Bill Gates calls Elon Musk’s embrace of far-right politicians abroad ‘insane shit’
-
I think he is dedicated, dangerous and awful. I just don't think he is smart. I've known people who achieved wealth, started successful businesses etc. They had domain expertise and ambition. But they also neglected and fucked up other critical aspects of their lives (like their relationships with partners and kids). I didn't consider them to be smart. In my mind, smart implies a well roundedness, and the capacity for self reflection, and empathy. Musk just has the personality traits, and family wealth, to enable him to "succeed" in our current society.
-
-
-
Yes. I don't want to judge people by who they were four decades ago, but who they have become. I believe that every human has the potential to grow and learn.
Mind you, I'm not saying Mr. Gates is an angel now, or shouldn't be judged. But I'd rather base ma judgement on the person he is now that on the person he was long ago.
-
-
Maybe it's no coincidence that Twitter has been pushing all the "Bill Gates Microchip Vaccines" lunatics over the last few years, in order to discredit a rival.
-
Not shocking to hear, he’s a scumbag at heart. But now if you say that people will be like “uhhh how can you say that he’s donated so much money”
Then when you point out he’s donated literally 0% of his overall current net worth, his past (and current, apparently) behavior has arguably as much humanity if not more than he has offset, etc you’ll get whataboutism. “What have you done??”
I don’t want philanthropy to be contingent on the whims of billionaires. Gates has done a lot but it still has major issues, there is no real transparency, and it’s still authoritatively controlled because he has a great deal of influence over his foundation. The even bigger issue is that he is by far the exception. Other billionaires donate minimally only to maximize tax benefits and only to issues they have been personally impacted by.
The other day I was with people who were watching a football game. The eagles won and I asked why the owner gets to speak first at the trophy ceremony, let alone at all, given it was the teams effort. This led to a whole discussion but one thing that came up was how he donates so much money to autism research because he has a grandson with autism. This was meant to appeal to me because I have a background working in autism research and I work with people with autism a lot.
all I could think is “how fucked up is it that we have to hope that an obscenely rich person personally experiences the issue for them to decide to bequeath funding?” This inherently means that things with a much higher rate of prevalence, like autism (1 in 36, roughly) or dementia (prevalence varies widely by age range (2% to 13%) but ~10 million cases per year), will get tons of money. But what about far less common things? I’ve worked with people who have extremely rare conditions. Angelmans syndrome, prader willi, chromosomal deletions, (rates of 1-2 per 10,000) or extremely rare things like hellers syndrome (rates of 1-2 per 100,000).
This is why we fund things like NIMH, so that money can be fairly dispersed to ensure that all things are researched. Teams of people research what needs to be researched. This isn’t even just about equity; sometimes researching lesser known disorders leads to discoveries that are applicable in a broader context
But instead we let a few oligarchs hoard money. Most of them don’t bother to fund this stuff at all and they few that do only bother to do so when it’s something personally relevant to them. We have no say in the matter.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not American, and I don't place much value on enormous wealth accumulation. I'm just acknowledging that there is a difference between gaining enormous wealth with a hefty leg up from family wealth versus doing it from scratch, like growing up in poverty for example.
-
You can't get that amount of money without exploitation. If you start from 0 it just means you have to actually work for it but end result is still the same.
-
-
Yeah, he cares so much about “polio” and hiv which is fine and all, but he is trying to justify Trump ffs, who is, and was, a covid denier! Calling out musk is the bare minimum, and its just so crazy that nobody has done so yet
-
Do what? Governments need to do more.
You're saying Bill Gates should meddle in international affairs to stop Musk?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I would call 2020 close enough to today to call it the modern era. So he IS being judged for who he's recently shown himself to be
-
Of course there are things he should be criticised for. You bring up one example here.
An example with a body count exceeding that of almost all other people on earth. That's worthy if far more than just "criticism".
If he had been poor and responsible for the same number of avoidable deaths, he would be rightly considered one of history's greatest monsters.
What I am saying is, that you should not judge him on what he did four decades ago, but how he is acting today.
And today he's acting like a goddamn monster who values property and profits over thousands if not millions of human lives. That's what I'm judging him for today.
