Bill Gates's New Version of the Einstein Letter

dcblogs writes "In 1939, Albert Einstein sent 'F.D. Roosevelt, President of the United States,' a letter with a warning about Germany's interest in a new type of energy with potential for use as a powerful bomb. The letter also outlined the competitive threat posed by Germany and steps for improving US research efforts. Last week, Bill Gates, along with GE's CEO and others, met with President Obama to deliver their own message: that of the top 30 companies in the world working on alternative energy, only four are in the US. Similar to Einstein's point and recommendations, Gates and his allies are asking the US to view the alternative energy push as a competitive threat posed by other nations, particularly China, which may be doing a better job in bringing its engineering talent and money to bear on this problem."

Comments

Can You Spot the Difference?

[eldavojohn]

Einstein wrote of specific people and experiments. Gates does not.

Einstein warned of a horrible weapon. Gates is warning us that the most environmentally ravaged countries might be developing alternative energy (may god have mercy on our souls, lol).

Einstein acted alone and was not heavily invested in nuclear energy. Gates and his friends are heavily invested in alternative energy sources.

I'm no biographer of either but from what I know Einstein seemed to be motivated by things like the discovery of knowledge and genuine concern for mankind. Gates has (at least historically) seemed to be motivated by profit and money first above everything else with ideals similar to Einstein distantly following that primary motivator. Maybe he's changed but Einstein has always held a more altruistic image in my mind. That tends to happen to people long gone who made staggering advancements. Who knows, maybe revisionist history will see Gates alongside Einstein? But as it stands now, my personal opinion is that the two are not even close.

Bottom line: Einstein was a scientist who made great discoveries. Gates was a businessman who made great sales.

I'm not sold on Gates' motives. He sounds more like a lobbyist than a sage omen of caution like Einstein was.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah its hardly the same. Comparing a letter that warns of Germany possessing a massive advantage in killing to one that warns a few US companies might lose their monopolies is stupid. If they want to advance research into alternative energy why don't they fund it? Without reading the recommendations I'm betting they're along the lines of subsidies, tax breaks & easing restrictions that prevent these companies maximizing profits.

Notice also that this is about alternative energy companies. If they want the US to look into alternative energy try getting the government to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That would force companies into looking at alternative energy. They're comfortable selling people non-renewable energy while constantly increasing prices due to scarcity so things will never change.

From their webpage they seem to want investment of $16 billion a year in alternative energy. Just the 7 listed on the front page have a combined equity of around $400 billion and yet they aren't willing to use that to fund it themselves.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[timeOday]

But in the long run, economic strength is more fundamental than military strength (which is just a side effect of economic strength). What is more fundamental to economic strength than affordable energy? The free ride of pumping it straight from the ground is coming to an end, and we are not preparing.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[h4rr4r]

How so?
He seems to tie his donations to governments not competing with the drugs the companies he is invested in sell. The deal seems to be they get some free medicine for guaranteed IP protection.
He also seems to have only started this quite recently, much like Rockefeller and his guilt driven giving.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[mewsenews]

Bottom line: Einstein was a scientist who made great discoveries. Gates was a businessman who made great sales.

Simply trying to compare Gates to Einstein reeks of arrogance. Gates is a Rockefeller or, at best, an Edison. He's a titan of industry rather than a luminary thinker.

Trying to paint a cut-throat businessman as some sort of visionary is ridiculous and insulting. This is like proposing to have Stephen Hawking at the helm of reconstruction at General Motors..

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[goldspider]

"He also seems to have only started this quite recently, much like Rockefeller and his guilt driven giving."

No self-respecting Slashbot would ever acknowledge the possibility that Gates simply waited until he had the means (capital) to accomplish something more meaningful than cutting a $20 monthly check to Feed the Children.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[RingDev]

You do not appear to be aware of the impact of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_foundation

Saying that Bill Gates is one of the greatest philanthropists alive today is an opinion that is shared by many individuals. For 16 years now he and his wife have worked hard and funded significant projects in health, human services, and education across the globe.

When you are one of the richest men in the world, money is no longer a driving concern, Legacy is. Do you think Bill Gates wants to be remembered as "A rich man who's corporate leadership drove Microsoft to become a household name", or as "A philanthropist who helped to usher in an age of carbon free power generation". 70 years from now, will we think of him as a visionary who paved the way for vast technological advances, or will he be relegated to history as just another rich guy?

I would hazard a guess that he would blow his savings, sell his mansions, and unload the stocks if it meant he could have the kind of name recognition and positive connotation that Einstein has now, half a century after his death. And in order to achieve that state, he's going to have to do some extremely impressive and good things.

Lets hope that his work in alternative energy is one of them.

