How much good do do-gooders do?
Two people come to mind: Bill Gates and John Kerry.
Before I start, I’ll tell you that I don’t know either man, so I have no way of knowing whether or not either is the most altruistic human since Mother Teresa. Each might be. And yet…
Gates has a nonprofit called Gates AgOne. Its upfront purpose is helping farmers in developing countries access Agri-Tech to improve farming tools, maximize yields, and adapt their farming to changes in climate. Gates also owns farmland in 19 states, the largest of his holdings covering 69,963 acres in Louisiana. Not a bad idea to own farms because, believe it or not, humans eat. Now, I’m not suggesting that Gates’s reason for buying farmland is control over the masses—though that is a possibility if he isn’t Mother Teresa incarnate (sorry, vegans, for the carnivore cognate—but I will suggest that a good way to make money in a world of growing populations is to control food—and actually, control not just the amount of food available, but also the kind of food people eat. That latest push to have more people eat bugs is an example (with no offense to South Asians who savor a rice bug now and then).
I have no doubt that Gates, one of the world’s richest, sees an economic gain in Agri-Tech. New seeds. New farming practices. Greater yields, the goal of farmers for 10,000 years. More money in a world with more mouths. And, of course, a planet saved from that wasteful human species that is “destroying the climate” and poisoning all life with agri-chemicals. Noble enterprises all! Bill Gates is an example of the do-gooder on steroids. Nevertheless, some poor farmers will benefit from the work of Gates AgOne while he diversifies his income.
Forgive my suspicious character, please, but his foundation’s title gives me pause. One, as in AgOne? Does that imply “first,” “inclusive,” or both? If you know me by my writings, you’ll know that I have concerns about unity. And those concerns go way back to my reading about Heraclitus’ Pyr Aeizoon, the Eternal Fire, and to other such “Ones” perceived by the early philosophers struggling with diversity and unity. I’m more a chaos guy at heart. Rather than impose a unity—or equity in today’s fashionable vernacular—I favor enterprise and creativity, both of which die in Oneness (or Unity) and often lead to failures. Unlike Heraclitus’ Eternal Fire into which we all go and from which we all emerge, I prefer some randomness, because it gives me the power, if I choose, to make my own world, my own cosmos, my own Order. Or, it allows me room to discover natural order hidden in the apparent randomness that is life on Earth or to add onto that which has already been discovered. I keep in mind that Newton spoke of standing on the shoulders of those who went before. So, farming? * Yes, it has been subject to improvements imposed from a centralized organization and acquired knowledge and practice, but in undergoing such improvements subject to the Central Guide farmers are also subject to failures on the largest scales and also to sameness that dismisses ethnic diversity. What if, for example, a central authority bans a crop favored by indigenous people?
What if Bill acquires all the farmland in America, and what if, just what if, Bill decides to impose a diet of his choosing and to his liking on the rest of us? Does that Oneness not frighten you? Those who eat grains are already locked into limited genetic varieties of corn, wheat, oats, and barley. Just what if, in the name of unity, farmers plant a single variety of any of those crops in the service of Unity? We all know what the potato bug did to the Irish. We all know what the Mediterranean fruit fly did to California farms. We’ve all seen the swarms of locusts darken the skies in African countries as they consume the crops of the poor.
So, though Gates might have the noblest intentions, that he can control so much should give us all pause by that Oneness. And the same might be said of John Kerry’s efforts to eliminate emissions of carbon from world energy production.
Am I just upset that I have to pay for flights to Disney World’s Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow while Kerry uses my tax dollar to fly to conferences whose sole purpose is to prevent me from traveling extensively, warming and cooling my house, and lighting my way in the darkness? No and yes. No because that would suggest envy: Why does this guy who married into the Heinz fortune have to use my money? And yes, because this guy who married into the Heinz fortune gets to use my money to travel to places like Davos.
Like Gates, Kerry appears to aim for unity. Unlike Gates, Kerry, who is also, but not quite as, rich as the Microsoft guy, is seeking unity on the public’s dime. And Kerry, whose lifestyle seems to have been supported by rich relatives during his childhood and by both his wives’ fortunes, has never produced to my knowledge any product that would require energy—including Ketchup or those other 56 varieties. Instead, he has been paid a politician’s salary. Of course, I have no right to criticize him for “serving the public” and for serving in the military during a conflict. Those definitely seem to be noble regardless of the Swift-boating claims when he ran for President. I am certainly willing to credit him for serving the nation in a time of war and for serving the nation as a senator—though his politics and senate accomplishments seem a bit too Leftist for my taste.
