Bono Defends Steve Jobs Against Criticism Over Lack of Public Philanthropy

[krzyglue]

Why is there a moral obligation to help anyone ? life has its have's and its have nots, that is life, there is no obligation to help anyone, a lot of people are in the **** position they are in due to bad lifestyle choices or non existent work ethic or not attending school when they should, why should Steve or anyone bail out those that had their chance in life and didn't take it ?

It is so incredibly frustrating, and to a very large extent, terrifying, to read this.

A child who gets malaria in the Darfur, and with a family who cannot afford the medications required, isn't in that situation because of a bad lifestyle or a non-existent work ethic on the part of any members of his or her family.

And please, can we stop with this claptrap about how we have no obligation to help our fellow humans? Eradicating malaria isn't bailing anyone out, giving those far, far less fortunate than us a chance for survival isn't bailing anyone out. The capacity for charity should be, and in today's times ought to be, above all else, what defines us as humans. Again, I hope I don't need to remind you that they are truly less "fortunate" than us; they are not in their positions because of any actions on their part.

Or in more concrete terms, if everyone thought the way you do, no organ or blood donation system of any kind would exist. Yes, we may be on the path to an "innovative" solution (manufactured organs?), but you know what? People are in hospitals *today* that need such help. Absolutely, those pursuing this "innovative" path should be more than commended, but this does not exonerate anyone from not doing anything right now.

Yes, I still firmly believe in capitalism. I don't think anyone here is advocating a communist style redistribution of wealth. Obviously though, donating a large part of an incredibly large fortune isn't in any way related to this.

 

[Savor]

This is what happens when you have a $1 annual income from Apple.

 

[wdmarty]

Newsflash: If steve had given his money to charity in the early days he would have never had enough money to start NeXT or start Pixar.

The reason he keeps his money is because he actually uses it for stuff. Unlike bill gates and Warren but head who have no idea of what to do with it all, he changes the future of technology when he invests his money.

I guarantee that ANY of the three - Jobs, Gates, Buffet - has individually donated more money and done more good in the world than every person in this thread combined will ever, ever do.

Now, Gates and Buffet sitting around not knowing what to do with their money? Please. They are both wealthier and smarter than you could imagine. If you ever manage to out do their work, come back to this humble thread and we'll all listen to your advice.

 

[tigress666]

I'm sorry, I'm really confused about this line of thinking. So let's say Steve Jobs wasn't a match for this liver, then what would've happened? They would've thrown it into the dumpster out behind the hospital?

I don't believe that for one second. In a hypothetical world where Steve Jobs didn't have his jet, I'm sure the liver would've gone to somebody. The question isn't if he was first on the waiting list legitimately (i.e. was following the rules)- I'm more than confident he was. The question is, was it ethically justified (as he had the resources to be "two hours away" from far more hospitals than you or me)?

Really? So you are going to deny him a chance to get a liver because he had a better ability to get there than some one else. Even though he was on the waiting list and he didn't jump ahead and they picked him because he could be there in the certain time and his space had come up?

How dare he use his money to actually save his life. Obviously since he was rich he should have just given up his spot to some other person who wasn't rich. Oh, even better! He should have offered up his plane to those worse off than him so they could get a liver before him! How dare he have an advantage?!

So I guess then we should only give out organs based on who was on the list first and not who can actually get there in time to get the organ? If they can't get there in time, throw the organ away. It's only fair to make sure those with "unfair" advantages don't get the organ instead!

I suppose you'd feel the same way if you could get there by car but some person who didn't own a car who was waiting longer couldn't get there in time cause they had to rely on mass transit or walk? How dare you have an advantage over some one else! And don't give me some crap like some one posted that a lot of people have cars but not a lot of people have jets. A lot of people also don't have cars and it is a very valid analogy cause some one with a car has an "unfair" advantage over some one who doesn't.

The only people bitching that how dare he use his jet to actually save his life are those who are jealous. I'm sure they wouldn't refuse a life saving organ just cause some one else needed one that didn't have as good advantage as them (There is always some one worse off than you)? Or should it be the worse off always get first chance just to make it "fair"?

And no, I'm not saying whether SJ is a good person or not. His history seems to say no. But it is possible he has matured or changed (cause most of the stuff I see is history). I don't know, I don't know the guy.

I just think it's ridiculous there are people here who think it was evil of him to actually take advantage of the fact he had a jet to get an organ in time (despite the fact he waited in line and only when his time came up, when they had an organ and he was next on the list who could get to it in time).

 

[applebook]

At least Steve isn't out there telling everyone else to give. Unlike that hypocrite Bono!

There's nothing wrong with telling others to give, so long as the teller does his share of giving. Are you saying that no one should exhort others to be generous?

There are many reasons to dislike Bono, but you've picked a wrong point with which to bash him.

