4 ms·

Evolutionarily speaking, people should be motivated to protect their offspring and ensure their survival. It strikes me as very odd (and stupid) for someone to

Evolutionarily speaking, people should be motivated to protect their offspring and ensure their survival. It strikes me as very odd (and stupid) for someone to give their own child nothing, but then essentially give a bunch of other families and their children $400 million. I mean, at least give your own kid a leg up! Geez.

duxup 7y ago
>give their own child nothing I think he probabbly gave them something more than "nothing", possibly even a leg up.
happytoexplain 7y ago
If your children are well educated and have connections, they already have a leg up. But whatever the reasons, if he's not worried about their ability to survive, then it makes sense to contribute to society. >Evolutionarily speaking, people should... What does this mean?
- t0mbstone 7y ago
  > "Evolutionarily speaking" When I use this term, I'm referring to the general theory of evolution, particularly in reference to survival of the fittest and natural selection. I'm also referring to the natural instincts that a lot of animals (and humans) tend to have, such as the instinct to save the life of their own offspring, even if it means putting their own lives at risk.
  - kevinh 7y ago
    By that standard, evolutionarily speaking, he should have worked to maximize the number of children he had, as he had the means to provide for them. Or maybe he should have worked to fight climate change, as that could be a long-term threat to humanity's survival, which may include some of his descendents (and certainly some of the same traits he has). Acting like what is "evolutionarily smart" isn't necessarily what's good. It can be, but that's not a strong basis for moral action.
  - krastanov 7y ago
    Evolutionarily speaking we should be chasing animals in hunter-gatherer clans. The fact that we are slowly transcending the bounds of biological evolution should be celebrated: we have culture, art, and science now. And what we consider family (the ones we want to be happy) is slowly growing (with the occasional small step back). That guy ensured his kids had marvelous opportunities and is now trying to provide marvelous opportunities for other people in his "extended family". Jeez, how misanthropic or selfish do you have to be for this to not make you happy?
    - t0mbstone 7y ago
      I never said I disapproved of him giving away his money. I just found it odd. Like, it doesn't make logical sense to me. But I also have a deep-rooted mistrust of most charities, since I have first-hand knowledge of how many of them mismanage their funds.
Matticus_Rex 7y ago
If you've parented well, you've given your kid a leg up whether you leave them money/property or not (though I intend to leave my children money/property). The connections they have from their father are likely non-negligible as well.
thefounder 7y ago
Maybe the other families had less than his kid. Have you thought about that? I'm pretty sure his kid has more than nothing. It wasn't sent to an orphanage to begin with. Having a good education and knowing the right people is often more valuable than some cash in the bank.
lifthearth 7y ago
He likely is protecting his children's children by denying them obscene wealth. The problem isn't with the first generation born into great wealth it is the 2nd or 3rd who are far removed from the origin and the ways of thinking that created it they tend to get all sorts of deluded worldviews that ultimately lead to their and their families ruin. I've seen stats that assert 70%-90% of wealthy families lose their fortune over 2 generations. Falling wealth levels is likely a much greater existential threat than being born into one and maintaining.
- newsoul2019 7y ago
  It seems that there are "interesting" ways that you could have a lot of wealth, but shield your children from the negative effects. For example, let's say you drove mostly older cars, teaching your kids to maintain and repair them themselves. Or let's say you lived in a huge house, but you don't have a cleaning crew - the family works together to clean the house on Sundays. Everyone fights, no one quits. If you made it your goal, you should be able to decouple "instill a serious work ethic" from "we own assets worth millions or billions"
ww520 7y ago
There are many things other than money that parents can give to children to ensure their survival - relationship, connection, power, status, good will, knowledge, education, wisdom, character, vision, etc. Money is just the medium for exchange. In this case the parent has exchanged the money with something intangible for his children, and as a last act, exchanged it for other intangibles. Edit: Also human has evolved to utilize social systems to further their survival and dominance. It's no good to have all the money in the world while the system itself crumbles. This dad has the foresight to use his money to ensure the system his offspring living in will survive and thrive. There's a saying, "no eggs can survive a fallen bird nest."