-Rick

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[roaddemon]

I think a comment like that needs to be backed by some references.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[e2d2]

You really do touch on something important. Energy powers the war machine. For instance, the US strategic energy reserve is for a massive war, not to heat homes in the winter. The current US doctrine is centered around ensuring access to energy resources. The two are linked, they are inseparable. An Army may run on it's stomach but fighter jets fly on fossil fuel. Alternative energy is the key to getting everyone to be better global citizens. Resource wars are a very real thing.

Re:Can You Spot the Difference?

[b0bby]

In addition, the fact that Warren Buffet thought that the Gates Foundation was doing such a good job that he has them handling his money too makes me think that they are probably pretty good at what they do...

We're on the wrong track.

[RightSaidFred99]

Wind energy this, Solar energy that. It's all fantasy dreamed up by hippies. It may or may not be able to meet a high percentage of our energy needs at some point in the future.

Nuclear power is here now. We know it works. We know it's safe, if done right. Sure, it's expensive, but if we'd invested a few trillion in nuclear power over the last 30 years ago we'd have ended up saving a shitload on foreign wars, cost to the environment from oil spills and pollution, etc...

At the rate we're going now, nothing will have changed 20 years from now. Instead, we need to start building nuclear plants and investing in research on portable power like fuel cells so we can use that nuclear power outside of the main power grid.

Re:We're on the wrong track.

[Improv]

Chances are we'd still intervene in foreign wars for humanitarian and business reasons, for as long as we have the economic and military prominence allowing us to do so.

It's possible that if we had managed to dig up those sums back then we'd have it, we don't really know that for sure but it would've been nice to find out.

Chances are we'll have a mix of wind/solar and nuclear energy - these things arn't fantasies - they work and are cost-effective in some circumstances. Unless these hippes you mention are the kind of hippies that get engineering, physics, and materials science degrees and actually put these technologies into practice, I suspect you're selling those technologies short. The issue isn't that they're not worthwhile, the issue is that since the 50s Americans have been skeptical of long-term thinking and terrified of central planning, leaving us with really lousy infrastructure, a discinclination to improve it, and a community of people who deny reality and work to discredit any studies that show that we fell off the right track when we stopped investing in infrastructure and the sciences and that other countries have surpassed us in many of these areas even when we have the resources of almost an entire continent and a massive population to bear on these problems.

Still, I fundamentally agree with you that we should be investing a lot more in nuclear power - an emphasis on fusion research combined with our standard fission plants in areas not well-covered by something better (not every community has a Hoover Dam) would pollute less and were we to actually have nice ways to transform and store that energy and were our automotive industry to migrate to electic cars, the strategic and economic benefits could be profound.

Re:We're on the wrong track.

[Patch86]

All good experts talk about an "energy mix"- any over-dependence on a single source of energy is just asking for trouble- be it market volatility, or resourcing troubles, or whatever.

Solar seems particularly enticing as a micro-generation source. Photovoltaic cells have zero moving parts making them perfect for domestic use, by people who don't want to be on active maintenance alert. If every house in the country had a set of solar panels, that's a whole lot of energy being generated. You're completely right that it won't be 100% of what's needed, or even remotely close, but it still replaces a good swathe of power plants.

Same goes for other "opportunistic" renewables. You might not be able to get 100% of your energy from hydro, but if you've got a good spot for a dam, you might as well dam it and reap the rewards.

looking for a grant?

[roman_mir]

I don't understand this, the people who wrote this 'letter' to the president are rich, look at the names. So they can start a company to create new energy production facilities etc. but they decide to write to the administration as if it is as urgent as a nuclear weapon about to be created and unleashed by a warmonger. Einstein obviously was concerned about a new weapon that Germany could develop and use to completely dominate the globe, Gates and Co. looks like are hoping for the government to get into yet another money laundering scheme.

If these guys think their ideas are worth a try and may work they should invest their money, they'll be rich beyond their wild dreams (hard to do, considering who they are, but still).

BP is getting billions of dollars from government contracts of all kinds, looks like this new initiative is about the same thing.

Build factories and make your energy generating equipment and see if you can compete with it and deliver something people will buy, why are you trying to involve the administration into this? The only thing that comes to mind is yet another money laundering scheme, a Halliburton/BP level scheme.

Last stage

[javilon]

Amazing. Just five years to go from:

China, they just can make cheap copies of western technology
to
China, they are starting to compete with western products
to
China is ahead on R&D

Re:What?

[clarkkent09]

Seems like you are being sarcastic, but there is no need. Big businessmen have never been friends of the free market, they have always been only too happy to lobby for as much taxpayer money as they can lay their hands on. It's the conflict of interest I am worried about here. If it was some non-profit environmentalist group that was lobbying for government money I could understand, but not when it's the people who have most to gain financially from such investment.