Bill Gates world's richest man - again

Semantics

 

And you are underestimating the statements both parties made at the time Buffet made his bequest.

The Gates infrastructure was already well established and had built up years of experience. They don't just give money away, they demand value and results. Recipients that fail to produce get cut off.

 

And I repeat Buffet with that kind of money and experience can replicate that no problem. The fact that buffet gave it to the Gates foundation and not another foundation or start his own foundation to distribute to selected well managed charities himself is because the are good friends.

You again underestimate the role of friendship.

 

My point about the Gate's personal involvement certainly was not contradicting how trust and friendship is an integral part of any charity decision. It was complementing that part by pointing out the Buffet can set up his own foundation if his goals were different, but if they are the same as the Gates foundation, he knows that his money is being used as efficiently as possible since the Gate family is totally committed to the goals of the foundation.

The Gates foundation is not trying to extent the lives of the rich citizens of the world, but trying to save as many lives as possible. Sure they can spend money on cancer. But realize that means consigning a lot of children to early deaths since that money is not longer spend saving lives directly, but is just going into more cancer research. That is the downside that must not be overlooked. Here is an excerpt of an interview with Melissa Gates:

Q:I'm curious about how the foundation sets priorities.​

M.G.:I call it an economic approach. We look at what the biggest adult killers are in the developing world, and the biggest childhood killers. At the start of the foundation we asked which of these diseases—or which of these issues if it's children—can we affect for the fewest dollars? And that's how we came to vaccines first and foremost.
People think that we're very science-focused, which we absolutely are. The other thing, though, is it's not just science—the biology piece of science.
Seven million children still die a year, and 40% die in the first 30 days of life. Vaccines don't help you in the first 30 days of life. The three things that help in the first 30 days of life are kangaroo care—that is, keeping the baby warm immediately after it's born—immediately and exclusively breastfeeding the baby; and clean and proper cord care. That's all the social sciences.
First we worked with a researcher at Johns Hopkins [Center for Global Health] named Vishwajeet Kumar, who lives and works in Uttar Pradesh. He was able to prove that in these villages in northern India those three things bring down death by over 50%. So once we knew that was true, then our work became, how do you spread these things through local grassroots NGOs? And how do you eventually get it so that the women are actually spreading those best practices? That's how we're going to get at that first 30 days of life, not with a hardcore technology tool.​

 

I understand and highly respect charities that actually improve the quality of life of humanity through improved health of those alive, even though the rational part of me says that the approach is logically flawed to the extent that it leads to unbridled population growth.

Improvement in quality of life in a sustainable, healthy world is a much tougher problem. It requires technology, education, and probably the disappearance of the leading 'western' religions of the world.

 

"Unbridled Population Growth"? Exactly the opposite happens whenever healthcare is improved. As part of the same interview, here are Melissa Gates observations:

Q:I understand that contraception and access to family planning are one of your top priorities​

M.G.:Definitely. The thing that struck me is, as I would go around and talk to women about vaccines for their children, if you really sit and stay with them long enough, they will eventually bring the conversation around and ask, "Why can't I get my shot to keep me from having children?" And they were extremely vociferous about it. Women will tell you they need to be covert. Their husband thinks they've gone to the field for the day, which is their normal activity, and then they'll divert and go to the clinic.
The predominant thing that women use in Africa is Depo-Provera, the shot they get every 3 months. The stock outs are hugely problematic. And to me, it's also a question of science, which is why don't we make the shot so that it lasts a whole lot longer? Well, that has to do with the fact that we don't do research around these hormonal contraceptives anymore.
Women are starting to use more implants in their arms in Africa, and we have to make them more widely available. They're becoming a bit more acceptable for two reasons. One is the rods are much, much smaller than they were 5 years ago and you only need two. So getting them in is easier when they go to the health clinic. And unless their husband knows to feel around for them, they're not obvious in their arms. Women will tell you that if their husband is smart he will feel around for it. I've literally had women tell me I'm willing to be beaten up over it though because by then it's in my arm and it lasts 5 years.​

 

Fl_Prius,
M. Gates is talking about the slavery_through_pregnancy aspect of womanhood. While related, it is not the same problem as human population growth that leads to less resources and more pollution per capita.

 

You made a statement that improved health care "leads to unbridled population growth". I know of no place where that has every happened. There are abundant statistics showing the opposite, where improved health care automatically resulted in smaller families. Please make an effort to come up to speed on this wonderful effect. What the Gates Foundation is doing is not making more kids, but fewer....with much better prospects of not dying in childhood.

 

Actually, I said

In any case, I am pretty sure you are quite wrong in thinking that improved healthcare (I presume you mean less infant mortality and longer average life) does not lead to population explosion. Just follow Europe for the past 400 years.

The effect appears to initially be rapid growth, eventually leveling out and then a modest decline.
Look here: World Population Growth History Chart

 

Um......, I meant during modern times since contraceptives have been widely available. Prior to that I'll 100% agree that family planning was keep getting pregnant till the biology gave out.

 

The era you are pointing to spans a couple of decades, and is limited to countries that have a widespread standard of living that is 100X that of the countries M. Gates is talking about.

 

FL Cancer is not a rich mans disease. It impacts everyone regardless of income. I lost a parent to cancer. I'm sure everyone knows someone who has died from the top 3 Cancer, Heart Disease and Stroke. If Bill's choose Cancer Research perhaps your very life and the lives of many may improve

Melinda is asking about low tech investments, distribution of vaccines and birth control to the third world. I was hoping for a More robust investment perhaps a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's and stroke prevention.

 

I'm not understanding your point. Melissa Gate was talking about birth control in Africa and how it is presently in place and operating.....and how it could be improved more.

The point I was talking about was health care improvements causing a reduction in population growth applies to everywhere in the entire world right now. The statistics and data is easily looked up for any place of your or my choosing.

 

OK ...

Place: Africa, India, SE Asia
You should probably define what you are calling healthcare improvement. I suggest infant mortality.

 

So the Gates Foundation in the minds of many lost sight of reality. Well we always have the widow of Steve Jobs. She lost her husband to Cancer. Oh wait she just said she wants to follow in Zuckerburg's shoes. She is helping the poor of Palo Alto finish high school and contribute to politics. Geez !

 

I fully understand. I was not minimizing Cancer or it's effects. But an African mother is not worried about her babies dying from cancer. Why should the diseases we worry about justify taking money used for saving far more children?

 

SJ died from stupidity, not cancer. His tumor was easily curable, but he ignored it for years on the assumption that his religious beliefs would effect a cure.

In the US today, some 70% of all non-skin cancer is lifestyle related. Notice how many people are acting on the (by now well known and disseminated) information ?

 

Much of Cancer cures Is just a Matter of money applied to research. It needs that last $ push.

Hate to Say but when Bill Gates is read his last rights perhaps for a Fleeing moment he my say, perhaps I should have done more for Cancer Research.

 

Here is the statistic for Kenya. You can see the declining infant mortality rate is mirrored by a declining birth rate.
Kenya - Birth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

India:
India - Birth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Vietnam
Vietnam - Infant mortality rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Search around.