duxup 7y ago

>give their own child nothing I think he probabbly gave them something more than "nothing", possibly even a leg up.

happytoexplain 7y ago

If your children are well educated and have connections, they already have a leg up. But whatever the reasons, if he's not worried about their ability to survive, then it makes sense to contribute to society. >Evolutionarily speaking, people should... What does this mean?

t0mbstone 7y ago
> "Evolutionarily speaking" When I use this term, I'm referring to the general theory of evolution, particularly in reference to survival of the fittest and natural selection. I'm also referring to the natural instincts that a lot of animals (and humans) tend to have, such as the instinct to save the life of their own offspring, even if it means putting their own lives at risk.
- kevinh 7y ago
  By that standard, evolutionarily speaking, he should have worked to maximize the number of children he had, as he had the means to provide for them. Or maybe he should have worked to fight climate change, as that could be a long-term threat to humanity's survival, which may include some of his descendents (and certainly some of the same traits he has). Acting like what is "evolutionarily smart" isn't necessarily what's good. It can be, but that's not a strong basis for moral action.
- krastanov 7y ago
  Evolutionarily speaking we should be chasing animals in hunter-gatherer clans. The fact that we are slowly transcending the bounds of biological evolution should be celebrated: we have culture, art, and science now. And what we consider family (the ones we want to be happy) is slowly growing (with the occasional small step back). That guy ensured his kids had marvelous opportunities and is now trying to provide marvelous opportunities for other people in his "extended family". Jeez, how misanthropic or selfish do you have to be for this to not make you happy?
  - t0mbstone 7y ago
    I never said I disapproved of him giving away his money. I just found it odd. Like, it doesn't make logical sense to me. But I also have a deep-rooted mistrust of most charities, since I have first-hand knowledge of how many of them mismanage their funds.

Matticus_Rex 7y ago

If you've parented well, you've given your kid a leg up whether you leave them money/property or not (though I intend to leave my children money/property). The connections they have from their father are likely non-negligible as well.

thefounder 7y ago

Maybe the other families had less than his kid. Have you thought about that? I'm pretty sure his kid has more than nothing. It wasn't sent to an orphanage to begin with. Having a good education and knowing the right people is often more valuable than some cash in the bank.

lifthearth 7y ago

He likely is protecting his children's children by denying them obscene wealth. The problem isn't with the first generation born into great wealth it is the 2nd or 3rd who are far removed from the origin and the ways of thinking that created it they tend to get all sorts of deluded worldviews that ultimately lead to their and their families ruin. I've seen stats that assert 70%-90% of wealthy families lose their fortune over 2 generations. Falling wealth levels is likely a much greater existential threat than being born into one and maintaining.

newsoul2019 7y ago
It seems that there are "interesting" ways that you could have a lot of wealth, but shield your children from the negative effects. For example, let's say you drove mostly older cars, teaching your kids to maintain and repair them themselves. Or let's say you lived in a huge house, but you don't have a cleaning crew - the family works together to clean the house on Sundays. Everyone fights, no one quits. If you made it your goal, you should be able to decouple "instill a serious work ethic" from "we own assets worth millions or billions"

ww520 7y ago

There are many things other than money that parents can give to children to ensure their survival - relationship, connection, power, status, good will, knowledge, education, wisdom, character, vision, etc. Money is just the medium for exchange. In this case the parent has exchanged the money with something intangible for his children, and as a last act, exchanged it for other intangibles. Edit: Also human has evolved to utilize social systems to further their survival and dominance. It's no good to have all the money in the world while the system itself crumbles. This dad has the foresight to use his money to ensure the system his offspring living in will survive and thrive. There's a saying, "no eggs can survive a fallen bird nest."