2 ms·
Brin is unloading resources into ailments most likely to affect him. It's an understandable strategy, though also self serving. They could instead aspire to h
by metadat 4y ago
Brin is unloading resources into ailments most likely to affect him.
It's an understandable strategy, though also self serving. They could instead aspire to have the largest possible positive impact across all of humanity. This is the basis for the argument that it's not right for any single human to be entrusted with such a disproportionately high amount of discretionary resources.
- anm89 4y agoWhat a terrible person, selfishly trying to spend their own money to address problems important to them. Again, real piece of shit.
- metadat 4y agoDid you really delete your downvoted comment from another post in this thread and affix it here? Gee, thanks, I'm flattered. Edit: My mistake, you posted a nearly identical comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34376436 So sorry for the confusion! Thank you for ensuring the mark of anm89 is uniformly applied.
- anm89 4y agoThis doesn't even make sense. This comment is clearly a response to your parent comment. How could my response to your comment have been in another thread if your parent comment wasn't in the other thread? I'm honestly curious as to what other thread you think I deleted something off.
- mistermann 4y agoHyperbole can be both helpful and detrimental to the quality of one's thinking.
- woodruffw 4y agoI don't think the person you're replying to said that. If I had to characterize it: giving money to charitable causes that benefit you indicates a heternomous will, which in turn voids the act of any moral value. It might be beneficial to society for Brin to plow his money into Parkinson's research, but he gets no particular praise (or fault) for doing a thing that benefits him.
- aliswe 4y agoSo communism?
- kthejoker2 4y agoAt least communism is run by a committee. Who does Brin answer to? And why the false dichotomy that we must choose our masters at all? We certainly have the bureaucratic capabilities to redistribute extreme wealth without a guillotine or Molotov in sight. If half of this fund went into the hands of the homeless or food relief for Ukraine, would you say it was any less well invested? We are frogs, boiling in a world of superyachts and vanity funds. We can do better.