A billionaire whose hobby is Marine conservation. That yacht is a floating lab.
Inkfish, founded by Gabe Newell, aims to advance marine science by providing tools and access for deep-ocean exploration, focusing on serving the scientific community rather than personal interests. The organization’s mission is to integrate marine science, engineering, and technology to map uncharted seafloor, study biodiversity, discover new species, and protect ocean ecosystems, while also providing open-source data and technical support to scientists
While all that is indeed good, we shouldn’t have to rely on the benevolence of the wealthy to be able to have a better world. No offense, but that kind of stuff should be paid for by taxation. He is doing some good here, but it’s also his pet project, his choice where the money goes, no one else, no input from society at large. It’s still overall not a real great thing, because it means that we have to just hope that billionaires have pet projects that help society and the earth at large. The majority of them don’t. Hell, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk think the future is for digital-post-humans and the things they are trying to do “for the future” are revolving around a plan where humans as we know them effectively become an extinct species, which is inherently elitist and definitely not beneficial to overall society since it means they effectively don’t care if any of us die to achieve it. Just because Newell has better values than the rest doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t still suck ass.
The situation sucks, but I guess we have to count our “wins” these days.
If this money he is using to advance marine science was taxed, I guarantee it would be given straight to the US Military for creating more weapons of mass destruction.
Then why praise one for having a pet project just because it might help the environment? If it’s not a good thing that they exist, why does there need to be a caveat of “but he’s doing good things with his money.”
It is possible to acknowledge that a billionaire is doing a good thing with his ungodly wealth, while also saying that he should not have that level of wealth to begin with.
I’d be all for removing all the tax cuts from the rich and funneling it into the sciences. They’ve proven that trickle-down is an excuse to hoard and that noblesse oblige is all but dead, so why not cut out the proverbial middleman.
I’m also not a politician being paid by said rich to keep those cuts in place or add more, so my stance means little.
Whether the concept of billionaires is bad is irrelevant when deciding whether one specific billionaire is bad.
Threre is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. An ethical billionaire doesn’t remain a billionaire. If a suddenly recieved a billion dollars I’d be looking into the best way to donate most of it.
I’m sure I could survive for the rest of my life just fine on $500 million dollars, and whatever causes I’m donating my money to know what they need and how to spend it better than I would by offering them a couple of rooms on my third yacht.
Why? It’s still bad. He still isn’t taking societal input on whether the projects he invests his money into are actually the most wise and sound investments to help the future of all living humans. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Why does he need society’s input? Last I checked, charities didn’t ask society at large, they just get funding from the people who care. Am I wrong to go to the park to pick up litter without asking society at large if that’s the best use of my time?
We don’t need to have everything go through a committee. If he wants to do a good thing, that’s awesome.
It can be both, you’re rejecting it because you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn’t need fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You’re deliberately missing the point.
I don’t misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.
That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a “living wage” (say, 2X poverty line). It’s equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).
I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc… If people are mistreated at work, they’ll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.
If we touch billionaires’ money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren’t donated to a qualifying charity. That’s the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.
How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
This yacht is many things, one of them being a floating lab. It’s not like it isn’t a super-luxury yacht for $500 million, also. Or like he hasn’t a couple more super-yachts.
I mean, good for the man, good that he’s doing marine conservation on the side, or that he actually cares about his companies, employees, etc. But also, wow, what kind of amounts do billionaires spend on playthings, and what you could do with such money for the betterment of society.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
A billionaire whose hobby is Marine conservation. That yacht is a floating lab.
Inkfish, founded by Gabe Newell, aims to advance marine science by providing tools and access for deep-ocean exploration, focusing on serving the scientific community rather than personal interests. The organization’s mission is to integrate marine science, engineering, and technology to map uncharted seafloor, study biodiversity, discover new species, and protect ocean ecosystems, while also providing open-source data and technical support to scientists
If your hobby is marine conservation you don’t own a fleet of luxury mega yachts
While all that is indeed good, we shouldn’t have to rely on the benevolence of the wealthy to be able to have a better world. No offense, but that kind of stuff should be paid for by taxation. He is doing some good here, but it’s also his pet project, his choice where the money goes, no one else, no input from society at large. It’s still overall not a real great thing, because it means that we have to just hope that billionaires have pet projects that help society and the earth at large. The majority of them don’t. Hell, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk think the future is for digital-post-humans and the things they are trying to do “for the future” are revolving around a plan where humans as we know them effectively become an extinct species, which is inherently elitist and definitely not beneficial to overall society since it means they effectively don’t care if any of us die to achieve it. Just because Newell has better values than the rest doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t still suck ass.
