Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Melinda Gates: gods with chequebooks
Floating_Abu
Veteran
An early push towards philanthropy came from Bill Gates's late mother, Mary, who pulled no punches when she wrote to her future daughter-in-law before their 1994 wedding. "From those to whom much is given, much is expected," she said.
"In a funny way I think Mary could see ahead where we might be going," Melinda Gates says. "I was young when I married Bill, 29. He was so committed to working at Microsoft and she kept pressing him to do more giving. 'Mom, I'm busy at Microsoft, I'm trying to change the world that way,' he'd say. But she knew at some point that our place in life would be to give it back."
The second big impetus towards helping the developing world also came around the time of the wedding, when the couple made their first trip to Africa. They took a group of friends on safari for a three-week engagement celebration. What began as a manifestation of supreme wealth inspired years spent in philanthropic endeavour.
"I loved the animals and I loved the landscape, but at the end of the day you came back saying: 'My gosh! What's going on here? How could I live a life like this in Seattle with such a large dichotomy between human beings. That just shouldn't be.'
Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/sep/17/melinda-gates-microsoft-foundation-charity
0
Comments
Some people may feel they're not doing enough, but the way I see it is even if they're only doing a fraction of what they could it's still a hell of a lot more than I could do.
"Population reduction" has a very social Darwinistic sound to it.
And while I understand their approach, my point is that "improving the lifestyle" could be done much more radically than what appears to be done now.
True enough, but IMO their power and influence could do much more. I mean, if you had a near infinite amount of bread and saw a hungry person, why just give them crumbs?
The Gates Foundation is funding a phenomenal number of projects. They have given $36million to the Rotary Foundation to help eliminate polio, challenging Rotarians (like myself) to match their contribution. Bill Gates has also gone out with Warren Buffett to convince other mega-rich individuals to give away their fortunes, and they are responding.
Sounds pretty compassionate to me!
If they are intelligent (which I assume they are), and serious about this (which I assume they are as they are devoting their lives, efforts and money to this), then I think what they are looking for is sustainability.
Sustainability means creating self sufficient cycles that can continue and prosper and eventually not require the need for so called aid or handouts.
Any well meaning Joe with a cheque book can build a hall and new bathroom, it's the principles and genuine contributions to a sustainable cycle that is complex -- ie addressing the ROOT causes is very difficult. The source of these issues in the world are intertwined, entrenched, and requires not only focus and sincerity but also, genuine influence, intelligence, and resources (money being a key one).
They are dealing with not only the core subject eg. medicine, they are also dealing with politics, governments, communities, infrastructure, specialist skills, education etc etc.
Keep in mind also that hunger, poverty, disease and health, no education is entrenched in this world. You and I with the luxuries of our lives may not see it, but as it seems, many people do suffer in the world with this - and this Foundation also raises our awareness of such plights. So this reality exists despite many aid organisations and government aid efforts etc over many many years now - so it is clear it is not a simple - OR quick fix - solution. I think that even the money they have is actually very 'finite' compared to tackling this problem.
And this is why I point out that the way they are addressing it is probably the right way, not the big show bang "Hey I saved 50 lives today and built a new house as well" way, but if they have the integrity and credibility which I believe they do to be honest, then perhaps they are addressing it in the best way they know how - in order to address this systematically, at source, and to ensure the best chance, not guarantee, but best chance of a sustainable, ongoing culture of improvement where it matters most. Manouvering complex matters and governments and systems in order to do this. To build the infrastructure that can allow this. Hiring the right people to facilitate this. Raising awareness of a community more interested in sports and entertainment for example is itself quite the task.
Also going out on a limb like this takes courage and balls. Being so wealthy inevitably attracts attention as well as criticism. But they are doing far more than I have seen in other so called wealthy powers, a great service to human kind indeed.
So I say thankyou to Bill and Melinda Gates and their whole family for their efforts for mankind. They didn't have to do this, and I assume people like this get criticised regardless of what they do.
They have my thanks and my own shame. Or perhaps better, inspiration in doing something for this world, no matter how small.
This is just my view of course.
Best wishes,
Abu
Excerpt:
"MICROSOFT founder Bill Gates has revealed he won't be leaving his estimated $56 billion fortune to his children when he dies.
Instead the global software giant brainchild, who ranks alongside the Medicis, Romanovs, Rothschilds and Rockefellers as one of history's wealthiest people, told UK newspaper The Sun that his billions will be spent defeating global poverty."
My "bias against the rich" is not because they are rich, but rather that the method in which they accumulate their wealth is not compassionate. Capitalism (corporatism at that) is hardly a compassionate economic system.
So this brings up an issue - is it acceptable for people to be compassionate through uncompassionate means? Like, what if a Buddhist was to kill an animal to give to someone who was starving?
Yes, I'm very much aware that poverty and the like are systemic issues. I would make a pretty poor sociologist if I didn't understand that
What I'm trying to say is that with their money and influence, they could give struggling communities the infrastructure necessary to forge their own futures, but thus far it appears to be (much like most charity and NGO work) fairly superficial.
But as the issues are systemic, the economic system which creates these gross inequalities must be the focus of change, whether it is through a total exorcism of it or a drastic change in guiding principles. Throwing pennies at people doesn't do that.
I will not go into the theories with you especially as I am prone to a lot of text on such things
But suffice to say I'm pretty sure they've done the research, listened to their multiple advisors on the 'best way' and I think it is in good hands.
Gassho,
Abu
I have to the agree with Invincible_summer on this. What they're doing isn't bad, but there's so much more that needs to be done.