Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates' Donation of Thousands of Chickens Rejected by Bolivia (theverge.com)

HughPickens.com shares an article from The Verge: Bill Gates' philanthropic efforts are usually greeted with near-universal praise, but a recent attempt by the US billionaire to donate 100,000 chickens ruffled some feathers. The leftist government of Bolivia...has refused the donation, describing Gates' gift as "offensive." "He does not know Bolivia's reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce," said Cesar Cocarico [Bolivia's minister of land and rural development]... "Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia, and once he knows more, apologize to us."
Gates' "Coop Dreams" initiative partnered with Heifer International, a group which fights poverty by delivering livestock and agricultural training, to deliver 100,000 chickens around the world, mostly to sub-Saharan Africa, as a way to improve the lives of people making $2 a day. In a blog post Gates noted that chickens are cheap and easy to take care, while selling flocks of chickens can be a profitable business, and raising chickens offers other benefits to children and families. "Our foundation is betting on chickens..." Gates writes, adding "if I were in their shoes, that's what I would do -- I would raise chickens."

317 comments

  1. Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Happened in Africa with food aid. What do you think the effect on an agrarian economy would be if you came in and flooded the market with free food?

    1. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also about profitability of selling the chicken. The Gates Foundation has to eliminate the overproduction of the Dutch frozen chicken industry first to prevent the flooding of the markets. Fortunately the people can still sell their lands to the large agricultural companies who rent it or the sell the produce to the nations of the Saudi Arabia, and leave for the "better life" in Europe. That is, if they survive the insurance fraud that is the sunken refugee ships of the Mediterranean Sea.

    2. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates -- Ignorant or evil, or both

    3. Re:Here we come to save the day by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      What do you think the effect on an agrarian economy would be if you came in and flooded the market with free food?

      This would not "flood the market". 100,000 chickens is less than 0.1% of Bolivia's annual chicken production, and only a small portion of the 100K chickens would go to Bolivia. Most are going to Africa. Anyway, this is not about "more chickens", it is about chicken redistribution. It is not like crates of chickens are going to flown from America. The chickens will be purchased locally and given to a handful of the poorest families. The reason that BG is doing this is because there is actual data that shows it this program has helped similar families in the past.

    4. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      640,000 chickens should be enough for anyone.

    5. Re:Here we come to save the day by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 1

      640,000 chickens should be enough for anyone.

      Wouldn't it be 640KB(irds) should be enough for anyone?

      Although there are some doubts if he really ever said that http://www.computerworld.com/a...
        Ah modern memes.

    6. Re:Here we come to save the day by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be 640KB(irds) should be enough for anyone?
      Although there are some doubts if he really ever said that

      Two credible witnesses have said that he did, although he didn't mean it as a blanket statement forever and ever amen, just for DOS. His claim to the contrary is not credible, since he says stupid shit all the time and he's infamous for his arrogance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he didn't found google, so I'm going for the second one. Maybe the first one too since he missed the internet in spite of writing about it & supposedly seeing it clearly.

    8. Re:Here we come to save the day by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      100,000 chickens will not flood the market with free food. However if somebody did in fact flood the market with free food the effect would be elimination of starvation. No more hungry people, that would be the first consequence. The second consequence would be urbanization, business formation outside of food productiin

    9. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymice · · Score: 4, Informative

      The primary consequence of flooding a market with a product is temporary, the secondary consequence is the destruction of the market for the local producers, thereby putting them out of business.
      This is why China's public subsidising of their exports is pissing off other countries. This is one of the reasons why Uber is causing such controversy.

      The difference here is that the foundation isn't importing the product, but buying them locally & redistributing, thereby both supporting the local market & growing it by helping other's setup shop.

    10. Re:Here we come to save the day by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I was replying to a hypothetical situation of free food being offered without any time limits. Maybe you should try to see the context of things before getting into them.

    11. Re:Here we come to save the day by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Which two credible witnesses would that be?

      Honestly I don't care if people drag Bill Gate's name through the mud, but I hate when people spread big lies about shit even more.

    12. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "free food being offered without any time limits" This would result in reducing starvation. There is no downside to this. If the local agricultural firms are hurt by this they should have did a better job in the first place. No matter what you think of Bill Gates the fact is his efforts led to him being one of the richest men in the world. Describing him as is stupid or ill informed doesn't really meet reality. His foundation has donated millions of dollars to various causes all over the world. If more members of the billionaire club did the same maybe the world could be improved. And yes their are no doubt tax benefits when donating large sums of money the fact still remains that his foundation is giving away money. Vilify Gates all you want but his efforts contributed quite a lot to the world unlike some who are nothing but a drain on society constantly asking for hand outs. The minute we start penalizing success is the minute all forward progress comes to a stand still.

    13. Re:Here we come to save the day by Megol · · Score: 2

      It is evident he did't believe it (given well documented development from MS supported by Gates) so any statement otherwise could only be a joke or an outright lie.

      Here's some facts: MSDOS wasn't limited to 640kiB memory, some MSDOS systems shipped with much more memory and the OS had no problem supporting that. What was limited to 640kiB (actually not - but practically) was the early IBM PC systems and that was entirely due to design choices. So it was fully compatible IBM PC clones that had a limitation, not MSDOS. The memory limitation of MSDOS without extenders on 80386 and later is 1Mi+64ki-16 bytes (due to the overlapped segment:offset design of the original 8086).

      But the target for most MSDOS compatible software was 640kB, due again to the design choices of IBM. IF Bill Gates ever said that it would logically be as a target specification for MS software... But the claims he did aren't credible and illogical.

    14. Re:Here we come to save the day by MouseR · · Score: 1

      No one will beat Canada's royal fnckup when it sent powdered milk for the Ethiopian drought in the 80s.

    15. Re: Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be 640KB(irds) should be enough for anyone?

      No, no it wouldn't.

      What the hell is wrong with you?

    16. Re:Here we come to save the day by piojo · · Score: 1

      Clever troll. To say nothing of the rest of your post, it's not your right to judge whether the people who were formerly part of the food economy deserve to be poor (unable to afford housing, medical care, etc.).

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    17. Re:Here we come to save the day by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      Yes...well... hypothetical impossibilities tend to do that. Doesn't help one bit in reality, though.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    18. Re:Here we come to save the day by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But are they 8 bird Birds?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re: Here we come to save the day by interstellarsurfer · · Score: 1

      Remember the old proverb: Give a man a fish, her eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Gates' intentions may be noble, but market disruptions are a real threat that send shockwaves through an economy, with long lasting effects. With enough 'free' chickens in the market, it won't be worth the producers effort to keep his flocks in production. He'll kill most of them as a stop-loss. Short term: everyone enjoys a bonanza of free chicken dinners. Long term: everyone starves in 6 months, as the chicken producer is out of business, or doesn't have enough deliverable goods to meet the demand. This cycle will repeat for years until the market restabilizes itself. - Welcome to capitalism, communist Bolivia!

    20. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they are just afraid that all the new chicken will forcibly upgrade their existing chickens to Chicken 10.

    21. Re:Here we come to save the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bolivia has so many chickens why are there still people starving? Whatever gave Bill the impression that this is the right solution is where the problem lies.

  2. Re:You are not chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am new here so this is neither funny or making sense to me, just an irrelevant comment.

  3. Trending now... by johnsnails · · Score: 4, Funny

    #GATEGATE

    1. Re:Trending now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok

    2. Re:Trending now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo dawg.

    3. Re:Trending now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #GatesGate - FTFY

      He's not Bill Gate.

    4. Re:Trending now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #CLOSETHECHICKENGATE

  4. Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bolivia already produces 115 million chickens a year. The country is not first world by any measure, but people are not starving to death on the streets either.

    1. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by dwywit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Misguided and ill-informed on the part of BG or his advisors, sure - but well-intentioned, and the response was a bit ungracious. Perhaps something along the lines of "Thanks, but we don't really need them. Please send the chickens to country x, and we'd rather have some solar panels or well pumps, or how about some internet infrastructure for our schools?"

      That's probably a different scale of funding, but BG has $$$ to spare.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. I've spent a lot of time in the poorest Latin American countries (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia), and if there's one thing the region has in abundance, it's fucking chickens. The things are everywhere. Offering chickens demonstrates an utter lack of any kind understanding of the region. It would not be so bad, except that the countries are also full of holier than thou aid workers who cruise around in land rovers and try to tell farmers how to farm... except the aid workers aren't farmers and don't know how to farm, especially given local climates.

      If you ask Bolivians, they'll tell you the first thing they need is transpotation infrastructure so that they can trade these scads of chickens they have. Spend some time there and you'll see they're right.

    3. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      approximately 50% of people in bolivia live in poverty. 115 million chickens is only about 10 chickens per person, their are over 20 billion chickens in the world and huge amount of room for a growing market/economy. The arogance of letting people die in poverty is disgusting, I bet no one in the government in bolivia is one of those 50% that have to live with nothing.

    4. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Well, i'm sure that the donation of 100,000 chickens will ease that issue...

    5. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Outside the cities, much of the country is dirt poor. If the government will not allow aid distribution, Gates should do a covert air-drop to impoverished villages.
      However, to reduce the environmental risks of yet another introduced species escaping and going feral, a native American fowl could be dropped instead. I suggest turkeys.

    6. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Firethorn · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's probably a different scale of funding, but BG has $$$ to spare.

      True, but Bill Gates has been trying to apply his business principles to his philanthropy. Okay, maybe not the best way to put it, but to put it roughly, he's been trying to utilize his time to determine where putting his money will be the most effective. Basically, he's a venture capitalist donator. Give him a good enough pitch and business plan and get money.

      Given the number of positive things I've heard about his donations, I figure that this is one of his rare screwups. Or, more accurately, it's a screwup by one of the charities that Bill Gates decided to give money and a positive statement to.

      That being said - considering Venezuela, without doing any research I'd have to ask whether they're simply being prideful.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's Bolivia not Venezuela, you ignorant american!

