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

271–280 of 317 posts

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

#271

Post by slackson »

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…

If you want to know enough to donate with confidence, GiveWell has good charity recommendations.

In any case, don't let indecision paralyse you into inaction. Put some proportion of money aside for charity, start doing research, etc. We're not perfect, it's okay to be a bit selfish, and it's good to want to do better. There's any number of options between a spartan life where you donate most of your money, and donating nothing.

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

#272

Post by mathgenius »

jfoster wrote: post #182

Is it just me, or is there some bias in the before & after photos? Mexico city "before" is just one dwelling versus a full street in the "after". Nairobi "before" is taken when most of the city was dark due to clouds, whereas the "after" is a bright, sunny day. Similarly, Shanghai "before" looks like it was taken with an unfavourable filter on a hazy day. I'm not doubting that the world is improving, especially in th…

Yeah that was enough for me to close that tab.

Meow.

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

#273

Post by alphydan »

trentmb wrote: post #253
thwest wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is food given to people in NYC/East Coast for free, or do the people there purchase it?

Certainly not for free, but definitely with some component of aid (even in NY)

> The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization" [0]

That means, the consumer is not paying the full price of farming at the till (both this subsidy and aid come from taxes)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...

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

#274

Post by alphydan »

nostromo wrote: post #176
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.

A good place to start for an overview on the research on that causation is Hans Rosling, http://www.nooventures.org/hans-rosling-on-global-population... and http://www.gapminder.org/

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

#276

Post by nollidge »

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…

> individuals should have the choice

> I'm arguing against giving the choice on a societal level

?? If you don't have the choice "at the societal level", then you definitely don't have it at the individual level.

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

#277

Post by paul_f »

Daishiman wrote: post #261
theraccoundude wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. And of course you have countries like Chile, which has the highest GDP per capita of any south american country and probably the most stable economy, all after adopting free market principals from Friedman. And some of these countries have grown, but to what extent? Where would Brazil be if it dropped it's insanely regulated state and bloated beauracracy and freed up its people? These countries are all still h…

Chile is a terrible example of this; it has one of the higher levels of income inequality on that side of the continent and privatized education and health care. Private education in Chile is appalling; wealthy Chileans send their kids to study to the US or EU and the middle class that can't afford education sends them to Argentina or Brazil. Capital is concentrated on a few hands with a strong dependency on basic co…

This "inequality" stuff is really getting annoying. The poor in Chile are far better off than other countries in the region, but because the rich are also richer somehow inequality is all that matters to some.

In fact, the wikipedia article "Poverty in South America" doesn't even mention Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_South_America

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

#278

Post by rbanffy »

sdegutis wrote: post #216
rbanffy wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that be wrong outside a specific set of religious values? It's not atheists (or the defenders of a secular state) that should prove a religion wrong. It's the participants in that religion that should prove their deity exists and its moral code should be applied to everyone regardless of their opinion.

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying that in a democracy, individuals vote based on their world-views. Sometimes that world-view is informed by a religion, sometimes it's informed by "spirituality", or sometimes by something else. But whatever it may be, a person's world-view is always informed by ideals that can't be proven one way or another.

I have to disagree. Ideals informed from religions cannot be proven (they could, actually, if the deities cooperated, but, while they don't, there can't be proof) but decisions informed by scientific knowledge can and that's a very important difference.

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

#279

Post by macspoofing »

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.

I'm not sure how I can do that. If he has a conscientious objection that's his right. I neither can nor want to force him to change it. It's a free (speech) country after all. However, I reserve the right to call this objection deranged, insane or stupid. That's my right.

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

#280

Post by sdegutis »

rbanffy wrote: post #278
sdegutis wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying that in a democracy, individuals vote based on their world-views. Sometimes that world-view is informed by a religion, sometimes it's informed by "spirituality", or sometimes by something else. But whatever it may be, a person's world-view is always informed by ideals that can't be proven one way or another.

I have to disagree. Ideals informed from religions cannot be proven (they could, actually, if the deities cooperated, but, while they don't, there can't be proof) but decisions informed by scientific knowledge can and that's a very important difference.

That's unrelated to my point. I'm not talking about science or religion. I'm saying that everyone holds some unprovable views about how society works best, and they cast their votes based on these ideals, whether they're religious or not.
Post reply on HN