The least impactful way to spend $300M?
I definitely don't think the big schools like Harvard/Yale/etc. need any more money, but I <i>will</i> play devil's advocate here.<p>> <i>"he donated $300 million in such as a way as to do as close as possible to zero good with it."</i><p>Oh there are a <i>lot</i> worse ways to spend it with the best of intentions. The Turkana frozen-fish plant is a classic example, a charitable project where back in around 1975 around $150 million (in today's money) was spent on a frozen fish factory next to a lake... a lake that regularly disappears... and in a location without reliable electricity [1] [2]. It was utterly useless.<p>There's a shocking amount of charitable money that just winds up having utterly no impact whatsoever.<p>On the other hand, giving $300 million to Harvard <i>is</i> probably going to have a good chance of some long-term impact. It is ultimately funding education for smart people who are well-positioned to use that education productively, and for research and arts that are meant to benefit humanity. It's not just throwing it away. I absolutely agree there are many institutions with a <i>much</i> greater need for the money, but "zero good" is extreme exaggeration. People have done much, much, MUCH worse with donating money.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/04/05/how-not-to-aid-african-nomads/df2edbff-7294-46dd-abf1-fc3dc13b36ff/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/04/05/h...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.ibtimes.com/kenyas-turkana-learns-failed-fish-project-194573" rel="nofollow">https://www.ibtimes.com/kenyas-turkana-learns-failed-fish-pr...</a>