On Cheap Thrills and Guilty Pleasures

I grew up in the halcyon days of family television in the 60’s.  Our family would gather around the television each evening after dinner and watch our favorite prime time shows until it was time for bed.  Each fall we would await the new lineups with eager anticipation.  Some of my favorites:  Man from U.N.C.L.E, I Spy, Secret Agent, Bonanza, Walt Disney Hour, Get Smart, Green Acres, Petticoat Junction.  I could go on and on because there were SO MANY!

A few years ago, in a moment of misguided nostalgia, I had Netflix deliver the first season of Man from U.N.C.L.E.  I watched the pilot episode for about 10 minutes and then put the DVD back in its package and out for the mail.  It was unbearable, even with all the pent-up desire to reminisce and relive my youth.

I was essentially a TV addict as a child.  Fortunately, my interest in sports and girls (not always in that order) overcame that addiction in late high school.  By college I was clean, and for many years I rarely watched TV.  Other hobbies and passions seemed to have more value to me. 

TV slowly crept back into my life after marriage, but by this time I was a bit more discerning in my viewing habits and very conscious of a certain hierarchy in my choices of entertainment.  Karen, who had rarely watched TV in her youth, and I had a few TV shows that we indulged in over the years - Cheers and ER come to mind – but we made a decision to ditch TV completely once our daughters were born.

Like a former alcoholic, I am now a bit self-righteous about my choices of entertainment, though I am in this, as in most things, a bit of a hypocrite.  At some point I began to demean much of mass media as being a ‘cheap thrill’.  I had become a snob, believing that serious literature, art films, and more sophisticated music (not pop!) were the only media worth one’s valuable time.

This conversion, though generally a salutary development in my life, came with a nasty side effect.  Whenever I engage in any activity that does not measure up to my somewhat arbitrary set of standards, I feel guilty.  After having only watched movies for many years, Karen and I began to sample some of the modern television series a few years ago.  We have seen several that we enjoyed tremendously – Breaking Bad, The Wire, Mad Men – to name a few.  But once we opened that Pandora’s Box, the question of how much TV is bad looms large in my life again.

Is it better to read a good book than to watch TV?  Is it better to watch an artsy foreign film than a Hollywood blockbuster with ever-more-spectacular special effects?  Is it better to play guitar or take a walk than to do any of these?  How many guilty pleasures should we allow ourselves?  Is there really a hierarchy of entertainment or is it all self-delusion?  Is spending all day playing video games no less virtuous than hiking in the mountains?

I suspect I am a bit obsessive about these questions.  I am not sure why I struggle with guilt when I spend time doing anything that I don’t view as ‘worthwhile’.  Perhaps it is my regret over a somewhat misspent youth – a sense that I could have accomplished more in life if I had been less self-indulgent.  Or perhaps it is my ever-increasing awareness of my mortality and with it a need to make every moment count.

The Joys of the Learning Curve

About five months ago I started learning how to play the banjo.  I had an old banjo from my middle school years when I was under the spell of a short infatuation with The Kingston Trio.  I took lessons for about 8 months until a more profound infatuation with high school athletics lured me away.  The poor banjo sat idle (or more accurately, hung idle, since it now adorns the wall of my music room!) for 50 plus years. 

I have been playing guitar off and on for much of my life and have acquired a modest level of competence – no Eric Clapton -  but I am capable of accompanying myself and others and performing short, mediocre solos.  I have always liked the sound of a banjo, so I decided to pick up my old banjo and use the rich lode of Internet lesson videos and websites to teach myself.

There is nothing quite like the first part of the learning curve.  When you start from zero, every advance is exhilarating!  If there is sincere and consistent effort, then there will shortly be a noticeable and pleasurable reward, no matter what one’s natural talent may be.  This acquisition of skill is terrifically exciting – like discovering a new world.  And at first it is quite consistent.  The more effort you put in, the more skill you acquire.  In many cases, it may even seem exponential in its growth because, of course, compared to a starting situation of no knowledge or capability at all, even small accomplishments loom large and excite the imagination.

