Kinda shocked that after all the recent info coming out he thinks that it’s not going to be a “climate disaster” lmao. Headline is deliberately misleading but that doesn’t make bill less of an idiot.
It’s charity done by following certain principles. Nothing about it is tied to being wealthy, though that obviously helps as is the case with charity in general.
Which part makes no sense? You don’t believe that climate spending needs to be considered in terms of overall human welfare? Or you believe that statement doesn’t make sense to you? Or…
His philanthropy was always a response to how much people hated him because of Microsoft. He is so thin-skinned and can’t stand even legitimate grievances against him.
I’ll take a thin skinned billionaire that donates some of those billions to feel warm and fuzzy over a thick skinned one that laughs from a balcony as people lose their homes.
Well sure, in optimism land, why not go for them all. In the real world, that wouldn’t be possible given the amount of insulation they have and protection they can afford.
My meaning here is that if the choice were presented between guillotining one of them that donates money occasionally, and another that doesn’t so much as pretend to give a damn, I’m going to point at the latter.
From a quick search, there are around 3,000 billionaires with over ten trillion US dollars combined. Even if we assume the poorest of them only have a handful of security personnel, a socialist revolution in terms of pitchforks and guillotines wouldn’t get far up the ladder.
These individuals have politicians strung up as marionettes, so the world’s militaries aren’t going to help. Surely if more than two of these billionaires end up Thompson’d, the military would probably be used to protect them.
The revolution that could work is pretty straightforward, but it has a barrier to entry. People need to vote. Not just for the top either, but all the way down to city councillors. We’d need to see landslide elections to overcome gerrymandering, but if we managed to elect a significant number of incorruptible politicians all at once, mountains could be moved in one cycle.
I’ve checked the numbers once. Gates donated to his foundation $20B and today the foundation has over $70B. Bill, through his foundation, controls 3x more money they he donated. He’s using foundation’s grants to influence policy and research at a global scale. This is not about helping anyone, it’s about excreting power over governments while improving his public image.
Forgive me but while I could agree the primary purpose for his actions may not be philanthropic intent, it certainly has some positive butterfly effects - like the research you mention. Maybe it’s not about helping anyone, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t help anyone.
Regardless this isn’t the place to get into the minutiae. My point was that if we put the ten digit club in a cage and told them only one is allowed back out, I’d prefer Gates find victory than someone like Musk.
hes also in epstein files, thats why hes been going hard to reivent his image. His vaccine thing has been accused of nothing more than a scheme by african countries.
Cool uncle mask falling off. Familiar face emerges.
Ask me how I know you only read the headline.
The headline is deliberately misleading and honestly should be corrected or removed.
Please put in slightly more effort next time, thanks.
Kinda shocked that after all the recent info coming out he thinks that it’s not going to be a “climate disaster” lmao. Headline is deliberately misleading but that doesn’t make bill less of an idiot.
The problem with “effective altruism” ideology, it’s dependent on the whims of the wealthy.
By what logic? Can’t normal people donate money to effective causes?
Sure, but effective altruism is a specific ideology. Not just donating to causes.
It’s charity done by following certain principles. Nothing about it is tied to being wealthy, though that obviously helps as is the case with charity in general.
We read more than the headline. His argument makes no sense at all. Please do yourself the fabour of putting more effort into your replies.
Which part makes no sense? You don’t believe that climate spending needs to be considered in terms of overall human welfare? Or you believe that statement doesn’t make sense to you? Or…
His philanthropy was always a response to how much people hated him because of Microsoft. He is so thin-skinned and can’t stand even legitimate grievances against him.
I’ll take a thin skinned billionaire that donates some of those billions to feel warm and fuzzy over a thick skinned one that laughs from a balcony as people lose their homes.
I’ll take neither. Billionaires can all go under the guillotine.
Well sure, in optimism land, why not go for them all. In the real world, that wouldn’t be possible given the amount of insulation they have and protection they can afford.
My meaning here is that if the choice were presented between guillotining one of them that donates money occasionally, and another that doesn’t so much as pretend to give a damn, I’m going to point at the latter.
They won’t have insulation and protection if we do a socialist revolution…
From a quick search, there are around 3,000 billionaires with over ten trillion US dollars combined. Even if we assume the poorest of them only have a handful of security personnel, a socialist revolution in terms of pitchforks and guillotines wouldn’t get far up the ladder.
These individuals have politicians strung up as marionettes, so the world’s militaries aren’t going to help. Surely if more than two of these billionaires end up Thompson’d, the military would probably be used to protect them.
The revolution that could work is pretty straightforward, but it has a barrier to entry. People need to vote. Not just for the top either, but all the way down to city councillors. We’d need to see landslide elections to overcome gerrymandering, but if we managed to elect a significant number of incorruptible politicians all at once, mountains could be moved in one cycle.
Oh to dream.
I’ve checked the numbers once. Gates donated to his foundation $20B and today the foundation has over $70B. Bill, through his foundation, controls 3x more money they he donated. He’s using foundation’s grants to influence policy and research at a global scale. This is not about helping anyone, it’s about excreting power over governments while improving his public image.
What he should be doing instead? Paying taxes.
Forgive me but while I could agree the primary purpose for his actions may not be philanthropic intent, it certainly has some positive butterfly effects - like the research you mention. Maybe it’s not about helping anyone, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t help anyone.
Regardless this isn’t the place to get into the minutiae. My point was that if we put the ten digit club in a cage and told them only one is allowed back out, I’d prefer Gates find victory than someone like Musk.
hes also in epstein files, thats why hes been going hard to reivent his image. His vaccine thing has been accused of nothing more than a scheme by african countries.