Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Promotes Vaccine Projects, Swipes At Google
Nerval's Lobster writes "In a new interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, Bill Gates discussed his Foundation's work to eradicate polio and malaria, while suggesting that vaccine programs and similar initiatives to fight disease and poverty will ultimately do much more for the world than technology projects devoted to connecting everybody to the Internet. While Gates professes his belief in the so-called digital revolution, he doesn't think projects such as Google's Internet blimps (designed to transmit WiFi signals over hundreds of miles, bringing Internet to underserved areas in the process) will do the third world nearly as much as good as basic healthcare. "When you're dying of malaria, I suppose you'll look up and see that [Internet] balloon, and I'm not sure how it'll help you," he said. "When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that." Gates then sharpened his attack on the search-engine giant: "Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down." Google focusing on its core mission is fine, he added, "but the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor." The Microsoft co-founder also has no intention of following Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and other tech entrepreneurs into the realm of space exploration. "I guess it's fun, because you shoot rockets up in the air," he said. "But it's not an area that I'll be putting money into.""
I've got an idea. How about we cure malaria AND give everyone free internet. I never thought Bill Gates was a jealous hater. He's beginning to see Microsoft as the failure it really is.
But it's not an area that I'll be putting money into.
Got burned by Teledesic he did.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Successful man, bright man, ruthless man, and entirely correct.
Bill Gates grew up. Page and Brin may still have some growing up to do, but Bezos has no excuse. And Musk's work has always been overrated, though it's almost geek suicide to suggest so.
Appropriate: http://www.deesillustration.com/artwork.asp?item=618&cat=satire
"I guess it's fun, because you shoot rockets up in the air," he said. "But it's not an area that I'll be putting money into."
Sounds like he has no more vision now than he did when he was running Microsoft. I am totally in favour of his philanthropic work, and I agree with him that we should solve the difficult people problems first, but dismissing space exploration or the benefits of connectivity for the purposes of educating the third world out of poverty is short sighted.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Microsoft isn't out saving the poor from malaria, Bill Gates is. Why should Bill Gates expect Google as a corporation to be doing what he's doing as an individual philanthropist, rather than floating internet balloons which holds long-term potential for shareholders?
is better than things that other guys are doing. Film at 11.
I personally have a hard time keeping track of all of the humanitarian efforts Microsoft engaged in while they abused their monopoly position to crush competitors without even the slightest regard for morality and decency. You know, because there were so many. I very much admire Mr. Gates and the work of his foundation - there is no question they have done and are doing wonderful things. But quite a lot of revisionism going on in his head, it seems. I wonder where he thinks his wealth came from?
He runs his charity like a business, holding its existence to be more important than the deaths and negative health consequences of the companies its invests in and profits from, and he still has the gall to be a dick about possibly doing more help than Google. Good work, Saint Bill, I'll always remember you for what you've done.
I think he's wrong about the importance of space exploration. He's trapped on this sphere just like the rest of us and one stray gamma ray burst could end us all with zero warning. Figuring out how to spread out is a worthy human endeavor.
if theres one place they have a chance of going viral, its there!
... these will have the greatest improvements in people's lives in the developing world.
But I submit that seeing to it that children, especially girls, receive a proper (i.e. secular) education would go even further.
I did not read TFA, but in the summary it seems like Gates is complaining that Google is not doing humanitarian work like he does through the Gates foundation. What sense does this make? How much money does Microsoft Corporation give to comfort kids with malaria or diarrhea?
Using absurd amounts of resources and energy, to go to a place which is environmentally unfriendly, much like going to the bottom of the ocean, something that is best performed cheaply with robots. Beyond having those robots to help us learn things better, the whole idea of "manifest destiny" is utterly absurd at this point in time, we have completely more realistic priorities. We dont need an aerospace (and defense) "bubble" of fake capital, we dont need to be wasting precious minds on this nonsense, and the last people we should be serving is the super rich.
Spreading knowledge of how malaria spreads and how to stop it will stop FAR more cases than a proprietary malaria treatment.
boil water. and explain why, and how (to short a time is almost as bad as not doing it at all). Drain swamps, kill the mosquito.
Knowledge is power...
Education does more to liberate women than medical service. Education is available over the internet. Acculturation too. This includes education about culture and medicine - health. Why give a person a fish (or a vaccine) when you can teach them how to fish (or make their own vaccines) more efficiently through online educational programs. EdX - valuable stuff there.
Bill Gates does not waste his time "attacking" Google - he just answers questions.
-question: "One of Google’s (GOOG) convictions is that bringing Internet connectivity to less-developed countries can lead to all sorts of secondary benefits. It has a project to float broadband transmitters on balloons. Can bringing Internet access to parts of the world that don’t have it help solve problems?"
-answer: "When you’re dying of malaria, I suppose you’ll look up and see that balloon, and I’m not sure how it’ll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that. Certainly I’m a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.
Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they’re just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor."
The same about the "shooting rockets" thing!
-question: "There are other successful businessmen who are orienting their extracurricular interests around space exploration. Is that interesting to you? Is that worthwhile for humanity?"
-answer: "Everybody’s got their own priorities. In terms of improving the state of humanity, I don’t see the direct connection. I guess it’s fun, because you shoot rockets up in the air. But it’s not an area that I’ll be putting money into."
Keep saving the world Bill - God bless you!
The internet may not relieve diarrhea or any other disease, but a someone might look up information on how to treat diarrhea, such as keeping yourself hydrated, types of medicine that help curb it, etc. Of course, it's all moot if you do not have a computer, but hey nothing is perfect.
"Ok, FINE! Surface can't compete with Android tablets. But my goodness is better than your goodness!"
Childish?
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
Bill Gates made his money from screwing people over and devastating an industry. This saw his personal wealth become huge.
Now, he puts bits of the personal wealth into altruistic things. That's how it used to work (where the industry barons used to sponsor altruistic actions, before the State really got into it).