The situation sucks, but I guess we have to count our “wins” these days.
If this money he is using to advance marine science was taxed, I guarantee it would be given straight to the US Military for creating more weapons of mass destruction.
A lot of things need to change in this world.
I don’t think anyone is saying that billionaires existing is a good thing.
Then why praise one for having a pet project just because it might help the environment? If it’s not a good thing that they exist, why does there need to be a caveat of “but he’s doing good things with his money.”
It is possible to acknowledge that a billionaire is doing a good thing with his ungodly wealth, while also saying that he should not have that level of wealth to begin with.
It’s not “but”, it’s “at least”.
I’d be all for removing all the tax cuts from the rich and funneling it into the sciences. They’ve proven that trickle-down is an excuse to hoard and that noblesse oblige is all but dead, so why not cut out the proverbial middleman.
I’m also not a politician being paid by said rich to keep those cuts in place or add more, so my stance means little.
Whether the concept of billionaires is bad is irrelevant when deciding whether one specific billionaire is bad.
Threre is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. An ethical billionaire doesn’t remain a billionaire. If a suddenly recieved a billion dollars I’d be looking into the best way to donate most of it.
I’m sure I could survive for the rest of my life just fine on $500 million dollars, and whatever causes I’m donating my money to know what they need and how to spend it better than I would by offering them a couple of rooms on my third yacht.
Why? It’s still bad. He still isn’t taking societal input on whether the projects he invests his money into are actually the most wise and sound investments to help the future of all living humans. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Why does he need society’s input? Last I checked, charities didn’t ask society at large, they just get funding from the people who care. Am I wrong to go to the park to pick up litter without asking society at large if that’s the best use of my time?
We don’t need to have everything go through a committee. If he wants to do a good thing, that’s awesome.
That wooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head.
No, I’m explicitly rejecting your point.
It can be both, you’re rejecting it because you fail to understand it. Dude, in a rationally organized world we wouldn’t need fucking charities, because things would just be funded by reasonable tax structures and governments that care more about taking care of their own people instead of bombing foreign nations. Why would we need charities if things were funded well enough as it is? You’re deliberately missing the point.
I don’t misunderstand your point, I reject it. When have we ever seen a government care more about taking care of its people than gaining power for its rulers? The more money and responsibility you give to a government, the more corrupt it becomes.
That said, I do think something like UBI makes sense. Make it a simple cash pass-through where everyone is brought above the poverty line. I personally would prefer to structure it as a negative income tax, so you qualify if your income is below some amount, and everyone is brought between the poverty line and a “living wage” (say, 2X poverty line). It’s equivalent to UBI, just with less sticker shock and a clearer paper trail (need to file a tax return). Look at the government shutdown, social security is still going out, I want NIT to be the same (and ideally replace SS).
I say we replace all welfare programs with a UBI-type system. Charities would then exist to help people manage that money, get out of addictions, etc… If people are mistreated at work, they’ll have the option of leaving. If a child is mistreated, child protection services (could be a charity) can move the child and those tax dollars to a better home. UBI would solve a ton of problems just by ensuring everyone has enough.
If we touch billionaires’ money, it should be with inheritance laws. I think we should tax all assets as if they were liquidated if they aren’t donated to a qualifying charity. That’s the biggest loophole I know about, and it should be closed.
deleted by creator
It seems really really relevant though…
How? All you’re really doing here is stereotyping rich people.
For example, Americans are generally fat (higher obesity rate than much of the world), but that doesn’t mean all Americans are fat. To determine whether a random American is fat, we need to actually look at them, not just know their nationality.
The fact of having a dragon’s hoard of money while people starve is what I am looking at.
Oh, look at that, Gabe has a dragon’s hoard of money and people are starving.
GabeN is hardly rich enough to end poverty or even just hunger, and that’s not the only important cause people could work on. I’d be happy if every billionaire picked some cause and donated to it, no need for society’s input.
This yacht is many things, one of them being a floating lab. It’s not like it isn’t a super-luxury yacht for $500 million, also. Or like he hasn’t a couple more super-yachts.
I mean, good for the man, good that he’s doing marine conservation on the side, or that he actually cares about his companies, employees, etc. But also, wow, what kind of amounts do billionaires spend on playthings, and what you could do with such money for the betterment of society.