I already said that I might have misunderstood you. You suggested that further explanation is helpful. What do you expect to gain for another answer
I'm trying to understand YOUR point now. Regardless of whether you misunderstood me, you said something and I am trying to understand it.
Here's what you said:
If it's in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
So you were talking about someone practicing charitable reading at the cost of human lives. When I stated that I did not understand your point, you said this:
The critical media reaction to Zuckerberg announcement likely cost more lives through reduced donations than lifes were lost in Paris during the recent attacks.
So apparently your point is that the media (or some part of the media) "practiced charitable reading" which cost human lives.
So how exactly did the media "practice charitable reading"? It's not a very complicated question.
Mark Zuckerberg annouced that he is going to give away 99% of his facebook wealth ($45 billion) over his lifetime.
He announced guiding questions:
It's interesting that "live much longer and healthier lives" is on the list. Larry Page seems to divert money inside Google into Calico for anti-aging tech. Under Cook Apple also invests into health.
The future seems looking good :)