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."

21 of 694 comments (clear)

  1. Let's give a hand to Bill by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever folks may say about "The Evil Empire," this a true gift of philanthropy. Let's give a hand to Bill Gates...

    1. Re:Let's give a hand to Bill by stonedonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Gates is right, it seems like malaria is almost overlooked even in the media with all the focus on AIDS, cancer, killer bees, avian flu, anthrax threats, SARS, etc...

      That's because malaria, unlike those in your list, typically occurs Somewhere Far Away.

  2. say what you want about his business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:say what you want about his business by Danger+Stevens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the facts are fairly clear. If Gates wanted to win the hearts of people who could afford his software he'd fight cancer. Cancer is a disease of the rich because it's one of the few that we can't hide from behind walls of affluence.

      He's pumping money into fighting a disease that is known as a killer of the poor. It's mostly children and mostly in small, poor, non-computer-using communities where malaria is a killer. Piracy is rampant in Africa (a large center for malaria victims) and there's no real hope of getting them to fork out money to MS anytime soon.

      I would agree that he may be looking at the larger picture. But he's still being generous - you can't fault him for that. Paul Allen spent $200 million on a yacht that has two helicopters. It costs him $20 million a year to keep the thing and he's never on it. Gates has given $20 billion to fight aids and now this to malaria. Of the two, who would you fault as the selfish bastard?

      --
      World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
  3. Bless The Man by SRA8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Borg icon appropriate? by epicstruggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"
  5. Bill never was Mr Popular.... by Ribbo.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  6. Re:just like all the other robber barons by Leftmoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Malaria deaths by dfjghsk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    At the end of 2004, 107 countries and territories had areas at risk of malaria transmission. Some 3.2 billion people lived in areas at risk of malaria transmission.

    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'?
    1. Re:Malaria deaths by Phronesis · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't care if those deaths occur in Libya or Long Island, Kenya to Kansas, Pretoria to Peoria. Do we need 'em all? Did we need me to live? Are we overpopulated?

      It's been consistently demonstrated that reducing infant mortality is the first step to reducing fertility rates and thus stabilizing population. It's no coincidence that population grows the slowest in nations that have low infant mortality. Check Joel Cohen's How Many People Can The Earth Support? for details.

  8. Reminds me of John D. Rockefeller by dananderson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Bill Gates reminds me of John D. Rockefeller. Both Rockefeller and Gates were despised when they were creating monopolies. Rockefeller is best remembered now for his generous donations for National Parks, libraries, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

    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!

  9. opportunity cost by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. That's ridiculous by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's ridiculous by ipfwadm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It took a lot of persuading, pushing, cajoling, and other force from Melinda, Bill Sr. (and I believe they also mentioned his Mother, but I don't remember -- don't even know if she's still alive) to get Bill Jr. to agree to set up any kind of charity. ... So at this point, unless someone here wants to research it, we dont' even know if Bill Jr. ever donated any more to his own Foundation than his initial grant for seed money.

      First off, there's a difference between starting a charity and donating to charity. I haven't seen the speech by his father, but just because he didn't want to start his own foundation doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't actively donating to charitable causes, or that he isn't/wasn't charitable. I would bet that close to 100% of the people out there donating thousands of dollars per year don't have their own charities. Are they not charitable?

      As for his contributions to his foundation, according to Wikipedia, the estimated current endowment of his foundation is $28 billion. It looks like the initial endowment was $5 billion, so from that I'd say he's been contributing. They also claim that Gates has given one-third of his lifetime income to charity. Sure, given the billions he has, there's room for more giving. But I'm hardly ready to call him a scrooge.

    2. Re:That's ridiculous by Meddel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know what kind of philanthropy gives out less than it takes in and never more than ~5% of its net worth

      The kind that's intended to last forever, so that it can continue giving out 5% of its net worth in perpetuity.

      --
      You just come along with me and have a good time. The Galaxy's a fun place. You'll need to have this fish in your ear.
    3. Re:That's ridiculous by crmaddocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suggest you look up "charitable foundation" and remind yourself of what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_foundation

      The whole idea is that a principal is invested so that the recurring interest can be put to good use. It's a way of ensuring stable, sustainable giving. The fact the net worth of the Foundation is growing every year means they have more to give. In that light, 5% sounds about right (or even high) for current interest rates, don't you think?

  11. Re:Moral Corporations by Burpmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I hate how people seem to dislike most large corporations for the sake of them being large.

    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.

  12. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does good by hagbard5235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Before we canonize Saint Bill: by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Out of all Gates' billions stolen from you and me and every poor person on the planet

    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.
  14. Re:There was one condition by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:There was one condition by localman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!