Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Donates $258 Million to Fight Malaria
klubar writes to tell us that Bill Gates has donated approximately $258 million to fight malaria. From the article: "Malaria research accounts for about one-third of 1 percent of the total amount of money spent on medical research and development, even though it accounts for 3 percent of all the productive years of life lost to diseases, according to a report released Sunday." Gates was quoted saying "The report confirms what has been clear, and that is that the world isn't investing nearly enough in malaria R&D."
Whatever folks may say about "The Evil Empire," this a true gift of philanthropy. Let's give a hand to Bill Gates...
but at the core, this guy is a saint. I cant fathom the millions if not billions gates + his wife have contributed to humanitarian causes.
I know Microsoft (and accordingly Bill Gates) hasnt been the fairest of competitors, but lets give the guy credit -- he appears to have genuine goodwill. Business is business and Microsoft is far from the most evil. For those on a MSFT warpath, perhaps your anger would be better turned towards Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon or the NeoConservatives -- they create far more death, destruction, and misery in the world than Microsoft can or will ever do.
Is it really necessary to use the gates borg icon when he does something like this?
Im glad that bill is using some of his fortume to help fight this disease. Africa thanks you.
epic
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Bill is a generous guy, although yes it is easy to be generous when you're not putting yourself out. I have a lot of respect for him tackling the important issues rather than the popular ones. (There are a ton of people donating to the charities in the headlines, just to get in the headlines themselves, Red Cross right now at number 1) Bill is going for the forgotten charities which are just as, if not more, important due to the devastation malaria has on the human population. As always, Bill is not being cool, and that's a good thing!
...he got away from the strictly technology causes and moved on to things that really matter.
Evil? Come on now, when it really comes down to it, he's trying to save a few lives; that's a lot more important than being a jerk in the business world. He was mean, got away with it and made some money, at least he's trying to do some good with what he's got and that's a lot more than most people, rich or not can say.
An estimated 350-500 million clinical malaria episodes occur annually. At least 2.7 million die per year from Malaria.
Malaria is responsible for one in four global child deaths. These deaths could be prevented by means which are simple, effective and available.
So lets all give a hand to Bill Gates for helping prevent at least some of these deaths.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
I think Gates will be remembered likewise for his good works in reducing the worst misery in poor countries. I think we owe a lot to Gate's wife, Melinda. He didn't do this stuff before he was married. OTOH, we wouldn't do it if he felt strongly for this also.
I still don't like the Microsoft monopoly, but not all Computer billionaires are so generous and he doesn't have to do this. Thanks Bill!
it's sad to see the cynicism over such a big donation
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
Who gives a shit if he is? It's still a quarter of a billion more bucks to fight a disese that kills kids. Let the man have the most selfish reasons in the world. It doesn't bother me in the least.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
One of the questions to ask seriously (and I'm not saying I know how the answer would come out, because I don't) is this: what would've happened if Bill Gates hadn't acquired all that money which he is now giving away? Where would it be? In the pockets of millions of ordinary folks, of course. And what would they have done with it?
One possibility, of course, is that they would have frittered it away on DVDs and beer. But it's also possible they would have done a million individual worthy deeds of charity, such as buying some shoes to send a soldier on tsunami relief, who knows a little girl who needs them, or cooking a hot meal for a neighbor with cancer, or buying a textbook for an inner-city school that's short. Or maybe some extra money would've let a brilliant but poor student not drop out of medical school, so he would get the education he needs to invent the malaria vaccine that works for 20 years. You never know, actually.
And that's the rub. Is the good that Bill does with that money necessarily greater than the distributed good that would have been done by the millions of original possessors if they'd kept their money because he sold his products more cheaply? I don't know, of course. You can argue it both ways: (1) Bill has time to study the issues very carefully before investing, make a single "strategic vision" and implement a cohesive overall plan, so maybe "centralizing" the charity decisions makes them better. Or, (2) Bill's only one man, he can't possibly have access to all the information all those millions of people at the "grass roots" level have, so their distributed "Open Source Charity" movement would make better, more flexible and effective decisions.
Quinine is much less effective against malaria than it used to be. There are more effective treatments - particularly interesting is Artemisinin. In the early 70's the Chinese announced they'd found a powerful anti-malarial drug in a traditional chinese medicinal herb. They wouldn't tell anyone what the plant was, as the Chinese government is very protective of Chinese medicine.