      Also, those were probably GMO chickens he was trying to donate. Third world people usually don't take kindly to them.

    8. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Sneftel · · Score: 0

      The country is not first world by any measure, but people are not starving to death on the streets either.

      No, you're right. The parts of Bolivia where people are starving to death generally don't have streets.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    9. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather accept 100 000 chickens than windows 10, or any microsoft product for that matter.

      But knowing that he has built his fortune on providing shitty software, it makes sense that the chickens are extensively tested to see if they are safe to consume.

    10. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beggars can't be choosers.

    11. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Chickens can go feral, but only under ideal conditions. Natural selection takes care of them otherwise: They are too domesticated. There's a lot of them on Kauai, but only because the island has almost no predators. Just think of the energy cost of laying an egg on most days - domestic birds have been bred to do that, no wild bird does. Besides, chickens have already been farmed for a very long time in all parts of the world - I'm sure a few have already escaped.

    12. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      He would have been better donating them to Venezuela, with the on-going problems and food riots it might have helped a bit. There's also the possibility that it would have simply intensified the problem.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you all think you're better than everybody else and should tell the rest how to live.

      Always poking your noses into other peoples business. If they want help, they can ask for it.

    14. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the country is not first world by the definition of what it means to be first world.

    15. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the government says they don't need the chickens, doesn't mean there aren't any individuals in the country who couldn't benefit from them.

    16. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Again: Bolivia is far from a promised land, but things there are MUCH better than most other places in the world. Their death by malnutrition rates are well below most of Africa, for example: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/.

      My point is, in a country which already produces 300,000 chickens per day, offering 100,000 to fight hunger is a bit insulting.

    17. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The country is not first world by any measure, but people are not starving to death on the streets either.

      No, you're right. The parts of Bolivia where people are starving to death generally don't have streets.

      Going by this, they're not even a high priority, but, I forgot, as always, there's a political aspect...pesky 'socialists' and, as the Wikipedia page says '...Bolivia is very wealthy in minerals' (What's that Skip?, their bible says something about not coveting their neighbours' stuff?)

      H5N1 H7N9 H7N7 H9N2 H6N1 H10N8 H5N6 HxNy - sometimes it's wise to look in the mouths of gift-horses...

    18. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says the government doesn't want them, but as we all know, what the people say and what the government say hardly ever align.

      The governments comments are most certainly regarding commercial chicken farms and not regarding chickens kept by individuals for their own food production.

      Just because the government says they don't need the chickens, doesn't mean there aren't any individuals in the country who couldn't benefit from them.

    19. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can guarantee that he's better than you.

    20. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, because apparently people were confused.

      I know this took place in Bolivia, but I'm using Venezuela as an example of where officials are willing to cut their own country's throat to save some face.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you all think you're better than everybody else and should tell the rest how to live.

      Third world shitholes tend to be a little stuck up themselves.

      If they want help, they can ask for it.

      They can ask but now the answer is likely to be "Fuck off and help yourself. Oh wait you can't and that's why you're asking. So fuck off."

    22. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, that is a common issue with a Capital-run world, everyone THINKS that poverty is a "bad thing" and if you have zero money, then you have a shit life.
      All these rich people and aid workers trying to floor markets with goods to make others lives "better" is in fact doing the exact opposite and shitting all over local trade for the benefit of international trade! CAPITALISM!

      Meanwhile in 3.5 billion+ people around the world that have a quality of life higher than the average-to-low American and European.
      Having 7 iPads does not equal higher quality of life.

      You can have absolutely no money and have a perfectly fine life.
      Is money good? Is having resources to trade good? Is having money to be able to travel the world good? Extremely.
      Is it needed? Fuck no.

      The whole "developed and underdeveloped" terms need to die harder than "first and third world" did.
      They are patronising as fuck and assume you need money in order to live a happy, fulfilled life.
      Go tell Jacob in the mountains he needs a TV to catch up on the newest episode of Love Island and watch that bullet fly through your face.

      The best thing to help improve the world globally is to improve life LOCALLY.
      Fuck globalism.

    23. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, I know every Hollywood movie I see that portrays one of those countries always shows a bunch of chickens running around in the poor areas. I haven't been there so i don't know myself.

      But I do know that transportation infrastructure is generally the realm of government and not foreigners taking pity on the people subject to those governments. So why don't the government accept the chickens, run a state chicken farm using prison labor and resell the chickens to foreign countries for profit that goes to developing transportation infrastructure? 100,000 chickens is about the size of a single medium to smaller of the large chicken farm in the U.S..

    24. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you Les Nessman :-)

    25. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well yes it would. 100,000 chickens worst case will feed some people. Though the intent seems to be to allow them to produce more chickens to sell and of course eggs. Chickens are very easy animals to breed and care for.

    26. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Sneftel · · Score: 0

      So what, aid organizations should only help the most needy country? "Screw you, Kenya, you'll get yours AFTER Somalia has been thoroughly chickened"?

      I don't think that offering livestock aid to the rural poor is necessarily insulting. Certainly I don't think the intended recipients would reject it as an insult. As for the government, well, they're overseeing consistently strong trade surpluses thanks to an abundance of natural resources; and as you pointed out, they already have the production capabilities. If they don't want foreign aid organizations to be feeding their people, they can damn well do it themselves.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    27. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The chickens don't just have GMOs but come with a "free" copy of Windows 10, which they also rejected.

    28. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is more an aid organisation should only provide appropriate aid. This aid will not make much difference to the situation in Bolivia. If providing chickens is the only aid this organisation can provide, then, yes, they should focus elsewhere, where the chickens might make a lasting impact.

    29. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Genetically modified chickens? Seriously? Speaking of ignorant.

    30. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It would behoove them to grow/make and export something that isn't ubiquitous and nonseasonal.

    31. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Because there's really no chicken fertility crisis, so if they'd wanted 100,000 more chickens they'd have bred them already.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    32. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know this took place in Bolivia, but I'm using Venezuela as an example of where officials are willing to cut their own country's throat to save some face.

      Bolivia is another country where appearances matter more than reality to the government. Bolivia as a whole is not as poor as many countries in Africa, but there are still some very poor people who would benefit from this gift. Instead of refusing it out of pride, maybe Morales should let the individual families decide for themselves.

      Disclaimer: I am a non-poor American, and I have chickens (six leghorn laying hens). Chickens are very easy to care for, and mine live mostly on table scraps, garden waste, and bugs.

    33. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      No. The point is: if you're offering aid it should at least be appropriate. Bolivia has many many problems, but raising chickens is not one of them.

    34. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of them on Kauai, but only because the island has almost no predators.

      The Polynesians brought chickens to Hawaii, and all of the islands used to have feral chickens. But introduced mongooses wiped them out on all the other major islands. Kauai has no mongooses, so they survive there. Mongooses cannot kill an adult chicken, but they eat the eggs and young.

      Just think of the energy cost of laying an egg on most days.

      Feral chickens quickly revert to laying far fewer eggs. The feral chickens on Kauai only lay a few clutches per year, when they are ready to brood.

    35. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So what, aid organizations should only help the most needy country?

      The poorest countries tend to be corrupt and mismanaged, so most aid is stolen or ineffective. Aid is more effective when it goes to poor people in not-so-poor countries.

    36. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing... Do you think anyone n that country that would have been a recipient of a chicken would have refused them? If so, the Government did not act in the best interests of those people. If they were the majority, you could seriously claim that the Government was not acting in the best interests of its people (it total).

    37. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people are not starving to death on the streets either

      Yeah... only a teensy bit over 1% of the total deaths in 2014 were from malnutrition, and I'm sure those people were indoors when they kicked off.

    38. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maduro would have just claimed it was another gringo plot to unstablize his workers paradise. Then he'll claim anyone accepting one of these Yankee chickens would be investigated for terrorist leanings.

      Venezuela is best left to the Venezuelans. I think of it as a drug addict, it must hit rock bottom before it will accept any sort change.

    39. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      You are dumb. The people targeted for this program were poor. Very poor. This isn't about iPads. Get a grip.

    40. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are ignorant as **. If they produce 150 million chickens a year as claimed, even the poorest of them should be able to spare a few cents, buy a few chicks and raise them at home if thats what they want.

      The reason they don't do it already is because like in most countries, the population is mostly urban and raising chickens in cities is an unsanitary hell and a huge health hazard. Don't just believe my words, get a dozen of chicks and try raising them in your house and give us your thoughts after a year.

    41. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the number of positive things I've heard about his donations, I figure that this is one of his rare screwups. Or, more accurately, it's a screwup by one of the charities that Bill Gates decided to give money and a positive statement to.

      Not everybody would agree on that:

      - The flip side to Bill Gates’ charity billions

      - Why the Gates Foundation is Evil

    42. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe Emperor Gates and Cesar would sit down with one of Bolivia's products, a Peace Blunt? Apologies to Cheech and Chong.

    43. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quote:
      they need is transportation infrastructure

      Maybe the Bill Gates Foundation could build 2-3 roads. The finale episode of "The West Wing" TV series identified that as the main problem. A fictional show based loosely on the Clinton administration having use many of their ex-staff as consultants.

    44. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The stuff most aid organizations provide (food, clean water, medicine) aren't really what poor countries need. It's literally putting the cart before the horse, and can even be counter-productive by making life harder or impossible for domestic producers of those things, and allowing these countries' population to grow beyond their ability to self-sustain themselves.

      These countries need to develop their own economy first.That's why UN assistance for developing nations focuses on building infrastructure, increasing the number of citizens participating in the economy (education and gender equality), figuring out ways to exploit natural resources, facilitating trade and economic development, and helping set up government programs to help support all these things. Once you get the economic ball rolling, they can grow their own food, clean their own water, build their own hospitals. These things are the result of development. Giving people the end product instead of the means to produce the end product is exactly what the aphorism "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life" tells us not to do.

    45. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those philanthropy donated chicks are probably loaded with antibiotics to infect the people of Bolivia and make them unhealthy.

