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

101–110 of 317 posts

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

#101

Post by yeukhon »

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…

It isn't all that weird to hear that. Peter Singer's paper "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" suggested that if we can help and we don't reduce ourselves to marginal utility we should help. For example, you can skip breakfast and save $5 for the poor. If we reduce ourselves to the point we can die from starvation, as in not eating for a week to save $100, that's not helping. He also mentions (I am paraphrasing) that if we know that by not helping them now can reduce population and decrease the famine severity, that might be a better route to take. Now Singer's point may be controversial, but that's the difference between a utilitarian and an denotologist (and an absolutist).

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

#102

Post by localhost »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
localhost wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Gates is not saying that everywhere in Mexico City is like the picture on the right. "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.”" Sadly, I don't understand what you are saying in your second paragraph. I don't see how your criticism refutes Myth 1 "Poor Countries are Doomed to Stay Poor"? Take a…

> I don't see how your criticism refutes Myth 1 I'm not refuting that the myth is a myth (though I think its more of a strawman that Gates attacks poorly than a myth), I'm pointing out that Gates particular attempt to argue from so-called "income per person" trends (that starts with mistreating GDP per capita as "income per person") line of argument against the "myth" is fundamentally flawed. I don't think poor count…

I see what you're saying. However, I wouldn't attribute to malice "attempts to conceal by presenting it as something it is not" what could otherwise be explained by the difficulty in getting a different globally available metric. GDP per capita is a metric that is globally available from reputable sources.

Is there a different globally available metric from reputable sources that you would suggest?

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

#103

Post by the_af »

sdegutis wrote: post #76
moocowduckquack wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to. Out of interest, do you want to see contraception restricted in the areas where it is already widely available, or just restricted for the people who do not yet have that access?

"Contraception doesn't stop people being able to have kids, it allows them to have sex without having kids if they want to." I can't agree. I'm not saying it physically and literally stops them. But it does create an artificial separation that makes it more alluring to choose sex sans children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you somehow saying that procreation should be more or less random? That it's better if people don't get to decide when they will have children?

What's your opinion of people who choose to remain celibate?

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

#104

Post by sdegutis »

mikeash wrote: post #98
sdegutis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am arguing for it without appealing to religion, but my replies are kind of scattered and drowned out by requests for them. This whole thread is really hard to navigate. Shouldn't have started it out the way I did. Lesson learned.

No, you're stating your opinion without appealing to religion, but you haven't argued for it at all. Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh . And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As f…

"No, you're stating your opinion without appealing to religion, but you haven't argued for it at all."

I'm stating my perspective and trying to back it up by my reasoning:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097627

But maybe all I'm doing is stating my opinion and that I just don't know the difference.

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

#105

Post by Apocryphon »

philwelch wrote: post #59
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…

Japan has been a relatively developed, industrialized country for a very long time, judging by the fact that they spent the 1930's and 1940's trying to conquer east Asia and were doing a decent job of it.

True, but there was a time prior to that, before modernization. "Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!"

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

#106

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chime wrote: post #82
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 bite. I believed it. Not only did I believe it until I read this letter, I thought Gates Foundation was doing an unintentional long-term disservice to the world by saving so many lives that overpopulation in the remote parts of the world will lead to more suffering due to starvation/hunger, poverty, and depression. If X% of children in villages in Ghana are currently starving, how will raising that to 2X% starvi…

Out of curiosity, which was the specific argument which changed your mind?

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

#107

Post by cperciva »

sdegutis wrote: post #57
sdegutis wrote: post #5

"Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustainable world." I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.

My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world. There are so many wild cards, so many variables, that all these "but what if" arguments aren't convincing to me. In terms of resource depletion, I'm confident that the human race is capable enough to solve its major sustainability problems without stifling this major source of creative and resourceful potential.

My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world.

I agree with the view that human life is something worth bringing into the world; but don't you think there's value in letting people choose when they bring human life into the world?

Most people I know want to have kids -- just not yet.

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

#108

Post by spikels »

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…

Rather strange and confused comment. Many people have expressed concern "Saving lives leads to overpopulation". It is a common concern of donors[1] and this view seems to be particularly common among those primarily concerned about sustainably and climate change[2][3]. You are simply unaware of the complaints that health campaigners in the developing world, like Bill Gates, actually face.

You appear to be simply grasping at straws so that you can find fault with Bill Gates.

[1] http://blog.givewell.org/2008/08/03/infant-mortality-and-ove...

[2] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21/opinion/la-oe-harte-...

[3] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutio...

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

#109

Post by sifarat »

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…

If all human beings on earth used the resources as much as an average American does, it would need the resources of the 7 earth to meet the demand.

Poor country have larger populations, but they ain't using earth resources as much.

What Gates is trying to do, transfer the resources to poor people to make up for this disproportion of resources due to wealth possessed by the comparatively richer people.

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

#110

Post by stan_rogers »

philwelch wrote: post #59
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…

Japan has been a relatively developed, industrialized country for a very long time, judging by the fact that they spent the 1930's and 1940's trying to conquer east Asia and were doing a decent job of it.

Postwar Japan was a different beast for quite a while. Weird Al Yankovic's line "don't you know that other kids are starving in Japan" was what parents used to guilt their kids into eating until Biafra happened. A "Made in Japan" joke was funny in the '50s and '60s because it was true, for the most part. "Toyota" was a word that to most people meant "poor bugger couldn't even afford a Beetle". My '71 Datsun (Nissan) pickup could barely reach highway speed (although it did have a sort of tractor-like utility about it) and I don't think there was a single original body panel left on it by '79. But the cameras weren't bad. And then the "miniature" electronics (a radio you could put in your pocket!) happened. It took a while to get back up to speed. Now people look for "Made in Japan" as a sign of quality instead of a warning.
Post reply on HN