Conversation

Replying to
Wut why? That’s a weird expectation. Progressive taxation and universal healthcare including mental healthcare, yes. Expecting wealthy to do things like that is just odd.
2
1
Replying to
... yet I've never heard of a foundation with directly subsidizing mental health as its focus, despite ample data about the value of therapy/treatment for folks.
1
Replying to
Simply wont scale. Can work for rare and low incidence things, but the number of needy people who have mental health issues would totally swamp wealthy people’s direct charitable capabilities. Nice that a few do it though.
2
Replying to
Sure but... that doesn't negate it being weird that there aren't more doing it. And loads of money goes to causes that don't scale but that are generally thought of as more-is-better
1
Replying to
Few rich people actually care about charity. Most just want to put minimal thought into socially expected levels of giving and get on with yachts and parties. So they latch onto currently fashionable cause in their circle.
Replying to
Maybe charities seem too abstract. That's been on my mind a lot lately - how the things that most need resources/attention are too distal to our metaphorical hearts go command much attention
1
Replying to and
There is a restaurant owner who cared about not only the produce he sources, but also about the people on the land he sources from. So he built school for the farm village children. The better informed the children, if they do decide to keep farming, will be with pride.
1
1