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

[laughing dog]

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

Fixed if for you, because the "we" part is simply unsubstantiated.

 

[RVonse]

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".

No there is not reason to insult people based on the political beliefs but there is reason to point out when they are wrong. Because if you don't point this out to them, they will not realize the error of their belief system.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Evolution isn't predictive. It's a current-state process. Evolution also isn't intelligent. It's a genetic jenga game of sorts.

Evolution doesn't make decisions, it doesn't select, it doesn't take action in any way. Evolution is the outcome of a process, it is a description of the process by which some configurations work under some conditions and others don't.

- - - Updated - - -

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".

No there is not reason to insult people based on the political beliefs but there is reason to point out when they are wrong. Because if you don't point this out to them, they will not realize the error of their belief system.

That seems rather presumptuous of you. What makes you think that your belief is right and their belief is wrong, other than your belief that it is so?

 

[bilby]

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.

No, it isn't.

You are making the same circular argument that eugenicists have been making for at least a century - That we can determine which part of our population is fittest, and strengthen the gene pool by eliminating the less fit parts of it. This argument is circular, because eliminating a part of the gene pool by definition makes that part of the gene pool less fit - it's a self fulfilling prophecy that works for ANY chosen 'unfit' sub-population.

The reality is that diversity and dispersal are what makes a population resistant to extinction. Any steps taken to eliminate a supposedly unfit sub-population either achieve nothing (in the best case) or reduce diversity, and therefore reduce resilience.

We cannot know what genes we might need in the distant future, so it is best (if our goal is to lower the risk of our extinction) to keep as diverse and well mixed a gene pool as possible.

 

[bilby]

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.

There is no problem inherent in keeping people alive; All reasonable future population projections are easily sustainable with current technology. We are feeding more people than ever with less agricultural land, and the peak population is expected in the next 30-40 years. Interestingly, the increased health and well-being of people in the developing world - particularly sub-Saharan Africa - is the major driver of lower and earlier population peaks, so the more Gates and Buffet do to improve life-expectancy, education, general health, and thereby wealth in Africa, the lower the peak population of the world will be.

People whose children are not expected to die before they reach maturity tend to have fewer children than the replacement level. Better health, particularly better paediatric health, is the key to reducing population growth rates. High infant and child mortality leads (counter-intuitively) to higher population growth rates.

The overall environment will be fine, if we just stop burning coal (and ultimately gas and oil too) and switch to burning uranium instead. We could do this very easily, and very quickly (France already did it, decades ago). If we choose not to, then we are fucked, even if the population of the world were reduced by 80%.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

What do you mean by "create more if needed"?

Of course more is always needed. Some companies and institutions have the ability to do research. Many more are capable of copying. But that aside, you were talking about some sort of calamity that would leave people without technology. In that case, the calamity could happen in the US just as it could happen in Africa. Moreover, if you are correct that our biology pool is much better because people died in the plague, etc., then using medical technology in America but not in Africa would be a way of making the future biology pool of Africa (where the death rate from infectious disease would remain far higher than in America) much better than the gene pool in America, unless you're relying on African immigrants to improve the American gene pool. However, if the idea is to rely on African migrants to improve America's genes, wouldn't it be more effective to do it in the opposite direction, if you intend to improve the American gene pool? (i.e., use medical technology in Africa, not in America).

On the other hand, if relying on African migrants is not the plan, and it would still be good for America to have a bad gene pool (or "biology pool", or whatever one calls it) while Africa has a much better one, why not transfer the technology to make new vaccines to Africa as well?

 

[Bomb#20]

...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?

Trends suggest that from the point of view of 2200AD, the people alive in 2100AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 2018AD, just as from our current point of view, the people alive in 1900AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 1800AD. So if we pursue policies that reduce standard of living now, but will increase standard of living in 2100AD, for example, invest in rocket technology instead of in improving sanitation, then people in 2200AD will probably look back, see a self-inflicted transfer of wealth from poor 2018ers to rich 2100ers, and wonder "Why did they do that?".

 

[barbos]

There is no problem inherent in keeping people alive; All reasonable future population projections are easily sustainable with current technology. We are feeding more people than ever with less agricultural land, and the peak population is expected in the next 30-40 years.

Current technology depends on heavy use of fertilizers some of which are finite resources ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus )
So no, current technology is not sustainable and with drop in fertilizers production there will be a drop in food production.

 

[bilby]

...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?

