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

#191

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:12 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #171

sdegutis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I agree. I wasn't here to "win" any argument or debate. And the reason I didn't expound on my position at first was to avoid those who are.

And I know I'm right about the contraception thing. But exploring this open communication between people who disagree with me is much more important to me than having yet another going-nowhere debate about ethics and morals.

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

#192

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:14 PM UTC

rfnslyr wrote: post #124

sdegutis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't. My life is pretty great by probably all standards. You're right. But we're all entitled to form our own views of how the world works best, and to discuss it peaceably with others. I think that's kind of the spirit of HN (except usually it's applied towards more technological things).

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

#193

Post by thwest » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:24 PM UTC

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…

Overpopulation can also result from simple trade. NYC and generally the entire US eastern seaboard are overpopulated by your definition.

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

#194

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:26 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #187

Crito wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not irony. That is just the expected result of not being forthright.

I think you mean forthcoming. I think he was initially fairly straightforward (forthright) about saying he didn't want to state his position (not being forthcoming). It's a pedantic point, but there are implications about the character of the person you're talking about.

Good point, although I didn't even notice, and I'm probably the one who could have taken offense at it. So I guess my ignorance worked out as a win this time?

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

#195

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:29 PM UTC

run4_too wrote: post #148

sdegutis wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> the bias in future generations against having children You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all. There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.

All I have is anecdotal evidence and logic based on that. So I'm afraid I can't give what you're asking for.

But my anecdotal evidence is that, growing up, nobody wanted kids and everyone wanted sex. Having kids was feared as something that would ruin your life. Even if in some sense that's technically true (it could ruin your ability to get a good education and make a living), the attitude lasts longer than the fact. So they would avoid having kids even after they have a good job and could afford it.

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

#196

Post by sdegutis » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:31 PM UTC

run4_too wrote: post #136

sdegutis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves." A person's life is far more than just how they start out. Many people have started in situations like this and have gone on to have wonderful lives. Many have even changed the world. This alone isn't enough to convince me that we sho…

It seems that many people are intent at proving your original point, which is sad, but not entirely unexpected I guess. Regardless, I agree 100% with this comment of yours. I can't extend the rational to not supporting contraceptives, however. To me it doesn't connect. Allowing a young couple to increase their earnings/career potential by delaying childbirth directly relates to making the smart investment over the lo…

Welp, my brain is shutting down, so I can't respond to half the stuff you just said.

But I wanted to thank you for being so courteous and kind in your responses. Turns out you and I disagree, but somehow we figured it out in a positive and constructive way. That's pretty awesome.

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

#197

Post by run4_too » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:32 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #186

run4_too wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 grandpa…

I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from.

Thanks for the conversation. I hope I encouraged you to not to be afraid of voicing the reasoning behind your opinion in the future.

Dialogue is the best way to learn and grow.

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

#198

Post by run4_too » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:37 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #195

run4_too wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the bias in future generations against having children You need to provide something that suggests this bias is prevalent in any society at all. There is a bias against having many children (i.e. 2+), sure. I'm not seeing anything at all suggesting there is a prevalent bias against having any children at all, nor that one will develop over time.

All I have is anecdotal evidence and logic based on that. So I'm afraid I can't give what you're asking for. But my anecdotal evidence is that, growing up, nobody wanted kids and everyone wanted sex. Having kids was feared as something that would ruin your life. Even if in some sense that's technically true (it could ruin your ability to get a good education and make a living), the attitude lasts longer than the fact…

Well, I'll add this then to your experiences: Having my sons was the best thing that ever happened in my life, and I can think of no event in the future that could ever compare to the joy and pride that I feel every day that is a direct result of their existence. Children are life changing, that much is true; in every way. I wouldn't change a thing though.

They are a net benefit to the world already based on the feelings they've created in others alone, and they are only 6 and 4.

I do however recognize that I'm in a much better position for the most important role I'll ever have now than I would have been at any point in my life previously. That's why I support the inclusion of contraception in third world aid - the better parents we can create, the better children they will create. In fact, most of the time it is not that people have had children, it's when they've had children.

I'd suggest that your sample size is rather small and (perhaps, just guessing here obviously) skewed unequally to youth. Give it time. Overall I think you have extremely noble intentions, and I commend you for that. I disagree with your ideas regarding implementation though. Cheers. :-)

EDIT: I hope you see this. I saw above that your objection stems at least in part from the traditional Catholic doctrine. Personally I feel this position (of the church) is illogical and counter productive, however I completely understand the argument being made. You should not be afraid to state this immediately. Wikipedia has an excellent write up on this stance and it does make solid points, although I feel the deductive reasoning behind the argument is quite lacking. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraceptio...)

That being said, It is highly likely this opinion will chance sooner rather than later. Would you be inclined to re-evaluate your opinion at that time? Why or why not?

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

#199

Post by InclinedPlane » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:41 PM UTC

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…

There's a common idiom about progress that goes along the lines of "we always overestimate what can be done in the next 5 years and always underestimate what can be done in 10." (Though sometimes the first part is 1 year or 2 years.) This is especially true when it comes to long term socio-economic development. Look at the South Korea portrayed on the TV show "M.A.S.H.", that's the South Korea of the 1950s, and to some extent it was still a common view of South Korea when the show aired in the late '70s and early '80s. But from 1980 to 1990 South Korea's GDP tripled, and from 1990 to 2000 it more than doubled, and it did so again from 2000 to 2010. Today the people in South Korea are not just richer, per person, than Americans were in 1950 they are richer than Americans were in 1980, when M.A.S.H. was on the air. That sort of thing is very difficult to conceptualize, because humans are just generally not good at understanding geometric growth.

But the same trends are happening elsewhere. Mexico, for example, is becoming wealthier. If they can sort out their huge political and security problems in their country then they can easily join the developed world soon. The same goes for Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and China. And a decade from now there will be yet more countries who will have moved into firing distance of becoming a developed country too, and even more countries moving out of poverty and into the developing world as well. In 2050 there are many parts of the world that we will put in the same mental bucket of development status as the US/Europe et al today, places like Morocco, the Philippines, even Nigeria.

One of the problems people often have with history is lack of perspective and cultural bias. People can be exposed to countless portrayals of historical poverty and lack of development in America's past, for example, and yet still fail to draw a line of similarity to undeveloped or developing parts of the world today. Those people aren't so different from us, if given a chance they can do amazing things.

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

#200

Post by run4_too » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 11:47 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #196

run4_too wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that many people are intent at proving your original point, which is sad, but not entirely unexpected I guess. Regardless, I agree 100% with this comment of yours. I can't extend the rational to not supporting contraceptives, however. To me it doesn't connect. Allowing a young couple to increase their earnings/career potential by delaying childbirth directly relates to making the smart investment over the lo…

Welp, my brain is shutting down, so I can't respond to half the stuff you just said. But I wanted to thank you for being so courteous and kind in your responses. Turns out you and I disagree, but somehow we figured it out in a positive and constructive way. That's pretty awesome.

Indeed, and I've found HN is (for the interwebs at least) pretty tolerant of unpopular opinions, provided there is substance behind them.

Regardless I hope you never feel burdened at sharing your opinions again. You and I are very different in our experiences and backgrounds, that much I can deduct easily. It's a respectful difference of opinion though that allows each of us to grow.