Bill Gates Calling For Plant Diets

[DocWatts]

52 minutes ago, vladorion said:

He's not giving away anything. By "giving away" he's actually making way more money. Those donations are just investments that don't look like investments on the surface.

If it's more accurate to label the money he's put towards his various philanthropic ventures as pro-social Investments, well I see no reason why that should be used as a pejorative. Especially when pro-social Investment (or aid) is targeted towards people who need it most, which is the ethos of the effective altruism movement that Gates represents.

After all the money to fund NGOs ans philanthropic ventures has to come from somewhere. Yeah it would be better if there were a more representative and democratic system in place to help place to help people in developing countries, but the sad fact is that countries like the United States contribute a pitiful amount of thier budgets to International Aid. 

That's certainly discussion worth having, but at the same time let's not undermine the role that NGOs have played in contributing to improvements in Global Health and Well Being.

Also just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not arguing that philanthropic ventures are a sufficient justification for billionaires to continue to exist. But as long as billionaires do exist, let's at least uphold Social Norms that incentivize using Wealth in Socially Responsible ways that help people.

A Purity Mentality seems like fundamentally the wrong Mindset here. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Gates is doing the best someone in his position might be reasonably expected to do while operating within a flawed system, and that Game Change for the entire Global Socio-Economic system is something that will likely take generations.

Edited February 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[aurum]

11 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I agree with many of the points you bring up, but I think it's easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Philanthropy has its share of problems, but so does Representative Democracy. That doesn't mean we should disregard the achievements of either one.

I feel the spirit of philanthropy and what it is supposed to represent is entirely correct.

The spirit of philanthropy says, "I will give because I have more than I need. I do not expect anything in return for this. I do this because I am generosity and see others pain as my own".

That is the kind of mindset we need more of.

My critique is of the way philanthropy is used in practice. Even NGOs often make problems worse. Or have an incentive to keep the problem going so they can continue being its champion.

So in practice, I see very little if any positive change being made by philanthropists. While certain individuals may have won short term gains, collectively over the long term it has been a failure.

For instance, the numbers seem to show that poverty has actually risen over the years. While this is obviously a complex problem, it seems clear to me that an exploitation / philanthropy model is inherently incapable of making these changes.

If I steal $100 from you and then give you back $30 so that I seem like a nice guy, is this really defensible behavior? Is that really "giving"?

Admittedly I am simplifying the problem with the above example, but that is the essence of what is going on.

[DocWatts]

@aurum

It seems to me that the obvious solution then is to work to improve philanthropic organizations, so as to mitigate the downsides that you mention.

Which means critiquing philanthropic ventures in a constructive way with the aim of improving them, rather than downplaying thier accomplishments in a way that may turn people away from contributing to altruistic organizations. NGOs are a relatively new development, so it should be no surprise if they're not fully living up to thier ideals in every instance, or working as effectively as we would want to them.

After all, it took Representative Democracies centuries to arrive at Universal Suffrage. Just because a system is imperfect doesn't mean that the world would be better off without it, or that it can't be improved over time.

The shortcomings of philanthropic ventures seem more like Growing Pains than anything else.

In addition, the only realistic path towards a less exploitative global socio-economic system seems to be a Developmental Model, which takes time; certainly more time than a single human life. People waiting for a vaguely defined Revolution to come along and fix everything are deluding themselves.

So NGOs will have an important part to play for the foreseeable future.

Edited February 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[aurum]

41 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@aurum

It seems to me that the obvious solution then is to work to improve philanthropic organizations, so as to mitigate the downsides that you mention.

Which means critiquing philanthropic ventures in a constructive way with the aim of improving them, rather than downplaying thier accomplishments in a way that may turn people away from contributing to altruistic organizations. NGOs are a relatively new development, so it should be no surprise if they're not fully living up to thier ideals in every instance, or working as effectively as we would want to them.

After all, it took Representative Democracies centuries to arrive at Universal Suffrage. Just because a system is imperfect doesn't mean that the world would be better off without it, or that it can't be improved over time.

The shortcomings of philanthropic ventures seem more like Growing Pains than anything else.

In addition, the only realistic path towards a less exploitative global socio-economic system seems to be a Developmental Model, which takes time; certainly more time than a single human life. People waiting for a vaguely defined Revolution to come along and fix everything are deluding themselves.

So NGOs will have an important part to play for the foreseeable future.

I agree with your point this is going to take a long time and we shouldn't have unreasonable conversations. This is a good conversation, and I think we're going to the heart of the matter. Is institutional philanthropy fundamentally broken and beyond repair? Or can it be reformed?

I do believe it can be reformed. As an example, someone like Daisee Francour is doing important work in this area. I'd refer you to a snapshot of her perspective here:

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/indigenizing-philanthropy

Indeed, if we as individuals are capable of generosity and giving, then there appears to me no reason why this giving could not theoretically be institutionalized.

I don't intend to downplay whatever accomplishments NGOs and philanthropists have made, my intention is to call attention to where it is not succeeding and why.

[DocWatts]

@aurum

Thanks, i'll definitely look into that. And for what it's worth, my attachment to Effective Altruism and Philanthropy is far more to the philosophical and ethical impulses behind it, rather than any one particular Institution.

I do think the way that discussions are framed around this topic matters a great dea, in order to make sure that critique of philanthropic ventures doesn't inculcate societal apathy by arguing that charity "doesn't work".

Edited February 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[ilja]

i believe there was a video interview where gates was discussing that too