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.""

Comments

Idea

[twistedcubic]

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.

Re:Idea

[Joining Yet Again]

Or he's trying to drag other very wealthy people out of their comfort zone.

He doesn't have to do any of this, you know.

Re:Idea

[lgw]

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.

Re:Idea

[jellomizer]

The Gates foundation follows a very methodological approach to charity.
They calculate how much good you will get per dollar. The gates foundation sees the Cost of curing malaria vs. the Good of curing malaria is a good deal. While Internet balloons cost vs good is much less.

It isn't as much that Internet balloons are a bad idea, however the good produced from it isn't worth the cost.

   

Re:Idea

[i_ate_god]

> Is this like "free" healthcare where people are forced to shell out money whether they want to or not and if you don't have the money to pay, everyone else chips in more money to cover you?

Yes. Why not?

Re:Idea

[X0563511]

I don't think it "isn't worth the cost" but I do think it "isn't quite as beneficial"

Is there something bad about raising the standard of living, or providing access to information? 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.

Re: Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

He should hoard money like Ellison, Brin, Page, and Jobs! That will help the poor!

You people are f*cking mentally ill.

Re:Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the ugly truth is that you can't fix disease or poverty in any of those places where they are endemic by handing out medicines and training people. Until you can jail all of the corrupt dictators, war lords, and their cronies the stuff you distribute ends up in their warehouses and is sold by them for profit. The skills people learn are worth exactly squat when they can't ply their trade because there is no real economy. It is hard - too hard for me, I am not smart enough to solve it - to fix the root problems. But until the bad actors and bullies are driven out you can throw lots of money at these problems and they just persist.

Re:Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada tried that process. Look how well it worked for them.

Oh, wait... it actually worked for them. Sorry, nevermind.

Re:Idea

[DragonWriter]

> 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.

Access to communication networks helps address lots of 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.

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.

Re:Idea

[DigiShaman]

What you and everyone else is missing (possible Billy G too) is that all of these problems he's trying to address is caused by dictatorships, despots and other forms of corruption and tyranny. Education and good health will pave way for a future generation to actually change the culture to one that's confident in the ability to demand freedom and democracy. Regardless, the culture must be there for it to happen. Otherwise, we (the West) is just continually pumping water out of a leaky boat. A complete waste of time and money with lives depending on keeping it afloat.

Re:Idea

[Joining Yet Again]

None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.

Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"? Last I checked, it didn't intend to create an egalitarian utopia, where the poor weren't being exploited by the rich, but to solve a few fundamental problems.

If you think some of the Foundation's investments are running counter to its specific goals, rather than more hand-wavy goals about progressive work in Third World nations, go ahead and put your case to the guys who do the cost-benefit analysis.

Every charitable mission can be identified as in some way contributing toward some sort of nastiness, even right down to the fact that no bank makes 100% ethical investments for every person's definition of ethical.

Re:Idea

[bberens]

I don't think you understand how the stock market works. If I buy, for example, 1 share of DOW chemical stock DOW does not get that money. Whoever owned the stock prior to me gets that money. The only way DOW gets the money is if DOW issues new shares, diluting the rest. If you want to make money you buy stocks in the companies you expect to make money from, not necessarily the ones that "do the right thing." You then take your profits and use them for whatever purposes you want, in this case hopefully to do some good. I'm fairly anti-oil economy, anti-wars-for-oil, etc. but my portfolio still has some oil stocks in it because it's just good solid investment strategy. For the foreseeable future I expect that to be a good, sound investment. And even when/if we move more towards something like solar or wind I fully expect those oil companies to get their grimy fingers in the honeypot.

Re:Idea

[MightyYar]

If you approach all problems that way, nothing at the bottom of the pile ever gets fixed. I'm glad that there are eccentric people out there that want to help even the smaller numbers of people. It's like a big bug database with a whole bunch of level 5 bugs that never get addressed because everyone chases the higher priority stuff. Pretty soon you end up with thousands of unresolved "minor" bugs that make your software seem crappy even though most of the big bugs are fixed. Life is like that, too. You might wonder why your house looks like shit even though it is structurally sound, has a good roof, and all of the appliances work. Turns out it's because you haven't done any decorating in 20 years. Sure, it's trivial, but when you add up all the minor stuff, the minor stuff starts to look more important in aggregate.

I have no idea if internet access would be as helpful as clean drinking water. I mean, in the short term it is a no-brainier, but will the improvement stick around when the Gate Foundation leaves or will the people start dying again? I honestly don't know the answer, but I'm glad someone is trying to build up their lacking internet infrastructure with their own money that could have just gone to another party jet. It might not help as much as clean drinking water, but it certainly won't do any harm.

Re:Idea

[Charliemopps]

I've been to africa. Internets not going to do them a damn bit of good. Most don't even have toilets. I watched a man die in front of my eyes because he fell a short distance out of a tree and there were no doctors within several hundred kilometers. These people didn't even have lightbulbs in most cases... 40% of the continet doesn't even have basic litteracy in their own native language and to get any use out of the internet they're going to have to speak English, French, spanish, etc... There are over 3000 languages in africa, most of which don't even have character sets available for any computer much less websites written in them. The idea that "The internet" is going to help Africa in any way what-so-ever only makes sense if you've never been there.