What he's doing is calling Google as a company out on not doing something that Microsoft is also not doing. If the Google founders end up with the personal wealth he's accumulated, then sure, call them out individually for not doing their bit. If they don't make the billions Gates has done, then perhaps their contributions will also be lesser.
Compare like for like; it's great to do altruistic deeds.. But don't use those as a bludgeoning stick to boost your own ego and agendas...
How about we cure malaria AND give everyone free internet
I think if the Google founders were ding both, there'd be no complaint. I've been here to long to be any kind of fan of Bill, but I do admire his focus on charity that makes a concrete difference to people with real and immediate problems.
Lets not get so obsessed with "first world problems" that we forget that millions still die of easily curable and preventable conditions. Sure, better access to education is also key long term, but internet? That's just a disconnect from the reality of the third world. If you want to try to fix the world's problems through education, give to Room to Read, which makes a far more practical day-to-day difference in children's lives. And, yes, the Gates Foundation does gives plenty to them as well.
I agree completely.
When one is starving or horribly sick, the last thing they need is connectivity to the internet.
What? Are they going to go to WebMD, look at their symptoms and then follow the advice of "see your physician."? They would if they could.
These people need medical care, drugs, food and education - not a goddamn laptop.
No a $100 (or whatever) laptop is a HORRIBLELY inefficient use of funds. That $100 can go MUCH farther elsewhere.
internet connectivity and laptops are a First World solution to a non-existant problem - I haven't been convinced that the lack of internet connections is truly a problem in the Third World.
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
.
Gates needs to look past his self-important blinders.
Dear Bill Gates, Please refund all the money we "wasted" for buying the crappy Windows OS with the BSOD that got you really rich. I can't imagine how much money people have lost because their computers got the BSOD and didn't have the chance to save their work. Then you can rip over Google for "wasting" their money on some hot air balloon. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Different strokes for different folks. You would think he would know that.
And you would think he would be secure enough in what he's done that he doesn't have to tear down others.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Very funny....and very wrong.
The day BG comes up with any kind of vision (Road Ahead tanked)... Let's see anything he does that fails to involve and benefit from Google in some way. He's just a mouthpiece for Bing.
Third World person - starving, sick, uneducated - goes to Google:
"How the fuck do I get out of this shit hole"
Then they go to Reddit and ask the same thing and get posts like this:
"Become white"
"Stop being a muslim"
"Get a job'
They then Ask Slashdot:
"Well, if you studied engineering or CS instead of humanities, you wouldn't be where you are!"
"Start a business! Worked for me! My las employer is my client and I couldn't be happier!'
Yep, the Internet and Google has all the solutions!
While Bill Gates isn't necessarily wrong, this is kind of awkward to see. I'm glad that Bill Gates cares enough to help countries in need of healthcare reform, however i would imagine those same countries would be glad for technologies that would enable them to figure out things like that for themselves. They are both covering relatively immediate needs.
So, I wonder if Bill Gates has considered asking Google's humanitarian projects if they might like to dedicate some resources to helping improving (and reducing cost of) the tech side of healthcare, which would be of the best ways to use a resource like Google, aside from throwing money at the problem.
Regardless, story feels incomplete or Bill needs to communicate.
that one of the best things to stop the spread of these diseases, is education. Vaccines won't remove poverty and promote more infrastructure to 3rd world countries.
If you are to get 50 billion dollars, how would you proceed to avoid pay taxes, and to keep your money for yourself?
I've grown more and more fed up of this kind of posturing from people like Gates.
While its nice that he is working on vaccines and is on a crusade for healthcare, the world has far deeper problems. We have entire failed states where stupid people have children that they simply cannot look after. They cannot feed them. They cannot educate them. This behaviour has become one where its rewarded and not penalised. This isn;t viable. It cannot work. Its_not going_to_work - They cannot economise the places where they live - and yet birth rates and economic collapse is only underwritten and fueled by people like Gates. Entire cities are now based around being refugees, and living off food aid and have no sustainable living capability at all - and are only maintained by wholly bankrupt operandai.
The human population on this planet is exploding. There are 7 billion, 103 Million, 448,849 people and its sky rocketting upwards. The numbers of people and growth are going to dwarf Gates vaccine programs, and food aid, and the numbers of people dying will upward curve, and I don't wish harm directly on anyone - but the fucking source of problems has to be faced.
For every child Gates saves, his program better be ten fold bigger to treat the children that will come from it. Same for food aid.
The programs that people like Gates are running paint a picture of fighting poverty. That is true. They fight short term poverty. They *do not* fight long term poverty, deprivation, or lack of healthcare. They create the fuel on which the next wave will burn.
At some point, the inhuman reality will have to be faced. Unsustainable human growth and failed states, on land that cannot sustain the populations, will run out of even generous people's large donations. Even if the most humanitarian people keep swinging, at some point round 12 billion, and even with advances in food, the reality is huge death tolls.
This can only be stopped now, and it can only be stopped now by harsher policies that at least focus people to behave and change their ways. Humans have for millenia realised that population control can become a scenario that cannot be avoided, except in our own population. Somehow this has become skewed to the degree that we refuse to believe it, and will avoid it no matter what the cost or logic.
We`re all equal
When a person speaks negatively about another person or group, it usually says more about the person doing the talking (i.e. their own personal agenda) rather than the person being talked about.
The older I get, the more reliable this rule of thumb gets.
Why is Bill Gates comparing himself to a corporation like Google? Of course a retired billionaire can be 100% charitable and provide free physical goods and services to poor countries. What the hell has Microsoft done for the poor?
Got them into the H1-B program?
Oooo... Look at me! I'm a multi-billionaire dilettante! I made all my money screwing over the little guy, engaging in unethical business practices, but now I'm the best person in the world because I gave some money to malaria. That's right, I screwed y'all out of so much money, that after buying my mansions and getting bored being a super-rich asshole, I still had plenty to spend on African diseases!
