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

[RVonse]

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

No you have lost me there. Are you saying that I said Trump voters are not fit to procreate?

 

[RVonse]

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.

Then let us all hope that the changing landscape of planet earth favors a huge population of people and many others who depend on vaccines and medical technology. Because that is exactly where our species is heading right now.

 

[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.

Then let us all hope that the changing landscape of planet earth favors a huge population of people and many others who depend on vaccines and medical technology. Because that is exactly where our species is heading right now.

Yeah, as HSS continues to increase its domination of the biosphere, all the risks of monoculture rise. It's only a matter of time before a precipitous decline in human numbers - or extinction of the species - occurs. Not something that will likely play out in a human lifetime or few, but barring some new and unknown survival dynamic, it's going to happen within the blink of a geologic eye.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Um, because the rich capitalists were impoverished refugees, wandering around Paris looking for somebody to get their stuff back for them, while the communists were back in Russia, dying alongside the peasants in Lenin's famine?

 

[laughing dog]

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

No you have lost me there. Are you saying that I said Trump voters are not fit to procreate?

Not if you are interested in the "survival of the fittest".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

In this video here we see both Gates and Buffet discussing how they are giving their money away. Its 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 is 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 who ever 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 electrical cars to reduce carbon footprint and rockets to leave the planet just in case.....which will ensure long term survival of mankind. In the final analysis I think that Gates and Warren would do far more good 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.

While Gates and Buffett are neoliberal in the general sense of marketizing all aspects of society, where you give your money is not a neoliberal issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, improving health reduces family size in the long run.

 

[Emily Lake]

Maybe, but when it comes to medical research, are you aware of any examples of bad unintended results?
[ You wrote .."then they will leave a huge carbon footprint. " which is simply untrue. Now, if you are arguing that fewer people in general will leave a smaller carbon footprint than more people, i agree. But was not even implied by what you wrote. Moreover, advocating that people should not be cured so that they will die and leave a smaller carbon footprint is morally disgusting.

lso not mentioned and really not relevant to the OP.

Yes it is. You are goo-gooing over Elon Misk because he wants to get electric cars to reduce the carbon footprint.

Ok fair enough. I will concede I have not conveyed my thoughts as well as I should. A communication issue on my part and thank you for bringing it my attention.

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

You know, I'm not really seeing how a discussion of different methods for philanthropy needs to be turned into a partisan argument and an opportunity to insult "the other side".

 

[Emily Lake]

Should I care more about the suffering and death of my fellow humans today or the long turn survival of humanity? Either way it ain't me. So it's a contest of empathy.

And I am noticing a tribal bias in myself I didn't know was there. I feel far more empathy for people suffering today than for ancient Romans or people in the extreme future. So although I am not racist or sexist or homophobic etc, I think I have to admit I am "Timeist"?

But Timeism is perfectly rational. The ancient Romans are beyond help. And life keeps getting better and better. Worldwide, we kill each other less, we live longer and healthier, the rich get richer, the poor get richer even faster, and extreme poverty is at an all time low. So any sacrifice on the part of the living for the sake of the unborn amounts to a regressive tax on the poor to pay for benefits for the rich.

I'm sorry, you lost me with the last statement. I'm not sure how that follows - can you please fill in whichever blank I seem to have missed with respect to it being a regressive tax on the poor to pay for the rich?

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

Adding: sexual selection in many creatures is at least as strong an evolutionary lever as natural selection is.

 

[Emily Lake]

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..

Lol... only in those species where the females prefer strong males that fight with each other. Evolution isn't some high-schooler's video-game version of dominance. Fitness, in the innaccurate analogy that you reference, isn't defined in terms of intra-species combat for breeding rights. Fitness in the sense of "survival of the fittest" is determined by the fitness of a species within their ecosystem. The evolutionary changes that allow a species to fit their environment better are those changes that allow propagation of the species.

Your "alpha male" interpretation of evolution is, if anything, much more representative of sexual selection than of natural selection. And sexual selection very frequently has nothing at all to do with fitness. Seriously, peacock's tails do NOT confer an environmental advantage in any way at all, and actually serve to limit fitness... but the peahens really like them, so the males with more elaborate plumage are granted attention from the females who allow them fertilization rights for their eggs.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Are you familiar with the concept of eugenics? It seems like it might interest you.

 

[Emily Lake]

A vaccination works as long as the infrastructure is there to provide it. But what happens during a calamity when the medicine is unavailable?

Hmm. I'm not entirely certain you understand how vaccinations work.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is such an outlandish claim that I'd really prefer to see some citations to back this up. I'm perfectly willing to have my assumption proven wrong... but without compelling evidence I'm inclined to dismiss this out of hand.

 

[bilby]

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

The only viable test of what is 'weak' is what survives. In an environment where medical means help certain sequences to survive, those sequences are strong by definition if they outcompete the sequences that don't take advantage of the medical means that form part of their environment.