But eventually the first plateau is reached, and the soaring first flight into the new world ends.  There will be more progress, but it will come in smaller, less exciting steps, and it will require longer periods of hard work where there is little visible improvement.  There will still be very tangible rewards, but not at the accelerated pace of that early, sublime encounter.

It is tempting in life to engage in many passionate embraces with new occupations, to become as the old saying goes, ‘a jack of all trades and master of none’.  There are so many interesting things in this world, and the urge to investigate new activities and develop new skills is hard to resist.

But it is also a good habit to develop some passions more completely, rather than simply fly from one to the next once the initial ardor is quenched.  There is deep satisfaction in having worked long and hard on a skill and slowly developing it over time.  However, there is no assurance that you will become a master.  In the modern online world, where we are confronted with incomparable examples of mastery in every possible category, it is easy to become dispirited and abandon a quest because we suspect we will never attain those levels of expertise. 

The 10,000 hour rule, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers, implied that we can obtain mastery if we are willing to devote ourselves to a project.  But in recent years, this claim has been debunked as only part of the formula for mastery of a discipline.  And who has 10,000 hours anyway?  Few of us will become superstars in anything we attempt.  If our goal is to find fame or fortune, then we are likely on a quixotic journey. But the slow, steady progress that is the necessary result of any good faith effort in an activity is reward enough if we cast vanity aside.

As in most things in life, a balance of acquiring many new skills and committing more profoundly to a few is probably the best approach.   Still, I do love the first heady joys of the learning curve.  They seem to be in perfect synchrony with my somewhat restless spirit!

A Sensible Approach to Reducing Abortions

One of the most passionate issues in the culture wars is the question of how the government should legislate abortion.  Abortion has been legal in the U.S. since 1973, when the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision was handed down.  The decision launched bitter disputes between pro-choice and pro-life groups and has had a significant impact on political and judicial life in the U.S. since that time.

What makes this topic so divisive is its intersection with religious, personal liberty and moral questions. To many religious people who feel that a fetus is already a child of God, it is incomprehensible to allow an abortion.  To many others, it is incomprehensible that the state can legislate any control over a woman’s body, including its reproductive organs.

Here are some basic facts about abortion before and after Roe vs. Wade:

• Abortions occurred in large number (estimates vary but range between several hundred thousand and well over a million) before 1973.  Wealthy and middle class women could always get abortions by traveling to a place where they were legal.  Poor women obtained abortions too, but generally through providers with limited medical expertise and/or facilities, and often suffered serious health consequences.
• The history of abortion is closely related to the history of contraception and sexual practices.  It was only in 1965 that the supreme court struck down laws against distributing contraception to married couples, and only in 1972 to unmarried couples!
• The primary quasi-official statistics on the number of induced abortions per year, which the CDC tracks from state-submitted data, are
• 1972 (pre-decision) – 587,000
• 1973 – 616,000
•  Increasing steadily to a peak in 1990 at 1,429,000
• Decreasing steadily thereafter to 2017 level of 616,000
• Public opinions on abortion vary year to year but have generally shown that a majority support some legal abortion at least through the first trimester of pregnancy.
• Individual states have enacted laws to restrict abortions and/or make it more difficult for providers to offer abortions.  Some of these laws have been struck down by the judiciary, but they have definitely made abortions more difficult in some states.

There is debate about why abortions have declined substantially from 1990 to the present.  The availability of contraceptives, particularly long-term IUDs, and the efforts to publicize birth control methods and teach sex education are certainly major factors.  It is also argued by pro-life groups that the restrictions in some states have reduced the number of abortions.  However, abortions have declined almost equally in both states with restrictions and those without.  The number of unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies have declined dramatically over that period.  

The rate of teen pregnancy declined from 59.9 per thousand teens in 1990 to 20.3 per thousand in 2016.  An amazing and very encouraging statistic!  This was certainly NOT due to changes in sexual practices, but due to use of contraceptives.  The U.S. still has the largest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country.  I would guess that it is primarily due to lack of sex education and availability of contraceptives, a situation we could fairly easily address.

