I'd rather see more people following the lead of Elon Musk than Bill Gates. Instead of throwing money at problems that will always exist and producing no real value, Musk is creating high-tech jobs and advancing the state of humanity.
I share neither your certainty that malaria will always exist, nor your belief that ending the epidemic would produce no real value. Along with HIV, it has crippled a continent and caused immeasurable suffering.
Elon Musk is doing great things. How many other potential Musks are there whose opportunities to do such things were cut short due to the very problems the Gates foundation addresses? Even just in his home country, South Africa, there have likely been a few.
Absolutely - in Hans Rosling's famous TED speech, he mentions how public health is the most important thing regarding a countries economic growth and well being.
It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed a quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems that will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces no "real value."
> It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed a quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems that will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces no "real value."
Can we spare the moral condemnations? Today's advances in the cutting edge of sciences become the life-saving and enhancing cheap commodities of the future, and being skeptical that poverty can ever be truly defeated isn't exactly a radical position.
That said, I agree with you more than the original poster, and I think philanthropy is fantastic. But let's spare the moral condemnations and shaming of someone who has an alternative point of view.
I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per (e.g. http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities). I'd like to hear why that is not real value. No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are that useful.
I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation.
You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage.
> It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per
There's no conflict here. New technology saves lives, often by use in unexpected ways. Eradicating disease saves lives. They're both good.
> I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation.
You don't see how electric cars could save lives? Coupled with better batteries and advanced nuclear power, it goes a long way towards obsoleting fossil fuels and driving down the costs of transportation. That's huge - lower pollution and lower costs on everything - medicine, food, housing - lower transport costs makes everything more affordable.
As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.
As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.
Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them.
Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.) Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education, disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over a few decades than more efficient cars.
Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other tree.
The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!
No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are that useful.
It's a wide array of advances by first world businesses in many industries that led to those medicines being as prevalent and as cheap as they are. It'll be yet more advances that lead to them being even cheaper and even more effective. A healthy balance is required - not just technological advancement, but not just saving every life at the cost of advancement either.
Valuing those who give to charity more than those who start businesses is like eating your only chicken then wondering why you don't have any more eggs.
Poverty, hunger, and sickness will all continue to be a problem this side of singularity, practically by definition.
No amount of money thrown directly at the problem will ever put a halt to them, our only hope for salvation lies in continuing our pursuit of technology unhindered.
Glad somebody finally got it. It's an alliterative play on "meat-head", but the few times people have commented on it they thought it referred to some sort of dietary politics ;)
i disagree with you elon musk is just creating toys for the rich.bill gates and likes are working on real problems . In some developing countries that l know you may not believe how hard it is to get a clean drinking water
Except Bill Gates isn't just throwing money at problems and producing no real value. You may not be seeing the benefits of his work directly, but he is making a real difference, and I'd be willing to bet, through his work, employing far more people who work to pull people up rather than merely advancing the advanced.
Edit: I'm not against people advancing the human race mind you (advancing the advanced). However, neither is Bill Gates merely handing out money. He's teaching men to fish, rather than simply giving them fillets.
