Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

1. No, because most wealthy philanthropists put greater barriers between their donations and the people they donate money too. Epstein was unique in that his giving was a lot more direct and unmediated and depended upon his whims. 2. No, but they have other awful downsides.

I think there may be a few other unusual features of Jeffrey Epstein that you maybe just maybe be trying to shoehorn in here

For the record, I usually block people for "Hitler was a vegetarian," and I'm not sure why I'm letting this slide aside from the fact that I think you're actually The Problem and I want you to keep responding to my stuff.

It also *might* be worth noting that Epstein had several foundations, and AFAICT did not directly hand anyone cash for science.

Correct, but he handpicked the people his foundations gave money too, and, if you trust Steven Pinker's account, the moment people called him out on his behaviour or his stupidity, he would "vote them off the island". I obviously don't think most ultra rich are like Epstein, but

I genuinely think that having scholars depend on the personal and unmediated favour of the ultra rich (even super smart and generous ones) would have all sorts of negative consequences.

I wonder, Epstein shoehorn aside, if your list of negative consequences would include a lot of things others here might describe as positive?

I think there are potentially a lot of really positive outcomes! Funding bodies, even when they claim they want to fund revolutionary research, are exceedingly conservative. They are exceedingly paperwork heavy - etc, etc.