His foundation really does seem to do a good job with 'effective altruism'. There's a reason they're marked as secondary beneficiaries on all my accounts.
Also, as a recommendation, you guys should look into whether your employer matches charitable donations to 501Cs in any amount. I find giving a solid chunk of my discretionary budget to charity every year lends a sense of purpose to a job that wouldn't otherwise have much (at least, in the sense of helping others).
I enjoy being a dev, and I've given serious thought to simply continuing working once I reach my FIRE number and donating half of what I earn to charity. I think most charities would have more use for my money than my time, given my disability
> There's a reason they're marked as secondary beneficiaries on all my accounts.
Strictly speaking, the foundation discourages individuals from donating directly to them, mostly because the tax treatment of giving that way isn't necessarily favorable. They've set up Gates Philanthropy Partners as a 501(c)(3) charity which is aligned to the same philanthropic goals.
(Of course there's also many other worthwhile players in the broader EA space.)
I worked there and would encourage you not to do that.
It'd be smarter to see who they are giving money to (which is all public) and give directly to those orgs. The Gates foundation itself spends a lot of money on consultants, "government engagement" (aka lobbying by another name), and fancy dinners.
That's fine or maybe even noble for a family foundation, but it's probably not something individuals would want to fund.
Anecdata, but the brother of a friend was working on malaria in a SE Asian country and the Gates Foundation got interested in what they were doing, and wanted to find out more about it before possibly funding some of their work. They flew the entire team to the US, put them up in expensive hotels for a few days and flew them all back. They calculated that the cost of that was three times their annual budget. It would have made more sense to me to either (a) fly someone from the Gates Foundation to the country so they could see things first hand or (b) conduct the investigation / interviews via the internet. Given that the Foundation's people weren't in-country anyway, (b) seems like the best option all round given the environmental costs of flying.
> They flew the entire team to the US, put them up in expensive hotels for a few days and flew them all back. They calculated that the cost of that was three times their annual budget.
Are you sure about that?
Let's say every employee gets a $1000 round trip flight, plus $2000 for 4 nights in a decent hotel, a total of $3000 per head. Are you telling me that employee is paid $1000 a year or less?
The way they talked about it, the total per head was north of $5k, and they lived in an incredibly poor / cheap country. I wasn't fact-checking their figures, but they weren't the kind of person to exaggerate for effect.
The problem is the good guys have to spend donations on lobbying because otherwise the legislators are only hearing from the bad guys. This is a story as old as time I think.
So you appreachiate that the Bill Gates Foundation takes the time and energy / Resources to figure out whom to give money for the best impact, but you don't suggest others to give an organization, which actually takes the time and effort to figoure out how to spend money properly?
I find this dishonest.
And i find your point regarding 'fancy dinners' weird. You do know why they might spend money on this right? For doing lobbying which leads to real impact. Your 'fancy dinner' might be the difference between a political decision in favour for the right thing vs. some other company lobbying for the opposition.
Exactly. He doesn't need 20 years. That's just him trying to draw attention to himself.
If he was really serious about giving away his money, he could write a single check to the Red Cross || Doctors Without Borders || insert charity here and in five minutes be done with it.
The world doesn't need more vanity charities. It needs its existing charities to be better funded.
Says who? They can (ethically) invest it and fund programs off a 5%-8% or better return. They can find new things to do. They can donate some of it into health research that is currently under-funded.
And with such a sum of money they would surely have to hire staff to work all that out. Can thy do that?
I’ve tried volunteering at certain orgs before, I filled out forms and literally they rejected me because they had no more staff to organise and oversee more volunteers.
If your solution is just invest it, well, the Gates Foundation may as well hang on to it (you think you can do better job than Buffet?) and setup a system to dole it out.
If the org has to find new uses for it, surely the Gates Foundation is in a better position to get that done?
I'd be more willing to give this idea credit, if the total annual budget for the ICRC ($2B) and Doctors Without Borders ($1.6B) was more than a few percent of the total amount being proposed (>$100B invested or ~$8B/yr for 20 years).
You'd require those organizations to more than double in size to use the funding provided. That's not a good plan. Bluntly, his plan is better than yours.
I've got no love for Gates, but are you just trying to draw attention to yourself? What's your agenda? You're the one making a fairly outrageous unsupported claims.
I don't think you understand really how thngs work if you believe, giving something like the Red Cross Billions would just work.
Just googling it delivers enough critisism on worst level than you think Bill Gates Foundation is: "misusing funds, poor logistical planning, inadequate responses to specific crises, and even allegations of fraud and theft. "
Impact matters. Impact doesn't mean to just give money to some organization. Bill Gates actually played a significant role in Ebola vacination. Why? Because he/his team revisted why just giving out vacines was not enough.
Impact means helping as efficient as possible with the money.
And btw. a lot of other charities of this style (especially christians ones we all know) have also borderline ways of missusing believers to do their work. My aunt worked for nuns and got paid shit. This is now a problem for her retirment. Guess who pays that? Yeah the state...
> That much wealth could probably fund every food bank in the country indefinitely
That seems like an incredibly stupid way to spend money that has been eradicating diseases and saving lives in countries where food insecurity isn’t a choice.
For you (or other folks) working in tech and giving to charity, apart from corporate match, another couple pieces of advice are to consider a Donor Advised Fund. They are really easy to set up, and then you get some benefits, like the ability to "bunch" your donations (can help with tax deductions) or donate appreciated investments (like RSUs) without paying capital gains tax.
Agree on the Donor Advised Fund (I use Fidelity). If you have highly-appreciated stock, you definitely should look into a DAF. Another benefit is that it is extremely easy to donate to a charity; click and submit and you don't have to worry about paperwork and putting each donation down on your taxes.