Trends suggest that from the point of view of 2200AD, the people alive in 2100AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 2018AD, just as from our current point of view, the people alive in 1900AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 1800AD. So if we pursue policies that reduce standard of living now, but will increase standard of living in 2100AD, for example, invest in rocket technology instead of in improving sanitation, then people in 2200AD will probably look back, see a self-inflicted transfer of wealth from poor 2018ers to rich 2100ers, and wonder "Why did they do that?".

Indeed. What have our descendants ever done for us, that we should give those rich guys any more of our hard earned wealth than we have to?

If we look at this from the perspective of our predecessors, it becomes clear that a median US household today earning ~$59,000/yr would find it hard to justify claiming that they deserve to be supported by their forebears from 1918, whose annual median income was $1,520 - which according to the saving.org inflation calculator is a mere $27,300 in 2018 dollars.

We shouldn't expect a person earning half as much as his great-grandson to support that great-grandson financially; The money-bags can pay his own damn way (and stay off my lawn). That applies just as much to people in 1918 not needing to support the much wealthier people of today; Or to people in 2018 not needing to support the much wealthier people of 2118.

 

[bilby]

There is no problem inherent in keeping people alive; All reasonable future population projections are easily sustainable with current technology. We are feeding more people than ever with less agricultural land, and the peak population is expected in the next 30-40 years.

Current technology depends on heavy use of fertilizers some of which are finite resources ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus )
So no, current technology is not sustainable and with drop in fertilizers production there will be a drop in food production.

That could be a major concern. We should also be deeply worried that we have reached 'peak breakfast'. Unless, of course, we were to understand that resources and reserves are very different things indeed.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

... it's 7am. Currently there is food in the fridges of the nation for breakfast. But in two hours time that will be eaten, gone, there will be no more. Therefore, everyone will die because NO BREAKFAST.

We are not going to run out of Phosphorous - or of anything else, as long as we have the sense not to blast it all into space, and the technology to generate reliable and inexpensive power. Phosphorous is the 11th most common element in the Earth's crust; We didn't generally need to mine it until recently, because biological systems had helpfully concentrated it in easy to reach places - but when the easy to reach stuff ran out (surely you recall the global disaster when we reached 'peak guano' back in the 1870s?), the harder to reach stuff became a viable resource, and when the current resource is exhausted, we will go get the stuff that's a little harder again to concentrate.

It will cost a little more than it does today - but that won't matter, because we will all be much wealthier, and so will be easily able to pay (see my post above).

 

[barbos]

That could be a major concern. We should also be deeply worried that we have reached 'peak breakfast'. Unless, of course, we were to understand that resources and reserves are very different things indeed.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

... it's 7am. Currently there is food in the fridges of the nation for breakfast. But in two hours time that will be eaten, gone, there will be no more. Therefore, everyone will die because NO BREAKFAST.

We are not going to run out of Phosphorous - or of anything else, as long as we have the sense not to blast it all into space, and the technology to generate reliable and inexpensive power. Phosphorous is the 11th most common element in the Earth's crust; We didn't generally need to mine it until recently, because biological systems had helpfully concentrated it in easy to reach places - but when the easy to reach stuff ran out (surely you recall the global disaster when we reached 'peak guano' back in the 1870s?), the harder to reach stuff became a viable resource, and when the current resource is exhausted, we will go get the stuff that's a little harder again to concentrate.

It will cost a little more than it does today - but that won't matter, because we will all be much wealthier, and so will be easily able to pay (see my post above).

What it would cost is irrelevant, there will simply be less of it available in the form of fertilizers, hence a drop in food production.

 

[bilby]

That could be a major concern. We should also be deeply worried that we have reached 'peak breakfast'. Unless, of course, we were to understand that resources and reserves are very different things indeed.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

... it's 7am. Currently there is food in the fridges of the nation for breakfast. But in two hours time that will be eaten, gone, there will be no more. Therefore, everyone will die because NO BREAKFAST.

We are not going to run out of Phosphorous - or of anything else, as long as we have the sense not to blast it all into space, and the technology to generate reliable and inexpensive power. Phosphorous is the 11th most common element in the Earth's crust; We didn't generally need to mine it until recently, because biological systems had helpfully concentrated it in easy to reach places - but when the easy to reach stuff ran out (surely you recall the global disaster when we reached 'peak guano' back in the 1870s?), the harder to reach stuff became a viable resource, and when the current resource is exhausted, we will go get the stuff that's a little harder again to concentrate.