They need:
Clean water
Toilets/Sanitation
birth control
Basic Edgucation (litteracy)
The West and China to stop funding warlords in exchange for mineral rights.

Re:Idea

[KiloByte]

This is perhaps grossly politically incorrect, but: feeding and/or healing people in poorest parts of the world does nothing good in the long run. It only means they will reproduce more, having even more starving sick children. Promoting local means of drug manufacture could at least have a meaningful effect on their quality of life, but Gates Foundation's gifts come with strings attached: countries that want to get free drugs need to enact "intellectual property" laws that in the long run deprive them of availability of such drugs.

Google's internet baloons, on the other hand, lets those people obtain education. This lets kids escape the deadly circle of starvation and cranking out more kids for local warlords' private armies.

Re:Idea

[Lennie]

I think Internet could help with education. You can bring lots and lots of things to Africa, for example. But eventually they'll have to do it themselves. They will need education to rise above what they are doing now.

Re:Idea

[smooth wombat]

Rand was a moron and a hypocrite. She spoke of free markets and capitalism while accepting government handouts.

Further, using an example such as mine is perfectly acceptable in cases such as this one. We can use their experience to show why taking from one person to give another, by force no less, is a bad thing.

Here's an idea, if people are so hepped up on making sure someone else has healthcare, why don't they give the money directly to that person and write it off on their taxes as a charitable contribution?

That way the government isn't involved (no bureaucracy), the money goes directly the person in need and those contributing get a monetary pat on the back.

Oh right, won't work because you're not forcing everyone to hand over money at gun point.

Re:Idea

[Ioldanach]

None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.

Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"? ...

Also bear in mind that substantial investments in major corporations can give the investor some sway in the corporation's decisions. If a major stakeholder threatens to pull out, it can injure the corporation, so when a major stakeholder tries to effect change, the corporation is more likely to listen.

Re:Idea

[Joining Yet Again]

That's nothing: I had a friend in Texas who was repeatedly misdiagnosed over a decade before it was identified that she needed a gallbladder removed. And it was lucky she had the operation in the month she did, because a short while later her husband split up from her and she had to make do without any insurance for years until her employer finally offered her coverage.

As for my gallstones, the NHS diagnosed me after a few weeks' wait for ultrasound, put me on a 3 month waiting list for operation which ended up being closer to 1 month since I was slotted in at very short notice following a cancellation, and I was better than I'd felt in years after a few days.

Re:Idea

[oGMo]

You're overlooking the bigger picture in an attempt to rationalize your portfolio. Your "good investment" makes money when people want the stock, which generally means when the company does well (or just looks good). The company and its board own the majority of those shares. A windfall for you is a massive increase in their net. Anytime you make money from them, they are making tons of money doing probably-bad things and passing those profits on to willing investors. You.

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. But they don't, because people, yourself included, are completely supporting them doing bad things, because they give you money. Rationalize all you want, but you are a supporter.

Re:Idea

[oGMo]

What you and everyone else is missing (possible Billy G too) is that all of these problems he's trying to address is caused by dictatorships, despots and other forms of corruption and tyranny.

I don't see the GP missing this at all, merely pointing out the less-than-philanthropic side of The Gates Foundation. The GP is saying more that the foundation is a front for Gates' personal profit than actually doing something good.

Your point is more applicable to Gates' statement itself: Google's providing wifi, thus education, and hopefully thus good health, is more useful than second- and third-world countries becoming dependent on first-world drugs. Ideally, information on things like purifying water, health, etc can be provided to establish self-sufficiency. Of course, this may not work out ideally, but it's something more toward the root of the problem than establishing control by drugs.

Re:Idea

[sinij]

The part where you frame argument in a way it becomes impossible to have a civil conversation about the issue.

Your "armed men confiscating property by force" (aka taxation) is the glue that makes civil society possible. If you don't like governments (or society) that much, you are welcome to move to somewhere else, like Somalia, where they don't have these things.

Re:Idea

[sinij]

>>>However, there is a clear cut difference between taxes which support necessary infrastructure and a "tax" which is specifically designed to prop up one segment of the population at the expense of others.
All taxes can be framed as "prop up one segment of the population at the expense of others". This misrepresentation is what make these libertarian arguments unsound. Even taxation to support infrastructure, if you don't happen to use it, can be framed that way.

Idea behind civil society is that individual members sacrifice something so collectively we all can be better off. In the absence of this, sure someone ends up a warlord and better off for that, but clear majority end up oppressed and impoverished.

Re:Idea

[Solandri]

They need:
Clean water
Toilets/Sanitation
birth control
Basic Edgucation (litteracy)

It's precisely because of people thinking like you do that Africa is in the state it's in. If you look at population growth vs. economic development, there's a strong negative correlation - the more developed your country becomes, the fewer kids the citizens tend to have. The vast majority of the world's population growth is in developing countries, while industrialized countries are near zero population growth.

