Support NeoGAF

[Air]

Which populations are we talking about here? I'm wondering what's a large majority, and what the certain age is.

I do think talking about prioritization when it comes to things like charity, or philanthropy is silly though. At least after a certain point - giving people access to the internet is a wonderful thing, not as wonderful as curing Malaria, but still extremely beneficial.

I think I'm going off a statistic I saw a while ago saying malaria was the #1 killer of humanity throughout it's history. Obviously that's changed now, but I do think it effects large number of African countries and tropical climates.

I dug up this who article:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

But yeah it was more hyperbole to make a point. If we are talking about prioritizing something to lead to a better quality of life, you'll have more of an effect if you can keep citizens living longer than educating them, not vice versa. I'm not saying education is not important, it obviously is, but it's one of those 'crawl before you walk' scenarios where crawling is staying alive and walking is education.

I don't think anybody is for not giving the internet to these people. It just comes down to which fulfills a basic human need more? But yes you will get millions of people tackling every type of problem so in the end you'll have it all eventually.

Edit: here's a better article.

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/

So about 3.3 billion people are at risk of being infected by malaria. It's preventable but that's about half the population that could be killed to a disease.

 

[CornBurrito]

Help me GAF I think I have malaria what should I do?

 

[jerry1594]

I think Gates is a great man and doing wonderful things for less privileged people, but there's no point in criticizing Google here. Google is a tech company, so what does he expect them to do about Malaria? All they're trying to do is improve technology for people worldwide, they know nothing about parasitic disease.

Use their money maybe? Lol

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

... God complex? How are you getting God complex out of what he said/does?

I wouldn't even argue it. If that's a god complex then I want a shitload more people with god complexes.

 

[Stellactic]

The article is talking about prioritization. It doesn't make sense to put the internet over health because if a large majority of the population can't even make it past a certain age, that education is moot.

There are enough rich people in the first world countries to fund health. Let's not everybody focus on one thing, but instead let Internet company spread Internet. Zuckerberg specializes in getting people together, while Google is working on Internet access. Everybody else can help cure the world, but why can't a couple dudes do what they do best. One day Malaria will be cured AND we'll have global Internet access and global connectivity and communication.

Bill shouldn't get his panties in a ruffle over Zuckerberg and Google, but instead should bring up other rich dudes who aren't on board with his agenda.

 

[hipbabboom]

I imagine this is the sort of situation he is referring to

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/kamwamba-windmill/


Also, can't we do both?

Sure both can be done but we're talking about the difference between a clear and present danger that is killing millions and something that can be done at anytime. The more people working to stop the clear and present danger, the faster it can be dealt with. Bill isn't saying, don't worry, I got this.... he's asking everyone to help because he senses the urgency.

 

[Pastry]

Gates will probably be known as the greatest philanthropist in history (up until now at least). I also see this as a dig at Carnegie and his attempt to bring culture to the masses. Not that Carnegie didn't do good but he was also kind of a twat.

 

[Valnen]

Scientists really need to make that mosquito extinction machine they were working on and use it already.

 

[Bear]

Reducing or eliminating the most fatal diseases is crucial, but it's an arduous task that requires a lot of time, effort and money. You can do smaller projects on the side without taking away from that. The internet is an incredible tool for free education, and their proposal seems relatively cheap and quick to implement.

To be fair to Gates, he's replying to whether it should take priority over malaria research, and he's right about that. More resources should be committed to medical research, but there is still something to be gained by improving access to technology.

 

[Acorn]

Gates will probably be known as the greatest philanthropist in history (up until now at least). I also see this as a dig at Carnegie and his attempt to bring culture to the masses. Not that Carnegie didn't do good but he was also kind of a twat.

He is the modern day Rockefeller.

I mean his life is so similar its crazy.

 

[Air]

There are enough rich people in the first world countries to fund health. Let's not everybody focus on one thing, but instead let Internet company spread Internet. Zuckerberg specializes in getting people together, while Google is working on Internet access. Everybody else can help cure the world, but why can't a couple dudes do what they do best. One day Malaria will be cured AND we'll have global Internet access and global connectivity and communication.

Bill shouldn't get his panties in a ruffle over Zuckerberg and Google, but instead should bring up other rich dudes who aren't on board with his agenda.