Oh, some other rich guys also donate to charitable causes? Well, are those charitable causes MUTHERFUKIN MALARIA?! No? Well then I shit on all of their efforts. In fact, the world just grind to a halt right now, and everyone should focus on 2 things:
1) Wiping out malaria, because that's the only problem that matters.
2) Talking about how awesome I am, because I'm donating some of my money to wiping out malaria.
The way everything Gates says is a dismissal of the activities of other wealthy institutions, I'm forced to conclude that what Gates is spending his money on is in fact a license to feel self-righteous.
prior to starting Microsoft or is he now so full of himself that he can preach to the rest of the world?
How humanitarian was he when he was destroying lives to make his fortune?
Bill Gates has a guilty conscience and is having trouble living with himself so he is out to right the world. maybe is he wasn't soo greedy there would be more humanitarians contributing to his cause. What a hypocrite.
Right now, he is picking projects that make him look good. However, like his OS, it will come with major hits.
At this time, all of the locations that have malaria issues, have a very high death rate and local resources are strained badly. So, what happens if this is cured? It will put far more pressure on the local resources.
Instead, if gates REALLY wanted to help, he would cut way back on Malaria R&D and instead push for new businesses that do 2-way trade with all of these locations. In addition, put in schools and push education. Finally, make certain that it is the SMALL guy that gets the new businesses and not war-lords. By doing this and helping these locations to build up their economy, they will over time, clean up the environment and solve these issues. BUT, to be able to do this, you must have a decent economy.
Google is the ones that have it right. They are working on developing new ideas and new businesses. Not just in the west, but all over. They tried it in China and found that it was disaster (not surprising). However, if Google pushes for 2-way trade with Africa, middle east, and Latin America, they will improve many many lives and help re-start the global economy.
What nonsense. Gates is a hypocrite. For years he could have cared less about anyone else on the planet apart from how much he could get out of them. Now that he's got his, he's going to tell all of us how it's supposed to be. It's not Google's job to save the world. It's not Bill Gate's job either. It's a job that belongs to all of us. Gates lives under, and promotes, the illusion that only people with money have the ability to do any good in this world. He used to bill himself as the world's greatest "innovator". Now he wants us to believe he is the world's greatest philanthropist. What a deluded, egotistical, pompous ass. I dislike him worse than ever.
... teaching people to keep their dicks to themselves and stop multiplying?
Because if we don't stop ourselves, Mother Nature will do the stopping for us -- and it won't be pretty.
And what, exactly, is Microsoft doing to uplift the poor and how are they different? Anything? What were you doing to get Microsoft to help uplift the poor when you were the CEO besides trying to get vendor lock-in in schools and charities?
Arguably, Google is doing nothing different than every other corporation -- and singling out what they are doing with technology initiatives has nothing whatsoever to do with what he chooses to do with his charities.
Google as a corporation is pursuing technology stuff. So is Microsoft.
The whole article is a red herring and just a sensational headline. It boils down to "rich asshole berates a company for doing the exact same things as the company he founded still does today".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Access to communication networks helps address lots of real and immediate problems.
How? Tell me how searching the interent for a 'solution' only to find out that it's not available to them, they don't have the money, or access to materials.
They search for a cure for their diarrhea and find that they need a drug for that. Gee, wonder where they are going to get that let alone the money to pay for it?
Let's not get so obsessed with narrow, paternalistic solutions that we don't direct efforts toward things that empower people by giving them access to resources/tool that they can use to address their own concerns, like microcredit-fueled economic development or improved communication infrastructure.
Complete and utter gibberish.
GIBBERISH!
How about something concrete?
That is what Gates is trying to do. Get them what they actually need.
Money spent to combat malaria must be worlds better for improving the human condition than money spent to support Senator Inhofe.
There is a reason why the Western World has been able to eradicate malaria and other major diseases - we are crazy rich.
We got crazy rich from defining private property rights and otherwise allowing high levels of economic freedom.
This is why China has been able to bring hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty - even their limited moves to formalize private property and allow for some freeing up of the market has allowed for dramatic economic growth.
I think Gates efforts at vaccination is great. However it would be even greater if those countries affected move forward on respecting private property and allowing for economic freedom and let their people get richer, because then they themselves could pay for vaccination efforts without needing Gates' billions, and without crushing poverty the efforts would be more effective with less graft & corruption.
I think it is good to kind of name and shame Google for this type of behavior. I know some people who were involved with their supposedly revolutionary endangered language preservation project:
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/
According to some insiders, Google came in with big promises of building a platform and providing funding. In the end it was like a child with last year's toys. They basically dropped the project, which it turns out wasn't about new research or new aid to educational projects but simply a site where researchers were expected to dump their data and put it under Google's brand. Researchers were, of course, puzzled as to why they should do this. Now the languishing project is supported by their much less wealthy partners, more of a burden on their resources than anything else.
If you look at the site above, you'll see how little the fanfare amounted to. A juggernaut like Google might have actually made a difference in an area where resources are scarce.
If only you had become interested in the wellfare of the humankind 20 years earlier...
"When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that."
Not directly, but a website can give you information on what to do in the case of getting diarrhea and how to avoid it in the future.
Teach a man to fish, Gates. Teach a man to fish.
.
2) Gates is an individual, google is a corporation. Apples and oranges to compare the two.
Gates needs to look past his self-important blinders and see the whole picture.
After splitting up Wonderstone's partner goes to Africa to bring magic to the poor. Later he says "they didn't want magic they needed food and clean water".
...and kinda falls into what the GP was getting at.
Just say'in.
The problem with focusing all your aid to decrease mortality rates is that you end up with explosive population growth that makes it that much harder to lift these people out of poverty.
"Growth is expected to be particularly dramatic in the least developed countries of the world, which are projected to double in size from 898 million inhabitants in 2013 to 1.8 billion in 2050 and to 2.9 billion in 2100. High population growth rates prevail in many developing countries, most of which are on the UN’s list of 49 least developed countries. Between 2013 and 2100, the populations of 35 countries could triple or more. Among them, the populations of Burundi, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia are projected to increase at least five-fold by 2100." http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm
Founded in 1975, so they're 38 years old. Google was founded in 1998, 15 years old, same age as PayPal (where Elon Musk got started).