Does anyone really want to go back to the days of back alley abortions?  Many of those who have rallied to the banner of pro-life were not around before Roe v. Wade and are not aware of how many tragic deaths and medical problems resulted from desperate attempts at abortion.  Unless we establish a draconian police state, a change in law will simply change where and how abortions occur, not whether they occur.  There might be less abortions, but probably not significantly less.  The availability now of chemical forms of abortion has changed the game and these chemicals would certainly go underground if the laws changed.  They would be easily obtained and create a new ‘drug war’ that would benefit no one. 

The obvious middle ground on the abortion issue is for all parties to avoid the emotional polemics and rally around the  common goal of reducing abortions.  We must recognize that the most realistic and effective way to accomplish this is to make contraception readily available to every woman (and man) and to encourage parents to face the facts of the current sexual culture and counsel their children on the use of contraceptives.  Sexual practices may change over time, but it is delusional to think that denying young people contraceptives will somehow result in less premarital or teen sex and the resultant abortions.

We will never completely satisfy those who think that abortion is a murderous sin that can never be allowed.  But neither should we be cavalier about abortion, for many good reasons.

The coming battles in the Supreme Court are likely to cause great emotional turmoil on all sides.  Like so many Supreme Court issues, the constitutional issues are a smokescreen and the war is really over the evolution of how people view our society, our ethics, our morals, our principles, religion and life itself.  The Supreme Court can lead or it can be dragged into the future.  Contraception, like premarital sex, is a fact of life and will never again be outlawed.  Abortion is primarily a by-product of inadequate contraception and ignorance.  Everyone wants fewer abortions – let’s work together to achieve that goal.

The Liberal Dilemma on Multi-culturalism

It is a basic tenet of liberal thinking that a multi-cultural society has many benefits and that the world should welcome the widespread, heterogeneous distribution of ethnic, racial and cultural groups.  A corollary to this is the sense that cultural and religious practices should always be respected and protected.

Since 9/11, progressives have rallied to resist the wholesale denigration of the Muslim culture by right wing antagonists. They have insisted, correctly, that Islamic terrorism is confined to an extremely small group within Islam.  They have waged a social media battle against the vile stereotypes of both Muslim and Hispanic cultures.  More recently, they have fought to prevent Trump from implementing draconian immigration and refugee policies based solely on religious or cultural affiliation.

The necessity for liberals to oppose stereotypes and misinformation from the right is clear when one reads that at one point 24% of Americans believed that President Obama was Muslim, or that an equal number believed that the U.K. or other European countries had whole regions where sharia law was practiced.

But in answering the call to oppose the wholesale condemnation of various cultures, the left has also been put in the difficult position of being reluctant to strongly advocate against some cultural characteristics or practices that are clearly undesirable.

There are basic conflicts between some elements of modern Western culture and Islamic culture.  The Pew Charitable Trust has spent years charting Muslim and Western views on various aspects of morality and culture.  The results are simultaneously encouraging and concerning.  One encouraging result was the great majority of Muslims that oppose suicide bombings, Jihad violence and Isis through the Muslim world.

Perhaps the most difficult area is the concept of freedom of religion.  Muslims favor freedom of religion by a significant majority, yet a majority in most Muslim countries are also adamant that sharia law should play a large role in society.  More shockingly, in many Muslim countries, a majority support the death penalty for apostasy (a Muslim leaving the religion) or blasphemy.  These are views and traditions that are simply not acceptable in any society, yet liberals are hesitant to speak out strongly against them for fear of contributing to the overall prejudice against Muslims.

Another major area of friction between Western and Muslim cultures is the role and treatment of women.  The tradition of women covering themselves in varying degrees is in one sense a cultural choice that one must respect, as long as it is truly the woman’s choice to do so.  However, the forced covering, and application of punishments or ostracism when a woman chooses not to cover is not an acceptable cultural tradition in modern society and even liberals must be vocal in their condemnation of such practices.  Other aspects of the limited role of women in Muslim society that are evident in some Muslim countries may in part be cultural norms that we must accept, but it is hypocritical for liberals to advocate for women’s rights in one situation and ignore them in another.

