4 ms·

I find this take on him so strange. I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum. i.e. true altruism means that I lose someth

I find this take on him so strange. I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum. i.e. true altruism means that I lose something and you gain something. Maybe it is a hold over from religion and the idea of sacrifice being the ultimate good. The times I have had the most impact (helping people in need, teaching, starting my own NPO) it has been very much positive sum. If he has zero impact, then everyone else here has negative impact. I certainly haven't cleaned up an entire beach. Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive?

batmaniam 3y ago
> Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive? Richard Stallman and his work on free software? I think what OP is saying is that at Mr Beast's income level, he can effectively create a lasting change that most of us can't. Instead he focuses on people individually, giving them nice gestures but nothing life-changing, and he continues to do this because his viewers demand these types of low-scale altruism. So effectively he's just an entertainer that earns his salary by doing small acts of kindness, nothing more. It's like the old proverb in a way: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But teach him to fish, and you feed him for life". Mr Beast is just giving people fish for a day, but it doesn't help anyone after that one chance encounter with him.
- moomoo11 3y ago
  So the 1000 people who can see now or hear “got one fish for a day”? Come on bro. It should be up to society to ensure the health check doesn’t return just 200 OK but that everything else that makes that 200 OK possible is also actually fine. MrBeast is an entertainer who happens to make a brand by doing stuff that does some impactful thing. More than most people. Now those 2000 people who can see and hear.. maybe they have a new chance at life. Even if 1% of them become mega successful that’s 1-20 people who will go on to impact more than 2000 people EACH. And they can tell people MrBeast was the reason.
  - batmaniam 3y ago
    Right, that's on the individual level. You and I can donate to a medical organization that helps people 'see and hear' too. Or fund a go-fund-me to help that person. It's great that person got immediate access to the healthcare they needed with this money. We can do basically what Mr Beast does right now if we pooled our resources together. The bigger issue is why that healthcare is inaccessible to them in the first place? How do you or I go about solving this? How are you and I gonna bring this attention to Congress, and get their asses to work on that issue? Unless we both quit our careers to go into politics, it's not really possible for a random no-name person to make that change for the greater population. How about the other 10k people who can't see or hear? What about them? If I had Mr Beast's financial or influence level, the next step I would be doing is wondering why those 1k or 2k people didn't get their healthcare and then trying to patch that. We all know how much of a scam our current system is. Once that's patched, everyone gets to eat for life, not just a single batch of 1k people in my lifetime. Individual contributions are great and welcomed, but temporary. Societal change is where things get real. Cmon bro. It's why we have 40 hour work weeks, why women can vote and get college education, why lgbt community is accepted. And it's not like individual contributions and making society change are mutually exclusive... So what' stopping Mr Beast from going to that next step?
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      What is Mr Beast's net worth? Maybe somewhere between $100M and $500M. There are at least 1000 people in the US right now, probably far more, who have just as much money or influence as him. What's stopping all of them from going to that next step?
      - batmaniam 3y ago
        Exactly. What's stopping them? Nothing, right? They've got all the money they'll ever need, and powerful friends if they need something money can't buy. Yet like you said, what's being done to fix structural issues within society? The only structural changes I see are wealth disparities getting increasingly wider in society, with laws and tax cuts being favored for the ultra rich after each new presidential leadership. Who's putting the work into this? Not me, and probably not you. So who? They for sure donate to make-a-wish foundations or whatever, which is great. But think of it this way: how does that help you or your kids when cost-prohibitive life-saving surgery is needed? Are you gonna quit your job and camp out near a rich youtuber's house to get that lucky chance encounter in the hopes you'll get picked for the next individual success?
