Some weird, German communist, hello. He/him pronouns and all that. Obsessed with philosophy and history, secondarily obsessed with video games as a cultural medium. Also somewhat able to program.
https://abnormalhumanbeing.itch.io/
https://peertube.wtf/a/wxnzxn/video-channels
This is an interesting conundrum, actually. The big question at its core being:
Can you ever do enough good through philanthropy, so that it offsets the damage you had to do, in order to become a billionaire? Can even all the billionaires in the world do enough good with their money, to offset the damage done by a system, that allowed for them to become billionaires?
I, personally, donât think it is possible.
To give an actual answer: I think, the world would definitely be better, but unless those billionaires collectively used all the power their money provides, to do away with money and the possibility of billionaires altogether, I donât think it would amount to all that much.
Okay, that is fair enough - although one small thing Iâd add is âpsychological issues not greatly exacerbated by his former employerâ - where I also donât think intentionality is important, as long as they callously donât consider the potential of that exacerbation.
Thing is: psychological issues donât exist in a vacuum. For example - letâs say he was robbed of all perspectives to ever work again in a field he was passionate about by his former employer de facto âblacklistingâ him - they surely did not explicitly have this outcome in mind, but they accepted it as a possibility. Similar situation with the high suicide rates in countries like South Korea - they donât exist the way they are because of independently existing, isolated mental illness, but because of a material system that interacts with, and sets the conditions of, psychological development.
So, you are right, itâs true that it could be, that it ends up as the result of a completely unrelated mental illness. But Iâd be wary to take reports like âhe actually had a diagnosis of depressive disorderâ as simply washing OpenAI clean of all responsibility.
Some sort of humanist atheism/existentialism? I guessâŚ
As a teenager and young adult, I used to be very interested in cosmology and astrophysics, to the point I wanted to study it at uni. The vastness of the world and existence seemed like a beautiful enigma. I was also always interested in philosophy, which ended up more lasting than my interest in physics.
After growing older, the vastness of nature and existence seemed more and more haunting than beautiful. If there was something like a God, it had to be a mad idiot god. I actually kind of sympathised with Gnosticism and similar thoughts for a while, but I could not believe in a metaphysical, perfect entity waiting even further behind everything. I could not believe in some sort of salvation, that could just come to us by giving up on materiality. It seemed like an empty self-delusion. Similarly, I respect Buddhism a lot, and think there is a lot of good ideas within it, but itâs ultimate life-nonaffirming philosophies and focus on avoidance of suffering did not resonate with me.
Looking at the history of our planet, our universe, and humanity, it seemed clear to me, that existence just stumbles along. We are a âmistakeâ in a vastness of empty, dumb, boring clouds of hydrogen and dust, nuclear furnaces and holes in reality, devoid of meaning. Life felt more and more to me, like a great rebellion against a vast, seemingly all-encompassing nothingness. No aliens in sight either, that could relieve us of our burden. Just humanity, as the one lifeform so far known to us, that at least has the potential to not fall into the traps of self-annihilation and lifelessnes that permeates our past and present. Just humanity with the responsibility of getting our shit together or life eventually being just reincorporated into the vast, dumb nothing of the âidiot godâ, so to speak.
All the mistakes of humans felt to me more and more like just extensions of the same stupidity that is also manifest in all of nature. And our struggle against it, feels like a sort of âsacred dutyâ. Those loaded words to illustrate, that Iâd think of myself as actually having strong faith in a weird way, even though it is not rooted in the supernatural as such.
Itâs also evident to me, this faith has at least partially persisted for me as an anchor for myself. I have not been suicidal ever since I felt that way, even though for most of my life I have been struggling with trauma and a variety of mental health disorders, and have been suicidal before. I could not think of that anymore, suffering seemed almost meaningless to me, now, and it feels better to endure it than to give in to the vast nothingness without a fight, without trying to create as much good as possible in this small contingent miracle that is life, that has been brought forth by so much struggle and so many seemingly impossible coincidences, chance and âmistakesâ.
I have a big aversion against beliefs that put faith into higher powers, be it nature or God or some sort of transdimensional aliens or whatever. I try to analyse beliefs like that not with disdain, though, but as results of how we are caught in the world we are, in our circumstances, and how life itself has had to âtrickâ existence itself into allowing life to exist, by follwing its rules but also emergently transcending them, creating something new from it, that is more than the sum of its parts.
