I am etched on the palm of His hand

To put a TRILLION into perspective, one million seconds is about 11½ days. One billion seconds is a little over 31½ years. One trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Please genuinely ask yourself if you think someone getting paid $360 an hour 24/7 should need 31,000 years to match a single man's wealth.

He's not ""the"" problem, but on a very long list of problems, he's currently sitting at least in the top tier and at the top in at least one category. He has the most power to fix things on a real, practical, nearly immediate level.

He's not a demon for buying Twitter. Using it to radicalize people is a different conversation, but as far as wealth specifically: the issue is that 44 billion was nothing to him. 6 billion would have never been missed. He wasn't a trillionaire yet when he bought Twitter, but he could still do this now. 6 billion dollars to him is the equivalent of having 1,000 in your pocket and spending 6.

But he won't. Not on hunger. Not on medicine. Not on anything that will save lives. Others are guilty too, looking at him isn't saying they're not. But also like...

Cause he doesn't ....you do know that he doesn't have that..right?

And mentioned how the UN director for hunger programs wrote up the whole process would look like once money is obtained.

Yes most of his money is not liquid, but he still can very much spend it! As indicated by the mentioned buying of Twitter. That would be a very fair reason for him not doing it IMMEDIATELY, but not a good reason at all for him not doing it at all. He might not be able to get 100% of its value since as you sell stocks in that kind of quantity, the value decreases. Let's say he only liquidated 1% of what he has per year, imagining he never gains another cent. That would be more than 1.4X enough per year to fit the number the UN gave him.

It's not some incalculable number. They calculated it. He could feed the world for 100 years, as already said.

If you're all talking about David Beasley from the WFP, he never said that lol

He was talking about supporting countries at risk of famine back during covid when industry was stagnate, not world hunger.

It would be temporary relief when you factor in that most places where people suffer severe hunger are primarily concentrated in countries with weak governance and civil conflicts (East+Central African and South Asian countries) the food is a short term solution sure, but what's stopping people from going hungry again? Why not hold their governments accountable with actually helping their people in their own countries?

Elon Musk is doing his part to provide jobs and resources for other people who work for and invest in him. He's doing his part for the economy/ his local society at large by providing people with jobs and wealth they would not otherwise have.

Elon Musk is a weirdo duh,but he's also the reason a lot of people are able to have food on their tables tonight and pay it forward to others.

Why don't you all become rich and stop world hunger? Why don't you all dedicate your life to helping a starving person in your city for the rest of your life?

Your average person could sell their cellphone and donate that money. That money could provide emergency food assistance for at least 1 person for 2 to 4 months!!!! Be the example you want to see!!!

Yea sure.. 🙄

To put a TRILLION into perspective, one million seconds is about 11½ days. One billion seconds is a little over 31½ years. One trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Please genuinely ask yourself if you think someone getting paid $360 an hour 24/7 should need 31,000 years to match a single man's wealth.

He's not ""the"" problem, but on a very long list of problems, he's currently sitting at least in the top tier and at the top in at least one category. He has the most power to fix things on a real, practical, nearly immediate level.

He's not a demon for buying Twitter. Using it to radicalize people is a different conversation, but as far as wealth specifically: the issue is that 44 billion was nothing to him. 6 billion would have never been missed. He wasn't a trillionaire yet when he bought Twitter, but he could still do this now. 6 billion dollars to him is the equivalent of having 1,000 in your pocket and spending 6.

But he won't. Not on hunger. Not on medicine. Not on anything that will save lives. Others are guilty too, looking at him isn't saying they're not. But also like...

Cause he doesn't ....you do know that he doesn't have that..right?

It feels unfair, but is it really?

If you haven't noticed we already live and have always lived in a world where religions exist *and* (even within homogenous religious communities) everyone has different contradictory moral precepts. It's already hard enough to get people to establish a consensus on easily verifiable objective facts about the world and you want to act like you can easily establish an agreement on morality by quoting a magic book?

Also who brought up Islam?

Cause I don't see it.

Ways in which it doesn't actually solve the problem:

If someone doesn't accept your religion your moral reasoning ceases to be objective as far as they're concerned, so it doesn't solve the problem of facilitating moral communication in objective terms. "Good" is still, to both parties, whatever their preference says it is, it just so happens that your preference is colored by belief in your individual religious interpretation.

If your argument about atheism leading to nihilism is based on the fact that the lack of an afterlife leads to no eternal consequences for behavior, you're just making a consequentialist argument. Sorry to let you know that atheists have as much access to consequentialist moral reasoning as religious people do, self evidently, on the basis that we are capable of having preferences at all and can therefore prefer certain consequences over others even if such consequences are temporary and of no significance outside ourselves.

2. Atheism is nihilistic, and that's not based on their being an afterlife or not. There are no moral standards in atheism besides preferences. There is a tribe where, as a coming of age ritual, the boys are raped( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people ). The culture accepted/accepts it, and the boys don't demonstrate any psychological distress because of it, and ,so, as an atheist, can you argue why this practice would be wrong? Besides, "I personally don't like it"

3. Didn't say people can't be persuaded to different positions, didn't even say you can't engage in discourse about ethics; I just find it,again, pointless (I'll use this word alot lol) in the grand scheme of things. I don't see the point besides maybe atheists are bored, idk. I also think non religious christians are logical to engage in the discourse; I also think that they need Christ.----- In my observations, as an atheist, your argumentation appeals to nothing beyond how you personally feel about something that day. And if we, are all our own "gods," we can't make judgments / criticisms that amount to anything about each other's behavior /thoughts/actions because it doesn't matter, not because of an afterlife, because our lives are as important as dust building up on a fan. We aren't the imago dei ,we are just things pointlessly doing stuff. So, any atheist getting their hackles up about a pointless thing (person 1) having opinions about homosexuality,which is engaged in by other pointless things ( i.e., person 2&3), seems....irrational. If I bring it back, I have a moral basis based on Christ to have discourse on homosexuality, and I don't see why atheists care (they can have arguments but their emotional investment existentiallly appears pointless) beyond their present feeling in the moment. If atheism is true,why should I care about your feelings or opinions about this? You and I are fan dust.

If you haven't noticed we already live and have always lived in a world where religions exist *and* (even within homogenous religious communities) everyone has different contradictory moral precepts. It's already hard enough to get people to establish a consensus on easily verifiable objective facts about the world and you want to act like you can easily establish an agreement on morality by quoting a magic book?

Also who brought up Islam?