I think a shift from apparently grotesque capitalist of the worst sort (embrace-extend-extinguish, FUD, anti-competitive practices, abuse of monopoly and on and on) to a philanthropist of a decent middle-ground sort who still extends his power through philanthropy (such as working to be in the position to dictate education policy and education-related technology through Foundation funding — despite not deserving any say in that field) merits at best a form of respect that remains less than "utter".
Correct. Don't get me wrong, I 100% respect and appreciate what he is doing, not just by giving but also actively engaging in educating the American public about important issues they wouldn't be aware of otherwise. But in being charitable later in life, he is kinda following in the footsteps of people like Carnegie (gave a ton to CMU) and Rockefeller (gave to many places but UChicago is probably the most famous).
Yes, the Carnegie and Rockefeller comparisons apply well. The point is that you should have less than 100% respect and appreciation if you recognize that some of what the Gates Foundation is doing may very well be the promotion of BAD directions in public education… (among other things). I'm not sure enough to conclude, but I think the direction in education that the Gates Foundation promotes may be negative. At any rate, there's no basis besides wealth that Gates should have any influence in our educational system.
Whoa. What "bad directions" are you referring to? If you are going to make accusatory claims, do be specific.
Bill Gates is a luminary who created the largest software development company known to man. I will give him the respect to hear him out about any subject he feels he can contribute in.
If you think that Microsoft being the largest software company is proof in itself that Gates should be listened to on any subject other than building large businesses or technology related to his expertise, I think you're being intellectually reckless.
Microsoft's impact on the world has been overall negative in my view compared to the likely counterfactual of a world-without-Microsoft, but that's too speculative to get into. It's undeniable that Microsoft got big more on the effectiveness of how it played the game of business within our social/corporate/government/market system than on the quality of the products.
The only bad direction I can really think of in public education is teaching things that are not based in fact (ie, creationism), I'm not sure what bad directions OP is referring to but my guess is they would relate to things most of us would actually consider to be very good.
What a crazy jump. You would guess I'm a creationist or want some other sort of similarly bad mis-education?? Why would you automatically assume that whatever the Gates Foundation is funding, it must be the best education? I suppose if you can't think of any bad direction besides creationism, you must be someone who never thinks much about education.
Education isn't just a matter of what information is presented, it's about how it's presented and all the complex issues around that.
The point is that there's real complaints from actual educators about the views on education that Gates Foundation promotes, including the whole overemphasis on testing and more… I'm not certain of all the details, but for an example:
No worries, I should have been more specific initially.
But if Gates was just doing everything great for education, we can still question the concept that wealthy business owners have the power to influence things like science and education. This is one of the more subtle yet still troubling aspects of wealth inequity (of the capitalist sort in this case).
I grew up in Seattle. I remember my mother constantly complaining that Gates was always trying to drive public school policy but in the end sent his kids to private school. It does seem like a breed of hypocrisy to claim how good your education program is, but you won't put your own skin in the game. Also makes you feel like a guinea pig.
This logic is very flawed IMO. You can aspire to make changes without having to change personal choices and opinions. e.g. developed countries provide aid and assistance to developing countries all the time, would you suggest they deliberately reduce their standard of living and erode their institutions to not appear "hypocritical".
There is a good documentary by the name Poverty, Inc that explores the west's approach to foreign aid. It is currently on USA Netflix if you have that. It convinces me that our current approach to foreign aid is flawed. In most cases it hurts more than it helps.
I do wonder if not having anything on the line contributes to our blind spots in this area. If something doesn't affect us, it takes much longer to realize when things have gone very wrong.
Sure, someone who says "Do as I say, not as I do" can have good advice, but at the end of a day, a doctor who wont take his own medicine is suspect in my mind.
Although in this day and age it seems to be one of the very few ways one individual can make a difference. It saddens me, but probably easier for a man to take advantage of the system and become absurdly wealthy in order to do good for the world than it is for that man to change the system itself :/