Let's say you just won the startup lottery and you've got a significant amount of now tradable stock. Some of which was early exercised and the cost basis is effectively zero. Some of which was RSUs or non-qualified options and you owe ordinary income. And that you're way over into the top tax brackets.
If your zero cost basis stock is Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS), there's a very nice discount on federal capital gains, so you might not need to do the rest of the stuff.
Otherwise, if you donate your apprechiated zero basis stock, you get to save federal capital gains of 20% + 3.8% net investment income. Plus it offsets against your ordinary income that's 37%. So that's a 60.8% discount on being charitable for the feds. If you live in California, capital gains are regular income, so you're saving 13.3% because the capital gains go away and offsetting 13.3% on your ordinary income, so your total discount is 87.4%. In other words, your difference in cash after taxes for selling $1M of zero basis stock or donating $1M of zero basis stock is $126k.
When the government is telling you it only costs $126k to give a charity $1M, it's pretty compelling. The math used to be different, when you'd get credit for state taxes on the federal return, but that was many years ago now.
Even under ideal circumstances, the priority of a government is to serve the needs of its citizens. Sometimes, these happen to align with global needs, and sometimes not.
In order to improve global health or address other issues that impact countries beyond where you live, the government (even an idealized version without waste, corruption, or political games) might not be the most effective way to accomplish this.
Right. But taking the combined $140 billion net worth of Bill and Melinda, about 30% (or whatever 'fair' rate you want to assume) shouldn't have been theirs to give away. Let them spend the other part however they want.
What I find kind of interesting is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet argue that they should be taxed more, but they don't do anything to further that goal aside from media soundbites and headlines. They could fund an incredible war chest for a lobbying apparatus who's sole purpose would be to create a more fair tax system. But no such thing happens.
Charitable funds fall victim to the same fundamental issue, leadership is more interested in benefiting themselves than putting the money towards the aims of the charity.
In general I donate to places local to me. I'd much rather see a bench at a local park than hold on to some hope that my money does something meaningful to a large international charity organization.
I think what it comes down to is that there's no general rule. There are a lot of organizations you could give money to and it all depends on what it is.
> You lowering your tax rate and giving that money to charity isn't magicking more money into the world, it is just a different allocation.
This is only ever true if you assume that government tax spending is 100% efficient, with nary a fraction of a cent being wasted. I don't think that's a safe assumption.
No. The assumption is that charity and government have roughly equivalent efficiency. Both government and charities have (wildly varying) overhead and government agencies may enjoy economies of scale that charities do not. Yet another area of the world that contains a surprising amount of detail.
If that entity used my tax dollars wisely (looking at nordic countries), yes I agree paying taxes is superior. I have no interest in contributing more towards our 1T/yr defense budget or subsidizing oil and gas.
The sovereign wealth funds of the Nordic countries weren't built with tax dollars, but rather with oil revenue. We could do the same thing here if there were political appetite for holding energy companies responsible and the wealth they produce as belonging to the people living on the land the resources are coming out of.
We're doing better now than we were 50 years ago, but the Nords are light years ahead.
Norway is basically anything but the Saudi Arabia of Europe. The ONLY thing that is similar is that they both have oil and natural gas in their territory.
Well they do both have monarchs! Though the royal palace in Oslo is a public park. As I was strolling the park, to my surprise I attended a quick fanfare as the king left his palace and his driver (I presume) almost ran over a dumb kid that darted in front of the royal sedan. then at the end of the royal avenue, at the foot of the most glorious mathematician sculpture, the royal sedan turned a corner directly into rush hour traffic, which his highness had to endure just like the rest of us commoners.
What a lovely anecdote, I've been to the royal park in Oslo once and it's gorgeous!
As an Austrian, I personally prefer to look at my royals in the catacombs of St. Stephens Cathedral though ;)
Grass is always greener on the other side. Trust me there is plenty of waste of tax money in the nordics too. Recent example. Every month the govt pays 4 million dollars for a healthcare journaling system that is not used (because it does not work). And that is just the on going cost (even more was spent building it).
Or a school admin system built for 100 million dollars and crap. They even spent a lot of money trying to prevent a open source client that solved a lot of the issues they had.
Maybe in absolute money it is less than the US. But remember US also have a lot more people.
> The waste, fraud, and abuse that runs rampant throughout the government tells us that the powerful often use taxpayer dollars as their own slush fund.
I don't know that it's worse than any other institution? At least voters can remove the corrupt, and they are prosecuted. Are you saying these uber-wealthy and CEOs aren't just as corrupt or worse?
What I am saying is that I have a choice whether my money goes to a corporation or to a charity. I don't get to choose whether I pay taxes or not.
More often than not, corruption in government does not result in the perpetrator being prosecuted or even removed from office.
I am amazed at all the people who are so sure that corporations and/or wealthy investors are corrupt, but give big government a pass. As if the same types of people don't run both.
Its probably not so much that government gets a pass as much as government is the organization that, by virtue of being a citizen, they own and control, so when things go wrong it is their own fault, and they really don't want to accept blame for their own faults. They would have to ask "How did I manage to fuck this up?", which is a hard question for most people to ask themselves.
When it is distinctly someone else's organization it's much easier to throw pointless shade to make one feel better about their own failings.
> I am amazed at all the people who are so sure that corporations and/or wealthy investors are corrupt, but give big government a pass.
Where do you find these people? I've never met them. It seems like everyone complains about government waste and corruption - even when it's not happening!
> Sure the government does much to relieve the suffering of people around the globe;
If we're talking specifically about the U.S. government, I suspect its decisions cause more suffering globally than they alleviate, though of course there are open philosophical questions inherent in any attempt to quantify suffering.
