Great essay, and it reminds me of many discussions I had while leading research at Arnold Ventures. These days, I'm working to improve science funding at the Good Science Project (with my own funding from Patrick Collison), and it is dismaying to me how many philanthropists just want to dump more money into the current system rather than think about creative alternatives or about ways to change the system. Most recently, Ken Griffin gave $300 million to the richest university in the world--Harvard. He could have done so much better than that.
I guess I wonder in what ways you see your perspective -- that entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial spirit can revolutionize and vastly improve on the philanthropic realm -- as distinct from the tradition of successful entrepreneurs thinking that the main thing we need to do to fix politics is hand them over to entrepreneurs and invest the political process with more entrepreneurial spirit. Because that latter tradition, which deploys much the same language as your post, has been a pretty demonstrable failure, historically speaking. I'm sure you could find examples of successful businessman politicians, but the greatest leaders have been great politicians, typically with vast political experience. Because it's a distinct realm with its own distinct set of rules and incentives, and the skills that work in one space don't perfectly or even mostly translate over to the other.
You write, "Treating philanthropic work as if it’s a totally separate endeavor than entrepreneurship is a huge mistake." Feels like a lot hangs on "totally" in this sentence. Not totally, surely, but maybe "dramatically" or "substantially"? Aren't the monetary rewards of success radically different in the two spheres? Isn't failure much less penalized in the philanthropic space? Aren't the pay scales dramatically different? And even if you could equalize the pay scales at your own non-profit, are the jobs prepping the employees to make the jump to higher paying jobs in other sectors? Aren't there different skill sets and training paths toward competence and sophistication in the different sectors, even if they're not as different as people assume? Aren't the legal and political structures within which philanthropy operates very different?
It's not that I disagree with your larger critique of much of philanthropy. I was looking at the Cicero Institute projects, and it all seems like great work. What I question is the premise that there's an immense amount of low hanging fruit in this space that's just waiting to be picked by entrepreneur/innovator types going into philanthropy. Hasn't the experience of, say, Mark Zuckerberg and the Newark schools, or Bill Gates and school reform more broadly, suggested that it's incredibly difficult to use philanthropy to change the world for the better at scale.
More to the point, aren't you setting yourself up for failure if you begin with the premise that everyone else has failed because they're too old or too stupid?
Thank you for launching Cicero, comrade. It is heartening to see fellow dissidents out their money where their mouth is. Never forget that human rights NGOs like amnesty international said nothing about covid lockdowns and mandates. Amnesty sided with Trudeau against the truckers and had several employee suicides due to a hostile work environment: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-control-your-souls-desire
Always feel conflicted making claims like this, but getting out of the collective quagmire we’re in requires great boldness and I do believe it (from the strange absence of any real competition if nothing else): this is the best answer to help dissidents and break us out of the death spiral a suicidal consensus has trapped us in that I have seen proposed, let alone exist https://harrybergeron.substack.com/p/slightly-reduce-fear-and-you-win-c97
There are lots of good discussion points here and I believe these are the conversations that we need to be having.
As far as MacKenzie Scott, I agree there are some organizations she’s funded where the underlying models have huge issues. Academia is a prime example. Scott has also funded many of the “solution-philanthropy” organizations you describe as well though. Thorn is one that comes to mind which you allude to and link to in your post. I would argue she has bucked conventionality by eliminating the traditional grant process and subsequent reporting requirements.
What you’ve quoted from her (along with her other writing) seems to me to prove that Scott is unlike other traditional “virtue-signaling” philanthropists. She’s willing to discuss the imperfections that exist and is capable of reflecting on them and express her intention to continue to learn and adjust.
Undoubtedly, the world needs more people willing to “buck one’s own peer groups, even when it stings” - Would be curious to hear some of the examples that come to mind for you when you’re thinking about this!
A very long time ago, at a university in Germany, I took a course on Plato from a genuine scholar on the subject. He had of course read Plato in Greek, and like a lot of philosophy courses, his introductory remarks on day one had a few words to say about the etymology of the word. The professor's observation noted that in Greek, compound words change their meaning or emphasis depending upon which element of the compound goes first. Interestingly, he also used Hippopotamus to illustrate. It's not the same as Potamohippos. At the naming, Hippopotamus was seen as the horse like embodiment of the spirit of the river, a horse that is the river, not merely a horse that lives in the river. So likewise there is a difference between Philosopher and Sophophile. An Anglophile is a "lover' of things English. But a philosopher loves wisdom in a way that changes him. I submit that philanthropist is intended to be understood in the same way.
Excellent article Joe. My push is to become more community minded and attempt to help fix local problems with local money. I have given to Stand Together on a macro concept but want to see real local results to test the waters. We will see what happens. Almost all of my giving is anonymous.
