91–100 of 171 posts
Vaccinations bring up a very controversial debate. The counter argument to vaccinations is that they increase the rate of autism dramatically because they contain a preservative of mercury. Research has shown that in 1992 when they increased the amount of vaccines given to children the rate of autism sky rocketed. Coincidence? Some say that it's a direct link, others oppose of that conclusion. The debate rages on.
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…
You can't educate school children if the teachers are dying of malaria, or the people who feed he teachers or the children are dying of HIV/AIDs. You're right, it's a complex bundle of interacting problems and there's plenty of space for them all to be tackled at the same time. Knowing that Gates is pouring cash and expertise into malaria is re-assuring enough that it gives other people the opportunity to do other st…
This is probably the most realistic and sensible response that I've ever seen in any priority opinion flamewar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Saving people from dying is no good at all if they still have a shitty life and die from something else anyway. Wow. That's ultra-elitist. So, let's say you are diagnosed with a rare disease and the doctor gives you two weeks to live unless you get a medicine that costs $1000 which let's assume you can't afford. And you're going to die someday, anyway. Does that mean you have a shitty life and you deserve to die now…
Death is a natural, and essential part of evolution, and is crucial for the survival of the species. If you could magically save everyone from dying tomorrow, then well done! You've just killed everyone from overcrowding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they more valuable? You are saying they are more valuable because they provide more technological advancement. I guess my question is: Why are you trying to measure the 'value' of one (or many) human lives? Why are we not all equal?
Our goal is to help everyone achieve a better life, right? Then some people are more valuable to that goal than others. They aren't more valuable in an absolute sense (no one is) but according to our current problems they are relatively more useful. Governments are trying to spend their money in the smartest way possible. I'm saying that we should prioritize a certain type of spending over another. With enough tech,…
No, I don't think it is. I don't think there is a collective goal that everyone subscribes to.
As my earlier point pointed out... we have everything we need to achieve "real equality". What are we missing? Which piece of technology are you waiting for, for "real equality"?
Vaccinations bring up a very controversial debate. The counter argument to vaccinations is that they increase the rate of autism dramatically because they contain a preservative of mercury. Research has shown that in 1992 when they increased the amount of vaccines given to children the rate of autism sky rocketed. Coincidence? Some say that it's a direct link, others oppose of that conclusion. The debate rages on.
This has been busted for ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#False_claims_about_...
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 engage in warfare.
My issue with putting trust behind the studies saying vaccinations are perfectly fine is that corporations once again are known to fund mislead research to protect their interests. Forgive me to use cannabis as an example, but it's broad enough to show how much effort they put into making false claims that it's extremely unhealthy to both physical and mental health. Today the research has done a 180 because the government is slowly but surely easing up on the research which was once heavily restricted.
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…
No, it wasn't "just a leading question". Bill Gates has said something similar before, and quite recently, about Google's Loons: > Bill Gates: Google's Project Loon Doesn't 'Uplift the Poor' Which is a pretty stupid statement to make considering technology does in fact "uplift the poor", since it leads to better economic environment, jobs, and better living conditions. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422884,00.…
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.
So because you'll never see it, it isn't a problem. You getting cheap/free internet is more important than millions of people dying [1]...