Slashdot Mirror
Google.org to Spend an Initial $1.1 Billion
conq writes "Google.org, the charitable branch of Google, has hired on Dr. Larry Brilliant to create a strategy for making a 'social impact.' According to the article: 'The network will focus its charitable endeavors on global poverty, energy, and the environment.' Brilliant outlines his goal: 'In 10 years, I'd like people to say Google changed the world less for its search engine than for the way in which it changed philanthropy to make the world a better place.'"
...not caving into the repressive, authoritarian Chinese government.
So is google.org going to start by shutting down or opening up google.cn?
Why is it that they're increasingly acting like Netscape these days? They're still a small company compared to Microsoft and they seem oblivious to the fact that Microsoft caught up to Netscape once Netscape started to lose focus. Become as big as Microsoft, then you can do things like this. $1.1B, even over ten years, is a lot of money that could be reinvested in the company to provide more jobs and grow the company. Again, Netscape seemed unbeatable but now is on the trash heap of history.
If they want to make a difference, how about investing money into good civics lessons in the countries wracked by violence. Teach them peaceful resolution of differences, undermine their tribal identities to create a unified national identity and teach them the value of working together in a way respectful of basic civil rights. That's why they get in this mess. Almost every time an African country manages a decent election, the opposition goes onto the warpath to try and take power. If they want to really shake things up, teach them the values that made America be able to unify and work together to become an industrial power. Until then, it's all a bunch of shiny things.
The problem for companies with ambitions of charity, even if they are global forces is that if
they want to help out people they must fight the enemies of ordinary people, governments.
It's never been clearer that the forces of superstition, darkness, oppression and control are pitched against the
forces of reason, freedom and expression as here at the start of the 21st Century. In many places in the world weak, spiteful, arrogant governments are very obviously picking their side.
I think if Google wishes to be recognised for humanist achievements one step along that road is going to
be relocating their headquarters outside the USA. Unless the USA returns to a civilised country at some point.
Set up a factory in a third world country to build:
Wheelbarrows
Handcarts
Bicycles
Water pumps (well and irrigation)
Ploughs
Seed drills
Hand tools
Evaporative refrigeration Jars
And better yet, also help set up a marketing/distribution co-op of just-above-subsistence farmers, and seed banks that also submit to some journal as "prior art" to prevent patents on indigenous varieties.
And set up education programs for urban gardening in the developing world and low-income areas of the developed world.
However, this is not to say that such endeavors are not worth doing. I'm all for big companies striving to make the world a better place.
/dev/random
How does philanthropy improve shareholder value?
No, I'm not a staunch capitalist. I don't really even invest much. But, if you play by the rules of capitalism, you die by those same rules. Unless this is being funded directly by the shareholder founders, then it's not clear this adds shareholder value, and therefore puts Google at risk.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
eliminate corruption, push for the rule of law. If there was a way to invest in these things, it would go a long way toward helping the third world.
I struggle between frustration (why do they take up arms instead of working politically) and pity (how can we expect political solutions, when the daily necessities are lacking). Africa is in a world of hurt, with AIDS, civil wars, famine, tyranny, and a seemingly endless list of ills, none of which is easily solvable. I have a friend who is involved in a project rescuing street children in Zimbabwe, and I can tell you that the situation is heart-wrenching if you think of it on a personal level (rather than just relegating the whole contentent to the category of "screwed-up Africa"). Sometimes it feels like the little we can do (or give) is a drop in the bucket against everything that's happening.
My take is that investing in entrepreneurial projects (micro loans and other local-level projects to encourage business ownership) is a good start. The rise of the middle class in Europe (and eventually in America) is one basis for our focus on things like the rule of law and property ownership that have helped foster a higher standard of living and a more stable society. However, it took us several hundred years to go from serfdom to democracy (and longer than that to get from the Magna Carta to the Constitution)... I'm afraid the "dark continent" is in for a long, painful slog.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Scratch that - Google should just ship $1 billion in fish-aid to the 3rd world.
Power to the Peaceful
You can democratically elect the rich and popular to tell you what you want to hear and systematically sell your ass into slavery or you can have a dictatorship of elite, generations old, who make no secret about the fact that, unless you belong to their social clique, you will be a corporate-state slave for the rest of your life.
You can have the blue pill or the red pill. America is currently a blue pill allowing you to live in blissful and supported ignorance. China would be a red pill where you only survive if you accept how crappy the system is and choose to work around it from the inside.
Democracy is truly overrated... unless you enjoy being a lemming.
Don't make me laugh. This country is hardly an example of stablism. We've been around for barely over 200 years, and it amuses me everytime someone thinks we should go "convert" another country to our preferred governmental system.
Historically, both Greek democracies and Roman republics were short-lived. These are just about our only other only other historic examples of such ruling systems. The longest-lived systems are more along the lines of emperial monarchies, whose lines can stretch for millenia.
If you believe that a "constitutionally-bound Republican government" will end suffering and poverty, I recommend you descend from your ivory tower and walk among the ghettos and homeless shelters of your local city sometime. That you visit some truly poor and struggling families. The belief that education and democracy will end the world's problems is stereotypically naive American thinking.
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
...not caving into the repressive, authoritarian Chinese government.
You know, the funny thing is that by "caving" as you say, Google will actually do more for the Chinese people than by not "caving".
How so?