The general question of how to deal with morality is still another dividing point between some Muslim (though certainly not all) and most Western cultures.  Homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, alcohol and a variety of other ‘morality’ issues are viewed quite differently in the two cultures.  When these viewpoints are simply different cultural practices there is perhaps some friction and division, but they are certainly not irreconcilable.  However, in cultures where these behaviors are punished by law or extralegal means, such as honor killings or imprisonment, then liberals must be just as critical as they would be in judging their own societies.

The western world has only recently shed many of the same pernicious cultural and religious practices that now hamper the development of some parts of the world.  It wasn’t so long ago that we were burning heretics, condemning adulterers to death, or treating women as chattel. 

Multiculturalism can make a beautiful contribution to civilization by creating a new interwoven fabric of traditions, foods, and behavior.  We certainly do not wish for nor advocate a move toward a homogeneous society.  As liberals, we have a responsibility to dispel the cruel stereotypes and misinformation that are spread by ignorant people who react negatively to anything that is strange, unsettling or different, and thus fear the assimilation of different cultures, ethnic groups or religions.

But we must also not hesitate to speak out against aspects of any culture or religion that violate the basic human rights, freedoms and decency that have been won at great cost in the advance of human civilization.

The High-Tech Racket

Technology companies are some of the wealthiest and most successful businesses in the world.  Their executives are rich beyond all comprehension and account for much of the obscene accumulation of wealth in recent decades.

The development of computer hardware and software technologies has indeed been an amazing phenomenon and has provided significant benefit to humankind.  There have been many ingenious innovations.  But once the initial innovation is past, the ongoing business of high-tech is basically a racket, not unlike the automobile racket of the 50’s and 60’s.  The operative word is guaranteed obsolescence.  Here are some examples of how it works.

The primary software on almost all personal computers is a combination of Microsoft Windows, the operating system, and Office, the combination of office software tools that most people use – Email, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, along with a few others that very few people use.  This software runs on personal computers, made by a variety of companies such as Dell, Apple, HP, Acer and many others.

It is safe to say that a healthy percentage of the computer-using population uses their computers for the same functions today – basic office functions, Internet surfing and social media, email – as they did twenty years ago.  The word processor and spreadsheet have seen only tiny improvements in recent years and most people use the same features they used 20 or even 30 years ago.  Even the major advances in online media and streaming could be handled by much older computers and their operating systems and browsers. People could, in theory, be using the same computers and software they purchased in 1999 and have all the functionality that they need.

Instead, most of us have purchased computers every 2-4 years, paying from $400 to $1500 each time for very marginal, if any, increases in functionality.  And why have we done that?  Because the memory, storage and processing requirements for running the software have grown exponentially and require ever increasing hardware capabilities.

And why have we continued to add the software that makes our computers obsolete, which, by the way, costs quite a bit of money as well?  Because the software companies, Microsoft being the primary culprit, come out with new versions that add modest or even unwanted new features.  And once these new versions are on the market we feel compelled to purchase them in order to stay ‘current’ with the technology and to be able to interact with the world around us.

A behemoth like Microsoft is dependent on this revenue (and its obscenely high profit margins) and has, along with one other company – Apple – a monopoly on the operating system and basic software.  There are no viable competitors, thus allowing these two companies to dictate wildly extravagant pricing in relation to the effort needed to maintain and modestly upgrade this software  In recent years they have switched to a subscription service to guarantee the ongoing successful extortion of fees, even though the great majority of us uses each new version of software for exactly the same purposes and gains no benefit whatsoever from these payments.

This ecosystem of quickly obsolete hardware and software is similar to the way that General Motors and Ford conducted the automobile business in the 50’s and 60’s.  People were indoctrinated in the habit of purchasing a new car every 2 or 3 years.  That mode of automobile purchasing is still somewhat operative today, as people are easily tempted by the allure of a bright new car, but the average duration of ownership is now close to seven years and has slowly climbed over the last 70 years.