So, there is a limit to these deductions, meaning, the government is still usually getting the lion's share of most people's taxes (and, generally, I think 50% of your income is the max you can deduct).
I think there is value to letting people allocate some percentage of their income directly to causes they are passionate about. Even if you assume the government is efficient and not bloated, and benevolent, this lets people contribute to causes without waiting for political consensus, or to smaller causes that would not be on the government's radar (yet) or ever. It's more pluralistic. It lets smaller causes bloom. It keeps me civically engaged.
On a personal note, I do take issue with the amounts spent on "defense" (which is often bombing people or threatening to directly or indirectly), and would rather help folks than bomb other folks.
It's OK to do both and who is this ideal charitable recipient you are talking about? You mean the one that takes your money and does whatever it wants with it?
Assumes a lot about every administration. I don't see how anyone can look at what the US Government has done and failed to do over the last decades and call it the ideal charitable recipient. Even when it's doing the right things, it wastes enormous amounts of money to do so and the primary beneficiary is one of the wealthiest populations in the world.
Of course, you wouldn't expect them to be the ideal charity; they are explicitly not a charity. Anyone who is actually trying to be a charity should have little trouble using funds more charitably than any government in the world.
It might be surprising, but there are charitable people outside of USA too. I do consider paying taxes the best way to help those in need, but I don't live in the US personally.
It assumes a lot about future administrations too. When Obama was in office I complained a lot about the Executive branch consolidating power and using executive orders, and the Democrats were fine with it because he was a "good" administration.
But guess what? If you give too much power to a position, people who want to abuse the power will try to get themselves there.
I wasn't upset that Obama was consolidating power because I thought Obama would abuse it. I'm upset that he consolidated power and then left it to whoever would come next, and then has the gall to be surprised that consolidating power under the Executive would undermine the power of the Legislature the moment a President who was willing to abuse said power was sworn in.
We're cooked because of the fucking team sports. Both parties have had the chance to reign in the Executive and neither has the balls to use it against their own guy
Number of EOs issued is a poor measure of centralization of power. Most exercise of executive power these days don't even require an EO, just a decree from one of the executive agencies. And looking at Trump vs Obama is myopic. This process has been going on continuously since at least the FDR admin.
Even in qualitative terms, the "consolidation" was incorrect. Congress abdicated its responsibilities, and the Federal agencies picked up the slack. They're not controlled _centrally_, it's not like Obama was ordering agencies to write particular rules.
We now see what the central consolidated control actually looks like.
When it comes to funding various "public good" efforts, we don't need agility. We need fairness and at least some kind of public influence over what gets funded.
The problem with leaving everything to private charity is that only the wealthy people and churches doing the donating dictate what counts as "public good" without you and I having any say over it. We luck out when the donor has good intentions and chooses to donate to an organization doing good, and we have no say when the donor has evil intentions and chooses to donate elsewhere. Allowing a small handful of rich donors to decide what counts as a good cause is not ideal.
> The problem with leaving everything to private charity is that only the wealthy people and churches doing the donating dictate what counts as "public good" without you and I having any say over it. We luck out when the donor has good intentions ...
It is problematic even with good intentions.
People don't have time, expertise or usually even the motive to systematically examine ROI. They or someone they know has a 'good cause' and they support it. For example, endowments at their alma mater - likely a school for wealthy kids, new buildings for the hospital (that serves wealthy people), new research in diseases that are problems for the wealthy, etc.
They can't know without talking to people who have experience with poverty, for example, and those aren't the people coming to dinner tonight.
> The problem with leaving everything to private charity is that the wealthy people doing the donating dictate what counts as "public good" without you and I having any say over it.
The thing about public goods is that people tend to agree pretty closely about what they are. The wealthiest person in the world benefits from, e.g. clean air just as much as you do. You should be a lot more worried about wealthy folks who don't donate to charity and just spend the money on big luxury yachts and the like, because these folks are essentially free-riding on everyone else.
> The thing about public goods is that people tend to agree pretty closely about what they are.
Is there some data that shows that?
> The wealthiest person in the world benefits from, e.g. clean air just as much as you do.
We can find public goods in common for many groups, but that's actually a bad example. Wealthy people care about clean air in their neighborhood; pollution is therefore concentrated in poor areas. They don't site the new incerator (or drug treatment facility) on the Upper East Side of Manhatten.
Many needs are specific to poverty. For example, wealthy people are not subject to malaria; they are no illiterate; they don't need toilets or labor rights; they can afford college for their kids regardless of tuition; they have unlimited access to safe, fresh, healthy food. They don't need more available and less expensive health care, so they donate to cancer research and high-tech therapy and not to the medical clinic in the poor neighborhood.
Given (at least the USA's) increasingly polarized population, I don't think it's at all true that people agree closely about what should be funded, and I'll admit that fact makes my argument weaker: The danger of a particular wealthy person "donating to evil" is similar to the danger that the majority of the country votes to "fund evil."
I also agree that wealthy folks spending their wealth on luxury yachts while the public suffers is also something to worry about. Who knew? Gargantuan wealth inequalities are mostly downside for everyone but the wealthy!
Shouldn't we be a lot more worried about how political polarization might impact government choices, compared to private sector ones? Private actors who spend their own money have to pay for their own choices and are accountable to themselves in a way that political operatives fundamentally don't. I see a lot more potential for 'evil' on the political/state actor side.
Yeah but it's not either or. And people are always want to contribute to their pet causes. Go tell someone who's sibling died of cancer or whatever that they shouldn't donate to cancer research because the state should do it. Like yes it should but however much they do you may have personal reasons to want to do more. So private charity is always going to be a thing in parallel to public works.
