Bill Gates is not the only American entrepreneur with business plan to save the world. D.There are thousands. Consider Steve Kirsch, who had just turned 35 when he had eveiything everything he could want. Adobe, the software giant, had just purchased one of his startups, Eframe., The sale made Kirsch very rich, with a share in a private jet, an estate in California’s Los Altos Hills and a burning question: what to do with the rest of a $50 million fortune? After a few years of doling out money to traditional charities—his alma mater, the United Way—Kirsch got ambitious. He set up his own foundation to benefit “everyone”, funding research on everything from cancer to near-earth objects. "“It is guaranteed that we will be hit by an asteroid sometime in the future,，” perhaps “before we end this phone conversation.” Kirsch explains. “It would cost several billion lives, and we can save those lives for $50 million, which is less than the cost of a private jet. I call it enlightened self-interest.”
American philanthropy isn’t what it used to be. Gone are the days when old money was doled out by bureaucrats from mahogany -paneled rooms. More people are giving out more money than ever before, at much younger ages, and to a much wider variety of causes. In 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s call for private charity to replace government largesse was greeted with hoots of liberal derision — and an outbreak of giving. The number of private foundations rose from 22, 000 in 1980 to 55,000 today. They now dole out about $23.3 billion a year, a 700 percent increase since 1980. And many are the offspring of capitalists, who bring the language of business to charity. Vanessa Kirsch, president and founder of the entrepreneurial charity New Profit Inc., says, “There’s this new breed of social entrepreneurs coming out of Harvard Business School or failed dot-coms, and they’re saying, '‘I want to make big things happen.’”’’
Their outlook is increasingly global, in the Gates mold. D.The share of funding that the 1,000 largest foundations devote to interactional causes jumped from 11.3 percent in 1999 to 16.3 percent in 2000. And while the U. S, government is often criticized for stingy foreign aid (well under 1 percent of GNP each year), the same can’t be said of private donors, who now give away 2.1 percent of U. S. GNP each year. “No nation comes even remotely close to the U. S. on these things,” says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. “If you’re in Sweden or France, it’s something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don’t think it’s enough to say, ‘I gave at the office with taxes.’”’’
To be sure, business and philanthropy are old bedfellows in the United States. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies and the Fords set the mold. D.But many were what Mark Dowie, author of “American Foundations: An Investigative History,，” calls “s. o. b. B.s”— patrons of “symphonies, operas, ballets,” and “museums and hospitals where rich people go to die.” The new foundations are more like “quasi-public trusts —progressive institutions of change,” argues Dowie.
The new movers and shakers of American charity are more likely to be flashy TV titans like Ted Turner. The story of how Turner gave away a billion is a founding legend of this class. In a cab on his way to make a speech at the United Nations, the cable titan, sick of official U. S. reluctance to pay U.N. dues, decided to pony up I$1 billion himself. This shamed Washington and inspired imitators. “It is a lot more personality-oriented in this culture of new wealth.,” says Ellen Dadisman, vice president of the Council on Foundations. “It’s sort of like wealth meets People magazine.”
In Silicon Valley, the new fashion is called “venture philanthropy”, According to one survey,
83 percent of valley households give to charity, compared with 69 percent nationally. But they prefer to “invest”, not “give”. And to attract “investors”, fund-raisers promise hands-on management of the nonprofits they support. They demand seats on the board, set performance goals and plan an exit strategy in case expectations aren’t met. “Traditionally, foundations have not been as invasive,” says Dadisman. “They didn’t go to the nonprofit and say, ‘How much are you paying for rent? Why are you using these old-fashioned computers?’” It may be invasive, but if it works, it could help save the world. D.Even from asteroids.
1. Why does the author introduce some American millionaires at the beginning of the passage?
2. The author mentions Ronald Reagan’s call for private charity to replace government largess as______ .
3. The expression “who bring the language of business to charity” from the sentence “And many are the offspring of capitalists, who bring the language of business to charity.” (Para. A.2) means______.
4. Which of the following can be concluded from Scott Walker’s comment (Para. A.3)?
5. Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?
