An interview with Bill Gates • Hacker News Board

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#141

Post by sanskritabelt » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 2:41 PM UTC

algorias wrote: post #28

Getting rid of Malaria is obviously a higher priority than internet access from the perspective of any one person living in the third world today. I have much respect for Bill Gates for the work he's doing in that area. However, there is a kind of shortsightedness in his attitude: The thing is, societies evolve because of technology and opportunities. So while it is preferable for each individual to have no internet…

Well if that's your thinking maybe you ought to start advocating/doing something about hookworm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookworm "In susceptible children hookworms cause intellectual, cognitive and growth retardation,"

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#142

Post by s_baby » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 2:58 PM UTC

algorias wrote: post #38

transfire wrote: post #33

What is so frustrating is that the malaria problem has all but been solved. I have read on multiple occasions about our ability to breed genetically modified misquotes that can be used to decimate mosquito populations on the one hand and on the other create malaria immune mosquitoes that stop the transmission of the disease. So why hasn't it been done? Short answer: bullshit "unknowns" about long-term ecological effe…

You can't pivot your way out of ecological catastrophes, you know... There are many instances of "innocent" actions of mankind that ravaged huge areas of the world very rapidly (the beaver plague in south america, just off the top of my head). Ecosystems often find themselves in very delicate states of equilibrium, an equilibrium that can be irreversably broken with the slightest missstep. There are very good reasons…

Considering more than half of all humans ever have died from Malaria it's a reasonable risk to take.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#143

Post by Shivetya » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:13 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #45

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #9

He's right. Poverty, disease and basic things like that are things about _survival_, the internet is not. But mainly, the title is provocative and misleading. The article clearly states, he was asked a leading question "asked whether giving the planet an internet connection is more important than finding a vaccination for malaria", and he answered. The title makes it seem like he went out of his way to make the compa…

> He's right. Poverty, disease and basic things like that are things about _survival_, the internet is not. I'd say he's at least partially wrong. Diseases are often cause by lack of knowledge and education, outburst can often be contained with good means of communication. I know people doing projects that use the internet (or cellphone text messages) to allow remote villages to better manage the available health res…

No he is more right than wrong.

We already have communications options available in those regions. The very same ones used over the last decades, whether its radio, hardline phones, cellular or even satellite.

Doctors and nurses out there already have communications. The issue here is that spending money to provide internet to the masses there is not as beneficial as making sure they live to use it.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#144

Post by philliphaydon » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:19 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #104

philliphaydon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah giving internet to people who barely have running water and electricity is REALLY going to help uplift the poor. Solve health issues so people can work rather than spread disease. Introduce agriculture and self sustaining society. Then maybe you can introduce technology...

http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/williamkamkwamba/2007/07... > While at the conference, the young Malawian saw the internet for the first time and within hours began Google-searching for "windmill" and "solar energy" and was amazed with how many hits were returned for each search. > Kamkwamba was particularly impressed with the speed at which he could achieve things using the internet. "I was very excited when I s…

> William Kamkwamba, a 19-year-old high school student

Wow isn't he lucky! He actually gets to go to school. Now if only ALL kids in 3rd world countries could have such chance in life.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#145

Post by vidarh » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:31 PM UTC

legulere wrote: post #115

vidarh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Diseases are often cause by lack of knowledge and education Case in point: Polio is endemic in only three countries today: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. While in Afghanistan it'd be possible for it to be down to the war, in Pakistan and Nigeria it is down to skepticism and misinformation from religious groups (often based in past experiences) that are often amongst the most important information bearers in the…

Also there's an outburst in syria lately.

There are small outbreaks in lots of countries now and again. Combination of international travel and patchy vaccine coverage causes that.

The difference with Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan is that it is endemic at least in parts of the countries, meaning it is regularly found in the population and that it is self-sustained. Elsewhere the outbreaks are sporadic and isolated enough that they die back.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#146

Post by vidarh » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:37 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #143

Xylakant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's right. Poverty, disease and basic things like that are things about _survival_, the internet is not. I'd say he's at least partially wrong. Diseases are often cause by lack of knowledge and education, outburst can often be contained with good means of communication. I know people doing projects that use the internet (or cellphone text messages) to allow remote villages to better manage the available health res…

No he is more right than wrong. We already have communications options available in those regions. The very same ones used over the last decades, whether its radio, hardline phones, cellular or even satellite. Doctors and nurses out there already have communications. The issue here is that spending money to provide internet to the masses there is not as beneficial as making sure they live to use it.