Kerry’s apparent adherence to the climate-change/global-warming agenda gives me pause. When I think of the most recent COP conference attended by thousands of “scientists” and advocates, I see hypocrisy in action, and I see people who want to control the lives of individuals over a rather dubious threat. Oh! I know. I know. That speaks of “denial,” to use the common ad hominem rebuttal. Yet, the claims of those who would impose third-world economies on affluent societies that acquired their affluence because of cheap energy, all seem foolish in light of their failed predictions of disaster. The world has been warmer—much warmer—in times past, and it has been colder—much colder—in times past. Sea level has been both lower and higher and has been rising for thousands of years post glacial period and during this probable interglacial epoch. But actual measurements of sea level over the very last century or so have shown the rise to be on the order of a few millimeters per year. And that rise doesn’t affect people beyond those who choose to live along coastlines—where, by the way, sea level does not rise uniformly because of tectonic activity or because of bathymetry or topography. **
As Kerry the do-gooder flies about ranting with Al Gore about the coming doom, he convinces governments to take an all-or-nothing unified approach that trades everyone else’s individualism for unity of lifestyle while he—and Al Gore—continue to live their jet-setting lives. Kerry isn’t leading by example. He seeks to impose his brand of altruism and environmentalism on the masses, but those masses are composed of individuals, many of who cherish their individualism and rebuke attempts to make them into One.
Do do-gooders do good? Yes, many of them do, and some of what Bill Gates and John Kerry do lies in the noblest of human traditions. But do-gooders can also do bad, especially when their goal is an amalgamation of humanity in causes that quash freedom both to err in stubborn ineffectiveness and to succeed in entrepreneurial creativity.
*That third-world farmers could use some centralized education was evident to me during a visit to a coffee plantation in the volcanic hills outside Antigua Guatemala, where I saw crops on the side of the neighboring mountain in rows running vertically up and not horizontally across the land. Contour farming doesn’t seem to be as widespread a practice as I had been taught in a middle-school geography class or as widespread as I have seen from flights across hilly landscapes in the United States. I just assumed farmers everywhere knew how to prevent erosion until I saw those Guatemalan farms.
**Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution makes this online statement: “As with land, the global height of the sea is uneven; levels vary around the world due to physical factors such as massive ocean currents and prevailing wind directions. The rate of current sea level rise is driven by these two factors, in addition to human and climate-driven changes like thermal expansion, coastal erosion, and whether the land is sinking or rebounding.” https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-weather/sea-level-rise/
Two people come to mind: Bill Gates and John Kerry.
Before I start, I’ll tell you that I don’t know either man, so I have no way of knowing whether or not either is the most altruistic human since Mother Teresa. Each might be. And yet…
Gates has a nonprofit called Gates AgOne. Its upfront purpose is helping farmers in developing countries access Agri-Tech to improve farming tools, maximize yields, and adapt their farming to changes in climate. Gates also owns farmland in 19 states, the largest of his holdings covering 69,963 acres in Louisiana. Not a bad idea to own farms because, believe it or not, humans eat. Now, I’m not suggesting that Gates’s reason for buying farmland is control over the masses—though that is a possibility if he isn’t Mother Teresa incarnate (sorry, vegans, for the carnivore cognate—but I will suggest that a good way to make money in a world of growing populations is to control food—and actually, control not just the amount of food available, but also the kind of food people eat. That latest push to have more people eat bugs is an example (with no offense to South Asians who savor a rice bug now and then).
I have no doubt that Gates, one of the world’s richest, sees an economic gain in Agri-Tech. New seeds. New farming practices. Greater yields, the goal of farmers for 10,000 years. More money in a world with more mouths. And, of course, a planet saved from that wasteful human species that is “destroying the climate” and poisoning all life with agri-chemicals. Noble enterprises all! Bill Gates is an example of the do-gooder on steroids. Nevertheless, some poor farmers will benefit from the work of Gates AgOne while he diversifies his income.
Forgive my suspicious character, please, but his foundation’s title gives me pause. One, as in AgOne? Does that imply “first,” “inclusive,” or both? If you know me by my writings, you’ll know that I have concerns about unity. And those concerns go way back to my reading about Heraclitus’ Pyr Aeizoon, the Eternal Fire, and to other such “Ones” perceived by the early philosophers struggling with diversity and unity. I’m more a chaos guy at heart. Rather than impose a unity—or equity in today’s fashionable vernacular—I favor enterprise and creativity, both of which die in Oneness (or Unity) and often lead to failures. Unlike Heraclitus’ Eternal Fire into which we all go and from which we all emerge, I prefer some randomness, because it gives me the power, if I choose, to make my own world, my own cosmos, my own Order. Or, it allows me room to discover natural order hidden in the apparent randomness that is life on Earth or to add onto that which has already been discovered. I keep in mind that Newton spoke of standing on the shoulders of those who went before. So, farming? * Yes, it has been subject to improvements imposed from a centralized organization and acquired knowledge and practice, but in undergoing such improvements subject to the Central Guide farmers are also subject to failures on the largest scales and also to sameness that dismisses ethnic diversity. What if, for example, a central authority bans a crop favored by indigenous people?
