Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#131

Post by sanoli » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Born and raised, and currently still living in a third world country. What you say is true, except for education. At least, I don't see how you lower corruption as a cultural value without increasing the quality and pervasiveness of education. Where 'having a little on the side' is pretty much a cultural norm, how do you change it, if not via long term improvement of the educational system as the base for all other efforts? I'm actually asking this question, because I don't know of anything that is more important than education. Everything else helps, but unless you change the culture of accepting corruption, and of being a little corrupt, it won't do. And yes, I did say 'being a little corrupt', because it pervades the culture. Whereas big shots steal thousands or millions, the average Joe also tries to get away with not paying taxes, tries to not really work when he gets his government job. This all happens in my country, you'd be surprised how corruption is not something that happens just at the top, but everywhere. The person who takes home the school cafeteria lunch out of greed, just because he can and it is paid by the government is just as guilty as the business man who bribes his way out of paying thousands in taxes. How do you change this culture?

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#132

Post by ant6n » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 1:54 PM UTC

Cheezmeister wrote: post #110

ant6n wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corruption in the US seems to be getting worse too. Also other first world countries.

"Seems" is not the same as "is". In the US at least, I see not corruption so much as deeply entrenched dysfunctional incentives. It's not malice or conspiracy or even stupidity. It's simply the way the US's political, economic, and industrial systems (alternately known as THE MAN) co-evolved.

First world corruption doesn't directly rely on bribes, people wouldn't experience it like they do in the third world. Here it is more advanced. It comes as crazy conflict-of-interest creating campaign contributions, as giving contracts to friends, as corporatism, lobbyists writing laws. A strong sense of plutocracy. Most contracts the public gives out these days seem to have insane costs.

Yes I wrote 'seem', not 'is', because I can't prove it.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#133

Post by soundwave106 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #123

kuschku wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on the other hand we have ten thousands of people directly dying slow deaths due to nuclear power — the leukemia regions in the Elbmarsch, or in southern Bavaria, or around the Asse II come to mind. Areas where nuclear waste or faulty reactors contaminated tap water, and people were never told about it until the leukemia rate reached several hundred times of the normal rate. Just counting direct deaths is mislead…

Are you deliberately being misleading, or do you not actually check your info? There were 6 cases of leukemia in Elbmarsch, and it's not clear if they have anything to do with the reactor. Asse II has not hurt anyone. Southern Bavaria is not specific enough to google. 6 cases, and no one died as far as I can tell. > Areas where nuclear waste or faulty reactors contaminated tap water, and people were never told about…

Ultimately, I think one fundamental "problem" with nuclear power is the worst case scenario at the plant level.

Big picture wise, I'm sure it is statistically be safer than fossil fuels (counting the problems of fossil fuel pollution and the environmental problems / lives lost due to the extraction process). But looking at the power plant itself, and focusing on the worst case, the only other form of power I can think of with the potential to create a Chernobyl type disaster is hydro (as dam failures can create pretty widespread destruction and kill hundreds of thousands -- see the Banqiao Dam disaster). Coal / oil / gas plants that explode kill people too, but generally only within the plant boundaries.

Even a hydro disaster won't necessarily make 1000 square miles of land uninhabitable for 200-300 years, ala Chernobyl. The only comparable thing I can think of in the energy realm that comes close to that is coal mine fires (ala Centralia PA), and that's at the extraction level, not the plant level.

I'm actually struggling with your assertion that nuclear power has killed more people than solar... peer reviewed estimates of Chernobyl vary between 4,000 and 25,000, is there a solar disaster on that scale that I'm not aware of?

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#134

Post by kuschku » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

barney54 wrote: post #82

kuschku wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear Fission? Safe? As long as for-profit companies are running the reactors, they’ll end up saving everywhere, and, like we’ve seen before and before, it ends up in meltdowns (for example, due to refusing to maintain the emergency generators properly, see fukushima). Any way you try to handle this issue, someone will abuse it. Make it a governmentally funded operation, people will end up corrupt and use money for…

And how many people have died or been injured from private companies running nuclear reactors. There should be some good examples, right?

Fukushima proved we can’t trust companies to run reactors;

Chernobyl proved we can’t trust states to run reactors.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#135

Post by jaxr » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 3:03 PM UTC

sanoli wrote: post #131

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Born and raised, and currently still living in a third world country. What you say is true, except for education. At least, I don't see how you lower corruption as a cultural value without increasing the quality and pervasiveness of education. Where 'having a little on the side' is pretty much a cultural norm, how do you change it, if not via long term improvement of the educational system as the base for all other e…

It sounds like you live next door :). The problem is indeed deep and complex. Educating the young is not nearly enough. IMO, there's a whole issue about educating the educators. I had a teacher in school who would give us the answers to a national standardized test as we were taking it! And I went to a 'good' private 'catholic' highschool! I'm kind of hopefull about initiatives like Kahn academy et al. However, we need to produce much more content in local languages, give access and teach how to self-educate responsibly.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#136

Post by raisedbyninjas » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 4:17 PM UTC

tryitnow wrote: post #57

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

I don't know if there's much that Gates can do about corruption. That's something that might have to take it's natural course and weed itself out (like it has partly done in the US and other developed nations). In the mean time I think Gates wants to do something rather than nothing and things like mosquito nets apparently do save lives. The people whose lives are saved may not be able to prosper, but they're most li…

Maybe Gates can create their own municipality complete with a justice system and law enforcement. Then they redirect all of their aid for that region to within those borders. If the other native cities can adhere to the same standards, then they become eligible for aid.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#137

Post by tobltobs » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #72

tobltobs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago you could have said the same about japan.