So what was Bill Gates doing when Microsoft was 15 years old (1990)? His foundation wasn't even founded until four years later (1994).
Put a sock in it, Billy.
"'When you're dying of malaria, I suppose you'll look up and see that [Internet] balloon, and I'm not sure how it'll help you," he said. "When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that.'"
Abosutely, Bill. Can I call you Bill?
Look, I think Bill has hit the nail on the head with this right here. I mean, let us really sit down and think this through: How in the hell is this so-called "internet balloon" suppose to help anyone? It's not as though someone suffering from diarrhea could use internet access to gain knowledge about the causes and treatments for diarrhea. It's not like they could even use the internet to locate a hospital or aid station that could help them in anyway. And they certainly couldn't use the internet to communicate with doctors or medical staff of any kind. Such an idea would be quite absurd don't you think, Bill? What's that, Bill? Oh, right, malaria. Yeah, based on all those previous examples, it also logically follows that people couldn't use the internet to find hospitals or aid stations that are administering malaria vaccinations and people certainly couldn't use the internet to learn exactly how dangerous malaria is or how imperative it is to get a vaccination for it if available.
And that's only thinking about the affected poor people and all the things that they can't do with this internet connection because it is so useless and not at all helpful. Bill, what about the aid workers or volunteers in these countries? Don't you think they would find these fanciful "internet balloons" quite useless as well? I mean, it's not like they could use them to link up and communicate with others where they couldn't before. It's not like they could use that coordination to better apply their efforts or anything right, Bill?
I mean, who does Google think is going to find use for these "internet balloons"? The lions of the serenghetti? That's just perposterous, Google!
... trash talkers.
In the end I find Google worse, since they say they are so freaking great and fair, while if you narrow it down and look at it from a realistic point of view, they are the biggest bastards, they started of good, that is it.....
Had Gates really wanted to help the first, second and third worlds, he would have dedicated his fortune to developing and improving useful, more human-like, artificial intelligence - something he's in a unique position to do.
We'd get scalable forms of artificial intelligence and the solutions to problems like Malaria as minor side effects. We'd get fusion power and space travel too, most likely.
Instead, Gates is indulging his ego in piecemeal, half-assed solutions to humanity's problems. Solutions that give him great publicity, but leave more major issues, like resource depletion, which in the long run will kill many more of us than malaria, untouched.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
You know that they have schools in Africa, right? Not all Africans live in the same conditions. Many could benefit from both malaria cures and Internet.
You know we're speaking of Third World folks without access to any education, right?
And you know we're all talking about how internet access is considered a panacea here on Slashdot, right?
And that technology is considered the salavation of all of life's problems and therefore yet another panacea here on Slashdot, right?
With crappy Windows software, you might as well leave your machine off. Windows is digital colonialism, after all. However, use the BSD's/GNU/Linux and the like and you allow people to develop their own commerce. You know that old cliche, give people food you make them beggers, teach them to fish and they get their dignity.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Malaria or not, there is no shortage of people on Earth. There is shortage of space exploration. Curing diseases is commendable, but unless Bill develops a vaccine from civilization-wiping meteorite strikes, he is focusing his formidable resources too narrowly.
Of course ole bill is pushing his toxic DNA altering vaccines - he's into playing God.
He's also a very huge proponent of population control. I'm guessing he wants the 500,000,000 world population like the rest of elites. IF only we could get rid of all those pesky niggers in africa,
To make a real dent in the death and suffering, all we need to do is become civilised. We live in a world controlled by violent states that are responsible for more death and destruction than anything else on this planet. About 240 million people have died between 1 Jan 1900 and 31 Dec 2000 in wars and that doesn't count the indirect deaths from the pollution that they produced. Wars use radioactive weapons, a massive amount of fossil fuel, not only to power vehicles and generate electricity but also to build weapons, feed soldier etc. This unnecessary pollution will kill people, animals and plants for generations. Wars are mass murders sanctioned by the state. Once we add in the non-war murders, which are mostly caused by the state in my opinion, the number are staggering. In 2012, there was an estimated 466,078 murders world wide. We don't need billions of dollars to solve this problem.
ayottesoftware.com
Vaccines don't really help the root problems of the world's poor. So more children survive a while longer to die of something else, or simply exist and need feeding. Google is doing two HUGE long term things for the world's poor: 1) the Renewables Cheaper Than Coal project. Addressing global warming head-on, and working for affordable energy for all, to give poor societies the juice to join the 21st century 2) Internet for the poorest regions, the blimps that Gates hates, means enlightenment for all, and promotes education for girls -- the latter being the single most effective way to lift people out of poverty. Gates just doesn't get it. Nor do I think he ever will.
Bill Gates does some good.
As does Google.
He should be hating on Apple more. Fuck Apple!
Isn't Gates' belittling if Google's balloon plans the best compliment possible. Based on his previous prediction record they will be huge succes.
You just made the point I think was in my head all along, but I wasn't sure how to express it.
I have no problem with the Gates Foundation wanting to do the charity work they're doing, and making a decision that it's going to be about such things as curing malaria in Africa, vs. helping countries get a better internet experience. But I *do* have a problem with Bill or anyone else implying that others with money to spend on projects are somehow "lesser" or in the wrong because they don't follow his chosen path.
I'm a big believer in the idea that individuals should pursue things that personally interest them. If Google's expertise is with the Internet and application development, then it stands to reason it can be most efficient working on projects in that vein! How many folks at Google are experts in water purification, or in treating diseases? How many would even find that type of work enjoyable?
Gates is in a different situation than the folks running Google. He already LEFT his tech. company by choice, after it made massive amounts of money for him. That tells me that basically, he grew tired of running Microsoft each day and wanted out. So when you see him pursuing other things, it stands to reason he would.
