I often ask why can't there be some really rich billionaire types who are progressive, atheist, anti religionists, pro science, who could promote these issues with their money, and help make an impact on the world, and give encouragement to those of us on that side of the fence. All they ever do is look to make more billions that they don't need, certainly don't want, almost certainly cannot spend, and frankly shouldn't have. Am I being foolish to suggest this as such a person would be a contradictory impossibility? Anyone know of any super rich bods who even slightly fall into this category? I bloody don't. Elon Musk seems forward looking, but I think it's mainly about money. And please, let no one mention Bill Gates. There's a guy who looks after number 1 and his rich buddies.
There's the "Unholy Trinity" but they are not super rich. These men are Aron Ra, Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews. Again they are nowhere near the billionaires that seem to rule our world but they do have clout. Aron protested the Ark Encounter that was built by Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham). There's more to wealth than sheer numbers.
Oh, the irony; reading this post on a free, altruistic website.
Actually there are some. There are some companies that are employee owned for example. Or at least pay quite well with active shares in the company. There are some that speak out about wanting to increase their own taxes for the better of society. They are out there. This is one of the things I often bring up in my attempt to draw people into the green party. With the managed perception the green party can't win, I offer what we did to take Sanders to the top of the Primary cycle. In the same manor we can take the green party to begin winning across the nation. Once you establish to these types of business people that the people are ready to move to a real progressive nature of politics, they will help to fill in the voids and even possibly run for office also. You're just not going to hear or see much of these people from your politicians or main stream media. The establishment and deep state doesn't want you to know they are out there! Unless you pull yourself away from total MSM and the illusion they sell you, searching out alternative news sources will you find the truth.
I don't know a single one billionaire, i know some rich people who live in gated communities, they give some, but I do know people of modest means that gives a lot more to support others. Maybe having wealth, falls under another 'attachment syndrome?'
George Soros, a multi billionaire, has devoted himself to progressive causes around the world. This has brought him many powerful enemies who malign him and distort his history.
Leonardo DiCaprio has donated huge funds for the environment and preserving of animals.
Kevin Costner invested 2 million in a device that cleans up oceans after an oil spill. It has been used successfully in the Caribbean.
This is an interesting question.
J.K. Rowling pays her taxes without a whimper and has given $160 million to charity. There are others, they just don't make a song and dance about it.
Rowling, incidentally, is the only person to have made it onto the Forbes "Rich List" of the top 100 wealthiest people and then dropped off it again due to charitable donations.
I'm curious...why do say that Bill Gates only looks after himself and his rich buddies? From all that I've seen, he goes out of his way to better the lives of those who needs help the most. E.g. his on-going efforts to rid the world of Malaria.
EDIT:I'm genuinely interested in reading material that counters my view of Bill and Malinda Gates (and Warren Buffet). "Bill Gates scandals" on Google didn't produce any substantial results.
I am particularly at odds with the Gates for their ignorant support of GMO's, especially in Africa. It looks to me like do-gooders doing great harm.
@think-beyond What harm would that be? Supporting science to give more people access to safe, drought-and-pest-resistant food? How horrific.
@think-beyond it is a pity, I think, the misconceived ideas against GMOs. I think the focus against GMOs should be against big corporations owning the IP for GMOs rather than the a food being a GMO.
I mean, we've been modifying our foods since even before Jesus. See what a wild banana looks like compared the banana that we eat.
@IntellectualRN Yeah, for me the use of GMOs is justifiable as long as there are no tie-ins with pesticide companies or where farmers are forced into crippling contracts which end up doing them harm. But certainly GMO has come in for a lot of bad press - some of it valid but much of it unjustified.
@Jerome Hahaha! Ok...I came up with a Snopes article that debunks that claim that Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world with vaccines: "...In other words, Gates is not interested in using vaccines to reduce the population by using them as an agent of death or a tool to sterilize unsuspecting masses. Rather, Gates is interested in keeping more children alive in order to reduce the need for parents to have more children, thus limiting the overall population growth rate...."
Then from this next website, the quote: "...Gates is on the record saying that vaccines might help reduce the population by as much as 15 percent. Among Bill Gates’ efforts to eradicate humans from this planet:..":
O.M.G.
Sorry, but I like my science news to be free of loaded statements like: "...Bill Gates has joined forces with Monsanto and George Soros to achieve a global depopulation / sterilization agenda...."
Let's say you had $60 billion to get rid of how would you do it? What requirements would you expect from the people you are giving it to? What requirements would you insist on for the people they are claiming to be helping? Would you insist on them to account for every dollar they spend? Would you require work and results to be shown? Would you require said goals to be met? What would these goals be? If jobs are to be created, how many and to whom? If a cure for cancer was the goal how long would you wait for that cure? Would you retain the rights and charge a zillion dollars for the cure?
There really are many very wealthy people and foundations set up to do just that. Most larger companies have divisions that are trying to give away large sums of money to "WORTHWHILE" causes. The very real problem is it's very difficult to find honest people to "trust" that money to. Try to name any organization that does what it claims it does without spending boatloads of money on themselves.
If a person does a service, you then might repay them with goods equal to the service they provide. We replace these goods with money to make a standard. So a person who does a service now recieves the equivalent of those goods in the form of currency, which that person then proceeds to use that money to gain goods he/she wants/needs. If that person has more money than they need did they steal it? Or provide more for society than the worth of goods they need. Altruism is honorable because it's undeserved, not because it is required. The universe nor it's participants owe anyone anything. If you want something make it happen, if someone does it for you, be grateful, but if you don't do it, it may never happen.
We all look out for #1. I'd like to think that if I was that rich I'd be more giving than most, but I don't have any difinative data to prove that.