A group of people engaging in topics they are passionate about in their private time is what a state is. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you only want to help out your friends?
I'm trying to reconcile how https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM is 'helping out your friends.' See, we can all create straw-men. It's not very useful for discourse. The vast majority of us want what is best for humanity, but we have different views on how to deliver it.
You can fund the people (government) or you can fund specific people whim whom you have an intimate trust (friends). The only other choices are to fund yourself or nobody, neither of which are applicable here. Not sure why that is so hard to reconcile.
You are framing it as a binary "you either fund the government or only your friends." You really believe there is no in between? You are framing this as if you're on some high ground and we either have to agree with your opinion or we are selfish. There are other ways to advance humanity than your opinions. Government is not some benevolent entity. The supposition that it is has no basis in data from present reality or history. As one example, see marxist/communist governments killing their own people as the leading cause of death in the 20th century.
Of course not. It's quite literally just the people. If you cannot trust the people with your charitable donations, but still wish to donate to a person, then you're going to have to narrow that down to the specific person you can trust (i.e. your friends). There is no in-between.
There is a major important nuance. It is just some people, who happen to control the government (ie: use of force) to achieve their ends. "The people" are diverse and have different opinions, and the "government" represents a small portion of them. I've certainly donated to charitable organizations that are not my friends, but have a proven track record of effectively using money for specific goals. The government rarely meets this criteria.
Yeah, no. A government is not "a group of people engaging in topics they are passionate about." A government is an entity with authority to tell you what you have to do, and if you don't do it, eventually people with guns will show up at your door and take you to jail.
That's a very narrow aspect of government, and one that I have hardly ever encountered. Law-abiding people don't do it because of government coercion but because they believe in being cooperative members of their community and don't want to hurt others.
Another, much larger aspect of government, especially democratic, is people getting together and doing things as a community that can't be done individually.
"I have not encountered something" != "it does not exist." The logical conclusion to defying a government is people with guns showing up to put you in cuffs and take you to jail. Even over something as piddling as a littering fine or parking ticket . . . watch what eventually happens if you refuse to pay it.
People getting together and doing things as a community does not require a government. We can and should do that of our own free will. That's not to say governments aren't needed. But labeling them as "people getting together and doing things as a community" ignores their ability to enforce their laws, including the sanctioned use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into obeying or to punish them.
> People getting together and doing things as a community does not require a government.
That may be true, but government (at least a democratic one) is just people getting together and doing things, so if you already have one you can save the effort of the community trying to organize a second community on top of the community they already have for no good reason.
> But labeling them as "people getting together and doing things as a community" ignores their ability to enforce their laws, including the sanctioned use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into obeying or to punish them.
That literally tells of people getting together and doing things. These are not magical powers. They are simply community action. I suppose it highlights that people getting together and doing things isn't all sunshine and rainbows, despite your apparent dream for a world where there is only happiness, but such is reality.
I expect the aversion is that those who wish to donate to charity only want their friends, not entire communities, to benefit. The "trouble" with a community at large is that everyone is able to participate, whether you like them or not. That's not to say that a community cannot see a charitable benefit indirectly, but the key point is that they want to keep the primary benefit away from strangers.
There are plenty of such organisations. Some are legal, some are not.
The government is the only one with a legal monopoly on violence; it redistributes resources in the society and it's not run by incorruptible angels but by fallible human beings - human beings who were put there thanks to investments of millions of dollars.
> The logical conclusion to defying a government is people with guns showing up to put you in cuffs and take you to jail. Even over something as piddling as a littering fine or parking ticket . . . watch what eventually happens if you refuse to pay it.
That may be logical, but it doesn't happen. I've had unpaid parking tickets for long periods and nobody showed up at all, much less with guns. Where do you live that they jail you for it, much less go out and find you? Your local government must be very well-funded to have resources for that, not to mention having a fascist attitude - how popular is that with constituents?
> People getting together and doing things as a community does not require a government.
It depends - many times it is the most or only effective way. It has decision-making mechanisms - including elected representatives, hearings, experts - and executive mechanisms including employees, equipment, contract managers, processes, institutional information such as maps of infrastructure, and loads of experience. Imagine some neighbors in NYC trying to put in just a new streetlight.
> But labeling them as "people getting together and doing things as a community" ignores their ability to enforce their laws, including the sanctioned use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into obeying or to punish them.
It doesn't ignore it, but your prior comment repeats the Internet trope that that's what goverment is - a coercive mechanism with guns. That's only one narrow aspect - the great majority of what government does, and how society works, has nothing to do with that. It's for the outlaws, not for the great majority.
> A government is an entity with authority to tell you what you have to do
If it is authoritarian, perhaps, but even that is still a matter of a group of people. Most seem to believe that government should be democratic. You may not find yourself in a democratic state, but that would only continue to contribute to what makes the day funny. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thread and are posting this without understanding the full context under which it is taking place?
No, all governments have the authority to tell people what to do. Some governments operate within a legal framework that limits that authority in many ways, but if an organization has no authority over the people who live in a given area then it isn't a government.
> all governments have the authority to tell people what to do.
But, again, that government is the very people we're talking about, at least as far as a democracy goes. Although even in the case of an authoritarian government, the individual authority is only as strong as the people are willing to go along with recognizing it, so it is not really that much different. No magic here, just people.
> Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority on the minority.
It is not - that would be some theoretical pure democracy, also called 'mob rule'. Democracy, as the word is actually used, requires universal human rights which protect the minority. For example, freedom of speech means the majority can't control the minority's speech, whether they like it or not.