It will cost a little more than it does today - but that won't matter, because we will all be much wealthier, and so will be easily able to pay (see my post above).

Oh we are totally going to run out cheap Phosphorous.

That won't matter, (any more than it did in 1870 when the Guano ran out) because we will all be much wealthier, and so will be easily able to pay (see my post above).

 

[barbos]

Oh we are totally going to run out cheap Phosphorous.

That won't matter, (any more than it did in 1870 when the Guano ran out) because we will all be much wealthier, and so will be easily able to pay (see my post above).

Nope, you are wrong, see above.

 

[LordKiran]

Every human life has potential. Most amount to nothing by the time they die in the long run but you never truly know what someone can accomplish in their lifetime. That some are content to let that potential be wasted and let it rot on the vine, well the soviets had a word for people that I think is an apt attribution here: Limiters.

In that you are limiting the sum total of human potential by allowing some of them to die.

 

[Emily Lake]

Trends suggest that from the point of view of 2200AD, the people alive in 2100AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 2018AD, just as from our current point of view, the people alive in 1900AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 1800AD. So if we pursue policies that reduce standard of living now, but will increase standard of living in 2100AD, for example, invest in rocket technology instead of in improving sanitation, then people in 2200AD will probably look back, see a self-inflicted transfer of wealth from poor 2018ers to rich 2100ers, and wonder "Why did they do that?".

Indeed. What have our descendants ever done for us, that we should give those rich guys any more of our hard earned wealth than we have to?

If we look at this from the perspective of our predecessors, it becomes clear that a median US household today earning ~$59,000/yr would find it hard to justify claiming that they deserve to be supported by their forebears from 1918, whose annual median income was $1,520 - which according to the saving.org inflation calculator is a mere $27,300 in 2018 dollars.

We shouldn't expect a person earning half as much as his great-grandson to support that great-grandson financially; The money-bags can pay his own damn way (and stay off my lawn). That applies just as much to people in 1918 not needing to support the much wealthier people of today; Or to people in 2018 not needing to support the much wealthier people of 2118.

I'm not seeing that Musk is taking anything at all away from poor people today. That's part of why I approve of this sort of forward-looking philanthropy, that allows for substantial technological growth that will benefit future generations. He's not depriving current people of anything.

Like I said, very similar to the effect of wealthy patrons supporting scientific and technological development during the Enlightenment. Unless you're suggesting that the industrial revolution and all of its attendant developments were an unfair burden on the poor people of that time period, and not worth the investment by those patrons?

 

[PyramidHead]

Trends suggest that from the point of view of 2200AD, the people alive in 2100AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 2018AD, just as from our current point of view, the people alive in 1900AD were much richer overall than the people alive in 1800AD. So if we pursue policies that reduce standard of living now, but will increase standard of living in 2100AD, for example, invest in rocket technology instead of in improving sanitation, then people in 2200AD will probably look back, see a self-inflicted transfer of wealth from poor 2018ers to rich 2100ers, and wonder "Why did they do that?".

Indeed. What have our descendants ever done for us, that we should give those rich guys any more of our hard earned wealth than we have to?

If we look at this from the perspective of our predecessors, it becomes clear that a median US household today earning ~$59,000/yr would find it hard to justify claiming that they deserve to be supported by their forebears from 1918, whose annual median income was $1,520 - which according to the saving.org inflation calculator is a mere $27,300 in 2018 dollars.

We shouldn't expect a person earning half as much as his great-grandson to support that great-grandson financially; The money-bags can pay his own damn way (and stay off my lawn). That applies just as much to people in 1918 not needing to support the much wealthier people of today; Or to people in 2018 not needing to support the much wealthier people of 2118.

I'm not seeing that Musk is taking anything at all away from poor people today. That's part of why I approve of this sort of forward-looking philanthropy, that allows for substantial technological growth that will benefit future generations. He's not depriving current people of anything.

Like I said, very similar to the effect of wealthy patrons supporting scientific and technological development during the Enlightenment. Unless you're suggesting that the industrial revolution and all of its attendant developments were an unfair burden on the poor people of that time period, and not worth the investment by those patrons?

Musk, like Gates, isn't taking anything away per se, but he is dominating the conversation so that his ideas get the most traction and consideration. One cannot help but wonder, for example, if there was any coincidence in the fact that many of Bill Gates' education initiatives amounted to putting computers built by his private company into classrooms. Elon Musk is no different. His ideas are primarily intended to increase visibility for his brand and entice people to buy his products. They are far from the most viable ideas from a civil engineering perspective. Rather than have resource-efficient, space-saving, cheap public transportation, Musk is putting all his chips on massive underground highways for people to traverse in individual self-driving cars. Nobody whose every act of philanthropy seems to result in gigantic profits for himself can be considered a philanthropist first. Musk, Gates, and others of their ilk are businessmen first. We don't need saviors like them.

