa has been mishelped by the west for a long time. Sure it helps short term to send food and stuff to Africa. but in a long run it's useless, what they need is better governance and less corruption.

Musk when he gets old will probably end up the same way.

How is reducing Malaria infection, spreading education and increasing vaccination rates going to "mishelp" Africa?

 

[barbos]

Both Gates and Buffet are old and use their money to buy feeling good about themselves. Gates Foundation has long been criticized for the way they spend their money. I would add that Africa has been mishelped by the west for a long time. Sure it helps short term to send food and stuff to Africa. but in a long run it's useless, what they need is better governance and less corruption.

Musk when he gets old will probably end up the same way.

How is reducing Malaria infection, spreading education and increasing vaccination rates going to "mishelp" Africa?

It is not the goals, it's methods and efficiency which is being criticized. As for mishelping, then I read that western food help has being detrimental to local agriculture. In general. making Africa dependent of foreign help is detrimental in a long run.

 

[Bomb#20]

Both Gates and Buffet are old and use their money to buy feeling good about themselves. Gates Foundation has long been criticized for the way they spend their money. I would add that Africa has been mishelped by the west for a long time. Sure it helps short term to send food and stuff to Africa. but in a long run it's useless, what they need is better governance and less corruption.

Musk when he gets old will probably end up the same way.

How is reducing Malaria infection, spreading education and increasing vaccination rates going to "mishelp" Africa?

It is not the goals, it's methods and efficiency which is being criticized. As for mishelping, then I read that western food help has being detrimental to local agriculture. In general. making Africa dependent of foreign help is detrimental in a long run.

But the Gates Foundation isn't sending food. It's fighting disease, which makes Africans healthier, which makes them more able to farm their own food. And it's providing technical help to African farmers, and helping agronomists develop better crop varieties. Bill probably read about the same detrimental aid practices you did.

As for Buffett, he's the world's top expert on Return On Investment.

 

[J842P]

I don't. But I do favor survival of the fittest which best describes evolution as is currently best known to science.

No it does not, and never has. The origin of that phrase to describe natural selection is from Herbert Spencer, and it is at best a tautology and at worse meaningless. You will never read that phrase in any college/graduate level book on biology or evolution, or hear that in any undergraduate or graduate level class on evolutionary biology.


It betrays that whoever is using that phrase does not understand evolution, and anyway, even if it did accurately describe natural selection (it does not), your use of it to justify some normative claim about the best use of philanthropy is simply a non-sequitur. It's as reasonable as preferring cars over planes as a mode of transportation because "I believe in gravity".

 

[J842P]

But the thrust of the OP is still valid. Gates and Buffet are idiots and neoliberalism is a failed political worldview.

I think you mean the thrust of the OP is clear not valid. Your position is morally deplorable - no help for the poor and the suffering as long as I get to play video games and drive to the bar with a smaller carbon footprint.

Yes, indeed, and this weird attempt to connect Gates/Buffet to neoliberalism and separate Musk from it just makes no sense. Especially since all three of them could probably be described as similar politically, and would likely fall closer to the neoliberal side.

 

[SimpleDon]

In this video here we see both Gates and Buffet discussing how they are giving their money away. It's a long video so the part you should go to is 1:05:00:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNRWxN7jKlI

And the question that was asked by a member of the audience is why the Gates Foundation is giving away huge sums overseas when there are plenty of problems right here in the US. The Buffet/ Gates response goes something like this...that basically, all people are totally equal and that more can be done overseas because their dollars will go further giving more people vaccines. I don't disagree with that reasoning and I do also want to disclose that I still feel it is their money to give away as they please.

But it is completely flawed logic IMO. And it also seems to represent the worldview (as I understand it) of neoliberalism in that it is always better to help everyone else in the world before worrying about the individuals own place in life. In other words, just the opposite of what Trump would want to do.

So here is my question to the neoliberals out there (or whoever else can answer). Just what happens if/when you cure all sickness in Africa? Those people who would have died will survive to become another problem. First, they will have to be fed and then they will leave a huge carbon footprint. The end game of it all makes no sense to me at all. Yes, I can see how medical care is compassionate for the poor in Africa. And I can see how it could help Warren and Bill feel good about themselves. But I just don't see at all how it benefits mankind in the long run.

