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

[RVonse]

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Why would you value an American life over an African life? Just because they happened to be born near you? Do you question the wisdom of funding hospitals in the USA and saving the lives of Americans? Or should we stop all medical care to people who can't afford it, and let them die so they don't have children who will increase the carbon footprint much faster? It helps Warren/Bill feel good because it is helping a greater number of people and helping people in much more dire situations. They don't have a "We've got ours" attitude, either towards themselves or towards their families or even countries. I commend them for that.

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.

Musk is thinking more long term (survival of the species in case of cosmic cataclysm). There is a place for that too. But there is nothing wrong with saving lives. What should be going with the saving lives in Africa is a fight against the Catholic church and other forces encouraging large families there. I see that in the Philippines all the time. People need to stop having babies they can't support, and to make that happen these people in the third world need to be able to rely on long term survival without needing grown kids to support them in their old age.

 

[laughing dog]

First, there is no presumption that philanthropy has to help mankind in the long run.
Second, curing easily preventable diseases is a worthwhile endeavor. Most decent human beings understand that alleviating pain and suffering is a good goal.
Third, developing cures for a specific disease may have unintended benefits because it is an addition to our knowledge.
Fourth, the notion that people in Africa have larger carbon foot prints than people driving electric cars in North America or Europe or in developed countries is ridiculous.
Fifth, the reduction in the carbon footprint in transportation from the use of electric cars depends on the source of the electricity. .

 

[Elixir]

Just what happens if/when you cure all sickness in Africa? Those people who would have died will survive to become another problem.

That's a GREAT argument against gun control and addiction treatment here in the US as well. Let the idiots who are dumb enough to play with guns - let 'em die. They were just going to become welfare -sucking parasites anyhow. Same with opiod addicts - all they ever do is steal shit from other people. Narcan (Naloxone) should be illegal!!!

This world could be a veritable paradise if we can reduce the human population by 60-70% and still maintain our technologies. Letting Africans, drug addicts and gun nuts die would be a good start, right?

 

[Bomb#20]

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. ...

... But there is nothing wrong with saving lives. What should be going with the saving lives in Africa is a fight against the Catholic church and other forces encouraging large families there. I see that in the Philippines all the time. People need to stop having babies they can't support, and to make that happen these people in the third world need to be able to rely on long term survival without needing grown kids to support them in their old age.

Not only that. As long as third-worlders do need grown kids to support them in their old age, making sure their kids live long enough to support them in their old age reduces the number of kids they need to have to make sure they get supported. If you're an African, and Warren and Bill cure the sickness in Africa, then you can safely stop at two. But if they spend their money on rockets, and half the kids in your community go on dying before their parents, that doesn't mean you can safely stop at four. If you have four kids you still have a 25% chance of only getting old-age support from one kid, who'll be stretched thin also supporting the in-laws; and you still have a 6% chance that all four of your kids will die before you. Safer for you if you have six or seven kids, even though when your neighbors think that way too it means the next generation is 1.5 to 1.75 times bigger than the current generation. A population explosion is a predictable consequence of people responding rationally to high child mortality.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have no objection to either approach. Both are preferable to the Walton's view on wealth

To elaborate more... There is value in helping fund the development of undeveloped countries. Reducing or eliminating disease, famine, etc. has global benefits that could feasibly be good for people in developed countries as well. For example, a reduced risk of disease when traveling, or when travelers visit developed countries. Additionally, increasing the rate of development in un/derdeveloped areas could feasibly leap-frog parts of the industrialization phase that contributes to global warming. That doesn't mean it's without risk though. Increased life spans and birth rates across the globe could end up increasing strain on our ecosystems. It really depends on how it's implemented. But at the end of the day, I think it's a noble effort.

That said, I actually have a slight preference for Musk's approach. He is investing in technological leaps that have the potential to dramatically change the course of humanity. That sort of private sector advancement simply isn't possible without a wealthy benefactor who is willing to risk the immense cost of failure in order to accomplish great things. For the last few hundred years, the overwhelming majority of technological advancements have come as a result of conflict and military investments. It hasn't been since round about the Enlightenment where massive leaps in knowledge and technology occurred in a truly private sector... and then it occurred because of wealthy patrons who believed in the advancement of science, and were willing to bankroll experimentation.

I kind of think we need both types of philanthropists in the world

 

[RVonse]

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.

Why would you value an American life over an African life?

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

Do you question the wisdom of funding hospitals in the USA and saving the lives of Americans? Or should we stop all medical care to people who can't afford it, and let them die so they don't have children who will increase the carbon footprint much faster?

I'm not sure what to say about medical technology. On the one hand it is highly compassionate and I like that. 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.

It helps Warren/Bill feel good because it is helping a greater number of people and helping people in much more dire situations. They don't have a "We've got ours" attitude, either towards themselves or towards their families or even countries. I commend them for that.

So do I. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against what they are doing. I simply think they are both dumb asses.

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.

Musk is thinking more long term (survival of the species in case of cosmic cataclysm). There is a place for that too.

More than just a place because (unless our intelligence can figure out otherwise) we ARE going to go extinct. Without the threat of nuclear war or man made issues, our chances of survival are less than 5%. Add in the man made stuff and our chances for going extinct are better than 99.9%.

