The New York Times Magazine this last Sunday (March 9) featured a brief story on “Darwinian” explanations of altruism as self-interest in disguise. The author, Jim Holt, introduces the story by illustrating four possible explanations for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s generosity: kinship selection; reciprocal altruism; reputation repair; and a “potlatch” plan to bankrupt his rivals (e.g. the Google bros.) by stimulating competitive expenditure. Discretiting the explanatory value of each, Holt goes on to suggest that the Darwinian explanations often fail.
Gates philanthropy has always struck me as being susceptible to another accusation: investment in the infrastructure of a future market. Why wait for the markets for his products to emerge through traditional means (domestic capacity building in developing countries and investments from foreign development agencies), when he is in a position to – as Keats said of his poetry reading public – “create the taste by which he is to be appreciated”? Thinking of the Gates Foundation in terms of “patient capital” seems to me a more plausible explanation for the hidden self-interest driving his foundation’s ostensible acts of altruism. That said, I don’t buy it.
Posted by thinandlight 
Posted by thinandlight 

Posted by thinandlight