Giving anonymously is commendable, but giving openly so as to encourage others to do the same might be moreso.

----------

This is what happens when you have a $1 annual income from Apple.

Still, he could have donated $0.1 to Unicef at least!

----------

It is so incredibly frustrating, and to a very large extent, terrifying, to read this.

It shouldn't terrify you to know that there are idiots like that in the world. They tend to show up in droves on Youtube and web forum comments. My suggestion is to ignore them.

 

[MacSince1990]

Not his problem. He does business the way he does business, and it has gotten his company tremendous results and benefitted the industry in ways not thought possible.

Absolutely gorgeous circular logic.

That's kinda the major goal - the point to what he did every day.

The major goal is that he "has gotten his company tremendous results and benefitted the industry" [sic]? In what way is that the major goal of a humanitarian.. or, well, anyone? Who gives a **** about the industry?

Quite frankly, it's a crying shame there aren't other CEOs like him.

There ARE other CEOs like him. Hundreds of him. That's sort of the problem.

As for how he was personally, hey, personalities are as many and varied as there are stars in the sky.

Which is no more to the point than the fact that there are hundreds of different car makers out there. Regardless of how many or varied they are, Hyundai's still suck. So does Jobs, as a human being.

I'm not really going to slag on Monet or Mozart because they might have been ******s or they weren't fun to drink with.

They were, and they probably weren't.

That isn't really the point.

Well thank God you're going to enlighten us then. By the way, Monet was a crappy painter.

The only point worth making is Jobs made the kind of contribution most people can only dream of making, and what's more, is he did a lot of it while battling cancer.

What kind of contribution would that be? And what does cancer have to do with anything?

The rest isn't really important.

Nice. You've said a great deal without really saying anything at all.

See the problem here is that you seem to be equating Jobs' innovation with importance... maybe even decency. But his contributions to the world have been few.

What has he done? He's provided computers that are fun to use.. devices that provide entertainment. So sure, he's made people happy--- so to speak, anyway.

Of course, so has Hugh Hefner. I'm not sure that makes him a humanitarian, though. Nor am I sure it makes his contribution to society one of note or deserving high praise.

Although I suppose certain demographics may disagree.

 

[skinnylegs]

I've read through quite of few of these posts but I'm getting tired so please forgive me if I'm saying something somebody already said.

First off, for those of you who are bashing Jobs; I think it's pretty lame to make assumptions when you you really don't know what you're talking about. Nobody really knows what he's given and I for one am just fine with that.

Secondly, it's easy to give away somebody else's money. How about you just keep your side of the street clean and stop worrying about other people.

My last point is that I'd venture to say that the vast majority of peeps who question Jobs philanthropy probably make little or no money or make a modest wage and don't give squat themselves. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[sennekuyl]

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

But in this type of case, the opposite side of the conversation assumes some obligation to be philanthropic.* We can speculate all we want, but SJ is under no obligation, and he isn't dead yet. I personally don't like that one can accumulate so much when so many never get the opportunity for obtaining a smidgeon of that**, but neither have I come up with a better system.

* I agree it is deluded to speculate that he does; just as deluded as speculating that he doesn't. MYOB people. And just because you don't 'believe' SJ et al is giving doesn't mean you think they must. [may require further caveats.]
** No I'm not talking about me and mine, nor anyone else from the various western/wealthy cultures. Cut it how you may, they/we have quite a few opportunities.

 

[sennekuyl]

<snip> You cannot buy yourself into heaven.

:shrug: Can't seem to get there any other way either.

----------

This is my biggest criticism of Steve Jobs. His continued lack of philanthropic efforts is appalling given how richly he is blessed. If Apple is your focus and legacy, God help you. Millions starve and are afflicted by disease every day, and he's going to sit on his wealth and rest on some laurel of (Red) Product placement and his superfluous adherence to Buddhism? (Real Buddhists are some of the most compassionate and self sacrificing people on this earth)

This jolly back patting is ridiculous, Steve doesn't deserve an ounce of praise or concern.

Judging someone? tut tut tut!

----------

Exactly. Thank you. As a devout believer I say this all the time to nonbelievers. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The lack of evidence always suggests some truth.

What you say is true, but evidence of absence is absence of evidence. Generally the truth is that it is not there.

 

[*LTD*]

What has he done? He's provided computers that are fun to use.. devices that provide entertainment. So sure, he's made people happy--- so to speak, anyway.

That's more than enough, and a heck of a lot more than many could hope for.

You're expecting great humanitarian deeds from a CEO of a tech company? He changed the face of tech several times over. Actually, that's an understatement. He and his company are responsible for viable personal computing at large. Never mind what he did over the past 12 year or so. What he accomplished during his early years is pretty monumental.