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  > Richard Stallman and his work on free software? I think "philanthropy" in the sense GP meant it specifically means donating money, so Richard Stallman's work wouldn't qualify.
- kaba0 3y ago
  > Richard Stallman and his work on free software There are no more controversial example than him.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  Does philanthropy have to be utilitarian? In the sense that if you donate money your only goal should be scale? Is that the definition? Which one is better, donating $1 to 100,000 people or $100,000 to one person? Similarly is donating $10,000 to cancer research better than $10,000 to one person? The cancer research may never have an impact, but it makes us "feel" good becasue it has the potential to change millions of lives. Just an interesting one to me how we diminish the impact of helping one person when that one person could go on to be a Steve Jobs or the first person in the family to go to college. Literally life changing, where as donating for scale is a drop in the ocean and means almost nothing to a ton of people.
- imgabe 3y ago
  Nothing life changing? Didn't he help blind people get medical treatment that restored their sight? That sounds pretty life changing to me.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  This is insane. The guy took 1000 blind people and made them see again and in return he made more money to continue doing more good. There's giving a man a fish and then there's giving people their vision back, far out.
- aforwardslash 3y ago
  > Richard Stallman and his work on free software? Quick nitpick: if you think RMS haven't milked the "free software" cow enough, you're probably delusional. Its basically his lifestyle.
daed 3y ago
> I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition. Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks for that. If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting I don't think I see altruism as a super positive thing. Turns into "he gave up his last dollar for that person!" which is seen as a super altruistic thing to do, but now, not only does that person only have a dollar, you've taken yourself out of the game and can no longer do any more good in the world because you don't have any resources left.
  - nkozyra 3y ago
    > If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting One doesn't preclude the other. But if my benefit is a pre-requisite for the benefit of others, it changes the dynamic. Would Mr. Beast continue these acts if he weren't also turning it into content? I'm sure everyone has an opinion, but I'm not particularly convinced. I suppose what makes it hard to be skeptical here is there is real "good" being applied here, but the motivations behind them are important, too.
    - motoxpro 3y ago
      I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue. I give you 30 grand or cure your blindness or buy you a house and you participate in my video. It seems like a win win. If the argument is that he is making more than they are making off that one video, again, that goes back to me having benefit less than you. Maybe the problem is the framing people have of it being a charity? Even in that light, he creates content for people to consume for free, the content is driven by him giving things away, the people who pay him are businesses who also get a service provided by all of those people finding out about their product/service. It seems a lot less extractive than most business models.
butitsFake 3y ago
[flagged]
goodpoint 3y ago
> Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive? Shocking question, but here's an answer: millions of non-billionaires who donate some money to [good] charities. You never hear from them because they don't go around bragging about their donations.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  So is the problem that he has a lot of money or that he is telling people about it? If the former, it goes back to my point about good being about sacrifice and pain. I.e. me giving 10,000 is better than bezos giving 10,000. If the latter, the charities they donate to are all talking very loudly about what they are doing. That is literally their job is to bring awareness to a cause and fundraise. They brag about their donations in that they tell you all the good that they have been able to accomplish. I asked the question because I’m trying to understand the dissonance people feel with him that they don’t feel with what I just outlined.

