Four years ago, Google promised to use some of its money to “make the world a better place.” The philanthropy unit that Google has set up will spend up to $175 million in its first round of grants and investments over the next three years. Go to the link below and read the article about Google’s philanthropy. Write a reflective comment that shows you have read and thought about the article and answers my questions.
Do organizations like Google have a responsibility to “make the world a better place?” The company is like other companies in making grants. How do you feel about the untraditional things it will be doing? Which initiative do you think should be their highest priority and why? Is the comparison of deciding how to spend Google’s money like a saint wandering the streets of Benares, on the banks of the
19 comments:
It seems to me that Google's team put a lot of thought into which causes they would support. They couldn't support every cause, but it seems like they are interested in educating people and giving them jobs and contributing to longlasting change, which is good. They can't give money to everyone (Bill Gates probably can!) but I think that it looks like there is a logical method behind each initiative they are contributing to. I think the comparison to a saint on the Ganges is a little melodramatic, since Google is a corporation, not a saint, but the general idea is true: it is hard to choose who to save and who not to.
As the article says, "Google is naive" when it comes to the donations it is doing it. I'd beg to differ, I think every form of donations to make the world a better place is naive. To truelly make a difference onee would need a global initiative such as the UN to gather forces of the world to help one country in one go. But, none-the-less, the idea behind Google is very nice. But, I think Google really should use its reputation and prowess to spread the word to donate. Such as, every 1000 GoogleAds sends it's profit to an organization. Seeing as there are BILLIONS of said Ads that are viewed daily, I think it would make a large impact. Also, upon saying that they do this, it'll benefit them more, urging more people to use said Ads, creating a benefit for everyone.
It is the responsibility of not only organizations like google, but of every single person to “make the world a better place.” Google will be doing untraditional things by giving philanthropy another face than just donating money to the poor-it wont just give away but actually do something. Their “predict and prevent” strategy tries not only to tackle the current issues but also the issues that might be coming ahead. Their highest priority should be helping the environment by developing new sources of renewable energy and investing in the commercialization of plug-in vehicles. It is a very precise analogy, although I don’t think the saint would give away only one percent of his money. But I believe, as these problems grow more serious, these giants will be forced to spend more-and that time isn’t far away.
Companies like Google, Yahoo, and Lycos do not have the responsibility to make the world a better place because they are just a company. Just because they have a lot of money does not mean that they have to be altruistic. Instead of donating funds, Google is building up teams to prevent natural disasters and diseases. Although it is necessary, it is more effective to spend funds of current events such as tsunamis or hunger in Africa. Of all the five initiatives that Google presented, I believe that researching for new sources of energy is the most important because the crude oil is running out, and the oil prices going up. Yes, Googles money spending can be compared as a saint wandering the street of Banares, on the banks of the Ganges because there are so many problems, but hard to choose which one to solve first.
I think places like Google do have a responsibility to donate money, just because they have so much of it.
I think their highest priority should be do educate people, feed people, and make sure people have clean water.
i think Google is kind of like a saint , but not enough to say that it is a saint, because they cannot help everyone in need.
It is not really Google's responsibility to make the world a better place, but the organization would gain reputation and be honored by doing so. Thus, they do also benefit from it. I believe supporting the development of renewable energy should be Google’s highest priority, considering the limited resources. A saint wandering the street of Banares is a great comparison. It would’ve been hard for them to choose what to do first.
I think google should donate to the poor because they have plenty of money to support the entire world that is full is full of hugry people.
Google could donate but they do not have to, because they are just simply a company, and besides the fact that they have over 10,000 employees worldwide, and that they have huge recreation centers, pools, courts which might have costed them a huge fortune, so in my openion, they have donated alot by providing all of these facilities to their staff.
I personally think any kind of donation is a step towards helping the world become a better place. I don’t think it will solve major global problems such as starvation and disease; however, donations can still save many lives. Google’s “predict and prevent” approach really impressed me because it shows how they’re aiming towards not only solving current problems, but to take necessary actions to prevent future problems. Even though I think Google’s philanthropy project is being overly criticized for no reason, I do agree with that one critic who noted that Google was being foolish by not offering scholarships to girls in India. According to her, Google would make a bigger difference in the world if they educated about one thousand girls in India because then those one thousand educated girls could each go about making the world a better place, and I totally agree with that.
Officially, companies like Google and Microsoft don’t have the responsibility to “make the world a better place”. What I mean by officially is that no one can be forced to help others and so if they choose to help others, it is at their own choice. What Google is doing is great for the world. More companies should follow in Google’s steps because if more companies collide for a certain cause, then better change can be witnessed. I think that Google should give away more than 1% of its revenue because even though it has donated millions of dollars, the problems that are arising in the world today cost much more. The road Google has taken is honorable. What they are doing is not guaranteeing any physical change, but it is a step in the right direction. Also, I believe the comparison that the article gave to Google’s problem is very good. It provides a clear, interesting, and accurate description of the difficulties Google is facing in distributing their charity money.