People need to stop having babies they can't support,.

That simply will not ever happen according to science as we understand it today. Evolution requires both reproduction and death as the main driver for its function. It is integral to our biology.

 

[RVonse]

First, there is no presumption that philanthropy has to help mankind in the long run.

I agree.

Second, curing easily preventable diseases is a worthwhile endeavor. Most decent human beings understand that alleviating pain and suffering is a good goal.

I agree

Third, developing cures for a specific disease may have unintended benefits because it is an addition to our knowledge.

I half agree. There will be unintended results but I do not agree that they will always be good unintended results.

Fourth, the notion that people in Africa have larger carbon foot prints than people driving electric cars in North America or Europe or in developed countries is ridiculous.

That has never been mentioned. It has only been said that more people on this earth will leave a bigger carbon footprint than less people on this earth. Do you disagree with that?

Fifth, the reduction in the carbon footprint in transportation from the use of electric cars depends on the source of the electricity. .

Also not mentioned and really not relevant to the OP.

 

[RVonse]

That said, I actually have a slight preference for Musk's approach.

If I can make an analogy it would be this. There is a beach house on a cliff that has foundation problems and ready to slide into the ocean.

Gates and Buffet want to give the house a new paint job because the outside is not looking so good. The new paint will make the house look really good at least until Gates and Buffet die of old age. And the paint will cost cheap for the amount of good looking appearance it does to the house. And they will "feel" really good emotionally especially when they gaze upon how nice the house looks.

But instead of worrying about a paint job, Elon wants to get started with rebuilding up the foundation. To halt erosion and try to prevent the house from falling into the sea.

 

[RVonse]

Just what happens if/when you cure all sickness in Africa? Those people who would have died will survive to become another problem.

That's a GREAT argument against gun control and addiction treatment here in the US as well. Let the idiots who are dumb enough to play with guns - let 'em die. They were just going to become welfare -sucking parasites anyhow. Same with opiod addicts - all they ever do is steal shit from other people. Narcan (Naloxone) should be illegal!!!

This world could be a veritable paradise if we can reduce the human population by 60-70% and still maintain our technologies. Letting Africans, drug addicts and gun nuts die would be a good start, right?

When (not if) the next asteroid hits earth and disrupts the food chain all of humanity will die. It will kill the gun nut idiots and it will kill the people who use and dont use opiod. It will kill the people in Africa who got saved by getting a vaccine too. It will kill all human life on this planet. And that will include all of your descendants and all of Warren Buffets descendants too.

 

[laughing dog]

I half agree. There will be unintended results but I do not agree that they will always be good unintended results.

Maybe, but when it comes to medical research, are you aware of any examples of bad unintended results?
[

That has never been mentioned. It has only been said that more people on this earth will leave a bigger carbon footprint than less people on this earth.

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

When (not if) the next asteroid hits earth and disrupts the food chain all of humanity will die. It will kill the gun nut idiots and it will kill the people who use and dont use opiod. It will kill the people in Africa who got saved by getting a vaccine too. It will kill all human life on this planet. And that will include all of your descendants and all of Warren Buffets descendants too.

What makes you think an asteroid big enough to kill us all hitting the earth is "when" and not "if"? It's only "when" if we don't take steps to prevent it -- and the technology Elon Musk is developing makes it a lot more likely that we'll take steps to prevent it. Stopping a big asteroid from hitting the earth is a simple matter of finding them all, plotting their orbits with enough precision for us to tell whether one has an appointment with us hundreds of years in advance -- when speeding it up or slowing it down by a tiny increment is still all it takes to change a direct hit into a near miss -- and then planting a bomb on it.

 

[RVonse]

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.

So in light of our pending extinction, what the Gates foundation is doing is almost laughable IMO. And his effort reflects the neoliberal position which is to basically do nothing to fix anything but make yourself feel good emotionally doing it.

 

[RVonse]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Rhea]

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.

So in light of our pending extinction, what the Gates foundation is doing is almost laughable IMO. And his effort reflects the neoliberal position which is to basically do nothing to fix anything but make yourself feel good emotionally doing it.

Eh? In _this_ context, Gates and Buffet making life better for the current people right now makes much more sense than Musk doing something that will only benefit cockroaches that survived the cataclysm.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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"?

 

[Rhea]

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 perhaps that difference lies not in that they were ancients but in the divider that they are not alive. You care for people currently suffering and do not have as strong an interest in people who are not currently suffering.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Rare exception does not equal doomed. We know what improves a species' chance of survival: wide dispersal. So we just need Earth extinction insurance, a.k.a., starships. Seems to me a Falcon Heavy Launch is another step in that direction.

So in light of our pending extinction, what the Gates foundation is doing is almost laughable IMO. And his effort reflects the neoliberal position which is to basically do nothing to fix anything but make yourself feel good emotionally doing it.

That makes no sense. How does curing a painful and debilitating disease "do nothing to fix anything"? Sure, it doesn't fix the problem you're focused on, but it certainly fixes something. Assuming we really are doomed to extinction, it would be almost laughable to spend our remaining time until then more unpleasantly than we have to, no?