batmaniam 3y ago

> Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive? Richard Stallman and his work on free software? I think what OP is saying is that at Mr Beast's income level, he can effectively create a lasting change that most of us can't. Instead he focuses on people individually, giving them nice gestures but nothing life-changing, and he continues to do this because his viewers demand these types of low-scale altruism. So effectively he's just an entertainer that earns his salary by doing small acts of kindness, nothing more. It's like the old proverb in a way: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But teach him to fish, and you feed him for life". Mr Beast is just giving people fish for a day, but it doesn't help anyone after that one chance encounter with him.

moomoo11 3y ago
So the 1000 people who can see now or hear “got one fish for a day”? Come on bro. It should be up to society to ensure the health check doesn’t return just 200 OK but that everything else that makes that 200 OK possible is also actually fine. MrBeast is an entertainer who happens to make a brand by doing stuff that does some impactful thing. More than most people. Now those 2000 people who can see and hear.. maybe they have a new chance at life. Even if 1% of them become mega successful that’s 1-20 people who will go on to impact more than 2000 people EACH. And they can tell people MrBeast was the reason.
- batmaniam 3y ago
  Right, that's on the individual level. You and I can donate to a medical organization that helps people 'see and hear' too. Or fund a go-fund-me to help that person. It's great that person got immediate access to the healthcare they needed with this money. We can do basically what Mr Beast does right now if we pooled our resources together. The bigger issue is why that healthcare is inaccessible to them in the first place? How do you or I go about solving this? How are you and I gonna bring this attention to Congress, and get their asses to work on that issue? Unless we both quit our careers to go into politics, it's not really possible for a random no-name person to make that change for the greater population. How about the other 10k people who can't see or hear? What about them? If I had Mr Beast's financial or influence level, the next step I would be doing is wondering why those 1k or 2k people didn't get their healthcare and then trying to patch that. We all know how much of a scam our current system is. Once that's patched, everyone gets to eat for life, not just a single batch of 1k people in my lifetime. Individual contributions are great and welcomed, but temporary. Societal change is where things get real. Cmon bro. It's why we have 40 hour work weeks, why women can vote and get college education, why lgbt community is accepted. And it's not like individual contributions and making society change are mutually exclusive... So what' stopping Mr Beast from going to that next step?
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    What is Mr Beast's net worth? Maybe somewhere between $100M and $500M. There are at least 1000 people in the US right now, probably far more, who have just as much money or influence as him. What's stopping all of them from going to that next step?
    - batmaniam 3y ago
      Exactly. What's stopping them? Nothing, right? They've got all the money they'll ever need, and powerful friends if they need something money can't buy. Yet like you said, what's being done to fix structural issues within society? The only structural changes I see are wealth disparities getting increasingly wider in society, with laws and tax cuts being favored for the ultra rich after each new presidential leadership. Who's putting the work into this? Not me, and probably not you. So who? They for sure donate to make-a-wish foundations or whatever, which is great. But think of it this way: how does that help you or your kids when cost-prohibitive life-saving surgery is needed? Are you gonna quit your job and camp out near a rich youtuber's house to get that lucky chance encounter in the hopes you'll get picked for the next individual success?
jakelazaroff 3y ago
> Richard Stallman and his work on free software? I think "philanthropy" in the sense GP meant it specifically means donating money, so Richard Stallman's work wouldn't qualify.
kaba0 3y ago
> Richard Stallman and his work on free software There are no more controversial example than him.
motoxpro 3y ago
Does philanthropy have to be utilitarian? In the sense that if you donate money your only goal should be scale? Is that the definition? Which one is better, donating $1 to 100,000 people or $100,000 to one person? Similarly is donating $10,000 to cancer research better than $10,000 to one person? The cancer research may never have an impact, but it makes us "feel" good becasue it has the potential to change millions of lives. Just an interesting one to me how we diminish the impact of helping one person when that one person could go on to be a Steve Jobs or the first person in the family to go to college. Literally life changing, where as donating for scale is a drop in the ocean and means almost nothing to a ton of people.
imgabe 3y ago
Nothing life changing? Didn't he help blind people get medical treatment that restored their sight? That sounds pretty life changing to me.
NoPicklez 3y ago
This is insane. The guy took 1000 blind people and made them see again and in return he made more money to continue doing more good. There's giving a man a fish and then there's giving people their vision back, far out.
aforwardslash 3y ago
> Richard Stallman and his work on free software? Quick nitpick: if you think RMS haven't milked the "free software" cow enough, you're probably delusional. Its basically his lifestyle.

daed 3y ago

> I also don't understand the take that altruism/philanthropy has to be zero sum https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition. Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.

motoxpro 3y ago
That makes sense. Thanks for that. If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting I don't think I see altruism as a super positive thing. Turns into "he gave up his last dollar for that person!" which is seen as a super altruistic thing to do, but now, not only does that person only have a dollar, you've taken yourself out of the game and can no longer do any more good in the world because you don't have any resources left.
- nkozyra 3y ago
  > If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting One doesn't preclude the other. But if my benefit is a pre-requisite for the benefit of others, it changes the dynamic. Would Mr. Beast continue these acts if he weren't also turning it into content? I'm sure everyone has an opinion, but I'm not particularly convinced. I suppose what makes it hard to be skeptical here is there is real "good" being applied here, but the motivations behind them are important, too.
  - motoxpro 3y ago
    I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue. I give you 30 grand or cure your blindness or buy you a house and you participate in my video. It seems like a win win. If the argument is that he is making more than they are making off that one video, again, that goes back to me having benefit less than you. Maybe the problem is the framing people have of it being a charity? Even in that light, he creates content for people to consume for free, the content is driven by him giving things away, the people who pay him are businesses who also get a service provided by all of those people finding out about their product/service. It seems a lot less extractive than most business models.

butitsFake 3y ago

[flagged]

goodpoint 3y ago

> Can someone give me some examples of philanthropy that is NOT predatory/extractive? Shocking question, but here's an answer: millions of non-billionaires who donate some money to [good] charities. You never hear from them because they don't go around bragging about their donations.

motoxpro 3y ago
So is the problem that he has a lot of money or that he is telling people about it? If the former, it goes back to my point about good being about sacrifice and pain. I.e. me giving 10,000 is better than bezos giving 10,000. If the latter, the charities they donate to are all talking very loudly about what they are doing. That is literally their job is to bring awareness to a cause and fundraise. They brag about their donations in that they tell you all the good that they have been able to accomplish. I asked the question because I’m trying to understand the dissonance people feel with him that they don’t feel with what I just outlined.