Democracy also includes separation of powers, usually between legislature, executive, and judicial, which prevents the concentration of power.
> It's nothing to be proud of.
It's only something to be proud of if we make it that way.
>I enjoy being a dev ... I think most charities would have more use for my money than my time, given my disability
You could be massively wrong about that. Many charities are desparate for IT help. I am a developer and volunteer at a charity. I have done some IT stuff for them (mostly setting up some Airtable databases) and it has been (modesty aside) transformative for them.
It seems his foundation already has significant funding. I would give to other charities, focusing on high impact work in specific regions or domains that knight not be as popular.
>His foundation really does seem to do a good job with 'effective altruism'
Can you provide some sources for this? I'm by no means an expert in this area, but my city happened to receive some of his modified A. Aegypti since 2017 and it didn't make the people here happy, at all. Though I don't even think there's a comprehensive study on how much good or harm came from it.
What a completely unhelpful comment: for all you know they are infertile. Having children shouldn't be done for such selfish reasons as mere personal fulfillment. I care about the kind of life a hypothetical human offspring would have (which is why I choose not to have any currently). Creating a family is a really weird solution to bring up.
But your rage is valid, I think it is just misplaced. The above commenter to you could perhaps be more effective in their decision making regarding filling their existential void. But family planning is a rash and presumptuous 'solution' to filling that need.
> I am within mine to remind everyone to please help your friend, your neighbor, your town, state, and country before you look further afield.
Nah. We have memberships in families, neighborhoods, friend groups, local areas, cultural groups, nations, and the whole world. And problems at any of these levels can grow to the point where they affect us, too. And places where the needs are most acute and broad stand the greatest chances of developing to not be as acute of problems anymore and indeed to offer value to the overall world community through trade.
Indeed, the extreme version of what you're saying is why so many only give to their church communities which are insular and isolated. Or to just retain everything.
70% of my giving is domestic, but I think it's nuts to ignore the rest of the world. Yes, things improved in distant lands maybe are harder for me to see and have less of a direct impact on those around me; so discount their benefit some, but that marginal benefit is so much larger...
You have to weigh that against the fact that you are much more able to figure out how to actually do what's needed at levels where you see things firsthand. At least, that's been my experience; it's much more realistic to start a nonprofit that can make a real difference locally, then perhaps scale with time, than it is to found something with a global mission, lacking global context on how things manifest around the world.
More importantly, I'm not a utilitarian, and do not subscribe to "effective altruism" or other utilitarian philosophies. At the end of the day it's Gates' money to do with as he wishes and it's my internet account to argue against that as I wish.
Sure, but even when you apply discount rates due to uncertainty of efficacy and distance of effects, the numbers can still be big.
At this point, I spend substantially my entire life in local service (I am a schoolteacher and I give away 6 figures locally annually). I still don't think it would maximize my effective impact to ignore the rest of my country or the rest of the world.
As someone who grew up in a Christian faith tradition that said Jesus Christ died for the sins of all of us and that we are all made in God's image, I find this position so bizarre. If we are all children of God, why should I prioritize the well being of a single stranger in Ohio over twenty strangers in Kenya? I can understand an argument for prioritizing one's family, especially if you are a parent, or even one's immediate community, but while I personally love America, the vast majority of Americans are as distant from me as anyone else in the globe.
This is a pretty common question that's raised: how can we square this with loving our fellow man?
The short answer is Christianity isn't a utilitarian belief system. While God loves everyone equally, he puts some of us closer together in love: family, friends, neighbors, countrymen. This incurs a greater obligation, plus we ought to love more those who are closer to us.
Sadly, a lot of Christian faiths teach dogma before the underlying reasoning or take a Bible-only approach which I find to be incredibly incomplete. In case your upbringing didn't include much theological reading, I would strongly recommend Civitas Dei and Summa Theologiae; the latter is less explicitly relevant to its definition but probably a better book overall.
I really don't see how anything I wrote was that controversial; he's free to disagree and pursue his own beliefs, obviously. Everything someone says that's not wrapped up in formal logic or statistics is implicitly opinion; the fact that I find repeatedly saying so tedious and ridiculous doesn't mean I'm asserting I am somehow an arbiter of the One True Faith.
We all act as we think best. I can try to change how others think. That's about the start and end of it.
> The short answer is Christianity isn't a utilitarian belief system. While God loves everyone equally, he puts some of us closer together in love: family, friends, neighbors, countrymen. This incurs a greater obligation, plus we ought to love more those who are closer to us.
This is very directly contradicted in the parable of the Good Samaritan, though. When Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, and Peter asked “but who is my neighbor”, Jesus pulled up the Samaritans - a group that the Jews had ethnic and religious conflicts with. (A modern equivalent for modern Jews might be the Palestinians). And he pointed and told a whole story that basically said “these guys. Love these enemies as if they were your family”.
So, yeah, I’m gonna hard disagree that Christianity supports treating your own townspeople as more worthy of help, versus helping the poorer people in other countries.
I find your picture of a god as you describe it, as something i would not want to have.
This interpretation sounds like a great excuse to stop helping others and spending your time behind a computer instead of actually being out there and helping.
If you would really believe, do you think Jesus would sit at home and comment instead of helping others?
And lets talk about helping. Who needs help? Your neighbour who has food, electricity, heating or a human child somewere else dying because of food? The same food which you probably throw away every day?
Nonetheless, while we are at it: What is your excuse that you believe in a god who is almighty but creates humas who then starve? Doesn't that sound more like a shitty god? Or if we play devils advocate: The Devil does the killing and god would actually like to see you and everyone else to help that human?
A single cent? I think you vastly underestimate how little a dollar does in the US, and how much it does outside.
