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

Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#61

Post by kuschku »

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…

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 themselves. Make it a for-profit company, they’ll try to get around every regulation and save money.

No matter what you do, you end up with a potential disaster.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#62

Post by narrator »

BurningFrog wrote: post #37
vezycash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Nigeria and Ghana, important projects are left undone by the ruling parties because they are long term projects. Because, the opposing party would be the ones to reap the rewards, and praise from the populace. They'd instead focus on building new roads instead of maintaining existing ones, building new schools instead of improving existing ones, starting new high sounding schemes instead of continuing projects the…

That's how government works everywhere, to some degree. The planning horizon does not stretch further than the next election. For long term projects, private entities do much better.

What about China?

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#63

Post by shas3 »

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…

Yours is such a tangential comment, it doesn't remotely relate to anything in the Gates's letter. You have just repeated the same old blah about corruption, safety, and infrastructure. All that Bill and Melinda are saying is that solving the problems they classify as energy and time will make the world a better place.

> In general, the problem in 3rd world countries isn't education, or sanitation, or lack of capital, or mosquito nets, etc...

I don't even know where you pulled that out of. It would be more credible if you could cite some evidence.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#64

Post by praxulus »

kuschku wrote: post #61
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…

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…

Empirically, nuclear is the safest form of energy generation we have. I don't doubt that we have government regulation to thank for that, but the system as a whole currently working better than all the alternatives.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#65

Post by subpixel »

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…

This rings very true to me.

My wife is also from a so-called third-world country. A stunningly beautiful one at that. Every time I visit I dream of moving there.

Once I found a Swiss guy, in the middle of absolutely nowhere, who had started a small farm and an operation dealing in a very specific kind of beef cattle, and esp. breeding. He even had an awesome little restaurant serving schnitzel and beer. I think he moved there for a woman, and had to figure out how to make a buck. He was living the dream!

A couple years later he was out on his ass, because as soon as his business was successful, local folks stole his cattle. I found a lawsuit he filed in which he explained that he could actually see the stolen cattle from his land. But the proper palms had been greased, and he was completely up shit creek. He made a pretty big stink, right up to the point where he'd be risking life and limb to go any further. But nothing was done, nobody was arrested, and he never got his cattle back.

And therein lies the rub: nobody feels safe enough to endure success.

> You fix corruption and safety issues, and the third world is the new first world

I like the sentiment, but in many countries, corruption and safety issues won't even begin to be addressed as long as the business of making/selling drugs for Americans is as lucrative as it is.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#66

Post by Mikeb85 »

kuschku wrote: post #61
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…

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…

> Nuclear Fission? Safe?

Nuclear power and uranium mining is far cleaner and safer than coal, oil/gas, even hydro. Coal mining, hydro accidents, and the various deaths from oil/gas extraction, power plant accidents, etc..., far outstrip deaths from nuclear power plant accidents. Not to mention the health costs that coal has inflicted on the world, the amount of people displaced and ecosystems destroyed by hydro, and so on. Nuclear power gets a bad rap, but statistically speaking, is rather safe.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#67

Post by BurningFrog »

narrator wrote: post #62
BurningFrog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how government works everywhere, to some degree. The planning horizon does not stretch further than the next election. For long term projects, private entities do much better.

What about China?

They do have different planning horizons.

The lack of accountability in a dictatorship might offset that. I have no way of evaluating that.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#68

Post by clock_tower »

narrator wrote: post #62
BurningFrog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how government works everywhere, to some degree. The planning horizon does not stretch further than the next election. For long term projects, private entities do much better.

What about China?

Or old-fasioned kingdoms and monarchies. A number of English kings underwrote the wool trade; in general, the smarter sort of king tended to take an interest in improving his country's manufacturing and agriculture.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#69

Post by cgh »

crackpotbaker wrote: post #49
ZenoArrow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> stating also that there are enormous health benefits to eating meat - being surely wrong.

No, Bill knows what he's talking about. Animal-based foods are the most nutritious foods for humans. Beef liver, for example, is one of the most nutrient-dense foods you can eat, outclassing vegetables in every way save fibre content.

Animal consumption is an evolutionarily and culturally significant behaviour. Arguments about energy usage aren't enough to overcome these things.

Re: Bill and Melinda Gates 2016 Annual Letter

#70

Post by crackpotbaker »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #60
crackpotbaker wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "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." I don't think you've understood Bill Gates' position in our culture. He's clearly admired as a businessman and as a philanthropist, but I don't see much evidence that people are seeking to emulate his lifestyle choices. Instead of waiting for Bill Gates to become a vegan,…

I'm not really waiting for him to become vegan. I'm waiting for him to become rational - veganism follows from that. He doesn't have to promote it, he just has to live it.

I'm doing plenty of positive changes while waiting and pointing out his irrational argumentation over energy.

One is replying here with a unique opinion.

The other is applying my own engineering skills, tied very tightly to logistics (NP-hard optimization).

Bill Gates is a huge driver for startups and people reinventing the food industry. But his posts on energy never include the biggest luxury of all, the mightiest polluter, the strongest destroyer, the most prolific murderer - the animal agriculture industry. Without it + great logistics, the greenhouse gases emissions he's so eager to reduce would reduce immensely.

When animal agriculture footprint becomes smaller than all traffic combined, when it becomes smaller than all of the heating - then I'll concentrate on other things.

Anyone profiling a program would optimize the big percentages, not the small ones. Having a couple of thousand people watching my region centered vegan cooking videos is nothing.

Post reply on HN