    46. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For those who don't get the reference, probably one of the funniest clips in television history. (Posted anon to avoid karma whoring)

    47. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First really informative post I've seen today. Thank you.

    48. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given the number of positive things I've heard about his donations,

      That's odd, everything I've heard about his donations has been negative. When he gives health care, it's to strengthen big pharma. You can't get it unless your nation agrees to give strong IP protection to them. When he gives education, it's to create more IT professionals, but it doesn't really improve general education, and usually it actually harms it by drawing attention (and funding) away from initiatives which are actually meaningful. So what positive things have you been hearing about the donations of the Gates foundation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Any individual in that country, or any other country for that matter, would be better served aligning themselves with their government's position. We Europeans know that. The Authorities have better information and a better view of the overall situation. People need to understand that we need less "freedom" and more compliance. Less individualism and more conformity. Less thinking for ourselves and more thinking as a community.

    50. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, they're not beggars so....they can be choosy.

    51. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      Oh, the humanity!

    52. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar to other users I always hear of the Gates foundation in connection with shady actions. For example cheap open systems replaced with windows PCs the moment Gates donated money to the local government. Come to think of it that sounds like he did apply his business principles to his "philanthropy". Thought he has yet to implement the extinguish phase on any country he donated to.

    53. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Clueless rich white guy doesn't know that Bolivia has chickens.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    54. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      ...those were probably GMO chickens he was trying to donate. Third world people usually don't take kindly to them.

      You mean those whose first exposure to Westerners has been hippie activists.

    55. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Though I'm totally not a Microsoft fan, this is pure bunk. There is general agreement that Gates runs the best of all the Silicon Valley philanthropy campaigns. I'm sure the antivax conspiratariat isn't pleased, though.

    56. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's odd, everything I've heard about his donations has been negative.

      That's called confirmation bias. You hate him, so you only seek, find, remember, and pass along information that allows you to feel good about that position. Maybe you should check with someone who doesn't have malaria, but otherwise would. Or someone in a developing country that has unprecedented education opportunities they'd otherwise have missed out on. They'd question your priorities. Ask someone in Cameroon, who literally went from rural village life to being a well paid consultant in a rapidly growing tech-centric urban economy if they'd rather the Gates Foundation had closed up shop. I know, you think it's either apocryphal, or that whatever strings are attached are too onerous. Having had just such a formerly impoverished rural boy from Cameroon move in as the young man next door, and watch him, over the course of just a few years, buy three houses in the neighborhood for his extended family (the children of which rotate through schools in Europe and trips back to Africa to further broaden their horizons), I think your smug disdain for the Gates Foundation is a bit of Shakespearean protesting too much. What's the problem, really? Just frustrated that it's not the Clinton Foundation that my Cameroonian friend praises for wildly improving the lives of nearly everyone in his large family?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    57. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the extra 100,000 chickens spread out across the 5.5M living in poverty would be about 2/10 of a chicken per person. So, not really much help.

    58. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      except the aid workers aren't farmers and don't know how to farm, especially given local climates

      Yeah, the local habit of chopping down all the rain forest for one-shot, poor use of the acreage for farming - that's a sure sign that native farming instincts are wildly superior to the methods used in more advanced economies, where far, far more food is produced per acre, with far less energy used.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    59. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Will never help Bolivia. Sorry the help wasn't satisfactory. Choke on your pride.

    60. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      If you ask Bolivians, they'll tell you the first thing they need is transpotation infrastructure...

      So what's your plan, give money to the government so 95% of it can be absorbed by corruption? No. Chickens is where it's at.

    61. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      It costs money to breed chickens. A meat chicken is harvested after 2 months. Breeding can't happen before 6 months. So if you're living month-to-month, where does the extra 4 months of feed plus the lost revenue from the meat come from? Bolivian food-stamps? They don't exist.

    62. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8 female chickens. Mpls. Neighboring apartment with 160 units. And 6 regular lots.

      They are cleaner and easier to care for than my dogs. Lol. Im glad you have contributed your unqualified opinion.

    63. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how it's some fatass bureaucrat telling BG what the public wants... fuck that guy to reject something that his citizens might actually want.

    64. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just maybe there are a million chickens because they're the most economically viable cash crop, and giving the ultra-poor a better chicken or just the first few chickens will let them follow that path out of dire poverty.

    65. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the local habit of chopping down all the rain forest for one-shot, poor use of the acreage for farming - that's a sure sign that native farming instincts are wildly superior to the methods used in more advanced economies, where far, far more food is produced per acre, with far less energy used.

      Oh my, oh my, it seems you're confused on two things. First, the biggest problem in rainforest removal today is lumbering, cattle-ranching, and export agriculture. Subsistence agriculture by native populations is almost inconsequential by comparison. Second, actually, the methods used in the west require a lot of energy inputs, like fertilizer and mechanization, or even just pumping water from place to place.

      What you'd really want to do is cut down on the Leiningens of the world.

    66. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      'Bolivia produces' does not mean there are no poor people who don't produce. '115 million chickens' does not mean anything to people who have 0 chickens.

      If Gates offered Bolivia money equivalent of the chickens, the government would have taken the check, cached it and bought itself another tank or a gold plated Mercedes, that would have been appropriate. As is, his gift is inappropriate, how does it benefit the already rich and powerful in Bolivia?

      Gates clearly wants to try and teach a few people how to fish instead of donating fish that was caught already. To me it shows that he tried it the other way and realized it does nothing at all at reducing poverty.

      Gates is now realizing what is obvious from the start: welfare is crap, it does not work to reduce poverty, only production does. Well, most of the West is not realizing it yet.

    67. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Gates wasn't offering 100,000 chickens to the wealthy and established chicken farmers. He was offering it to the poor, those who don't have anything. Of course it was 'insulting' to the government elite. How are they supposed to buy another gold plated Rolls with that?

    68. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.....you Americans sure don't know shit about comedy.

      Seriously, you thought that was funny ?

      Have you ever suffered a traumatic brain injury in the past ?

      I'm at a loss to explain this.

    69. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      First, the biggest problem in rainforest removal today is lumbering, cattle-ranching, and export agriculture.

      Right. All agricultural activities, and poorly planned and executed. That's exactly the point. Moving away from subsistence agriculture to more viable, productive, commercial-grade agriculture DOES benefit from the expertise of people who come from places where it's done well and very efficiently. Unlike the way it's practiced in places where those poor decisions are made.

      Second, actually, the methods used in the west require a lot of energy inputs, like fertilizer and mechanization, or even just pumping water from place to place.

      Yup, a lot of energy. Just a lot LESS energy than poorly executed, stone-age carve-into-the-jungle agriculture that barely feeds the people doing it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    70. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should check with someone who doesn't have malaria, but otherwise would.

      Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.

      It's not as if there are people dying on only one side of the comparison here. The negative aspects of Gates' donations result in people dying who are every bit as real as the people with malaria.

    71. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon Valley is the Baron Robbers of the world currently... I don't think they should be the ones that get to vote on what philanthropy campaigns are the best for their economic slaves...

    72. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      My point is, in a country which already produces 300,000 chickens per day, offering 100,000 to fight hunger is a bit insulting.

      That depends on who would be receiving them. The country I live in has McDonalds. Clearly that means there's no poverty and any work done to help the poor is an insult.

    73. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if your plan to fight poverty is opening 100 new McDonalds, you dumbass.

    74. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      They would have been Bolivia grown chickens purchased to help local poor folks. But fuck the Bolivian government if they don't care to get free money for their chicken farmers and free food for the hungry under their pitiful governance.

    75. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah look at you, you're a farmer! That's so cute, did you read the Wikipedia article explaining chicken farming?

    76. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. All agricultural activities, and poorly planned and executed. That's exactly the point.

      Nope. Your point, and I will repeat it was:

      Yeah, the localb habit of chopping down all the rain forest for one-shot, poor use of the acreage for farming - that's a sure sign that native farming instincts are wildly superior to the methods used in more advanced economies, where far, far more food is produced per acre, with far less energy used.

      See the words of yours I highlighted? That shows your intent. Also note the absence of any expression that reflects an understanding of any part the problem being external actors, let alone the degree of the problem.

      Moving away from subsistence agriculture to more viable, productive, commercial-grade agriculture DOES benefit from the expertise of people who come from places where it's done well and very efficiently. Unlike the way it's practiced in places where those poor decisions are made.

      Nope, again, the problem is the commercial-grade agricultural activity from the people coming from other places who have quite a lot of expertise. And they are using it. This is not as good a thing as you want to present.

      I will grant they are doing it very well and efficiently...in extracting all they can with no regard for the sustainability of their practices. It is certainly productive, which is viable in the short-term, but not the long-term.

      Yup, a lot of energy. Just a lot LESS energy than poorly executed, stone-age carve-into-the-jungle agriculture that barely feeds the people doing it.

      Nope. More energy. Especially the methods used on those jungle plantations, which as I noted, are the driving force in deforestation, not the "stone-age carve-into-the-jungle agriculture" that you describe. However, mentioning that again, does highlight your misdirected focus.

      To the contrary of your presentation, the people carving into the jungle that need to be feared are the ones with bulldozers and chainsaws, technological implements that are well beyond the stone age.

      Same with aquaculture. It's not the local natives who deplete a fishery, it's the commercial fleets.

    77. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      From what i've read about the Gates foundation i'd argue the same. Think what you want about Microsoft, the guy seems really committed to make the world a better place. I just believe his efforts in Bolivia are misinformed, to say the least.

    78. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.

      Maybe you should consider the people who don't die because the drugs exist in the first place, which in most cases wouldn't happen without the private sector spending billions on the highly regulated, generally money-losing, years-long process of putting new drugs into the hands of doctors. I know, you think that all of the companies that spend that money should do it as a donation, and they should instead earn money selling t-shirts at their bar performances, just like musicians who shouldn't be allowed to have copyrights. Hopefully you won't ever suffer from a life-threatening disease that can only be treated with an exotic drug it cost hundreds of people hundreds of millions of dollars to create, handle, store, and train your doctor to employ.

