Live data from Hacker News

Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

blog.minming.net

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#31
post #9

Except that she's in favor of population control...

You are misquoting her. She is in favour of contraception. That gives a woman control over whether her body will become pregnant. I think you should elaborate. Your view is not very clear.

Not really. Birth control reduces the number of people born.

I'm not saying anything about motives or whether it's the right thing to do or not, rather simply pointing it out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/11/ric...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/Search.aspx?meta=MDCont...

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#32

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

> This is why we should protect poor people

This is paternalistic, and worse yet, it doesn't work, i.e. rich people "protecting" poor people. What indeed does work is a free market (and that includes a free jobs' market), meaning free access of all (rich and poor) to the benefits of exchanging goods and improving one's life.

What the European Union (and to a lesser extent the USA) does now when it comes to Africa is border-line criminal, what if with Europe's protectionist policies when it comes to its agriculture and its immigrant policy. Imagine if those 2 million kids that get saved by the Gates Foundation instead of being forced to remain in conflict-prone Northern Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda were given the chance to come and work , legally, in Europe. Or what if they'd really have a chance to sell their agricultural goods on the same European market without having to fight countless protectionist measures designed to protect the raising of cows in the French Alps.

(if it matters, I live on the fringes of said European Union, and in my youth I used to live with under $1USD per day for at least a couple of years)

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#33

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

That's some disturbing shit you've written there.

You're disclaimer makes it even worse.

I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing them into a narrow set of more or less cherry-picked dimensions. At that point we're talking about abstractions, not human beings anymore. At that point we lose a big part of our own humanity.

I feel bad for sounding so aggressive, but your kind of reasoning makes me feel like throwing up, because it opens the gate to all kinds of atrocious behaviors.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#34
I hate the Gates foundation.

You know what would help those kids a lot more than your medicine? Copies of all existing textbooks in an electronic format and access to all of our patents.

When the polio vaccine was created the inventor refused to get a patent for it, saying no one has the right to own it just like no one has the right to own the sun.

I just find it very hard to support the Gates foundation when I believe that it is playing by the rules to make the founders look and feel good instead of actually challenging laws and cultural assumptions, which it truly should.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#35
There is no such thing as intrinsic value, whether economic value or moral value, whether of goods or of people. Value is subjectively assigned by people, according to the push and pull of their own internal motivations.

So it is meaningless to talk about value without asking: valued by who?

Some people (say, my family) are hugely more "valuable" to me than others.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#36

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

I believe your position is derived from one with an almost heinous lack of empathy.

Human beings are all equal. Each life is worth just as much as another. This is a fundamental fact of life. Not a single one of us was created in any way different than any other - human procreation itself is the grand equalizer. Where once was a man and/or womans pleasure, is now another man and/or woman. From that source, we are all derived, and thus: all equal from birth.

The 'value' that "Africa" has, is completely and utterly arbitrary. The arbitrary nature is derived entirely from cultural ideas and ideology, which worth is also completely arbitrary, depending on its proponents ability to carry the idea forward. The idea that Africa is 'poor', that Africans are 'uneducated/uneducatable' and so on .. these are just ideas, not based on any real fact.

The fact is, any kid in African Village #21239 has just as much human potential as any other kid in the world.

Life itself, is the rarest substance in the universe. What Life, itself, decides to do about that, is derived from a near-infinite ability for Life, itself, to decide. Once "African Village Kid, Age 9" starts learning to code on the Linux Kernel, for example, the ability to decide, equally as a species, can be observed.

And it is this fact on which 'equality' and 'worth' depend - nothing else.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#37
I agree with the sentiment about all lives being equal.

That is why I enjoyed challenging myself to think about it purely from an economic perspective one day. We were on the plane, and the guy next to us was studying "humanitarian economics". It is somewhat related to the issues that the gates foundation has to think about when distributing their funds.

There was some curious dilemmas you need to face, and most of them seem to be faced by removing yourself somewhat from the moral aspect, and thinking purely about assigning a monetary value to them. The bit that I remember was thinking about the financial value of a human life, as determined by its remaining potential. What this means is [0]:

- Small babies: haven't invested much time and effort into developing them, so they are not worth as much.

- Teenagers: Have spent considerable amount of time getting them ready to contribute to society.

- Older people: Although there has been a lot of effort invested in them, and they have contributed a lot to society, there is only so much more "potential" left.

Another interesting thing about this approach, is that in a funny way, it mimics the sentiment of Belinda's statement of all lives being equal. This is because (equally aged) people from Africa and Australia have the same monetary value according to this.

[0] - Please don't hate me! I' actually quite a nice person, I just found this interesting :) It's not how I normally think about people.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates isn't talking about the value of human lives in terms of money, cost, ROI, investment, consumption, production, or any of the other terms you've used. She's referring to their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. That you've constructed such a long comment based on such a misunderstanding is rather worrying.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would…

You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#39

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

That's some disturbing shit you've written there. You're disclaimer makes it even worse. I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing…

Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that?

I mean there were the crusades - but really that was the exception. Religion? Exception right? There was the Holocaust there I suppose. And a bunch of other genocides. A couple of global wars and unsubstantiated racism. Oh but please - let's continue in just believing things without evidence - because that's worked so well - relying on intrinsic gut reactions.

Belief and conviction - a boon to humanity - in all its forms!

/sarcasm

How the hell is what I've written disturbing? I'm slightly perturbed at your reliance on unsupported thought models getting us all killed just because you believe in something. I'd rather not rely on people's beliefs - they are notoriously flexible.

I've indicated that a) poor people should be protected, b) that humans are long-term equal and c) we should work towards helping everyone - because it's good for all of us in the long run.

What's so surprising about that?

Does this not align with your views?

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#40
post #14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure you recognize a better reflection of what she favors is in the life-changing work that Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing.

They definitely do good work in many areas. However, on one hand they work to reduce deaths from diseases[0] while on the other, people are just a drain on natural resources.[1] It's not consistent. [0] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/malaria/Pages/home.aspx etc. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/Pages/family-pla...

The document you cite as [1] does not, in fact, say anything even slightly like "people are just a drain on natural resources". Here are the first few things it says: (1) "Family planning saves the lives of mothers and infants." (2) It "can significantly improve the health of women and their families." (3) "It can save millions of lives per year."

The page claims -- I don't know whether it's correct, but actually that isn't relevant for this purpose -- that universal access to contraception could prevent about 90k maternal deaths, 640k infant deaths, and 14M unsafe abortions, per year.

The only thing on that page that at all resembles "people are just a drain on natural resources" is this: at the end of the page there are five "Additional benefits for society": reduced HIV transmission, reduced pressure on natural resources, improved education and employment opportunities for women, improved economic growth, improved status for women.

So. They give many reasons for supporting family planning. They say it saves lives and improves health and helps the economy and improves the status of women. Tucked in towards the end is the remark that, by the way, it also reduces "pressure on natural resources".

Do you, really, think it is fair to summarize this by saying they think that "people are just a drain on natural resources"?

Personally, I think it's grotesquely dishonest.

Post reply on HN