I can't remember where I read it, but Japan apparently has a history of playing fast and loose with nuclear stuff. Their safety record prior to Fukushima was far from spotless.

After a nuclear accident in France you will be able to read the same about the "safety record" in France. The safety record of eg. Fessenheim does not sound reassuring.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#138

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

sanoli wrote: post #131

Mikeb85 wrote: post #47

> A cheap, clean source of energy would change everything. Like nuclear fission? Or how about solar? Anyhow, while I think the intentions are good, my experience in 3rd world countries has me convinced that all the charity in the world won't help. In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc... The problem is corruption and safety. I've seen…

Born and raised, and currently still living in a third world country. What you say is true, except for education. At least, I don't see how you lower corruption as a cultural value without increasing the quality and pervasiveness of education. Where 'having a little on the side' is pretty much a cultural norm, how do you change it, if not via long term improvement of the educational system as the base for all other e…

You need to

a) Pay people well enough to not feel the need to take bribes

b) Create harsh enough consequences that everyone thinks twice, and apply it universally. This doesn't mean a police state or even jail, but enough consequences that being corrupt isn't a worthwhile enterprise

My wife's country actually elected a government that isn't too terrible and is trying to change things, but the backlash caused by giving civil servants raises was fairly big. And the old government was undoubtedly corrupt, but prosecuting your political foes can cause issues, even if it's entirely just.

Education can help, but then again, it's not everything, and if there's no demand for educated labour, people drop out anyway.

People need to look at the least corrupt states in the world - we may bitch about it, but our politicians are paid very well, and while some are still corrupt, most aren't, and the scale of corruption here is far less than most countries.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#139

Post by GFischer » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #104

Anyone care to do a back of the napkin calculation on whether there is any scenario where mercenaries could offer "law and order as a service"?

Well, that's usually what happens in 3rd world countries.

Private Security is an extremely established service in countries such as mine (Uruguay), and even bigger in others like Brazil.

One link mentions 4 million security guards in Brazil alone (compared to less than a million policemen).

Other links speak of 1.5 million of legally registered security guards.

Compare to 600.000 security guards for the entirety of Europe.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/flavie-halais/spe...

https://www.oas.org/dsp/documentos/Publicaciones/PUBLIC%20SE...

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#140

Post by ars » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #133

ars wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you deliberately being misleading, or do you not actually check your info? There were 6 cases of leukemia in Elbmarsch, and it's not clear if they have anything to do with the reactor. Asse II has not hurt anyone. Southern Bavaria is not specific enough to google. 6 cases, and no one died as far as I can tell. > Areas where nuclear waste or faulty reactors contaminated tap water, and people were never told about…

Ultimately, I think one fundamental "problem" with nuclear power is the worst case scenario at the plant level. Big picture wise, I'm sure it is statistically be safer than fossil fuels (counting the problems of fossil fuel pollution and the environmental problems / lives lost due to the extraction process). But looking at the power plant itself, and focusing on the worst case, the only other form of power I can thin…

(Sorry for replying to your points out of order.)

> is there a solar disaster on that scale that I'm not aware of?

And that's exactly the problem! Solar (and coal, etc) kill people slowly, here and there. No big disasters. Nuclear is always a big very public disaster.

Yet the other energies kill in total way more people, but the perception is less. As evidenced by what you wrote.

That makes people think incorrectly about the pros and cons. You have to force yourself to use the numbers, not the perception, if you want to logically make a decision.

> I'm actually struggling with your assertion that nuclear power has killed more people than solar.

You have to calculate deaths per Watt. Solar just hasn't made much energy, yet had a disproportionate amount of deaths (relative to nuclear), roof falls mostly. Nuclear has generated something like half the power on this planet, so proportionally is not as much.

> (counting the problems of fossil fuel pollution and the environmental problems / lives lost due to the extraction process).

Actually, nuclear is better even without counting the environmental problems!! (But yes counting extraction.) If you count pollution, even ignoring global warming, youch, it's not even close.

> Even a hydro disaster won't necessarily make 1000 square miles of land uninhabitable

You'd be surprised at how much land is uninhabitable because of open face coal mining - it's way more than nuclear. And river acidification, and entire areas of land poisoned and basically useless because of 75 year old mines?

Don't forget Chernobyl still has forests and lots of animals. It's just useless for people. It's the same with coal mining - there are plants and animals, but the whole area is useless for people.

Even by this metric nuclear still wins over coal.