Possible. Do we have more accurate translations of this passage?

I think you’re conflating the Gates foundation in with a lot of other flawed charities that aren’t much like it. For example:

• “Catastrophic at dealing with social problems”: Outside of some controversies regarding US education, the BMGF doesn’t seem to have caused much harm, while undoubtedly accomplishing a lot of good in global health. Some other charities are useless or counterproductive, but I don’t think that applies here, certainly not on net.
• Overhead: Unlike the Red Cross, BMGF is one of the charities that accomplishes a lot of good without wasting everything on overhead. I feel comfortable saying this without citation; you can look up their vaccination programs if you want. Moreover, it’s overall effectiveness, not overhead, that matters in the end (and I’m not aware of the BMGF having excessive overhead anyway).
• The BMGF is not intended as a substitute for government, nor does it substitute for it in practice. Most of its global health programs are done in countries that lack healthcare or social safety nets due to a combination of poverty and corruption; this is unlikely to change if the BMGF disappears. It’s an organization that focuses on improving some short-term aspects of health and well-being, and most of its long-term aspects (I think) revolve around eradicating diseases rather than large-scale economic development.

Regardless of what the BMGF has sometimes done wrong (any sufficiently large and complicated charity will screw up somewhere), they’ve very plausibly saved tens of millions of lives so far. Most of the above criticisms fall flat after taking this into account.

Too bad Plato was a pedophile. Still worth knowing what he had to say.

No but it was an immoral choice to destroy the continent in 500 years.

Don’t know why you’ve been downvoted. Technology is basically inherent to humanity if we can consider language to be technology (and I think there’s a strong case that we can)

I don’t think that’s quite right. Gates does control the Foundation, but as a nonprofit, he can’t just spend its money on anything he wants—I’m pretty sure that it does have to get spent on charity in some way instead of yachts or mansions. (I’d like a source if you disagree.)

As a younger man I wanted my poetry to be new and avant-garde. Now I just want to make something beautiful, and more often than not, I turn toward a time when the world was slower, and people took more care with their lives because their lives were harder and more precious in their difficulty. I try not to get pastoral or fantasize about an idealized past, but there’s no denying that things built with care are the only things which last.

In a modernity defined by consumption, “conservatism” can be anti-capitalist.

Note: there’s a reason that pastoralism is at the heart of most fascism—because it’s enchanting. If you really want to understand the link between nazi rhetoric and Heidegger, you should read Hölderlin.

I think it’s worth noting that the Bible has not been ethically translated across time

Source: a totally uninterrogated understanding of good and bad

How do you monopolise your own company?

Also, how is this relevant? Microsoft isn’t saving anyone’s lives?

Who the fuck is downvoting this? It’s a stone cold fact.

Sure, and he’s also donating an insane amount to fight malaria and other preventable diseases which is THE most effective way to save lives at the moment

Idrk what you mean by an “open source vaccine,” but Astra Zeneca was open source, no?

[removed]

> Idk. Y’all think I got him right? Did I miss his point?

i like how you ended this :)

> Ask anyone who loves their cat, or child, or car — these things have a significance beyond their usefulness. To argue that people think otherwise is absurd.

but look how we often relate to ourselves: as a resource to be exploited. we try to be successful and such. how do we relate to our free time? often as a resource to be exploited, maximized, etc.

> Such a view of the world would struggle to answer the age old questions “Why are we here? What is the point of it all?”

many young people do struggle with this. H's point, I think, is that out from under the spell of the technological age, that would not necessarily be the norm.

> Such a view of the world would have no place for telling jokes with your friends, for loving another person

that's a leap. jokes in themselves don't necessarily make life worth living. and look at how we often regard our romantic partners: with an eye on the efficiency and duration of harmony achieved. divorce is not celebrated in our culture because of this "technological" bent toward efficiency and productivity and exploitation of resources (the resources here being "love in one's heart" and "time spent on earth"). i think H's point is that it definitely could be, but it would be a radical shift.

>That being said, giving to charity can be done at the same time as working toward systemic change.

Singer doesn't encourage people to do so. His focus is entirely (or close to it) on charity.

Has he ever gone after a systemic problem with the same vigour as animal cruelty? I don't think so.

>it's not really Gates' money anymore, and there are rules regarding what he can do with it.

It's 100% still his money. He controls what is done with it.

We should also note that a lot of the "charity" is really just power imposing its will. Gates spent a lot for "education" in Washington state, but it was to install his version of school choice. It counts as charity, but it's really just cramming a rich guy's vision down everyone else's throat. u/SalmonApplecream this is related to your question below.

I think you need to do some digging into why we don't have open source covid vaccines.

(Hint: It's because of Bill's 'charity'.)

Yes, the amount we have is quite the point. Because if you want to go back to a world where everyone lives hunter gatherer lifestyles where they and a small kin groups control large areas of land in which to hunt and gather and otherwise live an indigenous lifestyle; the population of the world we can support is going to be a fraction of what it is today. How do you propose we get the population back down to hunter-gatherer levels?

It wasn't some high moral choice. It was being a stone/bronze age culture.

And the Native Americans wiped out several large species that we know of shortly after their arrival to the Americas. Hunted to extinction due to being big/slow and therefore easy food.

The spectrum of culture spans from conserving and progressing. It’s weird to think of art as a conservative movement but with the death of postmodernism, I think we have returned to this more conservative idea of beauty and nature that Heidegger describes.

[removed]

To the people pointing out Heidegger was a nazi. The relationship is more complicated than pointing out what we already know.

I find Heidegger preferred a direct relationship with the world instead of through an intermediary such as technology.

And he fucked Hannah Arendt which makes no sense until you read about Hannah Arendt and realize that she was pretty weird in her whole life.