Read my last response to kinitari. No one is saying that Internet is bad, but i think if you were to think of it in a vacuume and put a hierarchy, a cure is more important than global internet access. Just like food would be more important than a cure.

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

Use their money maybe? Lol

Throwing money at the problem has done nothing. Bill Gates of all people should know that. It's investing in actual technologies and companies to help the people.

But if you must:

http://www.google.com/giving/

EACH YEAR, WE DONATE
$100,000,000 IN GRANTS,
50,000 HOURS,
$1 BILLION IN PRODUCTS

 

[Kinitari]

Reducing or eliminating the most fatal diseases is crucial, but it's an arduous task that requires a lot of time, effort and money. You can do smaller projects on the side without taking away from that. The internet is an incredible tool for free education, and their proposal seems relatively cheap and quick to implement.

To be fair to Gates, he's replying to whether it should take priority over malaria research, and he's right about that. More resources should be committed to medical research, but there is still something to be gained by improving access to technology.

Exactly, it's not an either or situation, and I'd even say trying to frame it as such is destructive - you don't want to pit charities against each other.

And to your bold, also important - a lot of people in this thread seem to think he was somehow critical of technology being brought to developing nations while he's working on Malaria, but that's not even kind of true.

In fact, he doesn't just do Malaria, if you look into the B&M Gates Foundation, you'll see how many things they invest in other than Malaria.

Read my last response to kinitari. No one is saying that Internet is bad, but i think if you were to think of it in a vacuume and put a hierarchy, a cure is more important than global internet access. Just like food would be more important than a cure.

I agree, but I also think this is a pointless distinction - I doubt even people whos lifes work is to bring the internet to developing nations would disagree with the statement that it's more important to save someones life than to give them access to the internet. It's just an unnecessary comparison.

 

[hwalker84]

Its so sad that most people on GAF don't even read the attached article.

 

[Air]

I agree, but I also think this is a pointless distinction - I doubt even people whos lifes work is to bring the internet to developing nations would disagree with the statement that it's more important to save someones life than to give them access to the internet. It's just an unnecessary comparison.

That's fair, and in practice there's way more people on the planet with the ability to tackle all of these problems.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Bill Gates, the hero we need but not the one we deserve.

 

[Warm Machine]

I once read an article on Wired about the understanding of big numbers. They use Bill Gates as an example of someone who actually gets big numbers as he deals with them daily. This understanding allows him to grasp the scope of a problem Ike malaria and not pass off millions upon millions of people dying from a disease as a simple phrase without weight.

Then some people have a backwards interpretation of large numbers as well. For example, 600 million dollars into a broken health care website is some horrendous number but really accounts for less than $2 per American. Meanwhile a new Battleship was built recently that cost Americans $10 each and that is a success.

 

[GhostWriter24]

Richest dude in the world has a god complex. Shocking.

Fucking asinine...

 

[hipbabboom]

Its so sad that most people on GAF don't even read the attached article.

One of the saddest things about argument on GAF is that they tend to polarize into FOR or AGAINST groups even after being provided with information. This thread can go for 30 more pages and the same people taking the hardline of Bill Gates is salty will not be shaken of their conviction because they're flying their teams colors. It's not a competition but that's not going to stop people from making it into one.

 

[Trojita]

Suck it Zuckerdick.

 

[Kinitari]

One of the saddest things about argument on GAF is that they tend to polarize into FOR or AGAINST groups even after being provided with information. This thread can go for 30 more pages and the same people taking the hardline of Bill Gates is salty will not be shaken of their conviction because they're flying their teams colors. It's not a competition but that's not going to stop people from making it into one.

Has a single person taken that position in this thread? If so, I missed it entirely.

 

[UrbanRats]

I worry about the eradication of Malaria.

A shitty disease to be sure, but one also thought to be the cause of death in nearly one out of every two people who have ever lived.

I mean, what happens when you removed the thing that has killed approx half the people who ever lived on Earth? What happens to population growth in the developing world once that obstacle is removed? The planet is already nearing crisis point and suddenly we're giving the green light for population growth on an unprecedented scale.
Yikes.

