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

171–180 of 317 posts

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

#171

Post by MartinCron »

sdegutis wrote: post #167
MartinCron wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I'm thinking more of those who fall prey to the argumentum ad populum, and inspired with that confidence, they cite respectable-looking sources and consider them to be irrefutable proof. These people always win their arguments.

Interesting perspective, I would say that almost nobody ever actually wins an argument. Nor do I think that winning an argument is even a meaningful goal, especially online.

The best that you can hope to do is make a new and interesting point that will resonate with someone. Don't be afraid to do that. Even when you're wrong.

You're totally wrong on the contraception thing, by the way :)

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

#172

Post by sdegutis »

humanrebar wrote: post #170
mikeash wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just telling us what you feel. You're not giving us any reasons why we might agree with you.

His case, concisely stated is: 1. All births are good things. 2. Contraception causes fewer births. 3. Therefore contraception is not good. ...of course, correct me if I'm wrong. It's a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so it might be a little alien compared to the typical discussion thread on HN and similar venues.

I don't think philosophical arguments are very alien to HN. They're usually just applied to different problems, like what the best programming paradigm is, or how security should best be implemented in the kernel, or what's the best attitude to found your start-up on, etc.

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

#173

Post by mikeash »

humanrebar wrote: post #170
mikeash wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just telling us what you feel. You're not giving us any reasons why we might agree with you.

His case, concisely stated is: 1. All births are good things. 2. Contraception causes fewer births. 3. Therefore contraception is not good. ...of course, correct me if I'm wrong. It's a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so it might be a little alien compared to the typical discussion thread on HN and similar venues.

3 so obviously follows from 1 that anyone who thinks contraception is a good thing clearly does not believe 1. It's so direct that it doesn't really qualify as an argument, but merely a restatement of the original position.

It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think so. An argument is where you state your reasoning in such a way that it could, at least potentially, convince the other person. Merely stating one of your opinions that happens to be related to another of your opinions doesn't qualify.

Personally, for #1, I don't think there's anything good or bad about a birth. More or fewer births, by themselves, don't matter. They take on good or bad qualities based on the context in which they happen. Preventing a birth before anything related even happens is not by itself good or bad, it's just something that happens. I'd wager most of the others on the "pro-contraception" side think likewise.

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

#174

Post by moocowduckquack »

sdegutis wrote: post #152
reitzensteinm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 real…

I think this is the reference.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2038:8-10&ve...

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

#175

Post by run4_too »

sdegutis wrote: post #159
run4_too wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Better Income and/or Health begets better actions, generally. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a real thing.

It's rather difficult to be noble when you are starving. That isn't to say it's impossible, but if we are talking about increasing odds of success, it is true.

I'm concerned with enabling people to become better than what they are now. All people. Regardless of their mistakes, the mistakes of their great grandparents or their particular luck in the geography lottery. Can you say you are for the same? Because although you are presenting that outwardly, in detail it seems you are content with enforcing an unequal distribution of hardship based primarily on an ignorance of the human struggle outside of small town USA.

I'm always very wary of people and opinions that suggest suffering is beneficial, particularly when such suffering is notably absent from their own lives.

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

#176

Post by nostromo »

crazygringo wrote: post #149

It's an excellent piece. I'll admit to being a bit confused by the assertion, however: > "letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too." I spent five months in Kenya, and…

It seems they could have the causation arrow exactly backwards.

Alternate hypothesis: Countries with fewer children have more resources to put towards those children.

The Gates Foundation is super smart, so I'm hopeful they've seen enough data to consider and refute this.

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

#177

Post by macspoofing »

sdegutis wrote: post #140
macspoofing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Being able to understand and interpret evidence properly is not a universally held trait. That has implications on both sides of any debate. Related note: I often wonder how many people are victim to argumentum ad populum.

On the other hand, sometimes when you find yourself, alone, on the wrong the side of the debate, it may make sense to at least rethink your assumptions and consider that you may be wrong. Maybe the debate isn't actually there. Maybe all those well-meaning public health-policy writers at the WHO and at the national levels have a point. At the very least, maybe consider that pragmatic realities trump religious ideologies.

Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.

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

#178

Post by XorNot »

humanrebar wrote: post #123
macspoofing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.

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

#180

Post by humanrebar »

mikeash wrote: post #173
humanrebar wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His case, concisely stated is: 1. All births are good things. 2. Contraception causes fewer births. 3. Therefore contraception is not good. ...of course, correct me if I'm wrong. It's a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so it might be a little alien compared to the typical discussion thread on HN and similar venues.

3 so obviously follows from 1 that anyone who thinks contraception is a good thing clearly does not believe 1. It's so direct that it doesn't really qualify as an argument, but merely a restatement of the original position. It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think…

> It's so direct that it doesn't really qualify as an argument.

Do you see how that cuts both ways?

The original point was about disagreeing, on ethical grounds, with the idea that contraceptives are essential parts of sustainability initiatives. There really isn't a good counterargument to that objection since both sides really rest on qualitative opinions.

Post reply on HN