Silicon Insider: Giving It Up for Good

March 19 -- If you wanted to change the world for the better, what would you do? What if you had a billion dollars to do it with?

These aren't idle fantasies — well, maybe for you and me — but there are a growing number of high-tech tycoons out there with the wealth, the maturity and the inclination to create some of the biggest charities in the world.

You probably already know about Hewlett and Packard and Gates, each justly celebrated for their considerable contributions. But there are a number of new philanthropists as well — Gordon Moore, Pierre Omidyar, Andy Grove, and others — that rival their older counterparts (not to mention the Rockefellers, Gettys and MacArthurs) in sheer benevolence.

As it happens, I was recently asked to advise just such a foundation, a brand new one, on its giving philosophy. It has proven to be an interesting intellectual, philosophical and even ethical challenge.

Once you get past the initial greed-disguised-as-joke scenarios — i.e., the Mike Malone Ferrari Modena Fund — things get serious pretty fast. After all, it puts you in the rare position (once removed), given to only a rare few, to do something important for mankind.

It isn't long before you realize it all comes down to a series of binary decisions, and none of the choices are obvious.

Picking Your Battles

The biggest of these choices is this: Do you want to have an impact all at once, or over time?

The advantage to doing it all now is that the impact is immediate and tangible. You can see the effects of your work on people's lives.

And equally important, you can manage the process — and not leave it to your kids to screw up. (Think of reactionary old John D. MacArthur spinning in his grave watching his descendents awarding his genius prize exclusively to liberal writers).

But there are big disadvantages to this strategy, too. Solving immediate problems — as Gates is trying to do with AIDs in Africa — is hugely expensive.