So what's going on in Africa is "humanitarian" efforts are putting the cart before the horse. They're trying to give Africans clean water, more food, sanitation, and medicine. All of these things are well-intentioned, but they treat the symptoms, not the problem. And in fact they reduce the death rate which increases the population growth rate, thus exacerbating the problem. So next year instead of 10 million people who need foreign food/medical assistance, you have 12 million; whereas without the humanitarian aid you might only have 11 million. The additional 1 million people makes it even harder to implement the changes which really need to happen to modernize Africa.

What they need, in order are:
Basic education
Political stability (stop the wars, stop supporting the warlords)
Assistance in setting up a functional economy (incentives for locals to start their own business)
Assistance in constructing basic infrastructure like roads, plumbing, electrical grids
Foreign investment in industries (yes, this means sweat shops when you're first starting out - they are preferable to starving)

Once you have these things, clean water, sanitation, medical care, birth control, and labor protection will happen on their own because the Africans will want these things, and will have enough income to pay for them. Fundamentally, food, water, and medicine are counterproductive if you lack the basic economic infrastructure to form a self-sufficient society.

We tend to think of the Internet as Facebook and social forums like slashdot. But it's also the gateway to education. Anyone anywhere in the world can watch lectures and take the coursework for classes at Stanford or MIT because of the Internet. In that respect, it'll be a whole lot more useful than controlling malaria. What good is saving someone from malaria if they have no marketable skills, there are no jobs, and they just wind up dependent on foreign food and medical aid all their lives while they spend their time making babies?

Re:Idea

[schnell]

Google's providing wifi, thus education, and hopefully thus good health, is more useful than second- and third-world countries becoming dependent on first-world drugs

No. When you're dying of malaria, you need the fucking drugs, not access to WebMD. I know this is Bill Gates and everybody loves to hate him, but WTF? Really?

Lack of Vision

[lazarus]

"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.

That's Just Silly

[cervesaebraciator]

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?

Re:That's Just Silly

[phantomfive]

Gates is a typical alpha-geek. Hyper-competitive, he's always looking for ways to show he is better than other people, always has. It's something that motivates him.

Now he's interested in doing philanthropy, he's finding ways his philanthropy is better than what everyone else is doing. If you read interviews with him back in the 80s (like this one), you'll see he does the same thing.

Re:He's right, of course.

[RearNakedChoke]

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?

Re:Space exploration a waste of money

[lazarus]

"The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in."
--Robert A. Heinlein.

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't agree. Despite what Hollywood tells you, when that asteroid is on its way Bruce Willis will not be able to save you. We need options, and the sooner the better. "A footnote of history" will be a meaningless phrase (though apropos) if there is nobody to write or read it.

Although somehow it would be fitting if the only thing to survive were the space robots...

Re:He's right, of course.

[the gnat]

I can think of a dozen better ways to spend that money, but other rich fucks have those already. If he wants to do good, how about paying taxes, reparations for the companies that he destroyed, jail time for the politicians that he bought, etc.

Fine, what are the dozen other better ways to spend the money than trying to cure diseases that afflict millions? Paying taxes instead is simply going to perpetuate our military-industrial complex and bloated entitlement programs. I honestly don't care if Bill Gates is doing this work out of the goodness of his heart or just because he's an egotist; I care about whether it actually does some good. It won't excuse the awful mess that is Microsoft Windows, but if he really does help end malaria, he'll have improved vastly more lives than he ever destroyed (and frankly I'm skeptical that anyone's life was "destroyed" by his business practices; some people simply didn't get rich. boo-hoo.).

Now mod me to oblivion. For some reason Slashdot just can't not drink this cool-aid.

Trite statements like this just make you look like a self-absorbed douche. At least two-thirds of the comments on this story so far are anti-Gates, so you're not exactly speaking truth to power here.

Irrational stupidity

[AdmV0rl0n]

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.

Re:Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The lack of internet is not a problem. However lack of opportunity for education is. Providing Internet access is the 21st century version of building a library.

It's not as high up on the priority list of people who are starving or dyeing from disease, but there are issues with simply handing out food and cures. As the saying goes "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime".

Providing the means for people to educate themselves and solve their own problems is a better long term solution, and there's no reason to not pursue it in parallel to the more imminent handouts.

Re:Actually, he is wrong.

[afidel]

Computers are down to $25, according to 3 of the 4 charts on this page that represents less than 1 months average income in every country in the world. The current barrier to information is the cost of access and the availability of electricity, not the capital cost of a computer.

Re:not really a "fight" - thank God...

[briancox2]

"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.

When my kid gets diarrhea the first thing I did was went online to lookup what the causes could be, what the home remedies (if any) were, at what point I should be concerned enough to schedule a doctor visit (or an ER visit for that matter). If a doctor visit is necessary I can then look up what doctors are nearby and accepting patients, or schedule an appointment with our existing doctor, or check wait and travel times to an emergency center. So... yes, there is in fact a website (several actually) that helps me cope with my child being sick, it can't magically cure them, but it can help manage resources (both parental and medical network resources) much more efficiently.

That's because you live in a world that has doctors and ERs. The children in the area that Bill was talking about do not live in such a world.

Context, Mozee. Context.

"The Germ of Laziness"

[westlake]

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.