Horizons and Hope:

The Future of Philanthropy

an article by David Brin, Ph.D.

Copyright David Brin.
All rights reserved. No duplication or resale without permission.

Consider the problem of pump-priming -- using small initial investments to spur enlargement of the philanthropic 'pie' or new endeavors on the horizon of needs. Let's consider one scenario, breaking out of conventional 20th Century habits into the realm of imaginative thinking.

Suppose you want to change the world, but have a measly $1 million to spend or give away. Wonderful things can be done -- endow a university chair, revitalize some inner city school, or transform a few villages in some poor nation. Worthy goals. Yet, some people want more bang for their bucks. Alas, a million won't go far these days.

Unless it leverages beneficial action by those with more to give. Already, great efforts have been made, using appeals to generosity, altruism, nostalgia and public relations. Let's consider two additional incentives.

• Historical Immortality. The same immortality won by the Medicis, or by Pope Julius II who funded Michelangelo, or Isabella of Spain who sponsored Columbus's voyage of discovery.

• The pleasures of high stakes investing in long-shot ventures -- atypical investments that do plenty of short term good, but may also reap big profits over extended time scales.

Of course, immortalization has always been part of the philanthropic sales pitch. The practice of naming buildings, institutes, chairs, etc., after large donors is based partly on the impression these gifts make upon the community, extending (hopefully) some time into the future. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller used large dollops of cash to influence how they would be regarded by later generations. Still, it is questionable whether this human imperative has been adequately leveraged.

Is it possible that, by thinking small, we are passing up a chance to raise the philanthropy rate to 10% or more, releasing as much as a trillion dollars for projects that bypass the short-investment horizons of both markets and governments?

New cities could be built and named for a single benefactor. ("Gatesograd"? "GatesTopia"?)

With the $25 Billion that Sam Walton left to five people, he could have funded a manned mission to Mars. In exchange, how could the International Astronautical Union refuse to rename the moon Deimos, changing it to "Walton"? Old Sam missed that bet, but another multibillionaire may not.

Some entrepreneur who got rich by exploiting rights-of-way in the U.S. (e.g. rail and gas lines exploited for installing fiber-optic cable) might act to likewise preserve and establish rights-of-way in some rapidly urbanizing Third World nation, enabling a promising city to develop data, commuter, and service corridors without costly disruptions or unjustly uprooting the poor... while offering real profit potential over the long run.

Could today's super-wealthy be persuaded to part with much of their accumulated capital in such grand and extravagantly generous ways? What about a small scale experiment in pump priming, to see if it can be done?

Consider a modest institution called the Eye of the Needle Foundation or "EON." Its symbol, a camel sailing easily through a needle's eye, makes biblical reference to helping rich folks "reach heaven" by means of well-targeted altruism. The aim is to offer dramatic, extravagant, altruistic... and possibly historic ways for billionaires to spend their money.

How does it work? You start by gathering 100 or so pragmatic but far-seeing individuals -- thinkers widely respected for their insight and practical accomplishments -- then provide them with resources to analyze and compare two lists:

• Widely acknowledged world problems,

• Speculative but plausible endeavors -- potential solutions -- which have already been publicly discussed but have so far failed to attract capital funding from either governments or industry.

The goal of this conference would be simple and well-defined -- to create a very special, exclusive -- and uniquely expensive -- gift catalog. Gilt-edged, with platinum bindings.

A 100 page registry of bold ways to change the world.

These would be projects that ill-suit the typical investment horizons of industry or government, the two dominant capitalizing forces of the 20th Century. Because each is constrained by accountability -- to constituents or stockholders -- governments and corporations must control risk in ways that don't always hamper an individual billionaire. Indeed, risky projects may attract the next generation of Waltons partly because they are gaudy, risky, and above all memorable.

The cheapest ("discount") project described in the EON catalog might cost $100 million. The biggest would take a couple of Sam Waltons working together... perhaps 50 Billion dollars. In addition to a detailed prospectus outlining costs, technical obstacles, social benefits and time scales, each concept included in the catalog would be given three score values, representing EON's best estimate of --

1. The project's likelihood of success, if fully funded,

2. Odds that success might become self-sustaining -- or possibly even profitable.

3. A best-guess likelihood that, in the event of full success, the funder will be remembered on the same scale as Lorenzo di Medicis, Pope Julius, Ferdinand and Isabella... or possibly Pharaoh Cheops, the pyramid builder.

# # #

Hypothetical Example #1: Build a New Third World University Network From Scratch.

• Est. cost $5 Billion
• Chance of success if fully funded? 85%
• Chance of self-sustainability? (Short term / After 50 years) 25% / 50%
• Likelihood of immortality to funder, in event of success? 75%

Hypothetical Example #2: Finance A Freelance Manned Mars Mission.

