The Death of Altruism

---

My NoSmalltalk session with Suhas Ramegowda

by Albert Schiller

The Unsentimental Logic of a Personal Gain

The social impact narrative is often built on the romanticized premise of the selfless savior. It is a story of individuals who sacrifice their own needs to rescue a community, driven by pure and unadulterated altruism. Suhas Ramegowda’s philosophy is an unsentimental refutation of this narrative. His work is not built on the brittle foundation of self-sacrifice, but on an honest logic of interconnected self-interest. This worldview surpasses the cynicism of outsiders and shows a pragmatic perspective that recognizes the limitations of sentiment as a driver for sustainable change. His understanding of altruism reveals a powerful alternative: a system where the goal is not to "save" others, but to create an environment of shared prosperity where one’s own happiness is not a paradox, but a logical outcome.

An Unsavory Aftertaste

The core metaphor for Suhas’s philosophy is not derived from an advanced business lecture, but a simple meal he could no longer enjoy. After leaving his urban tribe and moving to the mountains, he enjoyed cooking his favorite dish, a jackfruit biryani. That pleasure vanished when he was confronted with the reality that the people around him now did not have enough to eat a good meal themselves. He "lost [his] appetite". This was his physiological conclusion of an interconnected reality. Nothing about his description screamed performative guilt. His personal contentment was rendered incomplete by the inequity of his immediate environment. This experience is the source of his central axiom: "There is a personal gain in the gain of the communities". For him, creating prosperity for others is not a charitable act. It is a necessary precondition for his ability to enjoy his life. In this view, helping is not a selfless act but the work required to build a world Suhas wants to live in.

The Savior in a Box

This unsentimental logic fuels his vehement discomfort with being thanked or cast in the role of a savior. He views the dynamic of gratitude not as a positive social ritual, but as a subtle obstacle to empowerment. When someone thanks him, he immediately deflects the credit and reminds them that their success is a "product of their effort" and their "own actions". This is a deliberate maneuver to dismantle the power imbalance in the connotation of charity. His goal is not to provide outcomes but to create equity of opportunity. He draws a sharp distinction between those who lack the choice and those who have the choice and decide not to exercise it. His work is focused entirely on the former. He is not a giver of gifts but a platform developer, a facilitator who ensures everyone has access to the same arsenal of tools and choices. This approach respects the individual's agency and aims to create a system where they become their own saviors.

The Reliable Motivation

The final layer of his philosophy is the belief that a personal "why" is the only sustainable fuel for long-term impact. Again, he challenges the notion of pure altruism, stating that in his own experience, he has "not met a person" who is not deriving some personal benefit from their actions. He extends this unsentimental analysis to the most revered examples of self-sacrifice, such as a mother’s devotion to her children, arguing that even this is driven by a personal motivation to "feel good about the role she's played". Instead of a critique, he sees it as a strategic observation. A system must be built on this interconnected self-interest's reliable and relentless engine to be durable and scalable. He believes that a personal motivation is the common thread that allows an organization to grow from a hundred to ten thousand, because it is a far more powerful and enduring force than the unpredictable fluctuations of selfless sentiment.

5 Lessons with practical values-

Open Questions

1. Suhas argues that a personal "why" is the most reliable motivator for creating impact. If a system is built entirely on this principle, does it risk excluding individuals whose motivations are genuinely, if perhaps less sustainably, altruistic? Can a system built on self-interest make room for selflessness?

2. The "Biryani Paradox" suggests a leader's contentment is inextricably linked to the prosperity of their immediate, observable community. How does this logic scale? Can a global leader who applies this principle ever be truly content, or does this philosophy inherently limit a leader's effective focus to a tangible and therefore local sphere of influence?