OTOH, Billionaire Elon Musk has it right IMO. He is going to be helping rich and poor alike everywhere. His focus is on delivering the technology of electric cars to reduce carbon footprint and rockets to leave the planet just in case.....which will ensure the long-term survival of mankind. In the final analysis, I think that Gates and Warren would do far better if they just gave their excess cash to Elon because he is the one on the right track IMO.

Neoliberalism is compassionate and emotional. But it is also stupid and flawed logic.

I agree that it is their money and they are welcome to do anything with it that they want to. I don't think that Gates or Buffet are taking the long view that you do that an African life is not worth much. Thank basic humanity. If you cure preventible disease only to have something else to kill them you try to cure the something else. Pretty soon you have a healthy, productive population that can support itself.

The US is the wealthiest country in the world. The very first thing I would do is to make sure that anyone who is willing to work is not relegated to poverty. Workers shouldn't have to depend on charity to live a comfortable, productive life in the US. The way to do these things is to improve the ability of workers to negotiate wages, to raise the minimum wage, to rebuild the unions, to make organizing easier, to repeal the right to work prohibition against closed shops, to shorten the workweek, .

Neoliberalism is hardly compassionate. At its core, it is the idea that the capitalistic economy is the same as it was in Adam Smith's time, the late eighteenth century at the dawn of the industrial revolution. But the industrial revolution changed the economy from a largely agrarian one constrained by the amount of arable land in which the problem is distributing scarce food to the population into an economy producing a sizable surplus in which the only problem is to whom you distribute the surplus. The neoliberals have one and only one answer, it should be distributed to the already rich as profits instead of being split between profits and increased wages. In short, neoliberals believe that the economy is still supply-side constrained when it is demand constrained.

Here is a description of the history of neoliberalism on a website, American Affairs, specifically set up to provide academic support for Trumpism. Neoliberalism: The Movement That Dare Not Speak Its Own Name

 

[laughing dog]

Both Gates and Buffet are old and use their money to buy feeling good about themselves. Gates Foundation has long been criticized for the way they spend their money. I would add that Africa has been mishelped by the west for a long time. Sure it helps short term to send food and stuff to Africa. but in a long run it's useless, what they need is better governance and less corruption.

Musk when he gets old will probably end up the same way.

How is reducing Malaria infection, spreading education and increasing vaccination rates going to "mishelp" Africa?

It is not the goals, it's methods and efficiency which is being criticized. As for mishelping, then I read that western food help has being detrimental to local agriculture. In general. making Africa dependent of foreign help is detrimental in a long run.

Do you have any evidence that the efforts of the Gates Foundation or Buffet's philanthropy is making Africa dependent on foreign help?

 

[RVonse]

I don't. But I do favor survival of the fittest which best describes evolution as is currently best known to science.

No it does not, and never has. The origin of that phrase to describe natural selection is from Herbert Spencer, and it is at best a tautology and at worse meaningless. You will never read that phrase in any college/graduate level book on biology or evolution, or hear that in any undergraduate or graduate level class on evolutionary biology.
.

I learned this when I went to school. But even if survival of the fittest isn't in the text books today it should be because that's how we see nature before our very eyes.

The strongests and fittest males are the ones who fight with each other to decide who will fuck the female. And the weak males will not carry their DNA on to further generations..

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't. But I do favor survival of the fittest which best describes evolution as is currently best known to science.

No it does not, and never has. The origin of that phrase to describe natural selection is from Herbert Spencer, and it is at best a tautology and at worse meaningless. You will never read that phrase in any college/graduate level book on biology or evolution, or hear that in any undergraduate or graduate level class on evolutionary biology.


It betrays that whoever is using that phrase does not understand evolution

That phrase was used by Charles Darwin. It's neither meaningless nor tautological. It's a problematic description of evolution for various reasons and is probably best avoided, but you're massively overstating the case against it. Dawkins wrote a more nuanced critique of it in "The Extended Phenotype"; you can read it here.

 

[bilby]

But on the other hand it is against nature. And anything that is against nature should be looked at very carefully because there will probably be some kind of blow back.

This is a particularly poor argument, made even more poor by the irony of it's being made on the Internet.