      I know, let's disband all private companies that do such research, and just use the tax dollars we collect from the minority of people who actually pay most of the income taxes, and establish a gigantic new federal bureaucracy to handle all drug research, production, distribution, and administration. We can model it after the Veterans Administration or Medicare, since those work so well.

      The negative aspects of Gates' donations result in people dying who are every bit as real as the people with malaria.

      So why aren't YOU buying shiploads of medical supplies and paying small armies of personnel to go to malaria-infested places and save all of the lives that Bill Gates is choosing to destroy with his evil charity? Please be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    79. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      The current chicken farmers probably don't want an outsider to come in and 'crash' their market by widely distributing breeding stock to the entire populace. That would be a game changer if it gave the whole population a respite in the form of enough chickens to start breeding them on their own, instead of only having enough of them to eat.

      Just my conjecture, not anything known for certain.

      But the President of Bolivia is just being a politician and grandstanding against the Big Bad Westerner.

    80. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of philanthropy is that donors get to give stuff away to whomever they feel is worthy. You're probably one of those people who believe that all charity must come from governments.

    81. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by swillden · · Score: 2

      Disclaimer: I am a non-poor American, and I have chickens (six leghorn laying hens). Chickens are very easy to care for, and mine live mostly on table scraps, garden waste, and bugs.

      This is interesting to me. I've been considering getting some chickens, but other family members who have them say they're actually quite expensive to feed, and argue that the resulting eggs, while good, are far more expensive than those from the grocery store. What's your take?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    82. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus, chickens are dinosaurs that can fly, they don't need transportation.

    83. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      They are cleaner and easier to care for than my dogs.

      I have chickens. They are cleaner than dogs. But in some ways they are harder, and in other ways easier to raise. If I forget to feed my dog, or her water dish is empty, she will come and let me know. With chickens, I have to remember. But you don't have to walk a chicken, and they will scrounge and scratch for some of their food. Also, dogs don't lay eggs. My daughter had parakeets for several years, and the chickens are definitely less trouble than those.

    84. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because you suffered a traumatic brain injury, moron?

    85. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Depends if they are all of the sort that eat the seed corn; I would bet not all would just immediately make chicken soup with a small chicken windfall.

    86. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I swear to god, I thought turkeys could fly ....

    87. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      offering chickens to a poor rural American could very well improve her standard of living; there are American children who do not get enough to eat. It would not be insulting to them, it would be a benefit. Same to any rural person who does not get enough protein in their diet.

      Latin American governments and media elites routinely actually literally insult "gringos", "El Norte", "anglos" etc. People from stupid "face saving" cultures with shitty economies have a lot to learn about how to give and receive, be it aid or insults, and when it's appropriate to keep their fake-pride-ful mouths shut: if you live in such great places you wouldn't all be coming here.

      Now take your chicken and go home, you are sin heuvos.

    88. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points.

    89. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should consider the people who don't die because the drugs exist in the first place, which in most cases wouldn't happen without the private sector spending billions on the highly regulated, generally money-losing, years-long process of putting new drugs into the hands of doctors. I know, you think that all of the companies that spend that money should do it as a donation, and they should instead earn money selling t-shirts at their bar performances, just like musicians who shouldn't be allowed to have copyrights. Hopefully you won't ever suffer from a life-threatening disease that can only be treated with an exotic drug it cost hundreds of people hundreds of millions of dollars to create, handle, store, and train your doctor to employ.

      That's nice. So what about the money they spend on advertising and marketing? How much money does that cost, and what is its purpose? Where does all of the revenues of the pharmaceutical industry go? Is sending a sexy-dressed rep to a doctor really training them? Is lack of an erection REALLY a life-threatening disease?

      Of course, the same complaints apply to hospitals and such. Do they really need expensive fountains? High-end landscaping?

      I know, let's disband all private companies that do such research, and just use the tax dollars we collect from the minority of people who actually pay most of the income taxes, and establish a gigantic new federal bureaucracy to handle all drug research, production, distribution, and administration.

      You may be surprised to know, we already have the NIH, and they contribute about a fair share of the research already. Not to mention the various incentives that the pharmaceutical companies receive, including direct cash grants and liability protection.

      We can model it after the Veterans Administration or Medicare, since those work so well.

      Actually, Medicare is a financing program that pays private providers, not a health care provider itself. However, in terms of overhead, it's quite as good as any number of private providers of insurance and better than many.

      But the VA? For all the complaints about it, it has high satisfaction rates when it comes to care. Even the bureaucratic problems are a result of factors like checking to be sure that an injury came from military service, not elsewhere, in which case it's somebody else's liability. IOW, good stewardship of your tax dollars. Do you want to change that?

      So why aren't YOU buying shiploads of medical supplies and paying small armies of personnel to go to malaria-infested places and save all of the lives that Bill Gates is choosing to destroy with his evil charity? Please be specific.

      It's more cost effective to get Bill Gates to stop.

      Do you even understand efficiency?

    90. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is interesting to me. I've been considering getting some chickens, but other family members who have them say they're actually quite expensive to feed, and argue that the resulting eggs, while good, are far more expensive than those from the grocery store. What's your take?

      You are NOT going to save money unless you consider your time to be worthless. You can't compete with factory farms. You should just think of it as more of a hobby. Here are some benefits:

      1. You will have fresh eggs everyday. More in the summer but a few even in the winter. Roughly 300 eggs/year/hen.
      2. Your kids will learn that food doesn't come from factories, and they will learn responsibility.
      3. You will know that your eggs came from humanely treated chickens, and not from a warehouse of hens crammed into battery cages. Go visit a factory farm. The stench alone will make you never want to eat store-bought eggs again.
      4. They will eat almost anything, including watermelon rinds, apple cores, carrot peels, etc. and convert all of that into protein nodules. You will still need to supplement that with some commercial feed.
      5. The eggs taste much better, especially if they have access to a lot of insects and worms. I use a pitchfork to turn over part of the compost heap so they can get to the wrigglers.
      6. When the zombie apocalypse comes you can feed the human corpses to your chickens, or if you prefer, you can let the bodies decompose and feed the maggots to your hens. You will survive while others starve.

    91. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Likelihood is that internet for schools is ten times better in Bolivia than in USA.

      You are right, but well, that is human nature. Plenty of people are easy offended and pissed off or tackled by their pride.

      There most certainly is something where Bill Gates could help. On the other hand development simply mostly only takes time.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    92. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They are mad because it's not money being donated.

      Reminds me of this old heroin addict who used to beg people for money OR food. One time my neighbor made him a ham sandwich, the heroin addict took the sandwich and thanked him. My neighbor kept an eye on him and when he thought no one was looking, he tossed the sandwich into the trashcan. My neighbor was glad he didn't give him any money.

      Moral of the story, he wanted money not food. He didn't want help; he wanted what he wanted and that was money for drugs. Same applies to Bolivia, the govt brass can't bribe people with chickens now can they?

    93. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by LiquidPaper · · Score: 1

      Thats the point. They are not beggars

    94. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's nice. So what about the money they spend on advertising and marketing?

      What about it? Do you own a business, or work for one? Have you considered how well you'd fare if nobody was allowed to promote your business or try to find new customers, or remind people why your product or service is a good alternative to something else? Do you understand that private companies have to actually generate revenue or they can't do anything, because they'll be bankrupt?

      Actually, Medicare is a financing program that pays private providers, not a health care provider itself.

      Except in order to use that financing program, you have to find doctors and facilities that are willing (usually at a financial loss) to conduct their operations and even their patient-by-patient, case-by-case decision making and prioritization according to Medicare's rules. That generally results in doctors losing money, which brings us to...

      However, in terms of overhead, it's quite as good as any number of private providers of insurance and better than many.

      No, it's not. It's rife with fraud and waste. Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth.

      But the VA? For all the complaints about it, it has high satisfaction rates when it comes to care

      Once you GET care. Or IF you get care.

      IOW, good stewardship of your tax dollars. Do you want to change that?

      Good stewardship of my tax dollars would have seen at least ONE person lose their job over the truly terrible conditions and processes exposed year after year as third parties and the VA itself review how awfully run the agency is. Vets waiting months and years to be seen. Do you understand that?

      It's more cost effective to get Bill Gates to stop.

      Yeah, better to just let all of that medical care and education grind to a halt. You hate him so much you'd rather see other people suffer than see them enjoy a shred of improvement through the billions of dollars his foundation spends on helping people. If the goal is to express your hatred, then yes, it might indeed be more efficient to let a lot of people die or go without education just to give you the satisfaction of shutting him down. In the meantime, why aren't YOU providing health care and education through your own foundation? Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    95. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the free internet/WiFi access on all plazzas of majour towns and cities.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    96. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are poor can't afford chickens, and that's who this is helping. Just because they produce a lot of chickens does not mean that everyone has access to said chickens.

      Why can't you see that? You sir, are the dumbass for thinking that everyone benefits from the production of chickens in Bolivia. Hint: only the rich and middle class benefit. Some people might not have any, and getting some could help a lot.

    97. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a joke, right?!

    98. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by lgw · · Score: 2

      When you find yourself defending the VA, it's time to stop talking. Seriously.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    99. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So why don't the government accept the chickens, run a state chicken farm using prison labor and resell the chickens to foreign countries for profit that goes to developing transportation infrastructure?
      There are countries where it is frowned upon if the government is competing in business with the local business.
      Also, keep in mind: Bolivia is a huge exporter of chickens already. It might be difficult to increase that number by 100000. (I eat perhaps 5 chickens per year, actually less, as 5 means half a chicken per month)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    100. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Venezuela is such a mess that i can't see any hope for it other than hitting rock bottom either. Visited the country a couple times in the late 90s, it is incredible to see how it basically destroyed itself.