As child mortality goes down, so does the birth rate, along with the quality of life going up:

http://youtu.be/pYXRItKFoNs

 

[teh_pwn]

Absolutely with Gates on this one. He's entitled to an opinion, especially considering his track record with his foundation. He may be rich, and he may have been a ruthless businessman in the 1990s, but he was also the best at it...let him use that talent on rapidly transforming 3rd world nations into 1st world. Not only is it highly benevolent to humanity directly by saving lives, but it will long term accelerate innovation and productivity by adding more people into STEM, arts, and services around the globe.

 

[teh_pwn]

I worry about the eradication of Malaria.

A shitty disease to be sure, but one also thought to be the cause of death in nearly one out of every two people who have ever lived.

I mean, what happens when you removed the thing that has killed approx half the people who ever lived on Earth? What happens to population growth in the developing world once that obstacle is removed? The planet is already nearing crisis point and suddenly we're giving the green light for population growth on an unprecedented scale.
Yikes.

You're approaching a problem with hundreds of variables, climate change, with a single thing. Consider:
1. 1st world nations REDUCE population over time. The United States would be shrinking if it were not for immigration. See many European countries and Japan for examples of rapid shrinking.
2. More 1st world nations with STEM means quicker advancement to things like fusion with the same amount of people to food.
3. Climate change is a problem that can be engineered away. Use fusion to create fresh water from the Oceans, irrigate deserts, rotate herded livestock to create soil ecosystems. You could make all of Africa and the Arabian peninsula grasslands again and capture shit tons of carbon while simultaneously providing more food for more people if we still grew.

 

[hipbabboom]

Has a single person taken that position in this thread? If so, I missed it entirely.

I'm pretty sure I read post claiming he's attacking the competition. Then there's those who want compare what and how much one company does versus another. Yet, even those who want to drag Facebook into it kicking and screaming.

 

[adamsappel]

Always thought highly of Bill Gates.

I used to consider him a greedy, petulant little shit who only cared about building a gigantic house where your favorite song would follow you from room to room and making his company an illegal monopoly.

Since retirement, he has become a truly great man.

Still, there is room enough for philanthropy both humanitarian and technological.

 

[ЯAW]

3/4 of African children go to primary school. The number one need that African libraries have asked for is more access to technology.



http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/16-africa-learning-watkins

Well, doesn't seem like they are learning much in schools and if poor student can spend only one year in school, then there isn't much progress at all. And their problems don't seem to stem from lack of internet access, at least according to link you gave. I'm not saying it's not important to deliver them internet access, and neither did Gates. It's about priorities. Eradicating tropical diseases, clean water and basic nutrition comes first. We saw many south-east asian nations struggle with same issues in the early to mid 19xxs. Many of the nations started Malaria Eradication Programs in 60s and decade by decade we have seen results for the better in these countries.

 

[Keyouta]

Decreasing disease and malnourishment in third world countries should obviously be placed above providing internet usage to everyone - but that's not to say that technology doesn't improve their lives.

 

[m0dus]

Richest dude in the world has a god complex. Shocking.

It seems unlimited internet access has done nothing to bolster the intellect of your posts. Look deeper into the issues at hand first before presuming he is some spoiled 'rich dude'.

 

[sooperkool]

3/4 of African children go to primary school. The number one need that African libraries have asked for is more access to technology.



http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/01/16-africa-learning-watkins

25% not going to primary school is the bigger issue. That number is unacceptable.

 

[Kinitari]

Well, doesn't seem like they are learning much in schools and if poor student can spend only one year in school, then there isn't much progress at all. And their problems don't seem to stem from lack of internet access, at least according to link you gave. I'm not saying it's not important to deliver them internet access, and neither did Gates. It's about priorities. Eradicating tropical diseases, clean water and basic nutrition comes first. We saw many south-east asian nations struggle with same issues in the early to mid 19xxs. Many of the nations started Malaria Eradication Programs in 60s and decade by decade we have seen results for the better in these countries.

But who is saying prioritize internet over curing Malaria? This is a false dilemma, because it makes it seem like you can only have one or the other - or something. Literally billions go into Malaria research, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google or Facebook have in some way contributed to that research. However this dig at them, like they are not doing anything as important as curing Malaria when they approach charity/philanthropy in their own way is not only unnecessary and confusing, it's destructive. Why would anyone want to criticize a company for trying to provide free internet to developing nations?