Moreover, insisting on going all-in on medical research before doing any immediate lifesaving sounds to me like a gross perversion of what should be, in its most simple case, an urging to make sure your kids are clothed and fed before donating to the food bank. Surely ordo does not make it unvirtuous to save a drowning foreigner even if your kids would miss a meal for it.
I’m under the impression that Aquinas says outright that it makes sense to make exceptions to the general ordering to aid those in grave need that are “low” in the order, and stuff like mosquito nets are a prototypical example of this imo. Lives saved, families preserved, terribly unjust suffering averted, etc for literal pennies on the dollar.
I don't think any individual should have the power to unilaterally choose where to deploy billions of dollars, but your vision is equally myopic. Nothing about being a US citizen gives you any moral priority over any other person.
> help your friend, your neighbor, your town, state, and country before you look further afield
Many of my friends and family don't live on my neighborhood, town, state or country. They live in the world. Consider broadening up your social circle a little bit. Our lives don't have to be limited to where a horse can travel to any more.
Sure, the world has changed. But rightly-ordered love isn't about geographical layout, it's about the natural order of community and social structure. That has changed but "mosquito nets in zimbabwe" being on the way outer end of a right ordering of love hasn't.
I think the world has changed more than you think.
You are assuming that I don't have friends or family in Zimbabwe. Which is true in this particular case. But it might as well not. As I said I have friends and family in several countries.
You seem to think this phrase implies a prescription that people ought to donate first to their adjacents (unambiguously enough to be worth including without a definition).
I'll note that, given how many sources seem to contravene that interpretation, the probability that your use of this term did not come downstream from Vice President Vance has dropped precipitously. Which might be useful information for anyone looking to diversify their information diet.
Not physical adjacents, no. If your brother lives two thousand miles away you should still focus on him more than your neighbor.
I'm unsure what Vance has to do with this. My belief comes from my religious upbringing and (in this case) Saints Augustine and Aquinas. Vance is not a spiritual leader or theologian of any sort.
I think I absorbed much of this when I was pretty young - I had sort of settled on this way of thinking before ever picking up Civitas Dei - but reading and writing on it during my schooling helped me understand why.
Actually, no he can't. OFAC will absolutely destroy him if he does. I have a remote job and I am even explicitly banned from doing any work for my company while I am in China or a bunch of other countries.
Oh it's you again, you're the guy echoing specific contemporary political figures, and dressing up American isolationism in rhetoric. In the other thread you were claiming that America subsidises Europe's healthcare by paying for its defence.
Funny how when I specifically share opinions that you specifically dislike, you sling mud about "echoing". Of course, everyone else's opinions are well-founded and of their own mind. Mine, on the other hand, are downloaded straight into my head from a daily Fox News broadcast. You can tell by how my opinions aren't your opinions, and therefore must be those of some Bad Guy or not Real Opinions.
You’re only sharing one opinion (America should isolate), and you’re presenting it as a fact (you refer to being „correct”).
I think you’re projecting the dislike towards your opinion. If I see American electoral politics seep into HN, I’ll call it out, as dictated by my intellectual curiosity.
Ahh there it is. I figured you weren't American. Look man, politics sometimes comes up on here. I don't see you materializing whenever that happens to pitch a fit. Since America is the most significant nation, and where most of this site's users live, we can expect that when politics-adjacent topics are posted, American politics will always be at the forefront. You're going to have to get over that. If you have a counterargument, I suggest you present it.
Why should some arbitrary border be drawn? And if we don't take care of the world, who will? I think that's an abdication of the most serious responsibilities.
I actually have the opposite position on this. 1st world countries already have the funds and economy to pursue exactly what you describe. Just they lack the political will. I don’t care to subsidise that intentional lack of investment.
I would much rather give to charities focusing on countries that don’t have the economy/ability to fix their basic issues.
If you were to live very close to the border of, say, Canada or Mexico, would you support giving financial support to alleviate suffering in those countries?
That depends. Generally nation is a big part of how one defines rightly-ordered love. But if, say, I lived near the border, regularly went down to Mexico, had friends or colleagues there, then probably so. but more focused on alleviating their suffering than that of the country or state.
I think he wants Gates to focus his philanthropy on the Seattle region before expanding the scope of his giving to all of Washington. That could probably consume Gates' entire fortune, so the question of what to do next is irrelevant.
Sooo you use a christian word to describe your strategy?
Fine but do you know what it actually means to be poor? Its not the american neighbour who has a house, heat, electricity and food who can't afford a holiday.
Its the human beings living day by day trying to feed themselves.
Or are you from a super crazy poor country? Might be, but you have clearly internet (which means, access to knowledge, and richnes in comparision to the kid dying of hunger somewere else)
And now lets really talk about your "Ordo Amoris": If you do live in the USA, do you actually understand HOW MUCH everyone of us destroys countries around the globe? Climate Change? Resource Import? Cheap Labor?
We are all rich because WE exploit every other country around us in way or the other. The least thing we can do, is helping. And theglobal agreement to actually help is just a drop on a hot stone. Even that gets critizied.
Do you just use this ordo amoris because you are a christian? If so, i don't think you will go to heaven with your live philosophy.
You clearly have never actually looked at effective altruism and what it tries to be. You would otherwise know that your values are diametrically opposed to the values of that movement and said values are neither right nor wrong, they're personal.
Of course I have. I am well aware that my values are diametrically opposed to it at a first-principles level; I find utilitarianism to be an incredibly hollow worldview that fails on many grounds, not least of which are the teleological (disordered love is no virtue.)