There are plenty of people in those areas that do have a basic education. There are no countries with total illiteracy.
Then show me how these laptops for the poor or whatever they are called, is helping those people.
If you're going to be a pedant and shoe the exception, then show how it works IN THAT SITUATION!
God! Karma whoring is so disgusting - and folks wonder why I don't have an account ....
It always amazes me that human beings are so irrational and short-sighted. Largely unable to think beyond the limits of our emotions, we immediately leap to the conclusion that someone like Bill Gates is a great philanthropist simply because he is attempting to save lives in the short term. Rarely does anyone think beyond this simple fact or even dare to assess the long term impact of such actions. I am going to do so now and make the claim that Bill Gates is similar to a cat lady.
For those who aren't aware of what I mean by “cat lady”, I am referring to the type of woman who out of irrational compassion accumulates more cats than she can properly care for. The end result is that you have up to a hundred malnourished, diseased cats living in their own excrement in a house that winds up being condemned and where the end result is usually the euthanasia of most of the cats. In more general terms, the woman's lack of foresight results in environmental destruction, famine and pestilence, albeit on a very small scale.
Bill Gates' irrational desire to end diseases that kill millions of people every year suffers from the same lack of foresight. He wants to save human beings without any realistic plan on how to actually support those he saves.
Who will feed these millions? Of what use is it to save a child in Africa from malaria only for them to die of starvation? If they don't immediately starve, what about when these millions breed until there are a billion or more? What type of lives will they lead when resources dwindle and large scale wars over said resources result in the deaths of many more millions of people?
The end result, like the cat lady's, is environmental destruction, famine and pestilence in addition to war and other atrocities. The major difference is that this is no longer small scale and it's human beings who are being “euthanized”, not cats. Of course, those who have converted science into a religion will just have blind faith that their God, “Science”, will solve all these problems as they occur...
There is one aspect in which the cat lady is better than Bill Gates though. The burden of caring for her cats is initially placed on her alone even if she ultimately can't handle the responsibility. You can bet that Bill Gates' mansion will never be condemned for keeping thousands of vaccinated African children in it. He'll leave that responsibility to the rest of the world. He'll simply accept the accolades and when the terrible results of such actions arise in the future, he'll be dead and gone and no one will make the connection.
Oh, please.... You have every right to decide Ayn Rand's philosophies aren't ones you side with. But she was *clearly* anything but a moron, and I'd argue not a hypocrite either (at least based on your claims).
If one is forced to contribute a portion of his/her income to the government by way of taxation, why wouldn't he/she at least take advantage of an opportunity to reclaim some of that money if the opportunity arose to do so legally? It's not like she spent her whole life on the government dole while she wrote her books.
It's possible to participate in a system while still disliking and protesting it, and advising people it needs to be eliminated or changed.
Not at all. Is that better than stamping out a deadly disease? Not necessarily, but if the access to information lets those affected manage their own care better (or not get sick to begin with) then it gets very hard to judge.
The American South was once haunted by parasites and tropical diseases.
In 1910, an estimated 40% of the population of the southern United States was infected with hookworm.
In 1910 the RSC began campaigns to eradicate hookworm in nine states, including Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. The RSC used a three-pronged approach that included:
1.Conducting a survey to map out the prevalence of the disease in a particular area
2.Curing patients at mobile dispensaries
3.Providing education through illustrated lectures and demonstrations that urged prevention through improved sanitary measures, including the construction of privies.
Southerners initially distrusted RSC efforts. Many were offended by accusations of infection and refused to accept testing and the treatment of Epsom salts and thymol. Others believed that the disease simply did not exist. Regional newspaper editorials also strongly criticized RSC employees and viewed them as a Northern imposition.
Eradicating Hookworm
The geek thinks that putting up a web page = meaningful access to information = the solution to someone else's problems.
The Rockefeller Foundation page has some telling exhibits to the contrary. The doctors are on horseback. Their patients desperately sick and debilitated. Educational materials --- films, posters and the like --- could only reach out to those who were well enough to act ---
and literate in all media.
People like Gates talk like ensuring that more humans live longer is somehow self-evidently a good thing in its own right, That isn't at all self-evident to me.
I'm all for trying to stop suffering, but we all have to die sometime. Its not like the human species is at risk, or that humans are even difficult to make. In fact many countries already have the opposite problem.
Stuff like putting people on Mars and bringing internet to everywhere not only enriches everyones daily lives (for example NASA's Apollo project spurred off all sorts of new technologies), those things are achieving something no-one has done before, so when met they advance the whole of human civilisation. That seems to be a far more significant goal and achievement to me.
Why Malaria? Because no one was doing it yet. Bragging rights.
Really? I'm sure these people will be very surprised to hear that.
I can think of a dozen better ways to spend that money...
I call bullshit on your claim that you can think of "a dozen better ways to spend that money" than on a cure for malaria. If you genuinely believe that then you have NO idea how big a problem malaria actually is. Malaria devastates entire economies and kills millions of people. In some places it is responsible for close to half of all hospital admissions. It is estimated to cost Africa around $12 billion each year, infects over 200 million people and kills over 600,000 each year. That is as worthy a cause as you will find anywhere in the world.
No matter how you cut it & he's even spurring other 1%'ers to do the same -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMa480pAD5g (and yes, he's "righter" than GOOGLE is, for more IMMEDIATE concerns... he's showing better logic, period!).
Yes, & what King Billy's doing?
It's "catching on"!
See the film "THE 1 PERCENT" by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals empire (good kid, smart kid - he's a mature young person with a conscience, he's questioning the present structure)...
You'll see what I mean -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc
APK
P.S.=> The "economic genius" Nobel prize winner Jamie Johnson spoke to? Full of shit!
I.E.-> Especially his *trying* to say:
"Workers earn more now than ever with US in control!"
Yea? BULLSHIT!