Great essay, and it reminds me of many discussions I had while leading research at Arnold Ventures. These days, I'm working to improve science funding at the Good Science Project (with my own funding from Patrick Collison), and it is dismaying to me how many philanthropists just want to dump more money into the current system rather than think about creative alternatives or about ways to change the system. Most recently, Ken Griffin gave $300 million to the richest university in the world--Harvard. He could have done so much better than that.
I guess I wonder in what ways you see your perspective -- that entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial spirit can revolutionize and vastly improve on the philanthropic realm -- as distinct from the tradition of successful entrepreneurs thinking that the main thing we need to do to fix politics is hand them over to entrepreneurs and invest the political process with more entrepreneurial spirit. Because that latter tradition, which deploys much the same language as your post, has been a pretty demonstrable failure, historically speaking. I'm sure you could find examples of successful businessman politicians, but the greatest leaders have been great politicians, typically with vast political experience. Because it's a distinct realm with its own distinct set of rules and incentives, and the skills that work in one space don't perfectly or even mostly translate over to the other.
You write, "Treating philanthropic work as if it’s a totally separate endeavor than entrepreneurship is a huge mistake." Feels like a lot hangs on "totally" in this sentence. Not totally, surely, but maybe "dramatically" or "substantially"? Aren't the monetary rewards of success radically different in the two spheres? Isn't failure much less penalized in the philanthropic space? Aren't the pay scales dramatically different? And even if you could equalize the pay scales at your own non-profit, are the jobs prepping the employees to make the jump to higher paying jobs in other sectors? Aren't there different skill sets and training paths toward competence and sophistication in the different sectors, even if they're not as different as people assume? Aren't the legal and political structures within which philanthropy operates very different?
It's not that I disagree with your larger critique of much of philanthropy. I was looking at the Cicero Institute projects, and it all seems like great work. What I question is the premise that there's an immense amount of low hanging fruit in this space that's just waiting to be picked by entrepreneur/innovator types going into philanthropy. Hasn't the experience of, say, Mark Zuckerberg and the Newark schools, or Bill Gates and school reform more broadly, suggested that it's incredibly difficult to use philanthropy to change the world for the better at scale.
More to the point, aren't you setting yourself up for failure if you begin with the premise that everyone else has failed because they're too old or too stupid?
Thank you for launching Cicero, comrade. It is heartening to see fellow dissidents out their money where their mouth is. Never forget that human rights NGOs like amnesty international said nothing about covid lockdowns and mandates. Amnesty sided with Trudeau against the truckers and had several employee suicides due to a hostile work environment: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-control-your-souls-desire
Always feel conflicted making claims like this, but getting out of the collective quagmire we’re in requires great boldness and I do believe it (from the strange absence of any real competition if nothing else): this is the best answer to help dissidents and break us out of the death spiral a suicidal consensus has trapped us in that I have seen proposed, let alone exist https://harrybergeron.substack.com/p/slightly-reduce-fear-and-you-win-c97
There are lots of good discussion points here and I believe these are the conversations that we need to be having.
As far as MacKenzie Scott, I agree there are some organizations she’s funded where the underlying models have huge issues. Academia is a prime example. Scott has also funded many of the “solution-philanthropy” organizations you describe as well though. Thorn is one that comes to mind which you allude to and link to in your post. I would argue she has bucked conventionality by eliminating the traditional grant process and subsequent reporting requirements.
What you’ve quoted from her (along with her other writing) seems to me to prove that Scott is unlike other traditional “virtue-signaling” philanthropists. She’s willing to discuss the imperfections that exist and is capable of reflecting on them and express her intention to continue to learn and adjust.
Undoubtedly, the world needs more people willing to “buck one’s own peer groups, even when it stings” - Would be curious to hear some of the examples that come to mind for you when you’re thinking about this!
A very long time ago, at a university in Germany, I took a course on Plato from a genuine scholar on the subject. He had of course read Plato in Greek, and like a lot of philosophy courses, his introductory remarks on day one had a few words to say about the etymology of the word. The professor's observation noted that in Greek, compound words change their meaning or emphasis depending upon which element of the compound goes first. Interestingly, he also used Hippopotamus to illustrate. It's not the same as Potamohippos. At the naming, Hippopotamus was seen as the horse like embodiment of the spirit of the river, a horse that is the river, not merely a horse that lives in the river. So likewise there is a difference between Philosopher and Sophophile. An Anglophile is a "lover' of things English. But a philosopher loves wisdom in a way that changes him. I submit that philanthropist is intended to be understood in the same way.
Great article! If anyone is ever interested to brainstorm around Child Welfare & Foster Care in the USA, please let me know.
Excellent article Joe. My push is to become more community minded and attempt to help fix local problems with local money. I have given to Stand Together on a macro concept but want to see real local results to test the waters. We will see what happens. Almost all of my giving is anonymous.