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

151–160 of 317 posts

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

#151

Post by jl6 »

I would be interested to hear how HN readers approach charity. I personally am constantly struggling with questions like: once my basic needs are met, how can I possibly justify not giving the rest of my income to life-saving causes?

My working theory is a combination of (a) my basic needs are actually quite high when you consider the many potential rainy days for which I must save, (b) I don't know enough to donate with confidence that my money is doing more good than harm (this Gates letter addresses some of my concerns here), and (c) I must simply come to terms with being selfish to the point where I would rather spend money on a candy bar than a life-saving vaccination for someone else.

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

#152

Post by sdegutis »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #133
sdegutis wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On an individual level, people can choose to have or not have children. That's not really what I'm getting at. My point is more about the collective mental separation between sex and having children. When children grow up in a society where you can have sex without having children, the default is to just have sex with no regard to this consequence. The thought of having children occurs less and less often. In fact, i…

How would you triage what you're saying against preventing the spread of HIV which, according to the WHO, is greatly helped by condom use? Would your solution be abstinence? I've read each of your replies, and it honestly seems to me that you're not treating the subject like these are real people. Additionally, that you would prefer to make their decisions for them. High minded ideas have a definite place, but until…

Yes, religion is influencing my views. I am first and foremost a Catholic (although a pretty crappy one who's always in a state of mortal sin). And the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is objectively and inherently offensive to God.

But I don't argue from that angle because all of God's truths are rooted in common sense and logic. They aren't just some random rules or decrees that are disconnected from reality and meant to make people's lives harder. They can all be argued for rationally and without needing to appeal to the supernatural for a good long time. It's like a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith.

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

#153

Post by sdegutis »

MartinCron wrote: post #145
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.

Serious question: are you a parent? I have two (planned, lovely, adorable, whatever) children and while I adore them and am proud of what I'm doing, raising kids well (or at least as well as I'm able) is hard. Very hard. I mean, it's so hard that the very idea of compelling other people to do it when they haven't chosen to seems extremely immoral.

My wife and I have 4 kids, from ages 1 to 10. Raising them is incredibly hard.

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

#154

Post by peterashford »

jl6 wrote: post #151

I would be interested to hear how HN readers approach charity. I personally am constantly struggling with questions like: once my basic needs are met, how can I possibly justify not giving the rest of my income to life-saving causes? My working theory is a combination of (a) my basic needs are actually quite high when you consider the many potential rainy days for which I must save, (b) I don't know enough to donate…

Personally I don't believe that you need to save the world. Just making a contribution now and then and being aware of the issues and speaking / voting with empathy for the poor is enough.

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

#155

Post by slurry »

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…

Two points:

I still perceive India as a "shithole". Whereas China's elite has used its newfound wealth to finance widespread infrastructure and especially sanitation projects, India's has not, not on a mass countrywide scale. Fallen prey to coordination problems is the best gloss you can put on it but I still find it scandalous.

Second, South America's recent progress has mostly been under governments of the left, using more or less coercive statist means that neither the Gates Foundation nor the average HNer would endorse. But maybe it's worth considering.

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

#156

Post by chime »

unmole wrote: post #40
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...

I don't think Sir Attenborough is saying anything that disagrees with the Gates letter. He singled out one form of aid - direct food - as harmful. Not all aid is helpful. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_aid

Gates letter's point was that just because there are forms of aid that are harmful, does not mean all aid is harmful.

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

#157

Post by MartinCron »

sdegutis wrote: post #153
MartinCron wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: are you a parent? I have two (planned, lovely, adorable, whatever) children and while I adore them and am proud of what I'm doing, raising kids well (or at least as well as I'm able) is hard. Very hard. I mean, it's so hard that the very idea of compelling other people to do it when they haven't chosen to seems extremely immoral.

My wife and I have 4 kids, from ages 1 to 10. Raising them is incredibly hard.

Thanks. I appreciate the response. Sorry you feel so embattled in your minority views here.

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

#158

Post by pekk »

sp332 wrote: post #18
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 have heard people worry that since starving people seem to already have a lot of kids, if we send food aid, they'll just have even more kids and then there still won't be enough food. It's one of the things people use to rationalize that people who are in trouble somehow got themselves there and/or deserve it.

No, whether it's a misconception or not it's a legitimate concern about what is effective, not a rationalization

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

#159

Post by sdegutis »

run4_too wrote: post #144
sdegutis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably wasn't clear on what I meant by "creating an unfair bias against it in future members of society". When children grow up in a world where sex doesn't automatically mean children, it biases them towards having sex without having children, and prevents them from considering the option of children as often as they naturally would have. This violates the integrity of future generations, implicitly taking away…

That's an interesting stance that I see no evidence to support. The urge to procreate is tremendously powerful. In many cases it is even more powerful that the urge for sex, believe it or not. I think you are massively understating it. Now, this may not seem likely when you look at those in their 20s, but it jumps out at you if you look at those in their 40s. It's so bad that it actually leads to all sorts of loveles…

"and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will."

I guess this is where we differ. I think a person's actions are far more important than anything incidental like income or health. Thus it's much less relevant where, when, or how they're born.

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

#160

Post by sdegutis »

MartinCron wrote: post #157
sdegutis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I have 4 kids, from ages 1 to 10. Raising them is incredibly hard.

Thanks. I appreciate the response. Sorry you feel so embattled in your minority views here.

The biggest take-away for me is that HN can make your work day totally unproductive if you let it.
Post reply on HN