• Est. cost $25 Billion
• Chance of success if fully funded? 60%
• Chance of self-sustainability? (Short term / After 50 years) 5% / 20%
• Likelihood of immortality to funder, in event of success? 95%

Hypothetical Example #3: Annual Henchman's Prize -- to lure whistleblowers worldwide.

• Endowment $50 million
• Chance of success if fully funded?95%
• Chance of self-sustainability? (Short term / After 50 years) 25% / 25%
• Likelihood of immortality to funder, in event of success 50%

(The "Henchman's Prize" is one of my personal favorites -- a million dollars plus a new identity for whoever blows the whistle -- with full evidence -- on the "worst" concealed plot or scheme that year! I suspect nothing would be more cost-efficient at helping poor nations eliminate corrupt kleptocracies and convert to a diamond-shaped social pattern... or help developed nations maintain their healthy accountability systems. See: The Transparent Society. See also www.Witness.org.)

Note: these examples happen to interest the author. A wider spectrum of ideas, covering the full span of human needs, would arise out of any eclectic meeting or conference of experts.

Of course the catalog would include some ideas that are both cheaper and more plausibly profitable.

Hypothetical Example #4: Wind Funnel Energy and Water Tower For Desert Nations.

• Est. cost $150 Million
• Chance of success (according to recent studies) 80%
• Chance of profitability? (10 / 30 years) 60% / 90%
• Likelihood of immortality to funder, in event of success? 15%

EON obviously, even blatantly, appeals to an ever-present temptation to "buy immortality," the deeply human drive that motivates largesse in all cultures. What else can you purchase, when you already have everything? It's a pitch already used by fund developers all over the world.

But EON is a lot bolder than getting a university building named after you! The catalog may tempt some wealthy patrons to fund projects with risky success or profitability scores... but potentially high payoff in the good regard of future generations. Just the sort of far-reaching gambles that governments and marketplace investors prudently avoid, yet the sort of endeavors that great empires and religions of the past endowed precisely because they would echo across time.

Indeed, some participants may justify the expense, saying: "I'll do this because I can."

What would it take to try out this pump-priming notion. Can it live up to its promise?

A good outline of the EON Catalog could emerge after one or two conferences, starting rather small. Some of today's brightest visionaries and technical experts would be invited to exchange ideas and compile an initial list spanning every philanthropic area from education to experimental medicine to abstract science. At each stage, participants would supply materials for evaluating candidate projects and pose further questions to be answered before each gets added to the registry. (Fascinating preliminary discussions have already taken place, online.)

At minimum, conference participants would craft a fascinating report, revealing bold endeavors that humanity may pursue during the next century -- of considerable value and interest in its own right! A resulting book or extended magazine article could be worthwhile in its own right.

But ideally the report would turn into something more effective and profound -- an elite, gilt-edged catalog more exclusive and interesting to the mega-wealthy than anything by Niemann Marcus.⁶

If the initial exercise works out, a small foundation would be set up to run this innovative experiment in philanthropy. The EON Foundation would have no interest in which project a particular magnate selects, other than perhaps a .0001% fee for serving as a 'dating service' between the super-rich and some attractive ideas. When a page is purchased and removed from the book, an ongoing commission of experts will choose another worthy project to insert in its place.

Thus, with a small initial endowment, EON might leverage long term effects beyond most other charitable endeavors, taking philanthropy into new territory as we enter a new millennium.

# # #

Philanthropy faces many challenges. New tools of analysis and administration -- some of them utilizing technologies liberated by the Internet -- will enable grantmakers in exciting ways. Burgeoning new sources of wealth seem to offer great opportunities to increase the overall size of the "pie" to be allocated.

On the other hand, increasing complexity means a wider range of endeavors and activities will clamor for attention. Responding to this complexity may require an approach that is more distributed and experimental, even daring, than governments and corporations are capable of enacting.

Answering the challenge of making a better world will demand advances on many levels at the same time -- from alleviating the pain of the poorest, all the way to indulging the fantasies of the rich in ways that are creative and fun, but ultimately beneficial to humankind. Like everything else worth doing in the 21st Century, this will require agility, diversity, and a willingness to keep questioning our assumptions in order to try something new.

# # #

⁶ A requirement nearly as important as the catalog itself will be finding the right sales force. The super-rich are used to being swarmed over by charities, so EON must have representatives from the class of people so famous they can walk through all doors (e.g., Walter Cronkite or Robert Redford). This may be easier than it sounds, since the 100 page catalog is sure to have at least a few projects that such people will be passionately interested in... especially if a few of them take part in the conference. return to where you left off