What if Bill acquires all the farmland in America, and what if, just what if, Bill decides to impose a diet of his choosing and to his liking on the rest of us? Does that Oneness not frighten you? Those who eat grains are already locked into limited genetic varieties of corn, wheat, oats, and barley. Just what if, in the name of unity, farmers plant a single variety of any of those crops in the service of Unity? We all know what the potato bug did to the Irish. We all know what the Mediterranean fruit fly did to California farms. We’ve all seen the swarms of locusts darken the skies in African countries as they consume the crops of the poor.
So, though Gates might have the noblest intentions, that he can control so much should give us all pause by that Oneness. And the same might be said of John Kerry’s efforts to eliminate emissions of carbon from world energy production.
Am I just upset that I have to pay for flights to Disney World’s Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow while Kerry uses my tax dollar to fly to conferences whose sole purpose is to prevent me from traveling extensively, warming and cooling my house, and lighting my way in the darkness? No and yes. No because that would suggest envy: Why does this guy who married into the Heinz fortune have to use my money? And yes, because this guy who married into the Heinz fortune gets to use my money to travel to places like Davos.
Like Gates, Kerry appears to aim for unity. Unlike Gates, Kerry, who is also, but not quite as, rich as the Microsoft guy, is seeking unity on the public’s dime. And Kerry, whose lifestyle seems to have been supported by rich relatives during his childhood and by both his wives’ fortunes, has never produced to my knowledge any product that would require energy—including Ketchup or those other 56 varieties. Instead, he has been paid a politician’s salary. Of course, I have no right to criticize him for “serving the public” and for serving in the military during a conflict. Those definitely seem to be noble regardless of the Swift-boating claims when he ran for President. I am certainly willing to credit him for serving the nation in a time of war and for serving the nation as a senator—though his politics and senate accomplishments seem a bit too Leftist for my taste.
Kerry’s apparent adherence to the climate-change/global-warming agenda gives me pause. When I think of the most recent COP conference attended by thousands of “scientists” and advocates, I see hypocrisy in action, and I see people who want to control the lives of individuals over a rather dubious threat. Oh! I know. I know. That speaks of “denial,” to use the common ad hominem rebuttal. Yet, the claims of those who would impose third-world economies on affluent societies that acquired their affluence because of cheap energy, all seem foolish in light of their failed predictions of disaster. The world has been warmer—much warmer—in times past, and it has been colder—much colder—in times past. Sea level has been both lower and higher and has been rising for thousands of years post glacial period and during this probable interglacial epoch. But actual measurements of sea level over the very last century or so have shown the rise to be on the order of a few millimeters per year. And that rise doesn’t affect people beyond those who choose to live along coastlines—where, by the way, sea level does not rise uniformly because of tectonic activity or because of bathymetry or topography. **
As Kerry the do-gooder flies about ranting with Al Gore about the coming doom, he convinces governments to take an all-or-nothing unified approach that trades everyone else’s individualism for unity of lifestyle while he—and Al Gore—continue to live their jet-setting lives. Kerry isn’t leading by example. He seeks to impose his brand of altruism and environmentalism on the masses, but those masses are composed of individuals, many of who cherish their individualism and rebuke attempts to make them into One.
Do do-gooders do good? Yes, many of them do, and some of what Bill Gates and John Kerry do lies in the noblest of human traditions. But do-gooders can also do bad, especially when their goal is an amalgamation of humanity in causes that quash freedom both to err in stubborn ineffectiveness and to succeed in entrepreneurial creativity.
*That third-world farmers could use some centralized education was evident to me during a visit to a coffee plantation in the volcanic hills outside Antigua Guatemala, where I saw crops on the side of the neighboring mountain in rows running vertically up and not horizontally across the land. Contour farming doesn’t seem to be as widespread a practice as I had been taught in a middle-school geography class or as widespread as I have seen from flights across hilly landscapes in the United States. I just assumed farmers everywhere knew how to prevent erosion until I saw those Guatemalan farms.
**Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution makes this online statement: “As with land, the global height of the sea is uneven; levels vary around the world due to physical factors such as massive ocean currents and prevailing wind directions. The rate of current sea level rise is driven by these two factors, in addition to human and climate-driven changes like thermal expansion, coastal erosion, and whether the land is sinking or rebounding.” https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-weather/sea-level-rise/
RSS Feed