Offshoring & inflation respectively RUIN that & make it an illusion via the latter - today's dollars only have 2% of their former silver &/or gold backed value - they're not WORTH as much, "pound-for-pound"!
(Kid even questioned it, he's not stupid, & the 'genius' there dismissed him, shooed him off, before he looked TOTALLY stupid is why!)
Man - I'd love to have sat down in a formal debate with that MORON economist & torn him apart with the best thing possible - math, & results! Some economist - bullshitter is more like it!
The 1 rich man who IS probably right though, that 1 man can't make a perfect world? Jamie's dad. I was told by a Chilean girl on a train heading to Prague in 2010 while travelling Europe that's what's needed is "small revolutions" & she's right as rain (I.E.-> Everyone doing a LITTLE BIT to make a better worlds, adds up ala "pay it forward")... apk
You can do something though! Do you refuse to do anything to help even one person with disease because it won't fix the entire problem?
I do when I know nothing of what I contribute will go to help the one person with disease (or other problems).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Gates does not seem to see very far ahead for a "visionary". People in the undeveloped world will continue to die of poverty related diseases or starvation until their standard of living is improved. Education and better information for decision making is essential to progress. That is what the internet promises. In the long run, it will allow people to work on their own problems as opposed to becoming dependent on handouts from wealth countries and individuals. Thus Google will in the long run do more good than all the Gates supported welfare and health programs.
Better computing and information exchange promise to accelerate the pace of medical progress not only to address the last epidemic, but to be ready for the next as exploding population makes it inevitable that humans are the most plentiful potential host for evolving diseases.
... inject humans in poverty third world areas with a vaccine to sterile them, preventing them from reproducing.
And that is the honesty of the matter. Bill Gates knows this and its is the plan.
Actually, he's wrong, not that he ever did understand the Internet. Knowledge does save lives. Access to education does help people get out of poverty. And there is a website -- in fact, more than one -- where you can find out a simple way to help your child who has diarrhea. Here's one. And another. And it's not a binary thing. Gates can work to get rid of malaria while Google simultaneously tries to bring internet connectivity to the same people. Why is that a competition requiring a negative remark? Everyone can do what they are good at.] -
AccountKiller
LETS stop rubbishing Bill Gates. I know personally, he has been involved many projects, spending nights on very backwards places and taking pains for those people who doesn't have any access to minimum facilities. Those who throwing guns at him, shouldn't do this as they are miles away from fatcts.. Just don't criticise someone to prove yourself worthy to others.
Well, if the Africans can get internet, then they can find out that a simple chemical called MMS (chlorine dioxide) can absolutely cure Malaria with 100% cure rate, for pennies, in one dose. They can also find out (before they are jabbed) that vaccines are deadly poisons.
If everyone on the other hand tried to sell the stock, the value would crash and the company would go under because everyone was trying to jump ship and sell to squeeze the last bit of profit out of it.
Whoa, why would a company go under if stock value is zero? Their stock value is their perceived value, not their income and expense balances. Suppose that everyone in the world decided to dump Apple stock tomorrow. The stock value implodes in the sell off, and a few slow moving investors get shafted.They still have 80 billion in the bank, and they still are making ipads like crazy, so why would this drive them out of business? The few people who were buying during the sell off craze now own the company, and probably for very little. They can now do anything they want with the company, being investors with majority control.
So, selling your shares in immoral companies that are profitable doesn't do much of anything. Either you should buy shares in said companies, so you can vote out the jerks who are running the company at the next shareholder meeting, or you buy the stock to acquire more personal fiscal power so you can see that moral things are done with it. Just ignoring a river because you don't like water won't make it go away.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Bringing health care to poor people involves many, many services and service people for health support. The support people need internet access to learn and to communicate with each other. Also, it is difficult to get educated people to work on health care if there is no internet access. The internet provides relaxing experiences after work.
Does Bill Gates really think that it is he alone who is providing fundamental health care? Does he really not understand that an entire people and an entire culture must be educated?
Here is a question: Do you have evidence that Bill Gates knows much about technology? I'm serious. Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold wrote a really, really poor book together, The Road Ahead.
Quote from that Wikipedia page:
That New York Times review suggests that Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold were deliberately engaged in fraud, and deliberately eliminated anything of value from the book before it was printed.
However, is it possible that Gates and Myhrvold just don't know much about technology? Certainly the quote from Bill Gates at the top of this comment suggests he is not a deep thinker.
It would be helpful if someone could supply quotes or stories or experiences that show Bill Gates is knowledgeable about technology.
The comment to which I'm replying indicates that Bill Gates is an adversary to the health of the planet. He does things to make himself richer that are bad for everyone else.
Gates is no better than a random Somali witch doctor/mullah who does the same to girls.
And people who engage in ridiculous reductionist arguments like this are no better than Nazis! Nazis, I say!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Exactly. Gates' current problem is that Microsoft stock is falling, and most of their products are a bust....Gates is attempting to make Google look bad, mostly through classic propaganda techniques. .....But it's really the question of who's the lesser of two evils.
Yes, you are clearly a genius. Clearly he is attempting to make more money for his portfolio by insulting the philanthropic activities of Microsoft's competitors. Or, perhaps he is just exasperated that more people aren't putting money toward useful, long term efforts to improve the overall state of humanity.
He is an intelligent guy, and hes looking at what is going to happen in 50-100 years, and its probably going to be ugly. If world population stabilizes at 14 billion, you are going to see some really viscous wars of genocide take place, because the way we are expending resources, there inst going to be enough to go around. And when it comes down to food, water and air, are you going to give up your share so someone in Africa can live? The sooner we can stabilize population growth in developing countries, the better and the way you do that is by improving health, education, and food.
If he really gave a fuck about his portfolio and how Microsoft was doing, why wouldn't he just come out of retirement?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
And I won't tell you how you've squandered your money over the years.
