Live data from Hacker News

Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

gatesnotes.com

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#41
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole body of poverty work devoted to these kinds of issues, called Institutionalism. My own experience in poverty reduction was working in Microfinance (in Kenya, Uganda and Philippines). I got disillusioned when I realized that even when our loans helped someone make some additional income there was always some group above them in the food chain who would find some way to leach the additional profit from…

Sometimes I think the 3rd world population most view the western powers as Schizophrenic. On one hand you have some westerners trying to help with micro lending and free solar energy initiatives, fresh water ... (the list goes on). On the other hand, powerful corporations and western governments do everything to counter any efforts by: meddling in local politics (outright financing coup d'etats!), installing their lo…

On the other hand when more wealthy countries don't meddle some people claim apathy, not caring, like with the Sudan or Georgia, etc.

It's not that simplistic and whatever happens, there is a significant voice against interventionism, except when another faction wants it.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#42

I'm surprised Gates, for all his work in this field, has failed to recognise that we're burning up more food growing cattle and farming animals, than if we were to just eat the plant resources we use to feed the animals. It's mathematically crazy that, during a mass shortage of food in some parts of the world, we're feeding a net loss of food in order to eat animal produce. He's even insane enough to support getting…

We will not solve the problems of the meat industry by convincing people to eat less meat, asceticism never works as public policy.

The way forward on that issue is to develop synthetic meat products that can out-compete animal meat on economical/ethical/environmental dimensions.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#43

I'm surprised Gates, for all his work in this field, has failed to recognise that we're burning up more food growing cattle and farming animals, than if we were to just eat the plant resources we use to feed the animals. It's mathematically crazy that, during a mass shortage of food in some parts of the world, we're feeding a net loss of food in order to eat animal produce. He's even insane enough to support getting…

I'm inclined to agree here -- the energy inefficiency of meat is really quite astonishing when you look into it [1]. Not to mention the global environmental benefits, etc. [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...

I think he's wise not to tackle this issue.

Food is more than just a means to an end, it's also a core part of human culture. We can't expect to fix cultural issues with money alone, even if philanthropists made it very easy to live a vegan lifestyle there would still be people who chose to eat meat regardless. It has to be a cultural change to stand a chance in succeeding, it's up to us as individuals to make this change.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#44
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With just a few "minor" issues with safety and waste.

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures).

More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#45
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.

Actually, it is

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#46

What about nuclear power? Isn't that pretty much the cleanest, most efficient power source we know of today?

With just a few "minor" issues with safety and waste.

With just a few "minor" issues with safety

History shows that nuclear power is very safe as long as you don't build the plants in tsunami-prone seismic zones, operate them for decades beyond their intended service life, or allow a bunch of unhinged Russians to play "Hold my vodka and watch this" in the control room.

...and waste.

We've also learned that disposal of radioactive waste isn't a problem as long as you mix it with carbon-combustion products and spew it into the air, like coal plants do. Out of sight, out of mind appears to be the optimal way to deal with deadly pollution.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#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 it in my wife's country - savings rates are generally high, there's lots of labour, a ton of entrepreneurial spirit and the barrier to entry is more or less zero. The problem is, the second you start any sort of enterprise, someone will rob you. Police will demand bribes. Politicians will demand bribes. If you don't give in, they'll send their criminal friends after you. Even if you do give in, they may anyway. Bandits will come rob you in the night, and if you're unlucky enough to be there at the time, they'll shoot you. If you're lucky, they just take some cash. There's literally zero incentive to do anything, lest you get robbed and/or killed. That's reality. You want to fix the 3rd world, you need to start with law and order. Nothing can happen until people feel safe, and feel like doing something will actually improve their life.

After that, it's infrastructure. Power, roads, emergency services, bridges, etc... Infrastructure enables travel, it enables businesses, lights, and so on. When you have infrastructure you can bring your products to market. And so on (most people know the economic benefits of infrastructure).

In my experience, families in the third world often have the equivalent of thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars saved. Witness how much money Syrians and Afghans pay to get smuggled into Europe. They won't invest that because they don't feel safe, but they have no qualms giving a smuggler thousands of dollars.

