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

2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

annualletter.gatesfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 317 posts

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#91

Post by Guvante »

dragonwriter wrote: post #11

I've been to Mexico City fairly recently, and I guarantee that in the right places -- possibly the same place the 1986 picture was taken -- you could take something very much like that 1986 picture today (which is perhaps even more tragic today, since its not just after the major earthquake). And I've seen Mexico City pictures just like that 2011 one, barring changes in fashion, from the 1980s. And even the 1960s. On…

You skipped over the quote where he explicitly calls that out.

Additionally don't most measures of GDP explicitly exclude those cases where the money is immediately siphoned out of the country?

In either case it is usually true that GDP and income per person are at least linearly related, meaning the kinds of comparisons he is doing are valid, since he is comparing the numbers within a country. The scale of growth may be off by little bit, but the fact that growth occurred is still true.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#92

Post by sdegutis »

mikeash wrote: post #85
humanrebar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those. I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.

I just noticed the guy's username. I know him. His objection is religious. So the inference is correct, at least in this case.

My objection may stem from religious beliefs, but that isn't to say it isn't arguable from non-religious standpoints.

People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#93

Post by mikeash »

sdegutis wrote: post #92
mikeash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just noticed the guy's username. I know him. His objection is religious. So the inference is correct, at least in this case.

My objection may stem from religious beliefs, but that isn't to say it isn't arguable from non-religious standpoints. People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."

And that is why I said "at least in this case."

Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#94

Post by sdegutis »

Crito wrote: post #89
sdegutis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted one of my reasons as a reply to my original comment, but I think it's going to get drowned out in all the requests for it. Irony?

That's not irony. That is just the expected result of not being forthright.

Lesson learned. Won't make that mistake again.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#95

Post by Guvante »

stonemetal wrote: post #87
macspoofing wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. That's because access to contraceptives has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits. From reducing poverty, prevention of STDs, increasing maternal health (from unsafe abortions, and increasing inter-pregnancy interval), reinforcing women's rights and allowing for proper family planning. >When this gets thrown around,…

You should, because there really is no downside. Right, there are no negative side effects to taking birth control, like increased risk of heart disease.

Are we talking about individual incidents or the overall impact on the economy?

The health impacts of contraceptives are insignificant compared to the benefits.

To put it another way, look at how expensive kids are in the developed world. Now think about handling that expense when you are part of the extreme poverty bracket. The economic benefit of not having kids when you don't want them is huge.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#96

Post by MichaelGG »

sdegutis wrote: post #57
sdegutis wrote: post #5

"Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustainable world." I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.

My position on birth control comes from seeing human life as something worth bringing into the world. There are so many wild cards, so many variables, that all these "but what if" arguments aren't convincing to me. In terms of resource depletion, I'm confident that the human race is capable enough to solve its major sustainability problems without stifling this major source of creative and resourceful potential.

Why not take that to it's logical conclusion? If having kids is such a positive effect overall, to the point where people shouldn't be allowed to have sex without natural chances of procreation, why not require them to have kids? Why not fine people that are not procreating?

I don't understand the point of saying producing more human life is so important, it's worth robbing people of the freedom to decide how to live their lives. That it's worth more than the personal and societal issues arising from having unwanted kids.

If making babies is such a moral imperative that trumps so many other considerations, then it seems you've got some contradictions if your position doesn't include always strongly encouraging people to have more kids.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#97

Post by sdegutis »

mikeash wrote: post #93
sdegutis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My objection may stem from religious beliefs, but that isn't to say it isn't arguable from non-religious standpoints. People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."

And that is why I said "at least in this case." Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.

I am arguing for it without appealing to religion, but my replies are kind of scattered and drowned out by requests for them. This whole thread is really hard to navigate. Shouldn't have started it out the way I did. Lesson learned.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#98

Post by mikeash »

sdegutis wrote: post #97
mikeash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why I said "at least in this case." Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.

I am arguing for it without appealing to religion, but my replies are kind of scattered and drowned out by requests for them. This whole thread is really hard to navigate. Shouldn't have started it out the way I did. Lesson learned.

No, you're stating your opinion without appealing to religion, but you haven't argued for it at all.

Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh. And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As far as I can tell, you were just looking for a little hit of persecution and martyrdom.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#99

Post by Guvante »

humanrebar wrote: post #20

> It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs we partner with. The foundation does a lot to help these programs be more efficient and measure their progress. It's not ironic. Some people value government charity spending less than they value private nonprofit spending. Gates implicitly acknowledges that governme…

> there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects

Are you using the typical "let the church handle it logic" not specifically religious entities, but that if the government didn't waste money on aid then people would make up the difference?

Because if that is what you are saying it is based on the flawed logic that aid is a zero sum thing. It is certainly not at this point.

I can guarantee that the US stopping foreign aid would reduce available foreign aid by nearly the entire amount it currently spends, given that the total budget is around 0.1% and no one would notice an increase of 0.1% of their income.

This is not to say that the US should increase their aid, just saying that some level of aid makes sense since it has a significant impact for a nearly negligible cost on the total scale.

Re: 2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor

#100

Post by agarwlGaurav »

Kiro wrote: post #79
agarwlGaurav wrote: post #64

Yesterday I read the Oxfam report that 85 people own half of the world's wealth. http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/ri... Now this is amazing and simple fact. This shows we have completely failed at distribution of wealth. If we could fix this many many problem will vanish. Now instead of what Gates has written this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor.

> this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor How so?

Lets say we distribute this wealth in a more equitable way. That will mean a little more dollars in the hand of poor and a little less in the hand of super rich. Now if we assume(reasonable as far as I can see) that if you are feed and have home you will spend next dollars into healthcare and education. So poor people with little more dollars would attract more workforce towards providing education and healthcare to their kids (instead of writing code for Bill Gates and make him rich) and thus making this world more peaceful and beautiful for all.
Post reply on HN