Bill Gates is the worst form of human being because of his mindset. He knows those vaccines he put his money into are specifically geared toward killing people, mostly African people. He calls it de-population and population reduction. But he is the one that should be de-populated
Just another example that very intelligence, highly successful people are not always smart. Some readily preventible diseases need vaccines, others need knowledge, and some need both if humanity is to be rid of them. To quote Charles Dickens:
'They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon
them. 'And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers.
This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both,
and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out
its hand towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye.
Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse.
And abide the end.'
Nice of Bill to be taking care of the girl though, I guess.
Hey Bill, when a kid has diarrhea what's your polio vaccine going to do for him? And btw, there are websites that instruct people on how to treat diarrhea so that it won't kill them.
Every time I see Bill Gates blowing his horn about spending a minute fraction of his fortune on malaria I am reminded of the fact Microsoft regularly sues schools for improperly licensed copies of Windows and Office through the BSA. They gag order as many fo them as they can so the numbers we know are just a fraction of the actual number of schools they've sued.
Seriously Bill, thanks for your malaria work. Other than that fuck you.
Can the man really be that dense as to criticize Google with its plans for wifi blimps? What higher purpose is served when you lock code up so that when it's broken, it can't be fixed? How much time and money is spent on formatting documents to ask the government for money in the first place thanks to the random Times New Roman font changes that popup and weird indents that just take place on half the document?
I mean, I always felt like it was jealousy that motivated me to harbor these "make the world a better place" kind of criticisms of Microsoft and Bill Gates in particular. To see Gates make the same criticism of Google is very surreal for me.
I have 2 words for William Gates III
"FUCK YOU"
what an asshole. he is perhaps the worst thing to happen to the computing world since....uh...forever
I've got projects in the works that would combine space AND humanity welfare at the same time.
How about space-based farming where we have higher solar energy to collect using LED tech?
Would you put money to that? From where we farm in space, getting it to the intended destination would literally take an act of 'God' to stop.
A few spaceports here and there, and we could solve world hunger given the nearly-infinite (compared to earth) area we could farm in orbit.
Would that get you into space? I can give you all the stuf the other companies won't tel you, so we can discuss the merits and demerits of the idea.
You seem to be intelligent enough to understand what I'd say within a couple of minutes. What do you have to lose?
Let's take the internet losers, and show them how real world-changing technology is done.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
New product from microsoft: whine and jeese.
You said, "He is an intelligent guy, ..."
Is that true? Or, did he take advantage of a social weakness? Most people didn't know much about technology, so it was easy to take advantage. Microsoft made $40 billion selling DOS. I estimate that it took 10 man-years to write DOS. Or 20? For example, FreeDOS was written by volunteers.
See my comment above, Does Bill Gates know much about technology?
It's incredibly frustrating to see the spoiled rich on slashdot talking about being poor as if they had any idea what it's like. I mean there's people here talking about "relaxing after work". Fuck. And yes, I already hear the protests from spoiled americans talking about how they're not rich, they're middle class. No, fuck you, you are rich if you're middle class in the US.
In developing and less developed countries around the world, basic health such as malaria and polio still become massive problems. Efforts cannot be made individually to tackle those issues. A collaboration work from every party such as government, NGO, community, medical practitioners is needed to tackle these problems. I really appreciate with what Bill Gate has already done. Meanwhile, I think Bill should not underrate Google's contribution because they also have given extraordinary contribution for the world. Moreover, I think internet and technology also can improve the health status in poor country. Often health problems are affected by lack of information and education. By bringing the internet and technology to poor and less developed countries, the people there have opportunity to get better and quicker information. It makes them to be more educated and well informed especially regarding to health problems so they know about prevention and treatment initiatives. Furthermore, researchers and medical practitioners can do better researches and invention because of that technology and internet. I think each small or big action will make a difference for the world. So why don't just make a good collaboration to make a better world :-)
In developing and less developed countries around the world, basic health such as malaria and polio still become massive problems. Efforts cannot be made individually to tackle those issues. A collaboration work from every party such as government, NGO, community, medical practitioners is needed to tackle these problems. I really appreciate with what Bill Gate has already done. Meanwhile, I think Bill should not underrate Google's contribution to the world because they also have given extraordinary contribution for the people around the world. Moreover, I think internet and technology also can improve the health status in poor country. Often health problems are affected by the lack of information and education. By bringing the internet and technology to poor and less developed countries, the people there have opportunity to get better and quicker information. It makes them to be more educated and well informed especially regarding to health problems so they know about prevention and treatment initiatives. Furthermore, the researcher and medical practitioners can do better research and invention because of that technology and internet. I think each small or big action will make a difference for the world. So why don't just make a good collaboration to make a better world :-)
By saving all these lives, there will be more people in areas that can already not support the number of people that live there. They will be even poorer than before, there will be more hunger and other contagious diseases will take over from malaria and polio to make these people ill and die. It's very noble for him to try and eradicate these awful diseases, but it won't solve the problems of the people in these poor areas.
Getting political stability happening and viable local economies running will do much more for these people in the future. Part of that is not dumping excess food from the rich countries there so that local farmers can't sell their crops any more. Part of that is paying a fair price for products and produce that are exported from those countries if they adhere to environmental and humanitarian production processes we demand from our local producers. By putting large import taxes on products created in countries where wages are low, all you do is create an incentive to lower costs and treat people and the environment badly as a result. By putting taxes on products created under unsafe, unfair and polluting circumstances, you can "force" these countries to actually fix themselves, instead of relying on philanthropists to provide polio vaccin or a flushable toilet.
