I’m pretty sure we’ve hit peak absurdity. I recently read about a climate author “investigating how shade can be a powerful civic resource to protect us from climate change.” Shade! This from the announcement of a new “climate cohort” at a well-regarded philanthropy. It reveals a flaw in capitalism.
Not a single scientist can be found in the climate cohort—why bother?—but instead authors, educators, designers, a poet and, hmmm, a chef. There is a “data ecologist,” but that almost sounds made up. Reading further, apparently the lack of shade is racist and a product of inequality. Of course it is.
Hey look, the wealthy can do what they like with their money—often paradoxically amassed by delivering productivity-enhancing products. I’ve noted before that there are only four things you can do with your money: spend it, pay taxes, invest it or give it away. The flaw in capitalism is that only one of these helps the world in the long term.
In the short term, spending is great for the economy, but it’s hard to blow a billion dollars at Costco or buy 3,000 Lamborghinis. Paying taxes funnels money to unproductive government spending and should be kept to a minimum. Even investing has turned absurd: An Oklahoma City brand designer prompted ChatGPT: “You have $100, and your goal is to turn that into as much money as possible in the shortest time possible, without doing anything illegal.” ChatGPT instructed him to launch “Green Gadget Guru” and promote “eco-friendly gadgets and sustainable living.” Climate is lucrative!
Anyway, of the four, philanthropy is the most misunderstood. Yes, many philanthropies do great stuff, especially on a local level. And it sure feels good for the giver. We all get that warm fuzzy feeling—a psychic reward—when we donate to causes. Help your fellow human. Fund schools. Gild the opera. But does that giving do any lasting good? Sadly, only sometimes.
Andrew Carnegie funded libraries.