25% not going to primary school is the bigger issue. That number is unacceptable.

One of the reasons this happens is because of things like wood gathering. The efforts in creating cheap, green and multipurpose electric stoves for developing nations has far reaching implications.

 

[Lamel]

He's right, a lot of our anti-malarial drugs are becoming ineffective, and DDT is the only thing that works as a last resort, and even that will run its course.

3 million people die of malaria each year, however it's given jack shit when it comes to research funding.

Yes connectivity is important, but you need to be healthy and alive for that.

 

[Kinitari]

He's right, a lot of our anti-malarial drugs are becoming ineffective, and DDT is the only thing that works as a last resort, and even that will run its course.

3 million people die of malaria each year, however it's given jack shit when it comes to research funding.

Yes connectivity is important, but you need to be healthy and alive for that.

Well, it's improved, thanks in large part to Bill and Melinda gates actually! I think the estimate is something like 700million a year. In the 90s it was closer to 100mil.

 

[Haly]

I'd like to point that disease research, of any kind, is a gamble. You don't know how much money and manpower you need to put in to achieve results, and you don't know when you'll receive those results, and whether they'll be worthwhile.

Compared to that, a plan for creating a cheap internet network is far more enticing when you want clear and tangible results for your effort. While the researchers work on the more "important" needs, a worldwide internet network can improve the quality of life and education.

 

[Acorn]

I once read an article on Wired about the understanding of big numbers. They use Bill Gates as an example of someone who actually gets big numbers as he deals with them daily. This understanding allows him to grasp the scope of a problem Ike malaria and not pass off millions upon millions of people dying from a disease as a simple phrase without weight.

Then some people have a backwards interpretation of large numbers as well. For example, 600 million dollars into a broken health care website is some horrendous number but really accounts for less than $2 per American. Meanwhile a new Battleship was built recently that cost Americans $10 each and that is a success.

Kinda bad example, those are two things linked to highly emotional ideals in the US where people are less likely to look upon it rationally.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I'm interested in the idea that he could criticize pushing tech while still holding significant investments in a company that is pushing tech. Not that it prevents him from doing it. He can speak. But I do have to question it. Why can't both be noble ambitions? Why do we have to choose? You are most interested in helping in areas that interest you. Maybe global internet isn't aimed at the dirt poor but at the global middle class or the fringe. How would you know if it benefits some without providing it?

I doubt he's trying to criticize but this is a trick of journalism. A question and answer is perverted to have a goal the original answer had not intended. That's where I end up at. But I also don't believe either goal is inherently bad and trying to stratify them is crazy.

 

[Just_myles]

He has a strong point. Of those dying of disease or forever scarred or handicapped, who could be the ones to truly change our lives? Basics come first. Not to take anything for google, they are of course, doing bit things and global IT is what's happening.

 

[victreeb3l]

Most internet first guys are usually looking out for their bottom line. Zuckerberg at the end of the day just wants to increase Facebook users which will increase ad revenue.

 

[ToxicAdam]

25% not going to primary school is the bigger issue. That number is unacceptable.

Just a short time ago, that number was 42%. Things are improving and many people are working on making it even better.

You still do not ignore the 75% that are going. They (and more importantly) their teachers need access to tools that will help them learn and allow them to share ideas and information on the most effective ways to teach.

Well, doesn't seem like they are learning much in schools and if poor student can spend only one year in school, then there isn't much progress at all. And their problems don't seem to stem from lack of internet access, at least according to link you gave. I'm not saying it's not important to deliver them internet access, and neither did Gates. It's about priorities. Eradicating tropical diseases, clean water and basic nutrition comes first. We saw many south-east asian nations struggle with same issues in the early to mid 19xxs. Many of the nations started Malaria Eradication Programs in 60s and decade by decade we have seen results for the better in these countries.

The priority should be on improving the quality of life across the board. As we have seen in the 80's and 90's, just dumping food and condoms in a parking lot doesn't do much good unless there is an infrastructure to disperse it. Adequate communication systems are one of the most crucial elements of infrastructure.

 

[oatmeal]

Internet will let those with malaria go to WebMD and fix themselves.

