First off, I agree with you that the volunteers deserve credit. But this is not a contest of who can get the most praise. Volunteers and researchers need funding in order to operate effectively, and Elon's billions could be extremely helpful if he really does donate most of his fortune to charity upon his death.

That sentence was from Elon Musk himself, not mine. So really, you're arguing against Elon Musk. Did you even read the picture I posted? http://i.imgur.com/Mnk7U.jpg

He goes further on twitter to set the basic premise that it's better to try to address some of the world's problems than to create an aristocracy of wealth.

He has donated to charitable organizations like MSF, UNICEF, Peace & Justice, Doctors without Borders, and personally bought presents for kids at the orphanage on Xmas. His established Musk Foundation helps to promote science education, pediatric health and clean energy.

All of his companies has the ultimate goal of having a positive effect on the world, whether it's space exploration, solar energy generation, or electric cars. Elon personally said that he worked 80-100 hours a week for 15 years, and at one point invested nearly all of his assets in order to keep Tesla & SpaceX alive back in 2008. Source: http://archive.mensjournal.com/elon-musk%E2%80%99s-risky-bus...

Your claim of Elon being one of those billionaires pledging to help the poor without risking anything is flat out wrong. He risked everything and gave it his all, to the point of waking up in tears during the 2008 economic crash, when he thought all 3 companies would die and his marriage was ruined. He almost had a nervous breakdown. Source: 34:42 mark http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73460184-elon-musk-profiled-b...

Given that people feel oneness with their offspring and relatives, yes it is altruistic.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest. For example, Warren Buffett has earned a return on capital averaging around 20% over his life. This means he had the choice of giving away, say, $1 million in 1970 or $1.5 billion in 2010. I think the second option is the better choice, even if it is technically not as 'altruistic'.

Relatively speaking, it is. He could instead use it to have lots of progeny and make sure they'll be in a great financial position to pass on his genes.

I think hes still doing pretty well on both counts.

There are really three options:

1. Give away your money after you make it.

2. Give away your money as you make it.

3. Stop making money once you've earned enough of it.

Elon has chosen #1, and that is a viable option. It's viable because fortune begets fortune, and if he'd chosen #2 (or certainly #3) he might not have been able to create as much wealth.

That fact that he's not choosing to set his children up for life (apart from, I'd imagine, enough to get them through grad school comfortably) is to his credit and to their ultimate benefit.

Another option for wealthy individuals is to continue investing their wealth into their companies, with the expectation that the indirect economic effect of doing business as usual will have a greater positive effect on the poor and needy than an equivalent direct cash gift would.

Altruism is definite, absolute. There are degrees of selfishness though. I think donating your fortune upon death is less selfish (or more selfless) than not.