Live data from Hacker News

An interview with Bill Gates

ft.com

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#61
Disclaimer: I am not a STEM guy so don't go calling me an elitist.

This might seem like a callous view but I think it's better to invest money on helping the scientist caste (wherever they might have been born) than to simply cure a bunch of random people. In the movie Elysium (2013), they send magic machines to help the masses, which achieves nothing since they are just as poor as before but a bit healthier. I left the movie theater feeling depressed and angry.

What we need is real technological progress. If we could for example synthesize objects or food easily à la Star Trek, we would solve poverty and inequality more efficiently than thousands of years of social programs.

Consider the fact that Isaac Newton's scientific output was worth more than 99% of the work of every other intellectual in the world in the past few centuries leading up to his birth. What's even more amazing is that Newton spent only a tiny fraction of his time doing actual science; he was obsessed with mysticism and other pseudo-scientific doctrines. So giving a billion dollars to the next Newton will be many order of magnitudes smarter than spending that same billion curing laborers. However, it's not politically correct, so I doubt it will be feasible.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#62
post #44

Nice to see that even with a few dozen billion under his belt he still's the same guy: unable to help himself from mocking ideas he thinks suck! Who cares if you agree with him, his honesty and passion are amazing.

You've got it the wrong way: with his billions and fame, he is more likely to be honest and to mock others. People will listen to him and respect no matter what he says.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#63
post #51

Getting rid of Malaria is obviously a higher priority than internet access from the perspective of any one person living in the third world today. I have much respect for Bill Gates for the work he's doing in that area. However, there is a kind of shortsightedness in his attitude: The thing is, societies evolve because of technology and opportunities. So while it is preferable for each individual to have no internet…

He's not dismissing it. He is saying we have got our priorities wrong. You are being intellectually dishonest by adopting an artificially contrarian position and trying to pretend he was saying we had to choose one or the other just, it seems, for the sake of having a contrarian position. You are wrong, but despite having an idiotic opinion you're not an idiot, tempting as it is to think that. You are just someone wh…

> “As a priority? It’s a joke.”

Those words from Gates irk me somewhat. He seems to have the attitude that he's so obviously right we shouldn't even be having the discussion. That is something I very strongly disagree with.

I'm not adopting a contrarian position for the sake of it. I'm adopting the position that we need to open our minds and think deeply about problems without letting emotions cloud our judgment of what is important. I conceded from the start that I could be wrong, Gates has obviously spent a great deal more mental energy thinking about this problem than I ever will. Still, it's a discussion worth having, and the answer, whatever it turns out to be, is not obvious.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#64
post #51

Getting rid of Malaria is obviously a higher priority than internet access from the perspective of any one person living in the third world today. I have much respect for Bill Gates for the work he's doing in that area. However, there is a kind of shortsightedness in his attitude: The thing is, societies evolve because of technology and opportunities. So while it is preferable for each individual to have no internet…

He's not dismissing it. He is saying we have got our priorities wrong. You are being intellectually dishonest by adopting an artificially contrarian position and trying to pretend he was saying we had to choose one or the other just, it seems, for the sake of having a contrarian position. You are wrong, but despite having an idiotic opinion you're not an idiot, tempting as it is to think that. You are just someone wh…

He actually said "priorities" and "to a certain extent" so he is not all that contrarian nor intellectually dishonest; plus you are the one using offensive wording in your comment.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#65
While I find it kind of obscene that ISPs (and many many other businesses) make lots of cash in Africa (third world in general) rolling out connectivity, while seemingly giving little back, which of course could help with malaria (and many other issues), I do wonder if it will blow back on the west in the form of the mass of Africans suddenly knowing how the other half live as it were. As a result, demanding more of what the west have, knowing how the west profits while they suffer. Im sure they do know to an extent, but this might prove it, or make it fantastically clear. Heh, kinda like their Snowden. They suspected, but access to real data will prove it.

Another barely considered idea that has just floated in to my head is the idea that some how, say via UN treaty, rich countries and or corporations should be prevented from profiting in third world countries while certain defined baselines of quality of life are below a certain standard. So, for example, you cant profit from internet connectivity until health and education standards are at a certain defined level. Or, perhaps if companies do, then a percentage of their profit must be spent in that country addressing the various issues.