 

[Emily Lake]

Musk, like Gates, isn't taking anything away per se, but he is dominating the conversation so that his ideas get the most traction and consideration. One cannot help but wonder, for example, if there was any coincidence in the fact that many of Bill Gates' education initiatives amounted to putting computers built by his private company into classrooms.

When the alternative is to not have computers in those classrooms, I don't really follow your complaint here.

Elon Musk is no different. His ideas are primarily intended to increase visibility for his brand and entice people to buy his products.

His cars? Certainly that's part of the objective... but he has still produced substantial improvements in electric vehicle capability. I don't care if it increases his brand in the process. On the other hand... I'm not really seeing the flock of consumers running out to buy Falcon Heavy rockets. But even in that realm, he more than doubled the payload that NASA can accomodate, and did it with reusable elements instead of throw-away. That's a pretty meaningful leap in terms of our capabilities.

They are far from the most viable ideas from a civil engineering perspective. Rather than have resource-efficient, space-saving, cheap public transportation,

Someone else already solved that problem. That already exists... but it's also only useful in densely populated urban areas. Not particularly useful for suburban or rural areas, of which the US has quite a few. That needs a different solution altogether.

Musk is putting all his chips on massive underground highways for people to traverse in individual self-driving cars.

So? What's the problem, from your perspective? This is a solution to a different problem than the ones already solved for densely populated urban areas.

Nobody whose every act of philanthropy seems to result in gigantic profits for himself can be considered a philanthropist first. Musk, Gates, and others of their ilk are businessmen first. We don't need saviors like them.

I disagree in terms of our society needing philanthropists like these. The emotional tugging with the term 'savior' is altogether irrelevant here. And I don't have any objection to business people being business people as well as philanthropists.

I'm a bit curious... by your definition, who exactly would qualify as a philanthropist anyway?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not seeing that Musk is taking anything at all away from poor people today. That's part of why I approve of this sort of forward-looking philanthropy, that allows for substantial technological growth that will benefit future generations. He's not depriving current people of anything.

That's true, since he's spending his own money. I'm not criticizing Musk, just the theory that we all ought to care more about long term benefit to mankind than about the people alive right now. Musk isn't sacrificing anything for future generations; he's buying what he wants right now; and what he wants are rockets, because rockets are awesome! I agree that there's room for all kinds of philanthropy. Go Musk! Go Gates & Buffett!

Like I said, very similar to the effect of wealthy patrons supporting scientific and technological development during the Enlightenment. Unless you're suggesting that the industrial revolution and all of its attendant developments were an unfair burden on the poor people of that time period, and not worth the investment by those patrons?

But they weren't buying mankind an industrial revolution. They were buying the joy of knowledge, and the joy of personally becoming rich. To the extent that they did it with their own money, go them. To the extent that they did it by ripping off the poor, that's as shameful as Jenner greatly benefiting mankind by testing his vaccination theories on an 8-year-old.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not seeing that Musk is taking anything at all away from poor people today. That's part of why I approve of this sort of forward-looking philanthropy, that allows for substantial technological growth that will benefit future generations. He's not depriving current people of anything.

That's true, since he's spending his own money. I'm not criticizing Musk, just the theory that we all ought to care more about long term benefit to mankind than about the people alive right now. Musk isn't sacrificing anything for future generations; he's buying what he wants right now; and what he wants are rockets, because rockets are awesome! I agree that there's room for all kinds of philanthropy. Go Musk! Go Gates & Buffett!

Like I said, very similar to the effect of wealthy patrons supporting scientific and technological development during the Enlightenment. Unless you're suggesting that the industrial revolution and all of its attendant developments were an unfair burden on the poor people of that time period, and not worth the investment by those patrons?

But they weren't buying mankind an industrial revolution. They were buying the joy of knowledge, and the joy of personally becoming rich. To the extent that they did it with their own money, go them. To the extent that they did it by ripping off the poor, that's as shameful as Jenner greatly benefiting mankind by testing his vaccination theories on an 8-year-old.

I think we're in agreement... but I could be wrong. You seem much more passionate about this than I really know how to read.