    101. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by lgw · · Score: 2

      So, then, buying some chickens from local farmers and giving them to some poorer folks, so that they can participate in the economy themselves, that would be good, right? This isn't about handing out Chicken McNuggets, it's about letting a few new families become chicken farmers.

      There are plenty of aid organizations focused on the exact things you describe: education in skills directly useful in the community, making it safe for girls to go to school, helping people get a small capital stake to move beyond subsistence to some sort of small business, that sort of thing. The Gates Foundation pours millions into such organizations.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    102. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Luckily the people who set up hospitals see that a bit different.

      However you are right with the rest. Rest assured most developing aid works that way (meanwhile after the mistakes in the 1970s).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    103. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by lgw · · Score: 1

      The more modern the farming techniques the less land needed for farming. You seem to have trouble grasping this. Low-tech agriculture means trees get cut down to make for farmland. High-tech agriculture means farmland is abandoned to the trees, as it's no longer needed to make all the food the market can take.

      If they need to cut down jungle for additional farmland by definition this is low-tech agriculture.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    104. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The good thing is: they would not ned parachutes.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    105. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The last thing you want to ask for from Bill Gates is anything computer related. Suddenly you will buried in "free" Windows licenses...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    106. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah so the 100k chickens was a threat to the price of an existing business. Therefor nuked from orbit.

    107. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In 2014, 22 million chickens are consumed in the US each day. Something like 8 billion per year was noted on another page I saw. Now that also includes chicken parts and by products like flavorings for other foods and such. It might even include the number used in animal foods and such too but I don't know for sure.

      In a country with 318 million people, that is a lot more than 5 chickens per year. It's more like 25 chickens per person per year or a little over 2 chickens per month..If Bolivia increased production by 100000 for export, they would just be scratching the surface of the US markets let alone other markets like Europe and such.

      Either way, it doesn't matter. They could have found a use for the chickens and made something work or they could have rejected them like they did. When people say their problem is transportation infrastructure, that was just a quick idea on how to find funds to improve it. Personally, I think poverty is a function or dysfunction of government and only really exists today due to failed government policies, corruption, and ignorance. You can fix ignorance but it seems like failed government policies will be retried and retried and retried with each time holding their fingers crossed differently and tossing tons more money at no real solutions. This also invited corruption and here we are yet again.

    108. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should understand that this IP mess we are in, which includes things like vaccines now, is thanks to Daddy Gate's Lawyers, the ones Bill hired. And thinking that everyone who has gotten a tech job is due to Gates... sorry no, he used the same lawyers to take hobbyists code. The IT revolution was coming, if not Gates someone else, he is not a special unique snowflake. He made mistakes and his monopoly gave him the power to force those mistakes on everyone.

    109. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more modern the farming techniques the less land needed for farming. You seem to have trouble grasping this. Low-tech agriculture means trees get cut down to make for farmland. High-tech agriculture means farmland is abandoned to the trees, as it's no longer needed to make all the food the market can take.

      If they need to cut down jungle for additional farmland by definition this is low-tech agriculture.

      To me, you seem to have a problem grasping the conversation that you're jumping into the middle of, as I am saying, and do let me know if you're unclear on this, is that a lot of the jungle is being cut-down for commercial activity, not by stone-age natives engaging in subsistence agriculture. This commercial activity is being exported to the world's markets, not being used locally.

      If you want to define that as low-tech agriculture, I guess I can't stop you, even if I think it's a bit contrived, but don't tell me it's the local natives who are entirely responsible. At most, they're the workers being paid to do it, but that's not meaning that they're in charge of what's going on. You see, that's what I've been finding objectionable, as it leaves out a substantial portion of the problem, without even an acknowledgment of the issue.

      I can respect your Utopian ideals for some sort of super-advanced pastoral communities, but I'm not going to pretend the world's reality fits that criteria. Instead of solely blaming the native stone-age populations, I am going to point out that there is a lot of deforestation caused by the "advanced" commercial agriculturalists of the modern world. Are you having a problem grasping that?

    110. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ofc it is mostly incompetence of the government. And/or corruption.
      However, you have to keep in mind, developing a nation takes time. Look at a start up company, it takes ten years until it is either profitable or gets bought by a bigger fish for some reason.
      Introducing changes today in a country, takes more than ten years to show fruits. Easiest example is schooling. Kids spent ten years in school. And when they come out, lots might be "outdated" already. Same for everything, build a new "Hoover Dam" ... takes ten years. Plant a nuke plant somewhere, takes ten years. Build a factory for X, you likely have no customers for X around ...

      If you want to develop a country you have to "micro manage" dozens if not hundreds of aspects of society, economy and education. And a government usually lasts much less years (regardless of system).

      However since the active sabotaging by the USA of developing countries stopped, I'm confident that countries like Bolivia (and there are plenty more) will have a more dominant role in the world soon.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    111. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      but people are not starving to death on the streets either.

      Actually, they are:
      https://www.wfp.org/stories/10...

      What, do you really think a multi-billion dollar charity organisation randomly decided to send 100,000 chickens to a country that doesn't need them?

      This is more about the ass-hat pride of the Bolivian politicians than any wrongdoing on the Gates foundations part. But hey, this is Slashdot, so obviously it's all Bill's fault.

    112. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about it? Do you own a business, or work for one? Have you considered how well you'd fare if nobody was allowed to promote your business or try to find new customers, or remind people why your product or service is a good alternative to something else? Do you understand that private companies have to actually generate revenue or they can't do anything, because they'll be bankrupt?

      Have you considered that there is a distinct difference between presenting information regarding the services one can provide, and presenting grandiose claims that seek to entice consumers in a manner that is misleading at best, an outright fraud? Do you understand that private companies can engage in less than honest practices in order to increase their profit margin?

      But I expect you to cut these questions, just like you cut my earlier ones:

      How much money does that cost, and what is its purpose? Where does all of the revenues of the pharmaceutical industry go? Is sending a sexy-dressed rep to a doctor really training them? Is lack of an erection REALLY a life-threatening disease?

      Is there some reason you avoided these questions? Or did you not recognize their importance and meaning?

      Except in order to use that financing program, you have to find doctors and facilities that are willing (usually at a financial loss) to conduct their operations and even their patient-by-patient, case-by-case decision making and prioritization according to Medicare's rules. That generally results in doctors losing money, which brings us to...

      Oh my, are you saying other insurance companies don't have their own decision-making and prioritization processes? Because that's not true. But ok, you've made a claim. So how much do doctors lose, and how does what Medicare pays compare to what others pay?

      Also, the doctors and healthcare facilities, if they're losing money, the question to ask is also why? What are they spending money on? I asked you already, what about their fountains and high-end landscaping and other actions?

      No, it's not. It's rife with fraud and waste. Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth.

      Oh, you're saying fraud is a problem then? Fraud by who? Medicare officials? Or is it somebody else?

      Once you GET care. Or IF you get care.

      Do you want them to instantly provide care with no questions asked then?

      Then you may have some more fraud problems. And funding.

      Good stewardship of my tax dollars would have seen at least ONE person lose their job over the truly terrible conditions and processes exposed year after year as third parties and the VA itself review how awfully run the agency is. Vets waiting months and years to be seen. Do you understand that?

      Don't worry, Shinseki resigned, so that counts as losing a job. So do you have anything to suggest that? The VA has been complained about since as long as I can remember. I've heard demands to fire somebody over and over. It's been going on for decades. Because of that, I think it's just a political football that gets tossed back and forth rather than fixed.

      Maybe we could fire the politicians then. Think that'll happen?

      Yeah, better to just let all of that medical care and education grind to a halt.

      Why would that result happen because someone told Bill Gates to stop taking certain actions?

      Your idea of cause and effect seems detached.

      Or you believe Bill Gates somehow is causing all medicare and education to exist, which no, no, that is not true.

      I can't see how you would get that

    113. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by hideki.adam · · Score: 1

      If you want to look for who is screwing over Venezuela, look no further than OPEC. If your country exports mainly a single commodity and the price of said commodity drops like a stone it doesn't matter who is in power, you're screwed.

    114. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that you have evidence that a drug manufacturer's advertisement is criminally fraudulent, and therefore we should not allow anyone in that line of work to spend money promoting their businesses, and instead they should put all of their money into research on new drugs until they run out of money, at which some other person who knows you won't allow them to advertise will of course invest billions of dollars in the same area because even though they're smart enough to come up with new drugs that you personally can't produce, they're too dumb to realize you want them to fail, financially. Do you even listen to yourself?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    115. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      If economics is your primary motivation, don't. My brother and his family have 5 hens. An egg for breakfast is a by-product of their companionship.

      Backyard chickens are pets that need love and attention. Okay so they won't curl up on your lap like a cat or go for walks like a dog but they have symbiotic needs.

    116. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Venezuela was in well the shitter back when oil was $100 the barrel. Leave it to Chavez to sink a country into poverty while producing the most wanted commodity in the planet.

    117. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well-intentioned?

      Really?

      Maybe it's time to stop thinking that virtue-signaling first-worlders are well intentioned, considering how much damage, and how little good, their virtue-signaling projects have accomplished over the past hundred years.

    118. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Low tech" does not (only) mean "stone age.

      , I am going to point out that there is a lot of deforestation caused by the "advanced" commercial agriculturalists of the modern world. Are you having a problem grasping that?

      "Advanced" only in scare quotes, is the point. Farming the way the US did 80-100 years ago, who nevertheless needed less land than a century before them and so on. People need to eat. Best to be smart about how that food is provided. Yet the same crowd who loves the trees seems adamant against modern agriculture - but then, perhaps reason isn't their strong suit.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    119. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      5. The eggs taste much better, especially if they have access to a lot of insects and worms. I use a pitchfork to turn over part of the compost heap so they can get to the wrigglers.

      Had fun with an organic person raving about the good taste of their organic, non-caged eggs. I said "Yep, a lot of it's the diet" - They asked me about it. I further informed them: "Occasionally you'll see 'vegetarian fed', you'll want to avoid them. You get the best tasting eggs when the chickens have access to bugs, worms, and such to eat."

