Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#51

Post by linker3000 »

Cowicide wrote: post #41
nolok wrote: post #32

You have to respect the man's dedication. He wanted his OS on every desktop computer and he may have played loose with the rules but he got his wish. Now he wants this terrible disease to be destroyed, and there are a lot of obstacles in his way (and after all, destroying a well entrenched virus is a feat that humanity reached only once before), but still in my heart I feel like I wouldn't bet on the virus on that on…

>he may have played loose with the rules ... he is one of the few who can tackle it head on, which ultimately will benefit everyone. He --may-- have? Let's not whitewash history. He not only very much played loose with the rules, he outright broke the rules and trampled upon laws that caused far-reaching net damage to society in the process. Like yourself and most others, I'm certainly pleased that Gates has decided…

"We should teach future generations to give to charity"

We should encourage future generations to develop an alternative to the financial system that in many respects creates barriers to equality and progress in so many fields. It's tragic that eradicating a disease requires us to contribute 'tokens' to facilitate action - and if we don't contribute enough we will penalise sections of our population.

/That's my fill of financial philosophy for the week. //Time to track down that flying pig.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#52

Post by sveredov »

tim333 wrote: post #45
Cowicide wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he may have played loose with the rules ... he is one of the few who can tackle it head on, which ultimately will benefit everyone. He --may-- have? Let's not whitewash history. He not only very much played loose with the rules, he outright broke the rules and trampled upon laws that caused far-reaching net damage to society in the process. Like yourself and most others, I'm certainly pleased that Gates has decided…

>doesn't simply erase his overall negative impacts upon society that runs easily into the trillions Any source on that? I rather enjoyed using his products.

People also enjoy Coke and now they are friends with Type-2 diabetes.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#53

Post by iolsantr »

ekianjo wrote: post #38
skrebbel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Earn shitloads by monopolistically holding back a decade of innovation in the rich west. 2. Give all of it to the poor. If anything, that sounds like Robin Hood to me, more than anything else.

1. innovation does not only benefit the "rich west" - computers are everywhere, man. 2. I doubt he has given "all" of his fortune to the poor. 3. Robin Hood is a legend.

> 1. innovation does not only benefit the "rich west" - computers are everywhere, man.

While this is true, the evidence so far is that innovation (at least of the kind we have been engaging in) benefits the rich far more than the poor.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#54

Post by ekianjo »

iolsantr wrote: post #53
ekianjo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. innovation does not only benefit the "rich west" - computers are everywhere, man. 2. I doubt he has given "all" of his fortune to the poor. 3. Robin Hood is a legend.

> 1. innovation does not only benefit the "rich west" - computers are everywhere, man. While this is true, the evidence so far is that innovation (at least of the kind we have been engaging in) benefits the rich far more than the poor.

> While this is true, the evidence so far is that innovation (at least of the kind we have been engaging in) benefits the rich far more than the poor.

Oh yeah ? Do you ignore the fact that even in the poorest countries people have mobile phones and connect with online services though it ? This has completely changed how they network in the past 10 years. The West is not the only harbour where innovation stops.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#56

Post by ObviousScience »

[deleted] wrote: post #55

[deleted]

Energy is literally raining from the sky and sitting in the oceans in quantities that make keeping 20 billion people alive a trivial thing to do. So trivial that if that's all we can do 100 years from now, we've completely failed to capitalize on our scientific advances.

The trouble isn't making power, the trouble is capturing it: as someone once said, soup is raining from the sky, if only we had a bucket to carry it in.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#57

Post by [deleted] »

Cowicide wrote: post #41
nolok wrote: post #32

You have to respect the man's dedication. He wanted his OS on every desktop computer and he may have played loose with the rules but he got his wish. Now he wants this terrible disease to be destroyed, and there are a lot of obstacles in his way (and after all, destroying a well entrenched virus is a feat that humanity reached only once before), but still in my heart I feel like I wouldn't bet on the virus on that on…

>he may have played loose with the rules ... he is one of the few who can tackle it head on, which ultimately will benefit everyone. He --may-- have? Let's not whitewash history. He not only very much played loose with the rules, he outright broke the rules and trampled upon laws that caused far-reaching net damage to society in the process. Like yourself and most others, I'm certainly pleased that Gates has decided…

[deleted]

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#58

Post by tim333 »

netcan wrote: post #27
hellodevnull wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>More than 3.3 million people who would have died of malaria are alive today. This does make him sound like a saint, but is number of lives saved really a good metric? I mean, what's the quality of life like for these three million people, what's their life expectancy? I know this makes me sound like a horrible person but I think keeping extremely poor people barely alive looks good as a statistic and there's more wo…

I think this might be a moot point. Malaria doesn't just kill. It maims. It scars families and communities. It impairs people's ability to earn. Childhood sickness inhibits the development all sorts of robustness later in life from physical strength to intellectual development. It makes certain areas underserved by public services and for profit services. It closes the doors to industries like tourism. etc. etc. Thes…

Yeah, I spent a while hanging out in Malawi where malaria is rife and it's a nice place with friendly English speaking people but very poor to a large extent due to the malaria. If you fixed the malaria things would be much better there.

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#59

Post by freehunter »

Cowicide wrote: post #41
nolok wrote: post #32

You have to respect the man's dedication. He wanted his OS on every desktop computer and he may have played loose with the rules but he got his wish. Now he wants this terrible disease to be destroyed, and there are a lot of obstacles in his way (and after all, destroying a well entrenched virus is a feat that humanity reached only once before), but still in my heart I feel like I wouldn't bet on the virus on that on…

>he may have played loose with the rules ... he is one of the few who can tackle it head on, which ultimately will benefit everyone. He --may-- have? Let's not whitewash history. He not only very much played loose with the rules, he outright broke the rules and trampled upon laws that caused far-reaching net damage to society in the process. Like yourself and most others, I'm certainly pleased that Gates has decided…

"He may have played loose with the rules" does not mean "I don't know if he played loose with the rules". It means "Yes, he played loose with the rules, but on the other hand..."

Re: We Can Eradicate Malaria Within a Generation

#60

Post by freehunter »

lnanek2 wrote: post #25
adamnemecek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does make him sound like a saint, but is number of lives saved really a good metric? I mean, what's the quality of life like for these three million people, what's their life expectancy? You can't really be improving living conditions of people who are dead can you. So it's a first step.

More people isn't necessarily a good way to improve living conditions, however. It is pretty common for deer populations to become unhealthy when predators are removed, for example, since with no predators they just over produce and then they all starve due to lack of tree bark. You end up with a sickly, miserable population.

Humans have more children to make up for the children who die. With fewer deaths come fewer births, to the point where many developed nations have a negative birth rate.
Post reply on HN