The Triumph of Philanthropy (2018)
laphamsquarterly.org
laphamsquarterly.org
In April 1952, the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations.. began an investigation of the "educational and philanthropic foundations and other comparable organizations which are exempt from federal taxes to determine whether they were using their resources for the purposes for which they were established..
In April 1954, the House authorized the Reece Committee. Unlike its predecessor, which limited its attention to generalities, the Reece Committee mounted a comprehensive inquiry into both the motives for establishing foundations and their influence on public life.
One has to wonder, is the term 'philanthropy' a misnomer.. is it really 'misanthropy', with the very powerful determined to torment everyone else without end to accept their values?
Do the very rich and powerful have the right to use their wealth, in a tax wheeze, to determine the nature of health, education, or whatever for everyone else?
If you have managed to rise to the top, is it your morality and care that got you there, or is it the absence? Is "philanthropy" even a kindness, or is it a form of social engineering to create potential new markets for their investments?
I personally find the whole world of philanthropy rather revolting. Some unscrupulous rich folk, now want to be lauded and perceived as "kind", only that kindness comes with lots of very specific strings attached. Its not kind or helpful to manipulate others as you have access to levers of power that they don't, to them determine what is taught in schools, or what is acceptable medicine, etc. I'd rather they built a pyramid or monument to themselves, and keep out of micro-managing the world and everyone in it.
I drank the Stoic koolaid and similar.
Then something bad happens, no one helps you, and you realize you've spent all this time working for other people who don't even know you exist.
(I'm a 6 fig programmer, I just wish I would have enjoyed more, and given away less time and money to those 'less fortunate')
| I drank the Stoic koolaid and similar.
My fav sentence of today.
If you want to save money for yourself in case something bad happens, go for it. Then you've got to decide who gets the leftover wealth when you die.
Yeah that is what we are told by the people who control the information you receive. Live a minimalist life because that's all you need.
There are two sides of philosophy(IMO), those that believe in idealism, and those that believe in realism. I can flip back to Stoic idealism, but there is something real about Humans wanting More.
There’s a huge influence to always consume more pushed by anyone selling stuff and ever nicer stuff to buy. However, every transaction has a non monetary costs and staying ahead of the curve costs time even if you don’t need to worry about money.
It even extends to exotic vacations and other life experiences people promote. Sure you can got to Antarctica but the going itself means airports etc. Not a big deal once but if you had unlimited money would you really want to spend 5% of your waking hours in an airplane? The point of maximum happiness is far from such extremes.
There are easier, quicker, etc... ways to get dopamine.
Net result you can’t really win the dopamine game. Long term an ascetic monk gets just as much of that high as a billionaire playboy, the playboy just works harder for it.
The substantia nigra, part of the basal ganglia, produces it for basic motor functions like eye movements. Which is why it’s linked to Parkinson’s.
I'm not saying to be happy earning less. I'm saying to be happy consuming less.
For example, the number of people who die from TB annually is way in excess of 1 million, with 10million+ falling ill with the disease. This is a disease for which we have the cure - and have had the cure for 80 years. TB could be ended within 6 years with a $250bn commitment.
While these millions upon millions are dying, a couple of thousand billionaires donate miserly single-digit-percentages of their wealth per year, and complain that they can't find a philanthropic outlet, while reaping the publicity benefits of saying they'll give away 50% "eventually, maybe before they die".
Outlets for this wealth exist, and it's not as if it's particularly challenging to pick one "save literally tens of millions of people" project over another "save literally tens of millions of people" project.
You have to be really rich to think about eradicating a disease though...
Unless you have the military power to maintain dictatorship and money to buy the protection of a superpower.
But even then it is tenuous.
Taking over a stable country would be far easier in the long term. Yet when stable countries undergo major change, they tend to gravitate towards unstableness.