Victory.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm interested in the idea that he could criticize pushing tech while still holding significant investments in a company that is pushing tech. Not that it prevents him from doing it. He can speak. But I do have to question it. Why can't both be noble ambitions? Why do we have to choose? You are most interested in helping in areas that interest you. Maybe global internet isn't aimed at the dirt poor but at the global middle class or the fringe. How would you know if it benefits some without providing it?

I doubt he's trying to criticize but this is a trick of journalism. A question and answer is perverted to have a goal the original answer had not intended. That's where I end up at. But I also don't believe either goal is inherently bad and trying to stratify them is crazy.

He never said it was a bad thing, just that the basics should be coming first. That curing some guy's malaria is more important than getting him high speed wi-fi. Unless all you read was the headline it's not a "trick of journalism" either, he does go into a bit of detail onto his position and frankly he is right. What's the point in having high speed wi-fi if you're too dead from malaria to enjoy it. Or can't read. Or are starving.

 

[terrisus]

Hey, I had cancer - selfish people concentrating on malaria instead of cancer, focus your efforts where they belong.

Seriously though, access to knowledge and information is a very important thing.

 

[Acorn]

...isn't that exactly why they're good examples?

No, it doesn't speak to peoples understanding of large numbers when there are other variables at play.

Regardless of how much either of them cost it would be seen as money well spent or wasted depending on your political outlook.

 

[ebullientprism]

"Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that’s great. I don’t."

I completely agree with him and think he is an amazing person but I totally heard that in David Brent (Ricky Gervais') voice.

 

[Abounder]

Yea it feels like Google's trying to get back to the future with their wifi-in-the-sky balloon hopes, their quest for the fountain of youth, self driving cars, etc. Focusing more on basic needs would give them some balance but I'm more of an armchair general than billionaire

 

[mm04]

Its so sad that most people on GAF don't even read the attached article.

Brotha, most don't even read the entire OP, just the thread title.

 

[ЯAW]

The priority should be on improving the quality of life across the board. As we have seen in the 80's and 90's, just dumping food and condoms in a parking lot doesn't do much good unless there is an infrastructure to disperse it. Adequate communication systems are one of the most crucial elements of infrastructure.

I do agree with you. Still, more people in workforce means more money for goverment and that means more funds for education system and other public projects. I just agreed that taking steps to get rid off Malaria takes priority over internet access. Not saying you can't have both. There is no negative in building proper internet infrastructure. All efforts are for bettering African nations. But if the question is simply, "which takes priority over other" then I stand with Bill.

Edit. And the question asked was "whether giving the planet an internet connection is more important than finding a vaccination for malaria"

 

[Cyan]

Shitty headline. He's not saying anything that isn't already obvious. Of course it's more important to prevent people from dying than to give them internet access. Fortunately, we can engage in multiple priorities at the same time.

And if you think Gates has a god complex because he's trying to save millions of lives... well, check yo self.

 

[linsivvi]

The article is talking about prioritization. It doesn't make sense to put the internet over health because if a large majority of the population can't even make it past a certain age, that education is moot.

And? Google and Facebook are public companies, and so is Microsoft. They are not responsible for the overall well being of any country. It's not their job to save lives. His criticism is only valid if they were the governments of those countries. So some organization want to cure disease, some feed the poor, some want to have clean water, some donate books and desks and build schools, some build hospitals, and some want to provide internet access. What's the problem there?

It's utterly intellectually dishonest to say they are a joke for making worldwide Internet access their priority, especially when you compare a company to a fucking charity.

 

[Cyan]

And? Google and Facebook are public companies, and so is Microsoft. They are not responsible for the overall well being of any country. It's not their job to save lives. His criticism is only valid if they were the governments of those countries. So some organization want to cure disease, some feed the poor, some want to have clean water, some donate books and desks and build schools, some build hospitals, and some want to provide internet access. What's the problem there?

It's utterly intellectually dishonest to say they are a joke for making worldwide Internet access their priority, especially when you compare a company to a fucking charity.

If you read the article from the OP, they are specifically talking about internet.org, Zuckerberg's "connect the world" initiative that is being presented as a philanthropic effort. Gates is asked whether "connecting the world" is more important than malaria research, and since it obviously isn't, he says no, with a little snark.

"But these are companies trying to make a profit" is not really a meaningful response here. Companies trying to pass off for-profit efforts as being somehow philanthropic is a whole other subject.