Google has powerful search technology -Duh- but, when the Chinese search on google, and something is banned, instead of it not appearing, they will recieve a message that a page was blocked. This way, the Chinese people will know that the information is out there, but the government is blocking it.
If, as you suggest, Google does not move into China, and boycotts China, then some other search service will arise that blocks content as the government orders, and probably not even display that the contents were blocked, therefore, the 1984 style repressionism will be more effective because the people won't know that there is more information out there.
Boycotting China will not help the Chinese people in any way. Freedom has to come from within, and as more and more Chinese people get on the net, and as more and more learn that there is alternative information out there, they will begin to demand change. That is how democracy works, from within, not from some entity trying to force it from without.
If google did boycott China, then the Chinese would eventually try to go to google.com and see "Google.com Blocked by Governement" and have no available information at all. At least this way, they get SOMETHING.
I think that the Chinese people deserve to get SOMETHING in their searches as opposed to nothing.
However, if you would remove Google and help to opress the Chinese people even more, that is your choice.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
No offense, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You knock down a variety of strawmen to make a point that's wrong anyway.
Monarchies are inherently dictatorships because everyone must follow the rule of a single person. A monarchy does not just imply a dictatorship -- it requires one. The problem with them is that, while their may be a benevelent dictator or monarch for a generation or two, inevitably someone seizes or inherits power and then wields it for his own benefit and to the detriment of his citizens. Historically, free government and free speech lead to material wealth and improved living standards. There is no way to "end suffering and poverty" but there are ways to alleviate it for the vast majority of the population.
Your examples are terrible. Although homeless shelters do exist and not all people are equal in America (or other western countries), the poor of this country are considerably better off than even the rich of many third-world countries. Most American poor have TVs and cars; the poor of many other countries wonder where their next meal will come from.
Education and democracy will not end all the world's problems, but they will improve the overall well-being of the people. Of course, you elitist view has been argued throughout history. Those who impose it only cause greater suffering to their people. No one argues that different social classes develop in republics, but that doesn't mean that a republic isn't a superior form of government.
Become as big as Microsoft, then you can do things like this. $1.1B, even over ten years, is a lot of money that could be reinvested in the company to provide more jobs and grow the company.
Yes, oh what an odd thing to do, to give some of your riches to a charity, when you could use these monies to amass yet more capital! Truly, these are fools!
Almost every time an African country manages a decent election, the opposition goes onto the warpath to try and take power. If they want to really shake things up, teach them the values that made America be able to unify and work together to become an industrial power.
Those values would be... being a colony of the empire that comes up with the industrial revolution, using superior armament and biological weapons to nearly wipe out the indeginous population and then using a well thought-out propaganda machine to make sure your citizens never think about all that stuff and see their own history through a rose-tinted glass?
Not, obviously, to use disposable income to give back to those let fortunate. That's not a value you want.
Sigh. I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but I find your attitude appaling.
Someone says they want to help other people with their fortune, and you say "No! Be more like Microsoft!". I think I'm actually offended.
Hell, I'm surprised you can get modded up around here, making statements like that... I guess the nati-Gates brigade was distracted by a shiny new distro or something.
You can't take the sky from me...
Is the up modding it received, (currently at 5 insightful) and the lack of upmodding to the responses. Have you ever lived under a proper monarchy? Have you any idea besides what the legends of king arthur tell you what that entails? Speaking as someone from Ireland, not so long ago my country was the orginator of such terms as "scorched earth policy", "coffin ships", and "lynching". All because whatever inbred monkey that happened to be sitting on the metal chair took a fit and decided that was a good way to go this season.
You want to wake up, son. Monarchies are never meritocracies, the best does not rise to the top. The wealthy have their status codified and secured by law, enforced by the willing peons that were beggared by the noble classes themselves, but are too ill educated to see it, again due to the noble classes.
The longest-lived systems are more along the lines of emperial monarchies, whose lines can stretch for millenia
Good lord. You say this like its a good thing. The advances in science and living conditions made in primarily western nations that gave us what we have today were made when..? Thats right, in the last 200 years. Seeing the connection yet? Just because some thugs can settle into hereditary positions and bully the rest of the population for a few millenia with hired heavies doesn't make it smart or right. Still with me? Good lad. The longest lived systems are only stable from the top. And even then not very stable.
As I was saying, the scariest thing about this post is the agreement I see with it. Its like you americans have forgotten what it was like. Does anyone doubt that a lot of people in the US today would mind living under a monarchy? Yeesh.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Monarchies are inherently dictatorships because everyone must follow the rule of a single person. A monarchy does not just imply a dictatorship -- it requires one. The problem with them is that, while their may be a benevelent dictator or monarch for a generation or two, inevitably someone seizes or inherits power and then wields it for his own benefit and to the detriment of his citizens.
What is the difference between a single person grabbing and abusing power and a group taking advantage of a democratic system to impose their own "one and true" way? in the end, they both do it for the sake of their own benefit. And you are naive if you think that when a monarch is not backed up by a group of similar-thinking individuals.
It is hypocricy for our society to pretend that our way is the one and true way, and at the same time blaming others about fascism and monarchy. I never understood why are we so obsessed in bringing our way of life to others. Do they want theocracy? that's fine by me. It is their problem, not ours. Which leads me to believe that the real reasons for wanting to impose our belief system on others is that there is a set of economical, political, industrial and military interests behind this that do not really care about the government system, as long as they can succeed in what they want.