Google's choice to found the group, Diseases and Disasters, is not really that effective to help the people of the sub-continent and East Asia. They are merely providing these people with a warning of drought or disease before it can cause a catastrophic amount of damage in human conditions and life, but it will not help to prevent such things from occurring. Its about as useful as telling a sick patient that he's going to die a month from now. You can give him a time-frame but you can't save him. So I say that Google's donation is trivial, they will be taking a minute role to provide guidance for these people who suffer, but they will not give those people the opportunity to guide themselves. Why help lead a blind man, when you can return his eyes to him and let him lead himself? Their highest priority should be a stabilization of the economy, lifting people out of the poor classes into the middle-class range, and providing educational facilities that can produce academically and ethically sound, if not excellent, students regardless of gender, religion, or race. By leveling the social system, or at least drawing it back from extremes, and helping the newer generations to be more aware of their situations and the solutions to such problematic lifestyles, Google would have taught these people how to help themselves, help others, and teach many more how to help. If Google doesn't want to dip it's toes into such murky waters, then it shouldn't be providing philanthropic aid at all; let us not forget that Google is a business, not a charity, they are not obligated to give a dime to any person in the world except it's workers and shareholders. Google has put themselves on a pedestal, they have told us that these people are crippled for life, they are beyond helping each other, and that only Google carries their ticket to freedom from their shackles of pain and misery. They seem to be forgetting that there are other people in Benares, and they are not sickly, they are only selfish, or cannot afford to help because of their own needs. If Google can cure their selfishness, or provide them with the opportunity to save the unfortunate on the banks of the Ganges, then they will truly be a saint, for a saint doesn't judge who is more deserving and doesn't justify people's pain with a paycheck. A true saint gives people the opportunity to help each other, and stands back to watch the people, I repeat, the people, help each other. Google is giving a very cheap form of a handout so that people will kiss their feet and speak highly of them. So I disagree with Google's analogy, the problem is much more different then they set it out to be.
Yes I do think that organizations like Google should have the responsibility to “make the world a better place” because they made the promise. They have the money and power to make a lot of changes so they should. There are a lot of things that the money can be used for. I think that the third initiative, "information for all," is the most important initiative. Because it is aimed at helping developing countries provide better government services by making information available on their efforts to improve health care, roads and electrification.” Poverty, education, & health care are some of the main issues that Google can also use their money to make better changes. I agree that it is hard for Google to choose how to spend their money, but instead of not doing anything they can start of by doing something small.
I think that what Google is doing is really nice and generous. Practically what Google is doing is defining philanthropy. They're making sure to provide to one of the main conflicts of the world today. Although they do have billions of dollars and they're only providing 175 million dollars to one cause, at least they're doing something to help. I also think that if they do help the worldwide education system, they shouldn't provide much of an education system for the United states because i don't think that Americans appreciate the school system they already have. That's one of the reasons why Oprah made a school in Africa instead of the states and I partially agree with her.
Organizations like Google do have the responsibility to make the world a better place because usually they are the ones who cause the disasters. I believe that Google should be focused on education more than anything else. If they spend enough money on education in a country other things will get better from it. I believe that they problem is more than just walking on the streets I believe the problem must be solved cleverly by putting the money in the right place so that it will flow through the country.
I believe Google is very generous because of what it is doing. I mean even if it is worth billions, 175 million dollars is not bad, those millions can assist a lot. As yaz said they should focus on places like Africa and not the states, because in America they already have it. I really do like organizations like that because they help a lot and make life easier. In fact not because they are powerful they have to help the world and make it a better place. They can be nice and do it but we shouldn’t depend on them because it is not their obligation
I believe Google is very generous because of what it is doing. I mean even if it is worth billions, 175 million dollars is not bad, those millions can assist a lot. As yaz said they should focus on places like Africa and not the states, because in America they already have it. I really do like organizations like that because they help a lot and make life easier. In fact not because they are powerful they have to help the world and make it a better place. They can be nice and do it but we shouldn’t depend on them because it is not their obligation.
Although Google is just an internet website I do think that it has the power and responsibility to make the world a better place. I agree with Sami about how Google should focus on education and the knowledge of the people. Google's target should be to fulfill their pledge and actually provide education and knowledge to others. Even if Google wants to help, I still believe that their are going to be some minor negative results. Some people might abuse information or abuse the site and do wrong with it. Also Google might put some misleading information as well. Without mentioning any saints walking on streets or any problems, Google should focus on what they're supposed to do and they should put their money in good use and for them to be useful.
I do not beleive that Google has an obligation to help the world. It would be nice, especially for needy people, but they don't have to. What Google is doing is untraditonal because they are not only donating money. I think they should take the initiative of helping orphans or people with AIDS or even cancer victims. Google is not like a saint. I think they are giving the money away because they have it.
I believe that Google as a business does not have the same responsibilities of a charity. The fact that Google does give one percent of its income towards these different charities is in my opinion enough. More than this they are choosing a very unorthodox approach in philanthropy, which I think is better than all the usual charities because they are more of investments than giving money directly to the poor. I think their highest priority should be ‘improving the flow of information to hold governments accountable in community services’ because this helps the government become better, which would then lead them to help their own people. This type of investment in charity is what makes Google.org different from other companies. I think the comparison of deciding how to spend the money is mostly like a ‘saint wandering the streets of Benares’, because like it said in the article, it’s hard to tell which charity and who needs the money the most. This is why Google decided to make a compromise and deal with investments.
organizations dont have the responsibility to make the world a better place, however, by donating money or giving out loans, they are helping many people, and changing their lives. If they've got a lot of money, why not share it? i think its very generous on their behalf, since most billion dollar companies would think twice before giving out cash (it's just human nature--to be selfish and greedy and want all the cash they can get). I think that they should focus on schooling and education-- helping third world countries (or less developed countries). they need schooling the most. Once they have good education, they will be able to get good jobs and attain them, and perhaps even pull their country out of poverty (or whatever the situation may be). it's like that quote we always see at the back of classrooms (the ones on bulletin boards) that say: education is key (or something like it).
Post a Comment