The ubiquitous smart phone is another example of the high-tech racket.  The maturity of the smart phone has now reached the point where successive generations bring very marginal additional benefit, yet the public races to purchase each new shiny version, perhaps for some prompted by the small cachet of being the early adopter, but for most simply a lemming-like response to the release of a new gadget and the endless need for more storage and power that comes with bigger photos (who needs a 10MB photo?!!), our addiction to social media and legions of apps.  At least in this market there is a reasonable level of competition.  But the guaranteed obsolescence will be more non-sensical as time goes by.

Isn’t all of this just smart business?  Doesn’t the world need this type of frenzied, unwarranted consumerism to feed the engines of commerce?  Perhaps, but one might theorize that our treasure would be better spent on other more necessary items, and that the profit from these purchases would be better spread among a vast number of smaller, modest enterprises rather than add to the bloated coffers of the software and hardware plutocrats.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Robin Hood Economics

Recent proposals from aspiring 2020 presidential candidates have focused on decreasing the income gap by various forms of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  One suggestion was a general tax (2%/year) on the wealth of the richest Americans, those whose net worth is over $50 million.  Another proposal is to re-introduce much higher marginal tax rates into the federal income tax, similar to those that we had in the 1950’s. 

The reactions to these proposals were no surprise.  Epithets with ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ were hurled angrily and all the failed so-called socialist states (Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.) were invoked to dismiss these ideas as horribly misguided if not outright immoral and evil.

But polarizing sound bites aside, what are the virtues, the pitfalls and the cautionary tales for trying to make the income game a bit less extreme?  And why are even many middle to lower middle class people so violently against the concept?

The first question to answer is whether the income gap is indeed a problem that needs solving.  I would argue that it is, because a widening income gap creates a society of distinct classes with less upward mobility and a growing frustration of unrealized potential and expectations in those who are not part of the elite.  And as I have often speculated before, all indications are that middle-class jobs are disappearing, and that automation will only accelerate this process, resulting in even more extreme income disparities.

Taking wealth from the super-rich is a tricky business, because the rich will find myriad ways to foil any attempts to take what they view as rightfully theirs.  But let’s assume, for arguments sake, that there is a fair and effective way to do this. How will this wealth be used?

It is an axiom among conservatives that our government is bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient.  One has only to look at growth in the Washington D.C. area to get the impression that there is some validity in this point of view.  It is a sad truth that most non-competitive entities tend to grow ever larger and become less efficient over time.  It is very difficult to rein in that kind of sprawl.  So it is understandable that the thought of taking large amounts of money from the rich and giving it to the government to spend is anathema to conservatives and even gives pause to many liberals.

But what about a direct transfer of wealth from the rich to the working (or even non-working, but that is another even more polarizing discussion) poor and lower middle class?  This could be achieved by reducing or even totally eliminating taxes for the recipients and giving credits to the lowest income group. 

From a basic economic point of view, one could argue that this wealth would be more rapidly spent on basic goods and services and stimulate the economy, thus having a positive feedback effect of creating more jobs and lifting more people into the middle and upper middle class.  The counter argument would be that the wealth would no longer be available for investment in new enterprises or expansion of existing ones.  But it seems to me that an increase in demand must come before an increase in supply is warranted, and the amount of wealth that is already stockpiled in the coffers of the rich must surely be sufficient to meet the investment needed to balance any increase in demand.

This direct transfer from the super wealthy to the non-wealthy would have to be carefully done to achieve maximum effect, but it would avoid the further bloating of government (other than a modest increase necessary to manage the transfer).

 

Another argument against this method would be that it would have a negative effect on the ambition and work ethic of the recipients, creating more of a welfare mindset.  This is a corollary to the free market theory that wages must be market driven to avoid coddling the working classes and artificially creating inflation or other market damage.  But we may have already reached a state in our economy where ambition and a strong work ethic will no longer guarantee a better job or higher wage, if such guarantees ever really existed in an ideal form.

The low level of wages for most service sector jobs is due partly to the absence of the collective bargaining options that raised wages in the latter stages of the industrial revolution and rescued the manufacturing sector from imminent revolution!  It would be more effective to accomplish this wage increase through a top-level transfer across society than to leave it to the slow machinations of the myriad disparate collective bargaining groups that are currently facing a significant headwind due to the general retreat and poor reputation of unions.

