LegendaryPrimate

That's a great question that Dr. Johnson probably isn't going to answer for a variety of reasons.

I'm a fundraiser for another Natural History Museum in the U.S., and have worked on funding proposals ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $10 MM, so I'll chime in.

Why should we turn down large gifts? You can certainly make the argument that their money is somehow tainted by their actions and it's unethical to enable those actions. In fact, some museums have recently done just that with the Sackler family, because of their role in the opioid crisis.

But ultimately, the Koch name is just on the exhibit or gallery. They didn't buy the rights to write the exhibit, nor did they have a say in crafting it. They sponsored it. If, as many do, we assume their money is tainted and evil, aren't we doing good work, then, by taking it from them and using it to teach the public about science and scientific literacy? Aren't we doing good work for the world? Aren't we fulfilling our missions to serve the public?

There's no benefit to us rejecting money from a donor. Even if the SMNH had rejected those dollars, the Kochs would have turned around and given it elsewhere. Better that we take it to fulfill our mission.

That's a question for your friend's doctor, in all honesty. An 18-year-old who has smoked two cigarettes a day for 3 years likely can train and improve his lung capacity to the point there's no noticeable difference. A 50-year-old who has smoked 3 packs/day for the last thirty years likely has irreparable lung damage and can still improve his lung function, but never to the point where it would be had he never smoked.

Also, unrelatedly, Seattle Surge FTW.

Yes. When he says "Don't be super aggressive" he means that there's no need to prioritize making extra student loan payments above other debt.

Basically, for all debt, make minimum payments. For the debt which has the highest interest rate, put all of your extra payments into that. Once you pay a debt off, make any extra payments to your new highest interest rate.

Since student loan interests tend to be some of the lowest around (compared to 23-26% on credit card debt), they will be some if the least prioritized debts.

No. They had no part in the exhibit. (Presumably, anyway. Ethically, donors can be thanked for their contributions by recognizing their name on things, but should never have control of the content. I can't speak for SMNH, but I am assuming they follow that ethical principle.)

The Museum isn't whitewashing anything. If anything, the increased media coverage merely brings more attention to the issue at hand (i.e., the Kochs' family finances and how they generated their significant portfolio).

Can we ban this account from everything?