Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

annualletter.gatesfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 317 posts

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#31

Post by humanrebar »

acconrad wrote: post #4

> There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit there now I think, “Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a miracle.” Overall I enjoyed his letter, but I find this quote a bit deceptive. A recent photo ( http://i.imgur.com/atxDiw6.jpg ) of the poverty line in Mexico City paints a very different picture than Gates' conclusion that most people there are "middle-class." Anot…

I'm surprised he chose Mexico as an example as well, but because of the issues it has with corruption, emigration, and violence. Even a middle-class country with those problems seems like a bad example of progress.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#32

Post by wisty »

mikeash wrote: post #7

This is a fascinating letter that helps combat some of the "doom and gloom" that's so prevalent in... well, everything. I kept coming back to one thought while reading this: why are people so mistaken about Africa in particular? The article covers misconceptions all over the place, but it keeps coming back to Africa, and it seems that the disparity between what people think and what's actually the case is far larger…

It's not totally wrong about Africa. HIV hit Africa like a sledgehammer, and stopped development cold for 20 odd years. 10 years ago, people had seen Sub Saharan Africa going backwards for a decade.

Plus, that was the 20 years when everyone looking for cheap labor went to China.

Now, they're much better at preventing and treating HIV. And China is going to Africa for cheap labor. So things are getting much better.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#33

Post by mhurron »

sdegutis wrote: post #24
zeidrich wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them. A child who grows up in that sort of circumsta…

My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.

Well there definitely isn't when you don't even attempt to explain your position.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#34

Post by misterbishop »

spodek wrote: post #14

His third point, "Saving lives leads to overpopulation," is a weird straw man. I've never heard of anyone ever suggesting letting suffering children die as some way to keep the population low. He brings up Malthus as another straw man. I'm not sure the point he's trying to make. To stop people from stopping people from saving people's lives? I think he's trying to suggest that the planet has too many people on it but…

Thanks for the camel facts!

I think we should resist the malthusian overpopulation argument in any form. Resource scarcity cannot be considered a problem when waste is such a major component of our economy. Radically uneven development, maybe, but not scarcity.

For an interesting discussion of Malthus, check out Betsy Hartmann in this episode of Behind the News: http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2013/13_06_13.mp3

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#35

Post by bnegreve »

sdegutis wrote: post #24
zeidrich wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them. A child who grows up in that sort of circumsta…

My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.

Come on, try to explain. HN is biased in many respects, if you never say what you think, you're just making it worst.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#36

Post by ubercore »

sdegutis wrote: post #24
zeidrich wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless. No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them. A child who grows up in that sort of circumsta…

My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.

I think it's fair to expect at least an attempt, given that you felt strongly enough to post your first comment. Without context, it boils down to "I have an opinion." Not surprising people would ask you to expand on that.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#37

Post by mikeash »

jordan0day wrote: post #19
mikeash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries…

> Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that. But the third myth section covers your proposed malthusean explosion, and declares that it's not a valid concern.

Here's a quote from that section:

"In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s."

The article is talking about our world, which is one in which contraceptives are widely available. We can't really look at alternate realities in which there are rich countries with no contraceptives and see how their birth rates fared, but I see no reason to assume they would drop, because people will still have sex.

The Malthusian explosion is not a valid concern precisely because of contraception.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#39

Post by Symmetry »

The Gates are quite correct that we shouldn't ordinarily worry too much if some of the aid is siphoned off into government corruption. But while if 2% of the money goes into the creation of some official's new manor that isn't too bad, there are much worse things that money can go to.

In the Great Lakes Crisis[1] the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda were charging aid organizations for access to the the refugees they controlled. They were using the money to try to buy enough weapons to re-conquer Rwanda and finish what they had started. Most private aid organizations wisely decided they weren't willing to pay the genocidaires off, but the UN was willing to and the army of the new Rwandan government ended up invading to stop them, touching off the Congolese civil war.

Paying for access to refugees can also turn refugees into a de-facto lootable resource that can help sustain conflicts the same way that diamonds can.

Corruption in stable states isn't a huge problem for aid (development is another story), but it's interactions with aid are much worse in unstable areas.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_refugee_crisis

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#40

Post by unmole »

spodek wrote: post #14

His third point, "Saving lives leads to overpopulation," is a weird straw man. I've never heard of anyone ever suggesting letting suffering children die as some way to keep the population low. He brings up Malthus as another straw man. I'm not sure the point he's trying to make. To stop people from stopping people from saving people's lives? I think he's trying to suggest that the planet has too many people on it but…

I'll just leave this here: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430318/Foreign-aid-spent-on...
Post reply on HN