I don't have to argue from the first principles of the EA crowd. Everyone believes in something and I believe they are wrong; your epistemic relativism makes no sense to me. Borderline absurdist.
fwiw I'm not an EA and I generally agree with you. It's fine to believe they're wrong, but it's an entirely different thing to tell other people they should think they're wrong.
Isn't that how most disagreements shake out at one level or another, once you strip away enough of the garnish? I am by nature either blunt or an asshole, depending on whom you ask, and may have come across more as the latter here, but the core message is about the same as most disagreements: "I believe my position is right because ABC, your position is wrong because DEF, you should believe mine instead."
Sure I did. I'm aware his giving isn't just mosquito nets. That doesn't mean I believe the money is being directed correctly.
If your position is "it's his money so none of us should comment", I'd expect equal pushback on people saying "wow I really agree with how he's spending it."
This is just cruel nativism, a rejection of humanity except for the in group you happened to be born in. I hope everyone rejects this sociopathic outlook on the world.
And Gates is investing in Alzheimer's research FYI.
Reducing rightly-ordered love to "cruel nativism" is an incredibly uncharitable representation. I'd urge you to do some reading in comparative religion. Although I'm a Christian, I've found it instructive to spend some time going through other religions' texts, other philosophies, because dismissing them as backward or wrong does nobody any good. Learning more makes my conversations more productive and helps me better understand my own beliefs.
> There's a reason they're marked as secondary beneficiaries on all my accounts.
That's just insane. Bill Gates is absolutely not a good guy but you cannot be convinced to that given how much you idealize him. Have children. I would have replied to the sibling comment saying the same but comments become unreplyable once they get enough downvotes.
My issue with Gates is that he wants to fight climate change, yet he's personally an environmental disaster with his yachts and jets. I'm not saying he has to live like a monk to be credible, and maybe his foundation is doing a good job (never looked into it), but either he's an hypocrite, or I disagree with him on how to fight climate change.
I think it's pretty clearly hypocritical, but also if his actions are (far) more than offsetting his own emissions and impact, it's still a net positive.
Of course, he could choose to not live a super-high consumption lifestyle in addition to his climate philanthopy, but if I had to take one or the other, I'd rather him continue throwing money at climate work than take fewer private jet rides.
But... he could easily do both. This is why I have such a hard time taking anything said about climate change seriously from the likes of Gore, Gates, and celebrities. They don’t practice what they preach.
And it’s not like we’re talking about some huge sacrifices here. Go from a 50K sqft house to a “modest” 10k sqft one. Don’t sail around on personal yachts. Fly commercial. Use Zoom. Simple stuff that would give them a lot more credibility. As it is, it’s a whole lot of “do as I say, not as I do.”
I think it matters how it's done. If someone has super high consumption but also invests in clean energy to save the climate that's cool by be. If someone has super high consumption but also invests money into lobbying to deny the lower classes access to consumption as a means of saving the climate I would resent that person.
My issue is, he wants to fight climate change… then tries to spend $200bn in less than 20 years. This afflux of money creates a spike of consumerism, then a sudden dip after that. Consultants in foundations will scramble to spend that money for sure, and they themselves will buy private jets for that.
The way to fight climate change is to keep people at a low level of consumption, and spend his own money very slowly, very scarcely. And keep people with small cars, no Cadillac for any consultant.
While it might be hypocritical it doesn't matter whatsoever what he does with his personal life if his foundation is pouring billions into making the world a better place.
Helping people out of poverty is really bad for the environment too but I don't think we should be complaining when someone does that.
On a global scale his yacht(s?) and private jets are nothing, and if it helps him do good by establishing/maintaining relationships with the right people they're an "investment" into a stopping climate change.
I'll ask the same question I've asked elsewhere because "I want to believe:" How do you measure how much someone has made the world a better place? Especially when so much of their actions, their consequences, and their second and third order effects are either unknowable or papered over by PR campaigns.
You can't really measure how much good someone has done, but their foundation has been going for 25 years and as mentioned in the article they've donated 100billion dollars to something already.
If anyone deserves a bit of good faith it'd be the Gates family, it's probably not all pretty and perfect but I am convinced they're doing a lot of good.
You'll have to ask someone else about proof, but I imagine someone would've leaked something within these 25 years if they were running a tax evasion scheme or something else fishy.
So without hard proof I repeat: Let Bill have his toys, it's a piss in the bucket on a global scale and the donated 100 billion dollars will have offset that in some way or another many times over.
Let's just say my "sniff test" says good, and while not always right I think I am here and that's good enough for me.
If his net effect on the climate is positive then you are only arguing that he could be even more efficient at it - but you are not in position to do that without knowing all his personal context. Outside you can only judge the net result - which is not a bad one.
Being a hypocrite is a fairly minor sin, and doesn't take away from the good he does. I could make a long list of worse qualities Bill Gates possesses, but I'll still acknowledge the good.
The thing that's always made me skeptical of Gates and any other enormous foundations is that they operate at such a high level and with such enormous budgets that they basically exist in the same "amoral" world of nation states and corporations, but yet they face none of the scrutiny or criticism that those entities face.
How do you judge the actions of someone when those actions are powerful enough to move markets, take down regimes, and change people's lives for generations?
We take them at their word and assume that everything they do is well-intentioned and good and has zero negative impact or secondary effects, but is that really the case?
To me it seems like the only charity that can be trusted is a small-scale one that acts locally and with lots of transparency.
Why would they have to be perfect to deserve donations? A "small-scale charity that acts locally with lots of transparency" may be great, or it may be terribly inefficient in their real-world ability to improve the well-being of the people they are supposed to benefit. And either choice would be better than not donating anything to anybody.
May be great or may be terrible applies to both the small and the the nation-state sized charity right?
