2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:32 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #96

sdegutis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not take that to it's logical conclusion? If having kids is such a positive effect overall, to the point where people shouldn't be allowed to have sex without natural chances of procreation, why not require them to have kids? Why not fine people that are not procreating? I don't understand the point of saying producing more human life is so important, it's worth robbing people of the freedom to decide how to live…

That's taking the wrong understanding of my point. I'm not saying the choice should be taken away on a personal level. In fact it's central to my point that individuals should have the choice. Which is why I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level, because there are long-term ramifications of doing so, which include implicitly biasing the choice of individuals within future generations towards not having children.

EDIT: typo

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

#122

Post by MartinCron » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:34 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #28

btian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind explaining why? Providing contraception (especially condoms) can prevent STDs in addition to preventing unwanted child birth.

I can't. Not because I don't have legit reasoning (I'm convinced I do). But for a far more interesting reason: I'm one of the 0% in this community who hold this position. This means there's no chance for a fair debate. Socially speaking, I think this is far more interesting than my disagreement itself. EDIT: Ignore this, I have already responded. See the rest of the thread.

You're right in that holding a position that is extremely divergent from the consensus view is an interesting place to be.

I don't know if that necessarily follows that having a "fair" debate is impossible. There's nothing unfair about a majority of people disagreeing with you. Objective truth isn't determined by majority vote.

It is unfair to say "you're the only one who thinks that, so you must be wrong" but I don't see any of that happening here. If anything, I see a lot of "you're the only person who has expressed this opinion, I'm curious to know why that is?"

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

#123

Post by humanrebar » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #66

humanrebar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.

Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?

I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.

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

#124

Post by rfnslyr » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #116

socialist_coder wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This alone isn't enough to convince me that we should give in to short-sightedness by allowing people to prevent or destroy future human lives. Is it not destroying the life of the parent(s) by giving them a child they do not want and cannot reasonably care for?

I have confidence in the malleability of human nature. We can adapt to new situations and still thrive. Change isn't always bad nor does it "destroy" life, even if it seems painful at first.

You have clearly never lived a remotely shit life to make such claims. Do you understand what absolute poverty is?

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

#125

Post by run4_too » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #75

run4_too wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could I ask why? Would you, for example, ban them in our own society?

Human life is our ultimate resource, for creative potential and resourcefulness and social fulfillment. It seems like we shouldn't squander this resource just because it can seem inconvenient at times. Taking the long view, collective humanity can probably ultimately solve all the "but what if" scenarios that are touted as justifications to stifle human life.

That's a sound argument, and I agree with it, but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception.

You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest".

Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact occurred? That's a rather strange position to take.

Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is. Is a young married couple that chooses to have sex with a condom different from a couple that chooses not to have sex at all?

Perhaps I'm not properly understanding your point though.

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

#126

Post by MichaelGG » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #121

MichaelGG wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not take that to it's logical conclusion? If having kids is such a positive effect overall, to the point where people shouldn't be allowed to have sex without natural chances of procreation, why not require them to have kids? Why not fine people that are not procreating? I don't understand the point of saying producing more human life is so important, it's worth robbing people of the freedom to decide how to live…

That's taking the wrong understanding of my point. I'm not saying the choice should be taken away on a personal level. In fact it's central to my point that individuals should have the choice. Which is why I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level, because there are long-term ramifications of doing so, which include implicitly biasing the choice of individuals within future generations towards not hav…

No one is suggesting that societies mandate contraceptives, simply give them the choice and education. Along the lines of "hey, if you're barely surviving, and already have 3 children, you may want to reconsider getting pregnant right now".

How is that not a personal choice?

"implicitly biasing" sounds like you're saying societies shouldn't offer full technology and knowledge, because people might make decisions you don't agree with. Please clarify.

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

#127

Post by run4_too » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

abraininavat wrote: post #70

run4_too wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more likely the person is being honest. I think the positive move would be to encourage him/her to express their rational and provide an example of how HN accepts different conclusions provided there is a logical process in creating those conclusions. What you are doing is providing example to buttress op's point as being correct. Best to leave that attitude on reddit.

Best to leave that attitude on reddit You disagree with my interpretation of this thread, fine. You might be right, great! The "best leave that attitude on reddit" comment is childish and does more to lower the quality of the conversation than my call to ignore unexplained (not even irrational) points. Grow up.

I think your overall style is rather needlessly confrontational. First with OP, and now with me.

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

#128

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:41 PM UTC

run4_too wrote: post #125

sdegutis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human life is our ultimate resource, for creative potential and resourcefulness and social fulfillment. It seems like we shouldn't squander this resource just because it can seem inconvenient at times. Taking the long view, collective humanity can probably ultimately solve all the "but what if" scenarios that are touted as justifications to stifle human life.

That's a sound argument, and I agree with it, but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception. You and I are both a result of chance. To the level that your grandparents decided to have sex at 7PM instead of 7AM, and that your grandmother didn't shift to the right afterwards, allowing a different sperm to be "the fastest". Is our existence a denial of the person that would have been created had the other fact oc…

"but I'm having trouble linking that to contraception."

"Conversely, suggesting contraception is squandering our human capital is not much different than suggesting abstinence is."

Artificially disconnecting sex from children increases the bias in future generations against having children. I explained it better elsewhere in this thread. Abstinence doesn't cause this artificial disconnect.

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

#129

Post by _delirium » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

hawkharris wrote: post #23

The United States' news coverage concerning Africa perpetuates these myths. It seems as if 95% of news stories focus on poverty, war and chaos in the continent. They rarely go so far as to differentiate among countries. In fact, many African nations are great centers for innovation. Kenya and Nigeria spring to mind for higher education and mobile computing. As a way of confronting condescending stereotypes, I have of…

> As a way of confronting condescending stereotypes, I have often fantasized about organizing a group of Nigerian school children to "help build a school somewhere in America"

Sort of along those lines, http://www.africafornorway.no

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

#130

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 8:47 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #126

sdegutis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's taking the wrong understanding of my point. I'm not saying the choice should be taken away on a personal level. In fact it's central to my point that individuals should have the choice. Which is why I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level, because there are long-term ramifications of doing so, which include implicitly biasing the choice of individuals within future generations towards not hav…

No one is suggesting that societies mandate contraceptives, simply give them the choice and education. Along the lines of "hey, if you're barely surviving, and already have 3 children, you may want to reconsider getting pregnant right now". How is that not a personal choice? "implicitly biasing" sounds like you're saying societies shouldn't offer full technology and knowledge, because people might make decisions you…

I explained it better somewhere else on this thread. I don't fully know what HN etiquette is (I'm new here) but I assume it's probably in bad taste for me to copy/paste it into several different replies.