So much charity is just a band-aid, or worse, gets siphoned off to corrupt entities. You fix corruption and safety issues, and the third world is the new first world. But no, we give charity with one hand, and with the other are propping up horrible dictators, overthrowing democracies for choosing the wrong ideology, and encouraging corruption and oligarchy. Given what's happened in the world since I've been old enough to follow the news, I'm more convinced than ever that the developed world simply wants to keep the third world as dependent colonies.

tl;dr - long rant, something something corruption.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#48

I'm surprised Gates, for all his work in this field, has failed to recognise that we're burning up more food growing cattle and farming animals, than if we were to just eat the plant resources we use to feed the animals. It's mathematically crazy that, during a mass shortage of food in some parts of the world, we're feeding a net loss of food in order to eat animal produce. He's even insane enough to support getting…

We will not solve the problems of the meat industry by convincing people to eat less meat, asceticism never works as public policy. The way forward on that issue is to develop synthetic meat products that can out-compete animal meat on economical/ethical/environmental dimensions.

> We will not solve the problems of the meat industry by convincing people to eat less meat, asceticism never works as public policy.

This is exactly what Bill Gates seems to want to do.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Should-We-Eat-Meat

The arguments for why he wants to do it are in the article to one of the repliers to my OP.

> ?—one solution would be to ask the biggest carnivores (Americans and others) to cut back, by as much as half. -- Bill Gates, the pink glasses guy

Other solutions are miracle agricultural and technological breakthroughs. He's ignoring scientific facts when it comes to energy conversion from sun to plants, the long time of investment return of \w+ponics technologies and transition costs. The largest energy and efficiency gains can be made by improving logistics, everything else is set in stone by the laws of physics.

Yeah, I'll praise the synthetic meat, but really, 2048 - year of massive oceanic ecosystem collapse, due to pollution and the number of species going extinct directly because of the animal agribusiness is heavily increasing. Not to mention Amazon rainforest and similar issues. The damage is already done, there's no turning back. What Bill Gates is doing is just more damage and accelerating the process. This problem cannot be solved in 20 years time, it might be the case that it should have been solved by now to avoid the catastrophic side-effects.

> asceticism never works as public policy.

Yeah, me the first-world ascetic not eating meat. This statement makes no sense. Asceticism can in no way be compared to removing products from animal sources.

Let's ignore the first world, let's concentrate on the developing India+Africa.

India would have a food crisis if 40% of its population weren't vegetarians.

Why not encourage plant-based diets instead of pushing, through his Foundation the meat, dairy and eggs?

The guy is irrational. There's nothing more about it.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm inclined to agree here -- the energy inefficiency of meat is really quite astonishing when you look into it [1]. Not to mention the global environmental benefits, etc. [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...

I think he's wise not to tackle this issue. Food is more than just a means to an end, it's also a core part of human culture. We can't expect to fix cultural issues with money alone, even if philanthropists made it very easy to live a vegan lifestyle there would still be people who chose to eat meat regardless. It has to be a cultural change to stand a chance in succeeding, it's up to us as individuals to make this c…

Okay, I can definitely agree that this issue shouldn't be tackled by him -- there's too much emotion linked to diet and people seem to think their behavioural changes consisting of recycling and saving water are enough. But he, as the richest man in the world, could just say that he's on a plant based diet (he's currently not).

I believe a lot of people would quit the luxurious flesh eating habits if someone as Bill Gates says he's a vegan and just states his reasons.

Yes, it would be a pretty hypocritical statement since he's probably having a bigger footprint than most of the people on the planet but still, he shouldn't force his meat-dairy-eggs culture onto the impoverished nations of Africa. He's doing exactly that, stating also that there are enormous health benefits to eating meat - being surely wrong.

From just energy perspective it's level-2 diet. Level-0 would be picking berries, trees, hunting animals etc., Level-1 is raising plants, level-2 is raising plants to raise animals.

From an energy perspective it is entirely irrational of him to support this in developing world.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#50
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…

There is a paper from IMF, whose authors are current Reserve Bank of India Governor - Raghuram Rajan and India's Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramaniam about How Charity does not work.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05126.pdf

Post reply on HN