No, he's not quite a humanitarian. He was too busy doing amazing things in the area of his knowledge, training and expertise: technology. His contribution in this area is more than a lot of people can hope to achieve in several lifetimes, never mind up until 53 years of age.

And you want MORE??

I don't think anyone at all is entitled to expect more from him. Play down his achievements all you like. He has added far, far more value to our lives than any Bill Gates could hope. And a good chunk of it was done while battling cancer. If you think his efforts would have been better spent on humanitarian causes (and not, incidentally, on the products you line up for and obsess about on these tech sites) then you need your head checked.

How easy it is to criticize him using the very products he provided and which we can't seem to get enough of and demand upgrades for constantly, and then whine when we don't get our way. He was kinda tied up trying to give you and me and everyone else here more of what they wanted. And judging by the massive sense of entitlement of some members here, Jobs was very much on the clock. The perfidy of which the human mind is capable is monumental.

 

[THX1139]

Most philanthropic donations are squandered anyway. Better to create jobs and technology that makes people's lives better than to use the money to line other peoples pockets. Some of those aid agencies have become a big business unto themselves with executive pulling down huge salaries and small percentages going to actually help people. Steve is smart enough to see that it's mostly a racket and chooses not to play that game. He probably hand picks the causes he is most interested in and then donates anonymously. He's too private to do otherwise.

 

[sennekuyl]

I love how some "good christians" are always quick to judge others. Sickening.

I think it was sarcasm; guessing the Divinox knows that SJ is Buddist

 

[sennekuyl]

One day I hope you need help. I want to say I hope you don't get it, and it changes your mind, only I think that if you don't get it it will just make you take revenge... You really need to go back and ask yourself, and your friends, and family, if they've ever been helped by anyone out of kindness, and maybe rethink your attitude.

I've needed help. I'm extremely grateful to those that gave. But that doesn't put any obligation on anyone else to do the same unless they want to.

----------

Why don't you think outside the box, not everyone lives in a developed country some people believe it or not are born in to poverty stricken regions of Africa with no food or running water, high infant mortality rates, no education and no chance of getting a job. Please fly over there from your comfy seat and tell these people to get of their asses and get a job!

Maybe God should bless them instead of blessing SJ.

----------

For me, the main issue of this thread is not whether Jobs gives to charity, since no one knows, it is all speculation.

It is, rather, the rather frightening adulation of another human being. Jobs may be a genius, and certainly has made contributions to others through his innovative technologies and devices.

What is disturbing is attitude, expressed in words and in down-ratings, that anything less than blind adulation is to be condemned. Any criticism, real or imagined, is met with often disrespectful derision.

Jobs is a man. A talented and apparently brilliant man. But just a man.

He is not a god to be blindly worshipped. Hero worship is dangerous because all heroes have feet of clay. We are all human, and therefore have faults and weaknesses. Hero worship blinds the believer to reality of the fallibility of humanity.

OK, that's my rant. Let the down-voting begin.

:scratch: the closest I've seen to adulation in this thread [excluding LTD] is effectively, "It is his business what he does with his money". Conversely, the opposite arguement seems to be, "He is obscenely rich, so he should be shouting about how he is giving or he is a prick!"

You are 100% right with anti-hero worship, and he is under no obligation to give.

 

[SoGood]

Why do rich people have to donate money with their name attached? Seeking fame? If one truly want to donate for the cause, name or no name is irrelevant. And many out there sees no need to publicise. It's stupid for the media and others to nitpick on this issue. Shameful in fact!

 

[sennekuyl]

Believe it or not ... you sleep just as well owning 1 Billion dollars as you do with 9 Billion dollars ... if you don't, then you have been afflicted with Greed.

If you are greedy/morally bankrupt/stressed you will sleep just as well with a million as you will with nothing. Money doesn't (well, shouldn't) change your peace of mind. Yes, I have been there. I was and still am peaceful.

 

[Abazigal]

So what exactly is the problem here? People just aren't happy with the way other people are spending their own money?

Hello, it's called "their money" for a reason. It's all good if someone chooses to do something good with the money, but if they don't, I don't see why/how they should be faulted. Do you go around scolding people who eat in restaurants when they could be eating something cheaper and donating the excess savings to charity?

Bottom line, even if SJ decided to plush his money down the toilet or leave it all to his pet dog or something, I don't see how any of us are in any position to fault him.

 

[AppleScruff1]

He and his company are responsible for viable personal computing at large. Never mind what he did over the past 12 year or so. What he accomplished during his early years is pretty monumental.

Don't you mean that Bill Gates and Microsoft are responsible for viable personal computing and Apple has been responsible for advancing mobile computing since 2007? And everything accomplished in the early years was dwarfed by Microsoft as Apple only had a few percentage points of the pc market?