The entrenched myth of the rich ‘deserving’ their grotesque incomes needs to be debunked, as does the quasi-religious mystique of the free market.  One look at the growth of CEO salaries in the past 50 years is enough to convince anyone of the capricious nature of the ‘market’.  We may have learned from the failures of centralized economies that some form of capitalism and the free market is the most efficient system, but that does not mean that we should not continue to smooth its very sharp edges and use our best understanding to make it as humane as possible.

Philanthropy

I have struggled for most of my life with the question of how I should balance my own life and interests with the ‘call’ to do ‘good’.  I will use the term philanthropy as a catchall for this, as its basic definition is ‘the desire to promote the welfare of others’.

The first 26 years of my life were spent in what I would describe as a totally self-indulgent fashion.  I believe I was then, and have always been, a kind person and quite considerate of the feelings of others.  However, in those first 26 years I never performed tasks that specifically benefited others and I never gave any money to charitable causes.

When I left the Navy and entered graduate school, I was suddenly seized by a strong inclination to investigate and/or cultivate a spiritual life and with it, a sense that I should do something philanthropic.  Thus began a new phase of what I would term ‘philanthropic anxiety’ in my odyssey of self-discovery that continues to this day.

During my two years in graduate school I became a Big Brother, mentoring a 9 year old African-American boy from the projects in Boston.  The cultural divide was enormous, but we managed to have a nice relationship.  I have no idea whether I had any real impact on his life.  It could be that my entering and leaving his life in such quick fashion was more detrimental than helpful.  I just don’t know.

Soon after that I met and married Karen, who was a ‘giver’ by nature.  Indeed, part of her allure for me was her commitment to good works.  Together, we became super-involved in starting a Habitat for Humanity affiliate in Melbourne, Florida.  This work became a second job for both of us and left little time for other endeavors.

During that time in Melbourne, my fervor for serving humanity reached a climax, and I made a frenzied but short-lived effort to emulate Albert Schweitzer’s late evolution into a medical missionary by studying for and taking the MCATs.  I corresponded with several medical schools to determine how many courses I would have to take to apply as a 31 year old student.

Karen and I ended up going off in a different direction though, temporarily abandoning our careers (we were childless after all!) and moving to Americus, GA to work with founder and charismatic leader Millard Fuller at Habitat for Humanity’s headquarters.  Soon after our arrival I became the head of fundraising and publicity for Habitat International.  This was an exciting time for us, being part of a very dynamic organization and interacting with people like Millard and Jimmy Carter as well as a group of zealous and fascinating volunteers.

During these years in Melbourne and at Habitat for Humanity I became convinced that the only path for me was to commit myself fully to helping others and that any other pursuit was somehow trivial or less noble.  It seemed to me at the time that once one became aware of all the need and brokenness of the world, then the only honorable path was to abandon selfish, worldly pursuits and commit oneself fully to serving humankind.

The exhilaration of working with other idealists in a noble cause was a powerful attraction for Karen and me, and we believed that our life’s work would be focused on ‘good works’.  Our co-workers at HFH were similarly passionate about their commitment and the organization pulsed with idealistic fervor.

Unfortunately, I began to experience a strong recurrence of the respiratory infections that had plagued me intermittently throughout my life and had forced me out of the Navy.  Eventually I made the decision to leave Habitat and pursue a career in academia, which led me to complete a Ph.D. at Georgia Tech and ironically back into industry upon realizing that research wasn’t my passion.

In the interim I began to question some of my assumptions about charitable work, both in terms of my own motivation and the purpose and/or efficacy of the work itself.  When we arrived in Americus, HFH was still a relatively small organization with a small full-time staff and a large number of volunteers who worked for a small stipend and housing.  (The short-term volunteers received their pay as checks made out to the local Piggly Wiggly grocery store and these were truly ‘sty’pends!)

What began to bother me about HFH, and other charitable organizations that I became very familiar with during that time, was that these organizations quickly evolved away from their idealistic roots and took on many of the corporate trappings of traditional businesses.  The mission no longer influenced the nature of the people and organization that was executing it.  And this, in turn, would cause the mission to become less revolutionary and more a part of the general charity ecosystem.