      A bit 'ewe' on her part, but I really don't care.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    120. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you find yourself defending the VA, it's time to stop talking. Seriously.

      Actually, I do find that the VA is such a punching bag, that when I see somebody screaming about it, I usually figure it's probably worth tuning them out.

      I think it's just too convenient to have somebody to blame for whatever things are wrong with it today for anybody to want to actually fix, and any problems are exaggerated to the point of unreliability.

      Not that other entities, both public and private, are immune to such problems, mind you.

    121. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5,000 chickens. Twenty countries on the list according to a Bolivian newspaper

    122. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No gold plated mercedes in Bolivia. Evo Morales and other government officials have black Nissan Armadas. Nice racist assumption.

    123. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, It's called research and understanding how venture philanthropy works. Save your melodrama and understand that wealth should not entitle anyone to shape society in an undemocratic way, as Gates (and many other billionaires) are doing. Your sentimental anecdotes mask the neoliberal ideology that Gates and others are pushing. Much like a loan from the IMF may lift a county's economy for a while, the requirements from such a loan consists of austerity and privatization of public services that undermines the democratic process and ultimately works against the prosperity of the populace. A starving person will gladly accept a meal at any cost, so those with wealth will always have the power to dictate terms to the poor.

    124. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by PhidoOZ · · Score: 1

      Bolivia is poor but that is different from staving. There are a lot of substance farmers in Bolivia. They will be poor, but they do usually have food. Bolivia isn't as poor as the US by some metrics. There are 11 million people in Bolivia (only half in poverty), there are 45 million people living in poverty in the USA, ergo the USA has more poverty than Bolivia. Many poor in Bolivia have a subsistence farm with chickens, few of those in poverty in the US already have a subsistence farm with chickens. Sure, they would have accepted the chicken, heck if someone gave me a free chicken I would probably accept it and I have plenty of wealth and income in a country with plenty of wealth. Its not like rejecting this gift the chickens are wasted, they will be redistributed to areas and countries that do want and need them. That is not a bad thing. I don't think more chickens is going to lift Bolivia out of its poverty. It has chickens. It needs the next stage, education, industry jobs, mechanised farming etc. However, plenty of African countries could lift themselves to Bolivian levels of poverty, which is much better than where they are now. The Bolivians may have low levels of wealth, but they have made real progress in improving. Malnutrition is way down, still a concern as it is in any country with a lot of subsistence farming, but much better than even 8 years ago. Not every country is going to be improved by chickens. However with a project like this if the worst thing that happens is some politicians are mildly insulted that is fairly easy to fix.

    125. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by quenda · · Score: 1

      but other family members who have them say they're actually quite expensive to feed,

      Are they unfamiliar with the "chicken feed" idiom? The feed is cheap by the 20kg sacks. Chickens are efficient in converting feed to eggs.
      But factory eggs are so cheap, the dollar savings are small compared to the effort and other benefits.

    126. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a not-poor American with chickens

      You are NOT going to save money unless you consider your time to be worthless.

      Your time is worthless! It takes 10 minutes a day to feed and water chickens. My kids waste more time than that everyday on youtube. And youtube doesn't last eggs.

      The biggest expenses are the coop ($100s) and the feed. But you can redneck a cheaper coop, and you don't have to feed commercial chicken feed. Left over pizza, spaghetti, corn, or whatever can reduce your feed bill.

      I'm not a Gates fan and I'm a big critic of his so-called philanthropy. But I think this is the first time I think I've ever felt like supporting anything in which Bill was involved.

    127. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If you want to look for who is screwing over Venezuela, look no further than Venezuela.

      Fixed that for you. The only one who is responsible is themselves, because they believed in infinitely high oil prices and didn't diversify their economy.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    128. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by NotAPK · · Score: 2

      Chickens are modern dinosaurs and will gladly eat meat.

      We have a few sturdy wooden boxes into which we regularly throw animal carcasses. The bodies are mostly scavenged from the road-side, others from shooting.

      After a half week the body is crawling with maggots. We tip the whole lot out into the chicken coop. The little bastards go crazy for the wrigglers, but what may be surprising to many is that after a few days the bones will be stripped clean: the chickens happily eat the lot.

      Very good for the chickens, and we feel good about keeping the neighborhood roads clear of road kill.

    129. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Nearly every other country in the world prohibits or limits advertising of prescription medicine.

      These countries still have a healthy pharmaceutical industry and obviously turn a profit for private companies. Remember, that sick people do need medicine and the pharmaceutical industry meets that need nicely and does a good job of it.

    130. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not going to fool me into ending up with damn zombie chickens.

    131. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is that you have evidence that a drug manufacturer's advertisement is criminally fraudulent, and therefore we should not allow anyone in that line of work to spend money promoting their businesses, and instead they should put all of their money into research on new drugs until they run out of money, at which some other person who knows you won't allow them to advertise will of course invest billions of dollars in the same area because even though they're smart enough to come up with new drugs that you personally can't produce, they're too dumb to realize you want them to fail, financially. Do you even listen to yourself?

      Oh, you want to see documented instances of misconduct in by pharmaceutical companies?? Try here for all sorts of legal settlements, you can review their specific conduct in the settlement agreements. What, did you think nobody's ever caught them misbehaving before? Hardly. And even aside from legal settlements, other investigations exist that do bring up a share of worries. And no, their questionable conduct isn't just limited to questionable marketing, there have been other problems.

      As I said, you don't want to examine their conduct in its full scope, you want to avoid even considering the questions. Unfortunately for you, others have already.

      That you present this hysterical idea of an absolutist sentiment as an objection just makes you sound silly, and what causes you to say such a silly thing, I don't know, but I'm guessing it's something in your own psyche. Of course, there are other options, for example, Europe does forbid DTC marketing of drugs, and the various companies don't seem to be suffering unduly there. So your idea? Yours, not mine. You made it up, not me, thus you are the one who should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you said it. Why did you say it? How did you think I'd react? Well, my reaction is that I hold you responsible for your own words. You said it, not me.

      You may want to try to inform yourself better. You need to correct a lot of insufficient awareness of actual circumstances and improve your ability to recognize what others are saying. After you do that, then you can really work on your presentation.

    132. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside the cities, much of the country is dirt poor.

      I can't tell if you're talking about Bolivia or the USA.

    133. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Low tech" does not (only) mean "stone age.

      And? Did you think I was using the term myself of my own initiative, or relying on some particular meaning to it for my part!? Nope! As I pointed out to you already, you jumped into the middle of the conversation, which is why I can see how you might have missed it, so if that is what you were thinking, then you were mistaken, but I'm only repeating the terminology already used in this conversation to describe the people involved.

      Though actually, I did think about questioning its accuracy, however I thought it would have lead to some distraction. Perhaps if I had though, you would have been less confused if I had elucidated on the subject, but I was not anticipating you joining in, so I did not do so.

      But yes, when it comes down to it, I do not endorse that particular terminology myself. I merely repeat it due to its prior use in the conversation.

      "Advanced" only in scare quotes, is the point. Farming the way the US did 80-100 years ago, who nevertheless needed less land than a century before them and so on.

      Oh no, the "advanced" in quotes is to show my lack of endorsement for the term as applied, and to highlight the difference in meanings that make it ambiguous, some of them might even be in conflict with each other. Did you not understand that either? You did the same yourself, so I can't fathom why you object to it just a few lines later.

      But come to think of it, 80-100 years ago is about the time of the Dust Bowl. Yes, I would think that is a good lesson on practices and patterns to avoid. So was the response to the Chestnut Blight. Or the Desert of Maine.

      You see, it's not about using less land. That's not happening either. More and more land is being used. A lot of it by commercial entities seeking their own enrichment. And their methods are causing problems. But instead of acknowledgment of that, the entire blame was placed on the aforementioned natives.

      Is this something you have yet to grasp?

      People need to eat. Best to be smart about how that food is provided. Yet the same crowd who loves the trees seems adamant against modern agriculture - but then, perhaps reason isn't their strong suit.

      Really? From my perspective, I think you have a problem of being disdainful towards others, when your own demonstration of reasoning indicates a poor command of the discussion yourself. You've failed to follow this conversation very well, and you've not effectively responded to the concerns I've raised, you haven't even shown that you clearly recognize what I'm saying.

      I think you may want to take some steps back and re-examine your participation.

    134. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The reason they don't do it already is because like in most countries, the population is mostly urban and raising chickens in cities is an unsanitary hell and a huge health hazard. Don't just believe my words, get a dozen of chicks and try raising them in your house and give us your thoughts after a year.

      Something tells me you haven't spent much time in these countries...

      Sanitation isn't the first thing that pops into most of these peoples minds - eating is. From the evidence I have seen, many city dwellers have no issues hanging bird cages out of 5th story windows to keep chicks in. Cows in stair wells are not uncommon either.

    135. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private health insurance is responsible for hundreds of trillions in waste. See, i can make up large numbers too. The sad thing is, mine is more factually accurate.

    136. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's not the locals clearcutting forests to raise cattle. That's US corporations that often involve themselves in military actions in the country they are occupying and exploiting.

    137. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, Venezuela would be much better off if they hadn't been targetted for economic assassination by IMF. Note the trend of countries with strong leftist governments that end up couped, then have neofascist rightwing governments installed. That's how we get Honduras.

    138. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Considering that the chickens were bought locally, and that vaccines don't work that way, I don't see where you are coming up with this.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    139. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to drop anything from the sky it should be pigs.

    140. Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do your dogs shit all over the place?

    141. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeh, internet infrastructure for the schools. that's the solution. then they can blog and comment and facebook and youtube all they want. and all will be well.

    142. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > even the poorest of them should be able to spare a few cents, buy a few chicks and raise them at home if thats what they want.

      that's the entire point you clod.

      These are for people who can't afford to buy chickens themselves, so that they can make a living without requiring an education (which would obviously be vastly more expensive). "A few cents" might be the difference between starvation and continued existence for these people.

