Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

boxen t1_jd6mmja wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in The Age of AI has begun - Bill Gates by Buck-Nasty

Everyone that owns stock (which is every wealthy person) is always "richer than they've ever been before." That's just how stock works.

If you have 100 billion dollars to give away, giving it away in a lump sum and just absolving yourself of responsibility for how it gets spent is a terrible idea. The whole point of his philanthropic organization is to ensure that the money gets spent as wisely as possible.

Your view of him is wildly inaccurate. How would use a 100 billion dollars to better the world? It's not a simple question to answer.

And you mentioned "unelected." Are you suggesting he should give it to the government and let them handle it? They already have Trillions of dollars, and what are they doing with it? Health care? Education? Or war?

7

[deleted] t1_jd6qlig wrote

[deleted]

6

SgathTriallair t1_jd8003g wrote

Getting rich of stocks isn't hoarding anything. That wealth doesn't actually exist, is all based on how much they could theoretically make on the open market if they sold their stocks. Of course if he did sell those socks they would lose value.

The government could choose to prioritize taking care of it's citizens. Those of us in democracies could view for politicians who support these priorities (and I do). Unfortunately we, as a country, don't view for these politicians. The existence of philanthropists isn't causing the government to do anything.

2

[deleted] t1_jd883ch wrote

[deleted]

3

SgathTriallair t1_jd8g8kd wrote

I agree that we need to fix there economic system and the existence of billionaires proves that we are broken.

I'm not, however, going to get mad at the ones who are trying to make the world better when there are so many trying to make the world worse.

The goal is to reduce human suffering and create a more equitable world. ANYTHING which furthers that goal is good. So Bill Gates foundation is good and should be recognized as such. Having no need for philanthropists would be better but that isn't the choice we are offered right now.

2

[deleted] t1_jd8l4u3 wrote

[deleted]

3

SgathTriallair t1_jd9plpg wrote

What is the solution then? Do we let the poor starve hoping it will active everyone else's empathy centers in just the right way? Do we start a violent revolution that ends with an oppressive dictatorship that makes everyone's life worse? I get that saying "we've got philanthropy so our work here is done" isn't good but why would we try to stop them from helping? If I'm dying of cancer I'd really like medicine to help me, but I'm not going to turn down the person who is patching up my gunshot wound even if it is delaying me getting my cancer meds.

2

[deleted] t1_jda0xgf wrote

[deleted]

2

SgathTriallair t1_jda3by4 wrote

I agree with all of these. My only complaint was that I want to do whatever harm reduction we can while we work towards implementing these ideas.

2

Hotchillipeppa t1_jd97527 wrote

This looks like an ai wrote this not gonna lie,either way I agree

1