501–510 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to break it to you but what you described about the "new" millionaires is the majority of all multimillionaires, regardless of generation. See: The Millionaire next door
I accidentally downvoted you due to fat finger error, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Something else is needed to stop USA, Saudis, China and Russia from digging up the cheap oil and coal." So you don't think cheap and effective clean energy technologies are very useful to encourage moving away from oil and coal?
Sure, I believe it's useful in that rich western countries continue their leisurely transition to cleaner energy as it becomes cheaper, combined with gas taxes and carbon trading and such. Billionaires investing more money in cleaner energy can be marginally beneficial, though there is already large and increasing amounts of capital allocated by the markets toward this end. But the deciding factor is can we make ever…
You could aim for that, or you could aim for a steady stream of improvements leading to larger change once momentum is built. Or in other words, revolution vs. evolution. If you want to pursue revolution, go for it, I'll continue to pursue evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The fact that they're having a big press release about all the awesome stuff they're going to be doing before they've done any of it, heck before they're even ready to say what they're actually going to be doing, is telling. As is naming their initiative after their daughter. It's nice when vanity projects end up helping the masses (and we'll have to wait and see how successful it is at that). However, we sho…
How is any of that stuff bad, though? Seems like a good trade. You put $45B into improving the world, we'll sing your praises. What's the difference between it being all done in vanity and it being all done in goodwill? It's literally the same thing to the rest of the world, the only difference is some internal chemical state in his brain.
Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolu…
Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter. Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others. If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair, but if you notice a great deal of the letter is simply telling the child about the great achievements and dreams of the parents - if there's one thing I've learned the hard way, it's that dreams are easy to put into words and fuckin' hell on wheels to make reality. Philanthropy is a good social construct, for sure. I guess maybe I just have some inherent bias against preaching from atop the mountain of w…
I think you were right in your initial comment about being "significantly jaded". The dude is literally trying as hard as he can to fix problems in the world but both your comments do little other than detract from his effort/energy.
But, you know, he could've done all this in private and given her the letter when she turned 16 or 18 or whatever.
Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of “a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just ‘eccentric.’” I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolu…
Does it matter whether or not he's a narcissist or whatever reason why he does it? Or Gates or Buffet do? I say bravo, and am looking forward to the benefits of giga-scale philanthropy.
Why are the techno-barons so focused on human health? Not that there's anything wrong with these efforts, but human disease is much less of a threat to our species and planet than an ever-increasing human population. What I'm saying is that humans have little difficulty reproducing; it's a solved problem. What's not a solved problem is our disappearing fisheries[1], rhinos going extinct all over the place[2], farmlan…
In other words you get billion dollars but realize it is all for naught as you will be worm food in 100 years.
So some go full Kurzweill, some find/found religion, some do a bit of everything.
This problem is not unique to billionaires but they can attempt to roll a bigger rock up the mountain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I believe it's useful in that rich western countries continue their leisurely transition to cleaner energy as it becomes cheaper, combined with gas taxes and carbon trading and such. Billionaires investing more money in cleaner energy can be marginally beneficial, though there is already large and increasing amounts of capital allocated by the markets toward this end. But the deciding factor is can we make ever…
> "Think what needs to happen on the world stage in order to enact a global ban (1) on oil pumping and coal mining within 20 years. That's the job." You could aim for that, or you could aim for a steady stream of improvements leading to larger change once momentum is built. Or in other words, revolution vs. evolution. If you want to pursue revolution, go for it, I'll continue to pursue evolution.
I do favour ramping down incrementally, and we should get started ASAP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Think what needs to happen on the world stage in order to enact a global ban (1) on oil pumping and coal mining within 20 years. That's the job." You could aim for that, or you could aim for a steady stream of improvements leading to larger change once momentum is built. Or in other words, revolution vs. evolution. If you want to pursue revolution, go for it, I'll continue to pursue evolution.
Are you uggesting we don't have give up fossils that quickly, or are you suggesting we could wait 19 years and then shut down fossil fuels with a large change which would bring cheap fossils replacements for even third world countries? I do favour ramping down incrementally, and we should get started ASAP.
Remember that the best way to predict the future is to invent it. If you truly want your revolution, then lead the way by action. I'll continue supporting change in my own way.