this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
45 points (58.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43965 readers
1773 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you mean net good (more good than bad) or is a good thing like "established public libraries" acceptable even if he also oppressed workers and stifled unions and bought government officials and stuff?
How many libraries is enough libraries to offset it though? That's the question. 5 libraries? Probably not. 10000 libraries? ...๐คท
10 billion libraries? Now you're oppressing people in a whole new way. That's more than one library per person. Surely not scalable.
Well that's why I asked OP if this is "net" calculation (good - bad) or if just the good counts.
By my evaluation I don't think any billionaire (or equivalent using PPP calculations) has ever or could ever do enough "good" to overwrite the "bad" they have to do to accumulate that much wealth, unless they literally spend it all on improving people's lives including getting down in the trenches themselves.