Maybe my judgement or efficiency is bad when I try to help my neighbor. Okay, whoopsie. Now apply that margin of error to a foundation whose decisions impact millions of people and possibly entire societies, possibly for generations. The unintended or possibly negative effects can be enormous and long-lasting.
Yes they're local, but its not like there's a limit to how many local charities there can be in the world.
Operating at a huge scale requires you to lump people together into groups and make assumptions about who they are and what they deserve, as you've done in your example. To me that sounds antithetical to the concept of charity. And even with the best intentions, if you mess up, you're messing up a huge scale.
Charity just means helping someone. Do you think no one in Chad needs or is offering help? And if you don't know anyone in Chad who's in need of charity then...why do you want to do charity in Chad?
It seems that our notion of charity has been warped in such a way that it somehow doesn't count unless it's some enormous large-scale mission carried about by Charity, Inc for the benefit of some group of people far away. It's all very abstract, and that just creates room for fraud or exploitation.
Paying off a local person's debts or putting their child through college will probably be far more impactful and meaningful than sending your money off to some giant organization.
Have to disagree about the 'effective' part. Gates seems to have had a knack for massive inefficiencies and negative externalities in every way that he has impacted the world. Think of how many man-hours (measured in human lifetimes) have been wasted due to the shortcomings of various MicroSoft programs. Weigh that against his health initiatives in the third world. Or the impact of dimming the sun by depositing massive quantities of particles in the atmosphere: the resources consumed and carbon emissions that placing them would entail, and of course the intended effect, which is to impede human progress as measured by the Kardashev scale. Everything starts to look much more efficient if this is taken as the goal, though.
He's not curing polio, though. His polio program is spreading it because they use a live virus, and a low percentage of the population is getting it. People are now getting paralytic polio from others who got the vaccine.
This is just one example of the Kreuger-Dunning that permeates all aspects of the Gates Foundation. His interventions have been mainly disasters, distorted public policy, and gobbled up biotech IP in the process. He controls the money spicket and is very petty and cocksure about what is "right." Researchers and public policy experts who disagree with his ideas get cut off.
Governments should set public health policy and manage the needs of their people, not billionaires, biotech companies, or NGOs.
OPV unfortunately does cause paralytic polio disease indirectly by infecting unvaccinated people. It's worth it IMO because the total number of paralyzed people has decreased, but in the long term we have to switch to IPV to completely eliminate polio. This will take decades and many billions of dollars though.
Yes, it's called cVDPV. It's caused by the virus in the live vaccine "unweakening" itself, and it's typically happening in people with weakened immune systems (e.g. from chronic malnutrition). It's not causing unvaccinated people to get infected, per se.
Most cases are mild, and on average there are about 300-400 cases per _year_ for the entire world.
But it's absolutely heinous to accuse Gates of deliberately infecting people with the live virus. The weakened vaccine has been the standard for polio vaccination for the last 80 years. There is simply no alternative for it for places like DRC or Chad. Inactivated vaccines require refrigeration and injections, and this is not feasible.
We're >.< this close to eradicating polio: https://polioeradication.org/wild-poliovirus-count/ - there are only two countries with the wild virus. A little bit more, and we can actually stop vaccinating from polio altogether.
I largely agree, but there is essentially no possibility of ever eradicating polio with the current OPV strategy.
If you stop vaccinating, cVDPV will spread person to person. Some people carry virus for decades and it can become infectious at any time, many years after they were first vaccinated or infected. There will sparse but significant episodes until all humans who were vaccinated with OPV (or infected with the wild virus) have died.
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it!
It's ok if we don't eradicate the virus. The point is to prevent children from being paralyzed, and it works for that.
Unfortunately, if you look at the situation with type 2, you will see what happens when OPV stops too early (and type 2 is a much less aggressive disease than type 1). In a perfect world, OPV cessation happens in most healthy communities rather soon, while the people who are in need of a much stronger vaccine continue to get OPV.
Also, Gates's pet project of a novel OPV has been shown to have caused a few confirmed cases of VAPP now, so it seems that project won't save OPV.
Essentially the best hope for eradicating polio within 20 years seems to be giving out a lot of OPV to places like Afghanistan and the DRC and forcing the local warlord to give it to the kids who need it (the latter has generally been a total failure of the Gates project). Once OPV gets wild-type and cVDPV outbreaks under control, a global switch to IPV seems safe to prevent future outbreaks. But, to get there, it seems a very aggressive OPV campaign is necessary compared to where we are now. It may take a militarized organization to do this, also, given the fact that you necessarily have to deal with tribal warlords. Shame we don't have USAID any more...
We aren't going to do that because it seems we generally aren't capable of doing that. So we're likely stuck with a decent amount of polio for a long time.
cVDPV outbreaks die out on their own, and the newer vaccines are designed to be less likely to escape.
People also don't carry the virus for decades. That's a myth. People with a weakened immune system can get infected with polio even after a childhood vaccination, so that's probably where this myth comes from.
It's not a myth at all, off the top of my head I know of at least two cases studies including the study that led to the discovery that remdesivir may treat polio
There are issues with the oral vaccines, but what you're saying is completely untrue. The total number of paralyzed kids has gone down dramatically as a result of the work Gates has done. By any metric, this is a good thing
Also, as a recommendation, you guys should look into whether your employer matches charitable donations to 501Cs in any amount. I find giving a solid chunk of my discretionary budget to charity every year lends a sense of purpose to a job that wouldn't otherwise have much (at least, in the sense of helping others).
I enjoy being a dev, and I've given serious thought to simply continuing working once I reach my FIRE number and donating half of what I earn to charity. I think most charities would have more use for my money than my time, given my disability