3 ms·

Man, he may even give away enough that he's no longer one of the 250 richest people on the planet. Don't get me wrong, it's a great gesture but let's put it in

Man, he may even give away enough that he's no longer one of the 250 richest people on the planet. Don't get me wrong, it's a great gesture but let's put it in perspective. He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. In terms of disposable income and day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000.

mistermann 16y ago
> probably less significant Significance depends on point of view. There are at least 3 points of view here: the donor, the recipient, and the outside observer. I think the recipients in this case might have a decidedly different opinion on the relative merit between donations measured in tens of thousands and those measured in millions. For many it can literally be the difference between life and death. So, it may "hurt" more for you to give $10,000, but the absolute good that can be accomplished with hundreds millions is far more important, imho.
lionhearted 16y ago
> He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. It will make a difference in lives of millions of others - absolute good is better than relative good. > ... day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000. It's much better for the world for billions to go into productive endeavors than $10,000. You shouldn't award extra points for suffering. In fact, I award extra points for a person being able to do massive good without hurting themselves.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  I'm not talking about suffering, I'm talking about not even slightly restraining the most astronomical privilege. The man is worth $13bn. He could give away 99% of his wealth and still live out his days in a level of luxury which will never be experienced by 99% of Western world's population, let alone the world's.
  - c1sc0 16y ago
    And what is wrong with that?
    - mrtron 16y ago
      Given our economical system - it is a certainty that certain individuals will be so wealthy they can afford anything. The inevitable is hardly wrong!
      - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
        It's only inevitable if you assume that our economic system is right and immutable. Personally when it creates gaps as big as it does between rich and poor I dispute that's the case. Don't get me wrong, we need to encourage risk takers and wealth creators but how many sports teams or super yachts does one man really need as just reward for his efforts? Particularly in the case of Paul Allen when many will dispute that the actions of the company who made his wealth were in the best interests of the industry.
tkahn6 16y ago
this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. You are conflating the suffering usually accompanied with a a good deed with the deed itself. The fact that he may not take any hit to his lifestyle means nothing. The fact that he is giving away his own money should be enough for you.

mistermann 16y ago

> probably less significant Significance depends on point of view. There are at least 3 points of view here: the donor, the recipient, and the outside observer. I think the recipients in this case might have a decidedly different opinion on the relative merit between donations measured in tens of thousands and those measured in millions. For many it can literally be the difference between life and death. So, it may "hurt" more for you to give $10,000, but the absolute good that can be accomplished with hundreds millions is far more important, imho.

lionhearted 16y ago

> He is and will remain obscenely rich and this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. It will make a difference in lives of millions of others - absolute good is better than relative good. > ... day to day impact on what he can and can't do, it's probably less significant than someone on this board giving away $10,000. It's much better for the world for billions to go into productive endeavors than $10,000. You shouldn't award extra points for suffering. In fact, I award extra points for a person being able to do massive good without hurting themselves.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
I'm not talking about suffering, I'm talking about not even slightly restraining the most astronomical privilege. The man is worth $13bn. He could give away 99% of his wealth and still live out his days in a level of luxury which will never be experienced by 99% of Western world's population, let alone the world's.
- c1sc0 16y ago
  And what is wrong with that?
  - mrtron 16y ago
    Given our economical system - it is a certainty that certain individuals will be so wealthy they can afford anything. The inevitable is hardly wrong!
    - Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
      It's only inevitable if you assume that our economic system is right and immutable. Personally when it creates gaps as big as it does between rich and poor I dispute that's the case. Don't get me wrong, we need to encourage risk takers and wealth creators but how many sports teams or super yachts does one man really need as just reward for his efforts? Particularly in the case of Paul Allen when many will dispute that the actions of the company who made his wealth were in the best interests of the industry.

tkahn6 16y ago

this will make absolutely no difference to him in terms of how he lives his life. You are conflating the suffering usually accompanied with a a good deed with the deed itself. The fact that he may not take any hit to his lifestyle means nothing. The fact that he is giving away his own money should be enough for you.