Bill Gates owns a lot of shares in companies that actively "abuse" the people he's trying to help here. Why not put those shares to use and force these companies to do good? I'm sure his share in Monsanto might be convincing enough to stop them suing farmers that accidentally are growing round-up produce because they bought seeds at a local market that happened to have their genetically modified genes in them. 3rd world country seed markets are different than western markets. In practice, you have to use Monsanto's seeds in large areas because you can't really be sure your land will be free of their genes, even though the seeds and the round-up are way too expensive for most farmers. If you don't use it, you risk being taken to court and go bankrupt instantly. Monsanto is just an example, Bill Gates stock portfolio holds many more companies that profit from the inequality and he's making more money on this portfolio than he's giving back to the poor. That's his right to do so, but telling others they look bad and what he's doing himself is good, is rather hypocritical of him.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1975 - 2006 - 31 years didn't give a shit about the foundation (started in 2000) - the foundation was always a graceful exit when the sins of Microsoft caught up with it, and the default way someone with money tries to buy their place in history.
Bush library. Gates foundation.
Bullshit. So Google should push for something similar in 31 years?
Microsoft saw the Internet as a threat - and spent ten years + trying to stymie the development of the internet to the great cost of humanity (anyone who disagrees that the Internet is a development in humanity should check Beiber's latest tweets)
Google see it as important, bringing the Arab spring, bringing education, and pushed for it.
EOF
Actually computers were pretty damn cool way before Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_1000
I would have much rather see that advance more instead of the Windows 8 crapware we have today.
The unification was not due to Microsoft. It was due to advances in the industry. Yes, Microsoft helped. Remember that Windows 1.0 didn't actually do anything useful. Windows 2.0 didn't do anything useful. Windows 3.0 crashed a lot, and wasn't as good as a competing windowing operating system at the time, Digital Research's GEM graphical environment, which ran Ventura Publisher graphical page layout software.
Even though the Microsoft was worse, Microsoft won because of adversarial behavior. No one in the industry was prepared for Microsoft's aggression. It was a sad day for humanity. (My opinion, but shared by thousands of others.)
Gate and Romney say ..., WHAT old boot, everyone wears ruby slippers!
It's possible to participate in a system while still disliking and protesting it, and advising people it needs to be eliminated or changed.
No, actually it is hypocritical. Ayn Rand was a hyper individualist and even with significantly more power and income than the average person she was unable to support herself in her retirement on that income. She spent her life claiming that not only was that easy, but it was a moral responsibility of every individual regardless of income and natural ability to do it for his or her own self. Her eventual enrolment in medicare and social security show that not only was she a hypocrit (because she was unable to do what she claimed was easy), but that she was also dead wrong in her libertarian beliefs.
If you take moron to mean "a foolish person" (one of the dictionary definitions) then she could also be fairly declared a moron by anyone who thinks her libertarianism was foolish. You don't need to agree with that view, though.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Casteism
First of all sorry about my english, I am from Spain. One of the richest men in the world has born and live's in Spain, his name is Amancio Ortega, and he owns Inditex Group. This year he just gave to charity around 20 million euros, it might be near 25 million dollars. On TV they were talking about his goodness, but in Spain you can't never trust some channels, the journalist writes something to not get in trouble, an easy writing to no to get into trouble. After the initial news, mostly in Facebook, you start to read about different opinions. "May be he was interest about cleaning his public image". In recent years Inditex some people talk about some big companies, like Inditex, and the employees conditions in the Third World. I don't know about Bill Gate's real intentions, may be we have to think in an overall to try to wonder about his real intentions. http://www.reducirgastos.com/
http://www.reducirgastos.com
You say that Apple has 80 billion in the bank and, in the case of Apple, is partially true (you don't think they really have 80 billion, instant liquidity, in the bank, do you?)
Actually, a year or two ago, they did have that much in liquid assets. There was even talk about a stock buy back. I would hope they have done something to capitalize on it since then, but its tricky to spend that much money in an intelligent fashion.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Bill Gates Foundation failed to acknowledge or resolve inhuman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_issues
Casteism
Billy is just trying to bring more people to M$ Windows, so he can sell more surface RT tablets and gain more developer support from third world countries and increase stock value for Microsoft.
For example:
"Gosh, I remember suffering with malaria and this kind-gentle man came into the tent and solved all that, I think I will go work for him"
I wanted to validate the claims that Gates is guilty. Gates related money is actually limiting the health of people in nations the West considers poor. If Bill Gates really wanted to save the lives of people in poverty he would agree that patents don't matter for medicine in many situations. It's a myth that progress in medicine depends on putting patents before people. We must allow generic and patent free drugs to reach more people, and it would not cut into the massive profits of the drug company stocks held by the Gates Foundation.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/06/mother-jones-daily-briefing-0?page=3
>> see the reporting by John Litchfield of the London Independent 2003
Litchfield quotes Doctors without borders and notes the lack of affordable generics
>> Read reporter Greg Palast
"let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called "Foundation." Gate's demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called "TRIPS" - the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm
"The Bush Administration has also prevented a positive resolution to one crucial issue left unresolved at Doha. Currently, TRIPS allows countries to produce generic drugs through compulsory licensing, but requires that such drugs be used predominantly for the country's domestic market. That means that countries cannot export generic products thus produced - even to countries where there are no patents"
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/vi/node/285
As an English intellectual property and antitrust lawyer I read the piece by David Resnik and Kenneth De Ville (2002) with both interest and surprise. It is startling to suggest that a country with the democratic credentials of the United States should, as a matter of public policy and indeed on apparently "moral" grounds, prefer private monopoly rights to the lives and welfare of its citizens.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajb/summary/v002/2.3smith.html
By pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers as AIDS, Gates grantees have increased the demand for specially trained, higher-paid clinicians, diverting staff from basic care. The resulting staff shortages have abandoned many children of AIDS survivors to more common killers: birth sepsis, diarrhea and asphyxia.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates16dec16,0,3743924.story
Thanks for posting the link to the LA times. Good data on the dirty secret of Gates and other "rich" folks trying to use money to solve poverty.
"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.
This is "the dirty secret" of many large philanthropies, said Paul Hawken, an expert on socially beneficial investing who directs the Natural Capital Institute, an investment research group. "Foundations donate to groups trying to heal the future," Hawken said in an interview, "but with their investments, they steal from the future."