Politically and philosophically it lead me to Marxism and Hegel respectively. Marxism with itâs focus on changing our material foundations and dynamics, in order for us to be able to develop our humanity and be able to act more rational in the grand scheme lends itself well to it. Hegel, with looking at the development of ideas and humanity dialectically, developing something until it reaches the limit of its own contradictions also appealed to me.
Sorry for the wall of text, the question caught me in a somber mood and caused me to monologue.
Yes, they really are the heartbreak pet. My best friend had some for most of her adulthood, and the recurring heartbreak, feelings of responsibility for them and also just vet bills both took a toll on her. All of them were awesome, intelligent, full of character and cute, but it is an emotionally taxing pet to have, for those reasons.
Iâve had conversations with one of my friends during some of my lowest points, and I remember him saying once: âI wonder how many mental illnesses could be cured by just giving people enough money to live comfortably.â There is some great truth there.
Hang in there, if not just for yourself, then for loved ones and for all the people that share your frustrations and struggles, there always is the possibility of change, there are years in which weeks happen and weeks in which years happen, and behind every strike lurks the possibility of revolution - as soon as opportunity arises, your frustration and helplessness can be directed towards change.
Thatâs at least one thing that keeps me sane.
I am blessed to have two friendships that I have been able to maintain even through times of depression and paranoia, mostly because they are stubborn and forgiving enough to stay with me and reach out, even when my delusions of having to isolate from everyone because I am too horrible and bad to deserve friendships kick in. Itâs a privilege I know isnât guaranteed in life and I am so damn lucky that the mess I have comes with them.
If you are going through tough times and donât have anyone at the ready, I know it can be hard, donât give up. Thereâs the professional stuff like therapists, emergency hotlines, self-help groups and, yes, sometimes even strangers on the internet can be enough to give you a necessary mirror to at least lessen any delusional self-hatred and hopelesness that can creep up. Reaching out can be hard and seem impossible, but it is possible, and it is worth it - you are worth it.
It really isnât, but as long as those resources are distributed through a market, there are problems even if you add money. Say the billionaires truly are incorruptible angels and put all their money to providing food and shelter, the not-yet-billionaires in the market suddenly have incentives to raise prices, withhold food to the market while prices are rising as a speculative gambit, stuff like that.
Thatâs one of the mechanisms through which the system itself, that produces billionaires, makes it at least hard or - imo - even impossible to truly undo the damage it does to create such billionaires, even when you have those billions. Another example is corruption: As soon as you put a lot of money into an issue, it creates an incentive there to funnel money away in secret, to provide false solutions that donât solve anything, to scam, etc. A friend of mine worked on projects providing water infrastructure in countries in Africa from philanthropic and international aid funds, and he did get often frustrated telling how some projects simply vanish halfway through, because someone down the line had basically run off with the money (not that the projects were wholly useless, either, but they failed to fundamentally solve things by just throwing money at them). Someone like Bill Gates, as another example, has been unironically doing a lot of good as a philanthropist, but all his money still wasnât able to truly tackle the root causes of the problems in the countries where he supports healthcare and such things - and inevitably, some of the funds he provided were used on glamour projects or ineffectual, nice-sounding strategies, or ended up in outright corruption. And at the same time, the question remains, what the system that made him a billionaire caused in damages to begin with.
Thatâs why I still think you canât really tackle all these problems without doing away with a market structure, exchange value, capital accumulation, etc. - i.e., why I remain a dirty commie, instead of just arguing for redistribution (redistribution and more social-democratic, beneficial investment is still good, but you gotta always aim for the abolition of private property and capital accumulation as an end goal, imo).
Oh, and I just realised my ramble kind of missed OPâs point, which is also important: All the money caught up in the three-digit multi-billionaires net worth? Itâs not representative of true goods and labour, it is what Marx would have called âdeadâ capital. As soon as it is used for anything but as financial capital, it can drive inflation massively, which connects to part of my first point.
EDIT: Another example that just came to my mind for how this can impact things - Mansa Musa and the stories surrounding his lavish spending during his Hajj, basically crashing the local economies. So, even pre-capitalist systems had to deal with these dynamics.