OK, I have zero idea how you define that in to law or treaty, especially with out some gits working out how to circumvent it, but as an ideal to work to?

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#66
post #34
post #4

Guys don't go so hard on him. This is a passionate person about getting rid of this disease. I've had malaria 7 or so times. The problem is when you don't get access to medication which is the problem. If you don't it can kill you very slowly. Malaria is caused by this organism transmitted by mosquitoes. If you get rid of it, mosquitoes still live, but malaria can disappear. Also its not zero sum. Dedicating resource…

So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then? What if I worked on making a fusion reactor technology that could give "free energy to everyone". Would I get to shit on Bill Gate's "anti-malaria" campaign, too, because I'd think my priority is more "important"? Phone and Internet communications are very important to people. Much more important than it might seem at first glance. I come from a relatively…

So why does he have to trash everyone else's priorities then?

Given that his charity is the 800lb gorilla in the world of charities I think his attitude is pretty damaging. That's more of a problem with the concentration of so much power in his foundation than with his opinions. The only "charity" larger than his is the IKEA holding company and it doesn't do anywhere near as much actual charitable work.

When you dominate the market for charitable works the way the Gates Foundation does, you can easily smother alternative approaches -- even if that is not your intention. In a system with one dominant "buyer" of charitable work, it is easy to consume all of the non-money resources (people, equipment, governmental coordination, etc) available to all charities.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#67

Bill should support Bradley's Kina Tonic, right at home in Seattle, and then move on to supporting internet access: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/161679272/bradleys-kina-...

Wow, downvoted for suggesting that Gates support a kickstarter project that will, if it's successful, become one of the best tonics in the world (I've tasted it). Quinine is the best natural cure for malaria. This project is succeeding with very little kickstarter funding. I was not attacking Gates -- simply suggesting that a tiny dose of funding for this Seattle tonic startup could help a lot for malaria, and then t…

Quinine is not the best antimalarial drug out there nowadays, and is certainly not a good choice if you have lots of money to invest in malaria treatment in impoverished regions of the world.

Investing in this tonic water startup for that purpose would be pointless and counter-productive.

Also it's rather inappropriate to be shilling it in a serious discussion about responsible philanthropy.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#68
post #54

He's right. Poverty, disease and basic things like that are things about _survival_, the internet is not. But mainly, the title is provocative and misleading. The article clearly states, he was asked a leading question "asked whether giving the planet an internet connection is more important than finding a vaccination for malaria", and he answered. The title makes it seem like he went out of his way to make the compa…

No, it wasn't "just a leading question". Bill Gates has said something similar before, and quite recently, about Google's Loons: > Bill Gates: Google's Project Loon Doesn't 'Uplift the Poor' Which is a pretty stupid statement to make considering technology does in fact "uplift the poor", since it leads to better economic environment, jobs, and better living conditions. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422884,00.…

Some technology does uplift the poor, but not always, and not all technologies.

Baloons giving internet access to people, doesn't seem to have an obvious uplifting effect on the poor? Could you explain how that will happen?

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#69
post #54

He's right. Poverty, disease and basic things like that are things about _survival_, the internet is not. But mainly, the title is provocative and misleading. The article clearly states, he was asked a leading question "asked whether giving the planet an internet connection is more important than finding a vaccination for malaria", and he answered. The title makes it seem like he went out of his way to make the compa…

No, it wasn't "just a leading question". Bill Gates has said something similar before, and quite recently, about Google's Loons: > Bill Gates: Google's Project Loon Doesn't 'Uplift the Poor' Which is a pretty stupid statement to make considering technology does in fact "uplift the poor", since it leads to better economic environment, jobs, and better living conditions. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422884,00.…

His exact words were a bit different than the article and you are assuming:

"Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they're just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor,"

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#70
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, they won't get Internet Access, but they'll definitely have a happier life not being ill. I know I'd rather be healthier than have internet.

So if the government knocks down on your door tomorrow and says: "Look, you have two choices, we can help you not get cancer, and we'll supply you with daily pills for the rest of your life, but you will not be allowed to have Internet access ever again, or you can choose Internet access, and we won't give you the cancer-fighting pills anymore". You're 30 years old. Go. Which do you choose?

The pills.
Post reply on HN