tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post3587828537675811358..comments2024-01-03T06:15:15.919-05:00Comments on Everyone Is a Sith: Bill Gates: Short-Sighted PhilanthropistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-6487376861238932332008-06-30T10:43:00.000-04:002008-06-30T10:43:00.000-04:00But by your own ideals the libraries must be a bad...But by your own ideals the libraries must be a bad thing! Finite resources were wasted in that endeavor. Between land, building materials, and the books, those libraries were massive wastes of resources. Think of the trees, and finite amount of building materials and land that were used.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13095451400961707644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-9671422161714354632008-06-27T15:24:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:24:00.000-04:00But you're assuming either that the foundation won...But you're assuming either that the foundation won't be A) following up upon latter complications.. or B) that they aren't actually just interested in curing TB,or what have you.<BR/><BR/>You're arguing FOR libraries on the grounds that they're for granting access to books.. but his libraries were also to improve education, to uplift everyone. And yet, Carnegie can't have people forced to go in and learn. <BR/><BR/>Essentially, you're arguing against the Gates foundation for not providing for every step of making someone's life perfect, but not for Carnegie. You're making unequal cases, either by extrapolating and assigning more responsibility to the Gates foundation, or by narrowly confining counter-examples.<BR/><BR/>But philanthropy doesn't come at issues that way. They have a surplus of money, and look to make visible, mesurable improvements in an issue... <BR/><BR/>Give the foundation time or at least the leeway to take an issue one step at a time, will ya?Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-37749547499156668072008-06-27T15:13:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:13:00.000-04:00Think of it in terms of balloons.Goal: Everyone h...Think of it in terms of balloons.<BR/><BR/>Goal: Everyone has a balloon.<BR/>Reason: For the sake of everyone having a balloon.<BR/>Action: Give everyone a balloon.<BR/><BR/>That would be a sensible endeavor insofar as it had internal consistency. We can question whether or not "balloon having" is a sensible or useful goal to have...but that is secondary to the Goal, Reason, Action relation.<BR/><BR/>BMG Foundation:<BR/>Goal: Fix teh world<BR/>Reason: Feel better about ourselves<BR/>Action: Fund TB medication for children living in squalor<BR/><BR/>That doesn't make one shit-stained inch of sense._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-5113330387775558672008-06-27T15:03:00.000-04:002008-06-27T15:03:00.000-04:00"are you equally opposed to philanthropy effots li..."<I>are you equally opposed to philanthropy effots like say, Carnegie's Libraries?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'm ok with people building libraries for the sake of building libraries and, say, affording people in small towns access to books. That is a sensible goal-approach-execution.<BR/><BR/>There is a great deal more involved with "saving lives". And to both fully grasp "life saving" and to actualize "life saving" requires far more than just funding flu shots.<BR/><BR/>Though, if the goal for funding TB cures was to ONLY ensure that 100% of human beings do not have TB? Then I would be ok with it insofar as they had a goal "cure TB" and executed a sensible action to reach that goal. It would still be something of an idiotic goal with no discernable reasoning behind it...but at least the approach would fit the goal._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-37052497574294741432008-06-27T14:23:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:23:00.000-04:00are you equally opposed to philanthropy effots lik...are you equally opposed to philanthropy effots like say, Carnegie's Libraries?<BR/><BR/>I get what you're putting forward - Actions have consequences.. <BR/><BR/>but you're doing the equivalent of saying it's a problem, it will always be a problem, deal with it.<BR/><BR/>you're criticising a person for taking action, because they're capable of it, and your criticisms are founded on their taking action, NOT pursuant to their outlooks upon life, but pursuant to yours.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you're knocking them not for their actions, but because they don't see the world in the same manner.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.com