Almost everything humans in the developed world do is 'against nature', which is why our quality and duration of life is VASTLY better than it was in the 'good old days' before we started to go 'against nature' by using tools, clothes, fire, selective breeding and all of the other things that made Neolithic life so much better than Palaeolithic life.

That modern life continues to be a vast improvement over Neolithic life simply underscores how woefully misguided your argument is.

Going 'against nature' is the smartest and most effective thing humanity has ever done. The benefits outweigh the costs by an astronomical margin.

 

[RVonse]

The nternet is one thing. But favoring weak DNA code (lineage) to survive with medical means might not be so wise.

 

[BH]

Survival of the fittest?

I've heard it argued the capitalists who become rich are the fittest. If so, why did the communists in many countries beat them up, take their stuff and install another economic system. Why weren't the communists considered fittest? They outgrew their legal and moral framework, worked together, and overthrew their old overlords.

How many would we consider fittest really be proven unfit if we did not have a police force to defend them?

If a man is a genius but has some sort of genetic defect making his life shorter and much more uncomfortable is he really superior to a moron who has a good body and good health and can work productively doing menial jobs?

Seems to me the term kinda means all and says all and so says nothing.

You can take anyone or anything that one would consider fittest and throw something at them they can't deal with and then call them unfit.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The nternet is one thing. But favoring weak DNA code (lineage) to survive with medical means might not be so wise.

Why not? (I could ask what you have in mind by "weak" given your previous claims, but I'll focus on something else in this post).

Do you think vaccination in Africa is different from vaccination in America in that regard?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't. But I do favor survival of the fittest which best describes evolution as is currently best known to science.

No it does not, and never has. The origin of that phrase to describe natural selection is from Herbert Spencer, and it is at best a tautology and at worse meaningless. You will never read that phrase in any college/graduate level book on biology or evolution, or hear that in any undergraduate or graduate level class on evolutionary biology.
.

I learned this when I went to school. But even if survival of the fittest isn't in the text books today it should be because that's how we see nature before our very eyes.

The strongests and fittest males are the ones who fight with each other to decide who will fuck the female. And the weak males will not carry their DNA on to further generations..

You realize that argument means male Trump voters should not be permitted to procreate.

 

[RVonse]

Survival of the fittest?

If a man is a genius but has some sort of genetic defect making his life shorter and much more uncomfortable is he really superior to a moron who has a good body and good health and can work productively doing menial jobs?
.

An excellent point. And I do not know.

But here would be my best scientific hypothesis. Better to have good physical genes than smart genes if there is a huge calamity. The first thing that will be lost is power, technology and medicine. Only the best examples of physical health will even be able to survive such a scenario. Better to have a few morons that are still human survive than no one at all.

 

[barbos]

All this talk about "fittest" and "productive" made me wonder about Buffet. He is certainly the fittest but is he productive? Besides donating his money to charity did he do any good? I think he did not.

 

[RVonse]

The nternet is one thing. But favoring weak DNA code (lineage) to survive with medical means might not be so wise.

Why not? (I could ask what you have in mind by "weak" given your previous claims, but I'll focus on something else in this post).

Do you think vaccination in Africa is different from vaccination in America in that regard?

A vaccination works as long as the infrastructure is there to provide it. But what happens during a calamity when the medicine is unavailable? That's the crux of the problem IMO. We simply do not have the wisdom to know if technology should replace biological evolution. Yes, we are intelligent enough to come up with medical solutions and that is good. But are we wise enough to know if we should be using those medical solutions all the time? We do not know for sure what our future will be.

For example, during the dark ages thousands of people suffered and died during the black plague. They did not have antibiotics and very limited medicine. So weak people died and strong people lived. And it was a terrible time for everyone back then. But it really wasn't all bad.

Today (on average) our biology pool is much better for it. Because of the black plague, there are more people today who are able to survive AIDs including some who can't even get AID's. That only was possible from the decedents of the people who survived the black plague.

 

[Elixir]

The strongests and fittest males are the ones who fight with each other to decide who will fuck the female. And the weak males will not carry their DNA on to further generations..

That's a common misconception about how evolution actually "operates". It's not always - or even usually - about strongest, physically fittest, best fighter etc. There is only one metric that matters to the outcomes of evolution: reproductive success. Nature is brimming with examples where deceit and trickery triumph over strength, where foibles of a changing "fitness landscapes" favor previously detrimental traits, etc.