Anyway eventually a photo of the plant leaked out, and Western scientists identified the plant as an Artemisia (Wormwood) species and found it growing on the banks of the Potomac river in Washington DC.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
"Mother Teresa liked feeling important and only helped people because it made herself feel good and needed"
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything. So they cannot understand when others do something charitable. All they do is throw stones rather than replicate or surpass the charity they criticize.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Bill Gates believes in helping people, and he has given a large portion of his wealth to helping these countries get out of poverty and disease. This is fact. The "Return On Investment" on helping Africa is multiple decades, long after he's dead. And even believing that Africans can be productive enough to provide a ROI to Microsoft is itself above and beyond everyone else's "Africa is a basket case" attitude on Africa.
What someone does in business, however shrewd, does not mean they don't genuinely feel for those who are suffering.
No one around here has many problems with IBM, who is much larger than Microsoft. It is the tactics that made Microsoft large that people dislike. IBM cleaned itself up in the 90's and is no longer like what Microsoft is becoming (has become).
And who does that? People that dislike most large corporations do so because most large coporations, in my opinion and theirs, do bad things. People that disagree with this view put forward the notion that we just hate the corporations for being large, because it's much easier to demonstrate a fault in that position.
To debate ethically, they should actually address the criticism made of large corporations.
As much as I'd like to respect Bill Gates, and to see him as something other than a shrewd and souless businessman, I still think this is spin. It hasn't gone unnoticed that no company has seen profit margins like Microsoft's since colonial times when monopolies were gleefully raping and destroying entire cultures and ecosystems for their shareholders' gain, without conscience. Many if not most of the world's modern day problems have their roots in the west's colonial transgressions. What will the future of computing bring?
I think Bill realises that he's done wrong by a signficant portion of the world, and more will come to light as the world's computer users become more savvy (as they are with each generation), and more stories of graft, exploitation, and injustice emerge. Microsoft is a business which routinely uses deceit and law breaking as part of its arsenal of tools to maximise profit. Even if they get caught occasionally (and usually they don't), fighting the occasional law suit with their fleet of lawyers, they still wring more money out of the hapless computer user than if they "did the right thing".
Some might admire Bill's approach, but I don't. Anyone who believes that all is fair in love, war, and business is definitely not someone I'd do business with. The market depends on contract, and ultimately (since we know justice can be bought), contract depends on honour - and the value of reputation. If a business, like Microsoft, finds it cheaper to pay spin doctors to cover up its wrong-doings, then it doesn't really have to worry about its reputation.
Bill realises that eventually, his chickens will come home to roost (so to speak), and the history books will piece together all the really crappy things Microsoft has done under his watchful eye. So, given that a few billion $$ here and there aren't going to have a noticable impact on his lifestyle, why chuck a spare $billion at the masses, targetted with advice from a team of "philathropy advisors" to maximise publicity value. Maybe giving a bit of it away makes him feel better about all the nasty things he did to get that money from the people who earned it in the first place. Who knows, maybe the history books will remember Bill Gates as a beneficent, visonary philanthropist. Maybe they'll see him as a calculating mob-boss who tried too late to exorcise his demons.
All I can say is, the money is great for the people it helps, and I won't knock that. And good for you, Bill... better late than never. I guess we all need to sleep at night. A question one might ask, though: is it really generosity if you have so much you couldn't realistically spend it all yourself anyway?
Either way, sadly Bill donating to charity (especially when it's in the form of MS software licenses, one of MS's favourite tricks, which have 90%+ profit margins, and are thus grossly over-valued as a contribution), doesn't really do anything to polish Microsoft's irreparably tarnished Death Star image.
Dave
Linux on the desktop since 1994.
PLUS you've killed most - if not all - of their natural predators as well.
So not only do you get resistant mosquitos there's now no natural mechanism in place to stop them reproducing in even greater numbers!
And some people want to return to this insanity? I guess conspiracy theories are better than real science.
So what? If companies are going to try and build marketshare by eradicating diseases then go for it! Which diseases has firefox cured lately? uh huh thought so.
Indeed.
Occasionally when I come here, I get the impression that some people feel that societies would magically get better if everyone just used Open Office and submitted kernel patches.
Technology is great and all, but it's a bit lower in priority compared to food, shelter, and medicine. The basics count, and if Bill Gates wants to donate a quarter of a billion dollars to help cut down on the millions of annual deaths from malaria, there really isn't any good reason to criticize him. Malaria certainly isn't a glamorous cause, but it is no less important.
While *Microsoft* tends to only engage in self-serving philanthropy (giving things away to enhance their business interests in the long term), I have to give kudos to Gates for his foundation. Everything I've ever seen the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation give money to has been a very important cause with absolutely no potential to benefit them or MS materially in any way.
In particular, Gates has backed research into treating the maladies that vex the third world. These are diseases that do incredible harm, but frankly aren't commercially worth the spending medical research dollars on because the people they afflict are so poor. This is why a few hundred million here and there from Gates is such a huge thing. He spends the money that no commercial interest could ever justify spending to try to alleviate the suffering of the worlds poorest residents.
Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing positive to say about how Bill made his money, but he does deserver credit for how he disposes of it through his charity.
DDT ?! Dioxins !!!!
Are you and the moderators insane ?
Maybe they should use DDT and Bill Gates can then donate his money to research into preventing cancer and birth defects that would result from this well known highly toxic substance ending up in the people it was suppose to protect.
This chemical has been banned everywhere where people have an ounce of sense. Using highly toxic substances to eliminate mosquito's is not a solution. The arguments in this article that there's no conclusive proof that DDT causes cancer is pretty much the same tripe used to validate smoking cigarettes. They will wait a generation or two before discovering the costs of spraying DDT inside houses. This is a gamble, with a short term payoff, and a very probable long term cost that may prove to be far more worse than malaria itself.
This is +5 stupidity, not +5 interesting.
I guess there's just not that many ways to spin this one against Bill. God forbid you'd actually commend him.
Until he got married, his charitable contributions were non-existent.
Probably has something to do with having kids and suddenly wondering what the future for your descendants will be like.
Last time I checked Bill had not deprived me or anyone else of anything, either physically or financially. Whenever I have bought something from Microsoft, I have handed over my money of my own free will and received something back.
The reason people are fawning over his gesture is that he could have quite easily spent all that money on frivillious crap for himself. There are plenty of other multi-millionares who do.
Irrespective of the tax perks that he gets, I (and plenty of others) would prefer that he spent his money in this way rather than on a space trip, a number of islands and a couple of yachts.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
You missed out the word "honourary" - he isn't a "proper" knight.
Anyway - most knighthoods are for services rendered to the governmant of the time...
Actually, he isn't BRITISH either, so he can't be a REAL Knight if you want to get specific about it.
But for some silly reason, England and the Queen thought his efforts were worth the title, even if it honorary and he doesn't get to be called Sir Bill G.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
He donates more money than rich countries like the US for this type of research and care to the world.
I don't care what you think of MS or Windows, this is about someone with money actually doing good with it, I wish I could say the same for other people in our industry with a large amount of company made wealth. So even if you hate Windows and Dell forced you to buy it at some point, it should make you feel better than it may have been your $80 bucks that went to help people in the world and not just buy another CEO(CSA) a new car.
OK, now that the obvious joke is out of the way, you do have to hand it to the guy for doing this. As an orphan disease, malaria research doesn't get nearly enough funding. Doing something like this puts him on the side of the angels (for this particular skirmish).
That is all.
And then people criticise him for never donating to charity...
If it was, then Gates would have donated the money anonymously
Why? Is there any disadvantage to doing it openly? Assuming it was pure philanthropy, what would possibly be his motivation to make it anonymous? It just doesn't matter. So there's no way to know if that was a consideration.
Now, I'll go on to assume publicity was a consideration because in general people like to be recognized for their good deeds. And this is a good deed. And what is wrong with being recognized for that? If people can be recognized for their bad deeds (who wants those to be anonymous) then it should be the same with good deeds. It's only fair.
Why are we so cynical now that even a good act is labeled self-serving if the person could get even a pat on the back for it? Oh Bill! You selfish bastard! You did something nice publicly! People might actually talk well of you!
It's weird how bitter we all seem. People just love to hate.
Cheers.
PS - I'm a Linux and Mac user, so no motive here other than to give credit where credit is due. Oh wait! I'm trying to look generous and forgiving! That must be my ulterior motive! I'm such a self-serving bastard!
If 1 in 4 children were dying from Malaria in the U.S. or Europe or wherever the hell you live your very comfortable life, people would be screaming for the government to spray DDT by the ton. There would be ZERO debate from anyone across the political spectrum on the use of DDT! Do you think the first world would hesitate for even a second to use DDT if it could save millions of lives in North America or Europe?
Cancer is a disease that wealthy people in the first world worry about, because just about every other natural danger has been elminated. But don't forcefully project your western bias on the rest of the world.
Polar bears and birds didn't die out back in the 1960's when Canada and the U.S. were dumping massive amounts of DDT on crops and in the water supply right next to the bears... so don't pretend the threat of small-scale use of DDT in Africa having some minute effect half a world away in North America is enough of a threat to let millions of Africans die. And don't pretend that you in America or Europe have some greater love over the animals and nature of Africa than native African's do.
If we want to eliminate the use of DDT in our own countries, that is fine! But it is clear that Africans, when given a choice (which all too often they aren't), choose to accept whatever "risk" DDT presents than to watch millions of people die slow and painful deaths.
People's attitude towards this just wreaks of arrogance!