I continued to work with HFH even after I left full time employment.  While a graduate student I served on the Atlanta HFH Board of Directors and spoke at numerous events.  I also helped start up both the Georgia Tech and Emory Campus chapters.

But as time passed, my ardor for philanthropy ebbed.  I found it increasingly difficult to believe that ‘charity’ was likely to be the remedy for the worlds ills and I began to question my own motives.

There are two important questions to be raised about philanthropy.  The first is why do we feel the call to ‘do good’ and how does it impact our lives.  The second is what does philanthropy actually accomplish and how effective is it.

It is a rite of passage for every successful person to eventually succumb to the call of philanthropy.  I recall Ted Turner goading Bill Gates back in the 90’s to ‘do something good’ with his fortune, challenging him to join him in various philanthropic efforts, invoking clichéd bromides of the ‘better to give than receive’ genre.  Since that time Bill Gates has indeed risen to the challenge, establishing a foundation that is very active in several big causes – the eradication of polio being the most well-known.

I am afraid that I cannot revere Turner nor Gates, nor any other tycoon philanthropist for their largesse.  I view foundations and philanthropy with a hefty dose of skepticism, both for their motivation and their efficacy.  Being a recognized philanthropist is the crown of glory that is sought after all the other accolades for wealth, success, fame and business acumen have been collected.  It is the legacy and near-immortality that people with large egos crave. I recognize that my critique is tinged with irony, as I would assuredly be following the same path as Turner and Gates if I had amassed a fortune like theirs.  These are not bad people.  I am not demeaning them, but I am also unwilling to put them on a pedestal.

I acknowledge, on balance, that it is certainly better for these absurdly wealthy individuals to move some of their outrageous treasure to a foundation that is doing ‘good’ than to simply hoard it for themselves and their families.  But in a world that is increasingly polarized between the wealthy and the poor, the philanthropic model is a stark and grotesque reminder of the basic structural and economic imbalances that plague this sad planet.

Henry David Thoreau addressed the topic of philanthropy somewhat dismissively in Walden.  He wrote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday's liberty for the rest. Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there?”

Putting aside vast riches in various foundations (or worse yet, giving them to bloated educational foundations) creates monuments to the philanthropist, but does it really change the world or bring us any closer to a just and healthy society?

In recent years, much of what we have praised as ‘charitable works’ has been shown to be ill-informed at best, and often downright detrimental to the very people whose lives it hopes to improve.  The movie Poverty Inc traces the explosive growth of NGO’s and an entire poverty ecosystem that appears to have routinely retarded all organic development efforts and worked, however unintended, against the very goals it promotes.

Every successful person is encouraged to ‘give back’, and our civic and religious traditions strongly endorse and even require charitable acts and generosity as a fundamental duty of a moral and ethical life.  Certainly, we cannot stand by while the poor and marginalized suffer a thousand different torments and misfortunes.  But it is also increasingly clear that the traditional model of philanthropy and charity is neither efficient nor healthy, and is probably guilty of perpetuating the ills that it wishes to amend.

The call to philanthropy goes to the very heart of our quest for meaning in life.  What is our purpose? Why do we exist?  We sense that total self-indulgence is not a very healthy or noble pursuit, so we assuage our middle (or upper) class guilt by spending a Sunday morning or two at the soup kitchen, or writing a few checks to charities at years end.  But is philanthropy – i.e. an intentional effort to help those in need or improve the world in some way – something everyone should embrace?  Would it be better, as Thoreau suggests, for us to live a life that promotes an equitable world and avoid the practices that lead to injustice and poverty?  Is our passion for ‘doing good’ just another means to bolster our egos and beat back the guilt of our pampered lives, which we know to be more the result of good fortune and circumstance than the result of our clever actions or hard work.

There is no easy answer to the question of how much one should dedicate oneself to philanthropy.  Contradictions and ironies are everywhere.  Altruism, like humility, is a golden ring that is always out of reach.  Each person must seek his or her own path and find the balance that feels right.