    143. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a veteran having dealt with the VA: This about sums it up. Social Welfare for Persons with Advanced Degrees that uses veterans as the excuse for their employment. It is the best tool to prod a veteran into providing his/her own health care. I am thankful I am NOT service connected and saddled with a muddle brained excuse for health care provider.

    144. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do bring up some interesting points, but let's also not lose sight of the fact that Chicken Farmer and the Protein Nodules would be a really good name for a rock band.

    145. Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The book Mountains Beyond Mountains, about Dr. Paul Farmer and his work (primarily concerning Haiti, but also tuberculosis and infectious diseases in general) makes mention of construction/farming equipment that was provided to some of the Haitian people as economic boon... and most of them are abandoned now. Without also providing continuous fuel or other materials, the machines were worthless.

      (It's been a while since I've read it, so the account may be incorrect. Regardless, it was one of the few assigned-reading books I ever truly enjoyed during any time in my education and recommend it to everyone.)

  5. Maybe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Gates SHOULD be put in their shoes, rather than being allowed to make statements like that. If people really wanted to elicit a change in society, that would be the risk filled venture to take. Finding ways to involuntarily get these rich SOBs out in these places they casually perform philanthropy in, without their wealth, or special privilege and leave them there for a year or two to 'learn what reality is ACTUALLY like for everybody outside their overprivileged selves.)

  6. Translation by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keeping our citizens at the brink of starvation is how we maintain power. Increasing access to food weakens our political position.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Translation by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      pretty disgusting act by the bolivian government. Whether they like to admit it or not Bolivia still has a very high rate of people living a long way below the poverty line.

    2. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you think this donation amounts to in money? I know for a fact that a just born chicken costs around a quarter of a US$ dollar in a 3rd world country.

      Now, think again about how this will affect anything at all at Bolivia

    3. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty disgusting act by the bolivian government. Whether they like to admit it or not Bolivia still has a very high rate of people living a long way below the poverty line.

      what about?

    4. Re:Translation by tomhath · · Score: 3, Informative

      You obviously have never seen real poverty in a Third World country. That link talks about "food insecure" people in the US, it doesn't talk about children starving to death.

    5. Re:Translation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what about?

      Poverty in rich countries is not comparable to poverty in poor countries. The root causes are totally different. Poverty in poor countries is mostly caused by government mismanagement, and lack of opportunities. Poor people in rich countries are surrounded by an ocean of opportunity, but fail to take advantage of it, often because of substance abuse, mental illness, or simply bad health. Those are much harder problems to fix.

    6. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as "simply bad health", and the rest of your comment is also bullshit.

      Rich countries usually have much better and more accessible medicare than the US.

      Maybe Bolivia should donate some chickens for the needy in the US and see whether they get accepted in the ocean of opportunity.

    7. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is beyond naive in both ways. First, no, many people in US are not surrounded by ocean of opportunity. That is fantasy of sheltered child born to middle class parents. They struggle because conditions they live in are hard, government mismanaged situation, they get no help whatsoever and lack opportunities.

      Second, third countries poor are not paragons of purity and hard work and all that is good. They have host of social problems including substance abuse, mental illness, or simply bad health. Just like poor US areas, poor in third world countries include criminals or people who don't try anymore - because they learned trying leads nowhere.

      That is the thing about it all - it is cycle. Bad condition with lack of opportunity makes people more likely to be desperate, ill or simply inexperienced in "taking advantage of opportunity" when said opportunity arise (so they fail even then). Conversely, such culture makes it harder to turn the place around and create opportunity.

    8. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely, such culture makes it harder to turn the place around and create opportunity.

      That's a true statement. But the culture of which you speak is in the home the babies are born to. Single mothers, baby daddies, the assumption that government support is how a person lives. The government can't change that culture, it has to start in the community.

    9. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessss lets donate some money to Bolivia so the government of Bolivia can take its 95% cut. The remaining 5% might go to help someone.

      Bolivia is like a drug addict, all it wants is money to fuel its habit: anything else is an insult because they can't buy hookers and blow with chickens.

      Pro tip: the cost of the chickens in American dollars is irrelevant. It's Not about money, it's about feeding people.

    10. Re:Translation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And those people likely are raising chickens and eating them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Poor people in rich countries are surrounded by an ocean of economics that takes advantage of them"

      FTFY.

    12. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you got that wrong. The idea is that more chickens are needed... not money. Perhaps 100 million worth of chickens could get things started and make a difference on that poverty problem.

    13. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ‘Poor people in rich countries are surrounded by an ocean of opportunity’ – This is not generally true. A recent study in the Netherlands concluded that about half of all the people on unemployment benefits (this doesn't include students, housewives and so on) have no hope of ever getting a job. Opportunity isn't some kind of natural resource that's just lying around, waiting to be picked up and eaten. Where opportunity certainly is plentiful in the Netherlands, so in that sense everybody is surrounded by it, it is still out of reach for a great many people.
      The biggest problem the Netherlands in particular are facing now is that a lot of the ‘simple’ retail, manufacturing and even service jobs are disappearing. It used to be the case that jobs that were automated freed up people to migrate to service and retail, where there used to be an enormous labour shortage, in other words there was much more work to be done potentially, than there were people to do it. Same for people who had mild physical disabilities for example. Now, everything that needs to be done and that can be done by someone without a degree, is already being done. In some sense, this is like the utopia that you read about in early sci-fi stories, but instead of giving unemployable people an enjoyable holiday, we've decided they need to be pestered by the government, they aren't allowed to study or otherwise improve themselves and they aren't allowed to save money and invest in their future that way.

    14. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cute to see people so naive nowadays :) You should study more history and current events, preferably not from your current media source. You have much to learn.

    15. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you just described a perfect situation of "surrounded by an ocean of opportunity", They have no hope of getting a job because they aren't willing take advantage of the opportunities in many of the free education systems provided their, they see the easy simple jobs disappearing and say "oh well I am fucked may as well live off the government now", if they cared they would see a wealth of opportunities for them, sadly they are people that want the opportunities handed to them on a golden platter.

  7. Seriously? by Random+Nobody · · Score: 1

    Who doesn't like chicken?

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vegans.

    2. Re:Seriously? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Crazy people.

      ftfy.

    3. Re:Seriously? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Who doesn't like chicken?

      In a developed country, when a ball rolls into the street that you are driving on . . . you hit the breaks, because you know that some children will come running into the street, chasing the ball.

      In a Third World country, when a chicken runs into the street that you are driving on . . . you hit the breaks, because you know that some children will come running into the street, chasing the chicken.

      Folks in Third World countries like their chickens . . . but they love their children.

      Hell, if Bill Gates is having problems giving away his chickens . . . I'll take a couple per week! Rotisserie, in a Burrito, or just plain Fried.

      Kentucky schreit ficken!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Seriously? by Falconhell · · Score: 3

      Thems the brakes.

    5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously... to hell with that. I'll start:

      "In breaking news, Microsoft once again lays an egg."

      "Bolivia to Gates: We don't give a cluck."

      "After airdropping 100,000 chickens on Bolivia, Bill Gates was heard to say, "As God is my witness, I thought chickens could fly.""

      "Bill Gates thought that a chicken in every pot was a great idea.. until Bolivia then requested 100,000 pots."

      "Bill Gates planned to ship the chickens by sea to Bolivia. When informed that Bolivia was landlocked, and did not have any ocean ports, Gates placed an urgent call to the head of Bing Maps. "It does, now.""

      "In a gesture of appreciation, the Bolivian President promoted Colonel Sanders to General. On hearing of the effect of 100,000 free chickens being distributed to the poor on the national economy, the President then demoted him to cluck private."

      "Gates explained his concepts about charities personally to the Bolivians, and gave the United Way as an example. He then went on to say that this was a Henway. When asked "What's a Henway?", Gates responded "Oh, about three pounds." He was shot the following dawn."

    6. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy people.

      ftfy.

      Or, people with allergies...like yours truly...

      (ah, what the hell, I'll admit it, I'm also fucking crazy..)

    7. Re:Seriously? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Kudos for the wkrp reference. I doubt most will get it but it was the only one i actually laughed at. It made the rest tolerable.

    8. Re:Seriously? by ancientt · · Score: 1

      Hell, if Bill Gates is having problems giving away his chickens . . . I'll take a couple per week! Rotisserie, in a Burrito, or just plain Fried.

      This is kind of my sentiment. Why would you refuse a gift that doesn't come with strings? I realize the gift is intended for a specific type of use, and not everyone agrees that the particular use is the best way to help, but even if it doesn't get used as intended or doesn't succeed in the intended goal, it's still useful.

      If Bill Gates sends me a handful of chickens I don't or need, I won't refuse them. I will try to sell them or stock up my freezer and won't become a chicken rancher, but I'll take them. If he sends me a hundred thousand chickens, I'll go into business briefly as a chicken rancher until I can sell the business or maybe if it's profitable enough, my IT career will become my hobby and I'll take it on as my full time job.

      So, yeah, maybe I wish Bill were using his resources a little differently, but he's willing to try to do something good and stopping him from even being allowed to try based on politics just irritates me.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  8. Re: You are not chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're mistaken. The lack of funny and lack of sense does not arise from you being new.

  9. Customs! by Elentar · · Score: 2

    Well, I'm sure they really would have taken them, but the customs paperwork is just SO unpleasant, you know? And there is the matter of the 17% import duty on livestock, and there needs to be proof that someone will feed and house the chickens so that they don't become a burden on society. We can't have foreign chickens just coming into the country whenever they want.

    --
    The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
    1. Re:Customs! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      We can't have foreign chickens just coming into the country whenever they want.

      Aren't chickens on the "no fly" list already anyway . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Customs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't have foreign chickens just coming into the country whenever they want.

      Aren't chickens on the "no fly" list already anyway . . . ?

