9 ms·
I think the hidden danger in this model, which I think about a lot, is that doing philanthropy is shown as an activity you can’t afford to do until you are very
by sixdimensional 7y ago
I think the hidden danger in this model, which I think about a lot, is that doing philanthropy is shown as an activity you can’t afford to do until you are very wealthy.
The trick is to do good for the world long, long before then. You shouldn’t need to be wealthy to volunteer a few hours a month..
Before anyone judges me negatively, I say this as someone who has spent the vast majority of my lifetime trying to “climb a ladder” only to want to get to a point where I can give my resources away for free to help others. But I have never figured out how, and then one day it just struck me, why can’t I jump to level 6 now without the money, and maybe that might just be what’s wrong with the money driven world somehow, or at least my understanding of it.
I feel like if I could understand how to not care/worry about the money then I could free up the mind and energy to do something better for the world, and I want to.
And then I realize the counterpoint that we have to work within the rules of the system, too, and the system is much more cruel and demanding than I wish it was.
- hirako2000 7y agoI think you got it! The is a paradox in 'climbing the ladder' and giving away financial resources. Simply because, in the competitive market, you aggregate resources by taking it from others. Either competitors or random individuals. Philanthropy should start giving away those resources to the actors most in need, and they may be very close to your activities, but then you can't aggregate and climb up. The market doesn't have sympathy, and lack of resources can be devastating during tough times. Don't climb the ladder. Who cares.
- nradov 7y agoIf you don't have money, you can contribute time.