Providing internet to the masses is one way of improving their chances of living to use it.

Doctors and nurses may have communications, but many countries do not have doctors and nurses even in every city, much less every little village.

It's clear we should be careful about not displacing funding for basic health care improvement with basic internet access, but they are not nearly always in opposition, and besides providing health care information, uses such as improving economic opportunities by giving access to market/pricing information also matters - for someone having to spend days getting their stuff to market, going to the right town to get the best price will also affect health: ability to afford sufficient food and shelter for starters.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#147

Post by XorNot » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:48 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #118

Swannie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about telecommunications - not the internet. There is a difference. You don't need the internet for telecoms. You don't even need a mobile phone (though in today's Africa, generally a mobile will do a lot more for you). Africa are still fighting to get get decent telecommunications cover. Let alone internet. Telecoms is important, and undoubtedly saves and enriches lives. The internet, yes that too, bu…

The internet is not only facebook and youtube, but a general purpose communications network. Having satellite internet available does not imply it's in any way affordable for local individual or organization. Having terrestrial internet for acceptable prices would allow for a variety of uses that are currently not possible, some of them undoubtedly beneficial for health care professionals.

The problem is, these places have treatable diseases running rampant for a variety of reasons. There is no one principle cause of ongoing survival problems in various parts of the world today, and no one solution to it either.

Endemic poverty is a complicated social and political phenomena which is maintained due to a variety of causes. Even if tomorrow you eliminated malaria, it's very doubtful the conditions in any country where it's a problem would improve. A case in point is famine - we have more then enough food today to feed a population of 10 billion or more people on the planet fully. But people still starve to death every day. And even when we give food aid for free, we still keep having the same issue - even when we're actively giving it.

When you start trying to order your problems by perceived importance, we get nothing done. Sure you think, I'd hate to die of malaria. But you live in a first world country - if you don't die of malaria, you don't then imagine that you'll still have nothing to eat tomorrow, or that you lack all of the education you take forgranted. Or that there'll be no jobs, or that even if you work hard you'll still be paying bribes just to get a driver's license. Or come the local elections if you don't guess the right side to be seen supporting you'll be murdered or raped, or both.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#148

Post by vidarh » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 3:54 PM UTC

nnq wrote: post #53

Gates is right , but the reasoning is a bit more complicated: Starting with "connectivity" is basically "putting the cart in front of the ox". There's this utopical view that once you give them internet access smart African children will start freelancing and provide for their families, but it doesn't work this way: once you give him internet access, the African child with an IQ of top 0.001% will just learn there ar…

The smartest kids already knows that there are better places. Most kids knows that. Yet there's still lots of kids that do get the opportunity to go somewhee else, that still goes back to make things better.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#149

Post by XorNot » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

pearjuice wrote: post #96

schuke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been busted for ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#False_claims_about_...

My issue is that I struggle to trust the pharmaceutical industry as all corporations when reaching a certain size turn corrupt. When corporations are in the business of health shady their concern is about making money rather than human health. It's like trusting oil companies to help humanity when everyone well knows they lobby the government to get their way to access more oil in foreign lands, even if it means to e…

No your problem is you believe your completely unsupported opinion is more valuable then the breadth and depth of scientific literature on the subject, and to that end have elected to do no in-depth reading on the matter.

It is an attitude that can only come from someone who's been vaccinated and lives in a country where such programs have practically eradicated common fatal diseases, and will be completely unaffected by whether or not they're dangerously wrong.

Re: An interview with Bill Gates

#150

Post by vidarh » Sat, Nov 02, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

bolder88 wrote: post #85

tunesmith wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your point here is, but it kind of reads as if you're saying that the life of someone on the verge of internet access is more valuable that that of someone on the verge of fatal malaria.

Point is they're two separate groups of people. From the majority of people from 1st world countries, it is more valuable. I'm never going to meet anyone who has had malaria, or even anyone who knows someone who has had maleria. It's a non issue. But I'll certainly experience and interact with a larger internet population.

> I'm never going to meet anyone who has had malaria

You likely have done so, many times. For many countries malaria is so endemic that most people have had it once or more (malaria is not very lethal if you have access to the right medicines; the problem is a lot of people don't). Except for people living in places with extremely low immigration levels, it is unlikely that you'll go very long before coming across someone who have had malaria.

> , or even anyone who knows someone who has had maleria.

Yeah, right.