What is 'weak' or 'strong' varies as the environment changes. It need have no relationship to what you might imagine it to be, and can easily be the opposite of what you might think.

Dogs are not as physically powerful as wolves. But only one of these is at risk of extinction, and it ain't the dogs. In an environment where the local top predator favours the cute and fluffy, and takes active steps to eliminate the powerful, being physically strong makes a species less fit, by the evolutionary meaning of the word 'fit'.

 

[bilby]

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.

Then let us all hope that the changing landscape of planet earth favors a huge population of people and many others who depend on vaccines and medical technology. Because that is exactly where our species is heading right now.

And right now, it DOES.

Evolution doesn't think ahead; it only works with what is here now. And right now, technology is a major environmental influence on a large number of species, including ours.

Maybe one day it won't be. But that day isn't today. And you or I are sure as shit not smart enough to know exactly what the new environment will be, if, as, and when that day arrives.

- - - Updated - - -

Then let us all hope that the changing landscape of planet earth favors a huge population of people and many others who depend on vaccines and medical technology. Because that is exactly where our species is heading right now.

Yeah, as HSS continues to increase its domination of the biosphere, all the risks of monoculture rise. It's only a matter of time before a precipitous decline in human numbers - or extinction of the species - occurs. Not something that will likely play out in a human lifetime or few, but barring some new and unknown survival dynamic, it's going to happen within the blink of a geologic eye.

...and it will be unpredictable in its exact effects, so any attempt to preempt it is doomed.

 

[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?

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.

I don't know of any evidence that the death of so many people because of the black plague made people more resistant to AIDs. But let's say you're right about that. My question is: do you think this is different in America and Africa? My point is that you're criticizing apparently the use of medicine in Africa, not in America, but if you were correct about this point, it applies to both.

 

[Elixir]

We simply do not have the wisdom to know if technology should replace biological evolution.

"Should"? It's not like we own that choice. Biological evolution can't be negated by technology. As Bilby pointed out, technology is just another feature of the current fitness landscape that humans inhabit. Evolution doesn't care about it one whit. Some time down the road, technology may be the species' undoing or its salvation. Or maybe not. But it doesn't matter to evolution either way - evolution will simply keep on favoring populations that achieve the greatest reproductive success, with no regard to whether those populations are human or microbial.

 

[RVonse]

I'm sorry, but this is such an outlandish claim that I'd really prefer to see some citations to back this up. I'm perfectly willing to have my assumption proven wrong... but without compelling evidence I'm inclined to dismiss this out of hand.

The genetic mutation, Delta 32. There are all kinds of articles if you want to research on google but here are a couple to get you started:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/04/black-plagues-quirky-genetics-700-years-later/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

 

[RVonse]

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.

I don't know of any evidence that the death of so many people because of the black plague made people more resistant to AIDs. But let's say you're right about that. My question is: do you think this is different in America and Africa?

No.

My point is that you're criticizing apparently the use of medicine in Africa, not in America, but if you were correct about this point, it applies to both.

The only difference I can see is that the medical research and creation was probably accomplished in America. Which probably means the ability and means to create more if needed.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sorry, but this is such an outlandish claim that I'd really prefer to see some citations to back this up. I'm perfectly willing to have my assumption proven wrong... but without compelling evidence I'm inclined to dismiss this out of hand.

The genetic mutation, Delta 32. There are all kinds of articles if you want to research on google but here are a couple to get you started:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/04/black-plagues-quirky-genetics-700-years-later/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Well, hell, I stand corrected. Thank you for the references.

 

[RVonse]

Then let us all hope that the changing landscape of planet earth favors a huge population of people and many others who depend on vaccines and medical technology. Because that is exactly where our species is heading right now.

And right now, it DOES.

Evolution doesn't think ahead; it only works with what is here now. And right now, technology is a major environmental influence on a large number of species, including ours.

Maybe one day it won't be. But that day isn't today. And you or I are sure as shit not smart enough to know exactly what the new environment will be, if, as, and when that day arrives.

I agree no one is wise enough to know the future with certainty. I don't, you don't, or anyone else. But that does not mean all intelligence should be thrown out of the window.

Based on what we know today it almost a certainty (above 99%) that Gates/Buffet are wrong and Musk is right.

 

[RVonse]

Are you familiar with the concept of eugenics? It seems like it might interest you.

I was waiting for this to be brought up. And no I do not agree with eugenics either. Eugenics is no more natural than medical technology. In fact, a lot of eugenics would simply be an arm of medical technology attempting to do better what natural selection is supposed to do. And probably done at a cheap price which Gates and Buffet would love.

But there is simply no way to know what the long term side effects of that kind of program would do either.

Bilby brings up the point there really is no way to really know if medical technology will be good or bad in the long run. But what we do know for sure right now, is that time is rapidly running out for the overall environment. And keeping more people alive today just does not add any value to helping solve what needs to be solved today. It only makes us feel good about ourselves. And it is simply NOT intelligent.