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.'"
Capitalism also implies that you're free to do what you wish with your capital. Google has already specified in their prospectus that philanthropy is one of those things it wishes to do with its capital. Constantly increasing shareholder value is usually assumed to be the only purpose of a corporation, but there can be others. Every shareholder of Google is aware of this and concedes to it by means of choosing to own their Google stock up to and including today.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
People keep on dismissing Gates' donations by saying all of the money microsoft makes is from breaking the law, or unethical practices. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only "illegal" activities that have even come close to sticking to microsoft are their actions in relation to IE and windows media player.. both of which are free, and compete against free alternatives.
Microsoft makes a very substantial portion of their income from Office, and the fact is that Office is the best office suite available.
I am no microsoft fanboy (I use macs exclusively) but the constant dismissal of Gates' philanthopy is really pathetic
When I was in Madagascar, one thing I noticed is that homemade carts were one of the major ways goods were moved. But the Malagasy lack the skills to build decent wheels, so you'd see these cockeyed contraptions made of rebar, or else scavenged sets of ball bearings used as tiny wheels. Better wheels for handcarts, dollies and bicycles would improve the economy by allowing people to transport their goods within and between towns faster, further, and with less effort. I suspect that this kind of simple, practical technology would do much to improve the average person's life. Likewise, better and cheaper tools such as machetes, knives, hammers and shovels would do a lot to help farmers produce more with less input of money and effort. My basic take on the country is that a nationwide crash-course in Shop 101 might do a lot more good than CS 101; then we can worry about the computers.
How to accomplish this is arguable. The easiest and most cost-effective thing to do might be start out at the level of training craftsmen and setting up workshops, rather than large-scale factories. Small towns in Madagascar don't need a full-scale wheel factory, but they could use a couple craftsmen who know how to make wooden wheels the old fashioned way, and some good blacksmiths, or some small shops equipped with lathes and drill presses, with a few guys who know how to use them.
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.