 

[robertdee]

Damn Priests always come after you when you're dying

 

[Mr. Gates]

Must be why his cancer came back.
he was given a second chance at life and continued to be greedy.
Now he has weeks to live

 

[ENSO]

Giving anonymously is commendable, but giving openly so as to encourage others to do the same might be moreso.





Well put!

 

[CWT1965]

It is so incredibly frustrating, and to a very large extent, terrifying, to read this.

A child who gets malaria in the Darfur, and with a family who cannot afford the medications required, isn't in that situation because of a bad lifestyle or a non-existent work ethic on the part of any members of his or her family.

And please, can we stop with this claptrap about how we have no obligation to help our fellow humans? Eradicating malaria isn't bailing anyone out, giving those far, far less fortunate than us a chance for survival isn't bailing anyone out. The capacity for charity should be, and in today's times ought to be, above all else, what defines us as humans. Again, I hope I don't need to remind you that they are truly less "fortunate" than us; they are not in their positions because of any actions on their part.

Or in more concrete terms, if everyone thought the way you do, no organ or blood donation system of any kind would exist. Yes, we may be on the path to an "innovative" solution (manufactured organs?), but you know what? People are in hospitals *today* that need such help. Absolutely, those pursuing this "innovative" path should be more than commended, but this does not exonerate anyone from not doing anything right now.

Yes, I still firmly believe in capitalism. I don't think anyone here is advocating a communist style redistribution of wealth. Obviously though, donating a large part of an incredibly large fortune isn't in any way related to this.

it is just best to let sick and starving Africans die, like I said in another post Africa food supplies are getting lower and lower and lower and the population is getting higher and higher, it is unsustainable, every life that is saved out there is a bigger burden on the food supplies so if charity saves 50m people out there then that is 50m more people that have to find food from somewhere, without being heartless it is better to let them just die in the name of population control than prop them up with charity.

While the food supplies are getting lower and lower we have the pope sending his missionaries out to Africa to encourage them to carry on breeding like rabbits.

If 1/3 of Africans are wiped out through disease and famine and nothing is done to help them then the remaining 2/3 will have more chance of having something to eat.

Better letting the kid in Darfur die of malaria, while Gates is well meaning with his scheme he is going to create even bigger problems long term with hardly any food out there.

If Gates was funding a sterilisation program out there to help population control, if Gates was supporting an educational program out there so that the catholic church bigots and their stone age no contraception weren't poisoning people's minds, if Gates was funding a genetic crops program that meant that crops would survive and more sustainable food supply then he should be supported but what he is doing with the malaria program will do more harm than good

 

[englishman]

I guarantee that ANY of the three - Jobs, Gates, Buffet - has individually donated more money and done more good in the world than every person in this thread combined will ever, ever do.

Now, Gates and Buffet sitting around not knowing what to do with their money? Please. They are both wealthier and smarter than you could imagine. If you ever manage to out do their work, come back to this humble thread and we'll all listen to your advice.

The point is we are all connected in this world and spare a thought for those that have enabled them to have their stash: the loyal employees working long hours and the loyal customers who buy their goods. And everyone who contributes taxes to educate kids so that they know enough to work at Apple. The people who build the roads that transport Apple goods etc

The point is we are all connected but some by virtue of their power take a disproportionate amount.

Some choose to give back, some don't, some are even worse by avoiding taxes.

 

[AaronEdwards]

What Jobs has given us are great, expensive, overpriced products.
It would be great if someone could tell us how these products have helped poor people in either in the US or in Africa for example.

Can anyone show anything to prove that he has ever chosen to employ people not to make more money and instead to help people? Since that the fact that he employs people have been an argument made by many. Employing people has never been the focus of what he does.

Jobs could have pushed Apple to move manufacturing to the US. (Profit is more important.)
Jobs could have pushed Apple to make affordable computers for people in the third world. (I guess that would have lessened the value of the brand...)

He didn't.

 

[Hyper-X]

SJ's could've put some money into some of the recent disaster relief efforts where it could've mattered instead of putting it back into his company... which by the way resulted in the fantastic failure of a product called...


OS X Millenium Edition a.k.a. Lion

 

[CWT1965]

SJ's could've put some money into some of the recent disaster relief efforts where it could've mattered instead of putting it back into his company... which by the way resulted in the fantastic failure of a product called...


OS X Millenium Edition a.k.a. Lion

How do you know he didn't ? only him and his bank manager know what he does with his money

----------

Don't you mean that Bill Gates and Microsoft are responsible for viable personal computing and Apple has been responsible for advancing mobile computing since 2007? And everything accomplished in the early years was dwarfed by Microsoft as Apple only had a few percentage points of the pc market?

Jobs made Pixar what it is, Jobs made Disney what it is, Jobs made Apple what it is, the impact he has made on 3 giant businesses makes him deservedly called Americas greatest ever businessman.