      Jokes aside, they generally are. Transporting birds across borders is actually quite hard compared to say transporting a dog. The reason is that they want to keep diseases out. Imagine if they import 100,000 chickens and 5 or even just one has a horrible disease, which starts to spread and 90% of the local chickens die. In that case they will need help. Perhaps they reject because they will not risk it for such a minor gift and perhaps somebody suspects foul play from the capitalists.

      Back around 1990, I moved 4 pigeons across a border. They had to get vaccinations against all sorts of stuff an quarantined for a month, despite coming from a country with no known diseases. However that is (was) the rules because when bird diseases spreads, it goes really bad. Remember SARS?

  10. One conveint locations. In Africa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Arise cheeken.

    Arise.

    1. Re: One conveint locations. In Africa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL nice aqua teen hunger force reference.

  11. Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by drmaxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not sure if chickens are the right thing to deliver, but Bolivia certainly does not know how to feed their population properly: https://www.wfp.org/stories/10... or http://www.unicef.org/bolivia/... I am always baffled, when pride is willing to kill people.

    1. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a lot less baffling if you understand that the prideful people in power who are refusing the gifts are not the same folks that are going hungry.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Read a bit about Evo Morales. That will make it easier to understand.

      That said, offering a measly 100,000 chickens to fight hunger in Bolivia is naive at best. The country already produces over 300,000 per day.

    3. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if chickens are the right thing to deliver, but Bolivia certainly does not know how to feed their population properly

      Give a man a fish... Seriously, as another poster pointed out the real issue is building up the infrastructure. The topography makes that really difficult, though--ie, really expensive. Compare that to the US and consider where population centers are (hint, very few people live in the mountains). Meanwhile even if most people lived in the interior, the shortest route to the ocean for shipping is...through the mountains.

      I am always baffled, when pride is willing to kill people.

      Is Bill Gates personally delivering those 100,000 chickens? Because I'm pretty sure the offense of pride is more about the idea that the problem is a lack of food and not the means to deliver that food. So, just dropping off 100,000 chickens is akin to "let them eat cake".

    4. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I'm sure if Bill Gates sent anonymous checks, even to those that run the country, it would be gladly taken. But "here, we're going to take this money, spend it on something that you may not want, then give it to you and announce it to the world, and if you ever have success I'll claim that I was the reason".

    5. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      The idea isn't for the chickens to be eaten, it's to bootstrap a chicken farm for the person in their local area. So you'd probably get 10 hens and 2 cocks and some training on how to feed and farm them for meat, how to get the hens fertilized and laying, then how to hatch and raise the chicks. It's an attempt to get a self-sufficient cycle going. How good an idea or how feasible it might be is left to your discernment.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    6. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem here is that the cycle is already going. Bolivia has many problems, but lack of chickens isn't one of them. Every Bolivian can, in principle afford to buy some live chickens and start breeding, there's a chicken surplus, and chicken-based dishes are really popular in Bolivia. The trouble stems for the fact that the same surplus makes for low margins, lack of good infrastructure hampers trade in some areas, and a measly 100k chickens isn't going to do very much. The number is dwarfed by the total chicken production already in place and the cost of delivering them alone (not to mention the supporting materials required for starting small-scale farms) is enormous compared to the Bolivian market value of those same chickens. If you want to help Bolivia, invest in critical infrastructure for example.

    7. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Of course they would accept anonymous checks. The people in power in Bolivia would be able to get that money into their own bank accounts with no fear that the poor would be able to use it to become more politically powerful.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      The problem with someone like Bill Gates offering to "build infrastructure" in Bolivia is that most of the money will end up in the pockets of the politically powerful in Bolivia, and very little infrastructure will get built.
      You might want to re-read the summary. These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries. Having worked with a different charity that works with the poorest of the poor in third world countries I can tell you that a small investment in the lives of the very poor can have big results. Projects which invest a small amount of money making a difference for the very poor are much more effective at improving the situation than projects which invest a large amount of money in a "big" change.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re: Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could try to help out a small number of truly poor people by giving them the means to become self sufficient farmers instead of contributing to continued corruption by paying for infrastructure where the people in power will surely take their cut.

    10. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by puto · · Score: 1

      As someone who is a Colombian citizen, who has worked in 9 latin American countries since the 80s you have no idea on how things work south of the border. Bolivia might be producing a metric shit ton of chickens, but they are either being exporting, or sold at prices that poor people cannot afford. Chicken is considered a luxury. even in middle class households. This is just a petty bureacrat trying to weasel into a cash donation because of his faux outrage. Just because he and his pals can afford chicken does not mean everyone else can. The whole teach a man to fish analogy is very apt in this case. I always laught at one laptop per child, because food, clothing, and shelter is a lot more important than angry birds.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    11. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries.

      Yes, good old Heifer International which encouraged dairy production in Japan. Yep, heavily lactose intolerant Japan*. Who spends 20% of their donations on advertising. But, let's consider for a second that Heifer International does a great job delivery those 100,000 chickens. Then what?

      Well, first, there's already the issue that countries like the US are dumping (ie, below production cost) products like chicken on other countries. The US produces ~6.5 MT (metric tons)/person. Japan produces ~2.2 MT/person. China produces ~2.8 MT/person. Brazil produces ~5.5 MT/person. Bolivia produces ~0.036 MT/person. Those numbers rather hint at the point that as far as trade goes, Bolivia might be able to raise chickens for self-sustainability but not for trade.

      Yet trade is most often the largest thing that pushes people out of poverty. There's a reason it's called dirt-poor subsistence farming. Further, there are better things to be raising than animals for self-sustainability. Of course, that also translates into stripping a lot of Bolivia's jungles down for farmland, like Brazil does. See where this is going? Yea, if we're willing to support clear cutting forest and pushing on Bolivia a lot of the development to build out the whole system (clearing out land for farming, building infrastructure to transport supplies/goods, etc), it would possibly work.

      The problem with someone like Bill Gates offering to "build infrastructure" in Bolivia is that most of the money will end up in the pockets of the politically powerful in Bolivia, and very little infrastructure will get built.

      Yea, or, you know, Bill Gates could hire out constructors to build the infrastructure and not leave it to the Bolivian government to do it. Just like the whole 100,000 chickens shouldn't go to the government. Oh, yea, btw, Bolivia already has over 180 million chickens -- 396,000 MT ~= 174 million birds. They'd do better to just buy up a million birds locally and redistribute them.

    12. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bolivia is so awash with chickens, why not sell them to neighboring countries and invest the profits into infrastructure themselves? Or better yet, they could donate their extra chickens to places that don't have them, being so well-off in chickens as Bolivia is.

    13. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infrastructure. There's no point in being wealthy in resources if you can't properly exploit them.

    14. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      South american here, who was lucky enough to travel/work on many many countries. Been to Bolivia three times. Never noticed chicken being "treated as a luxury" - their most popular national dish is based on chicken, for God's sake (and it is awesome).

    15. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think it'd be possible to give money to individual farmers?

    16. Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You don't think it'd be possible to give money to individual farmers?

      Not checks, no. Even giving cash is ineffective. Those farmers do not have bank accounts, and they know better than to try to open one. In a country being run as a kleptocracy, banks are run by and for only the most wealthy and well-connected. If you are not part of the in crowd, your deposits will be stolen with bogus fees so fast it will make your head spin.

      This is something people from the developed world have been failing to grasp for about 100 years now, having grown up with it since birth and taking it for granted. Especially Republicans do not understand this at all. The quality and honesty of government, in the persons of each and every person in that government, is fantastically important in the development of a region. Look around the world. Everywhere the government is a warlord, or a kleptocracy, or a theocracy, or completely nonexistent is a hellhole, and has been a hellhole for generations. Starving a government until it is "small enough to drown in a bathtub" is the very fastest way to turn a region into a hellhole. Grover Norquist is the blindest fool the US has produced in the past half century.

      It is the function of government to establish infrastructure. The four most important pieces of infrastructure are water, sewage, roads, and finances. The water must be clean or people die. The sewage must be dealt with or people die. The roads must exist or people can't move themselves or products. The financial system must be available and scrupulously honest or people can't trade, can't borrow, and can't have a market any more advanced than a bartering bazaar, which is ridiculous inefficient. And the function of the government is to establish these things and to KILL any motherfucker who damages them. That's the government monopoly on force that the lunatics are always complaining about. Any government that does not do these things or fails to back up their effectiveness and integrity with force is a failed state.

      Bolivia is a failed state. No, you can't give money to individual farmers. It will be stolen from them.

  12. the old chicken or egg conundrum? by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    The leftist government of Bolivia, "He [Bill Gates] does not know Bolivia's reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce..."

    Silly Bill Gates, maybe he should give them 100,000 fertilized eggs instead?

  13. Stupid tech billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got lucky with their big idea(s), then they get a ginormous ego and think they can solve the world's problems. Do us all a favor and fade away into obscurity already.

  14. Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy Solution.

    Rather deliver 100K chooks, pay Bolivia producers to distribute 100K chickens to the poorest- presumably the country - Bill sets the delivery points with a selfie of the receivers, to me matched worth another selfie holding their chickens with the duplicate unique bar-code.
    Bill just has to distribute 100K pairs of one time pad unique numbers with a barcode that converts to 50% face value and another 50% with a selfie of the people holding their chickens 5 days later. A chicken leg-ring is another anti-scam device that could add to security..
    This is to sabotage 1 truck doing a tour - collecting coupons for cash, not kind or otherwise not genuinely delivering chickens to their delivery owners. Facial recognition is a small bonus as systemic cheats are now linked with photo.
    You could also set a trap where some owners are told to place a 2nd leg ring on their chickens - no ring means duress.
    Now the public and facebook can run a side competition who deserves more chickens 3 months later.
    And Bill or the program at the end actually gets to know IF Bolivia can make good to deliver 100K chickens to designated persons.

    If the program is somehow swindled - drop 100K frozen chickens on the cheaters. Yep the above is complicated, but rather than rich dude with faked paperwork profiting without any chickens being delivered - now at least most will have to be physically trucked out.

    Best of all the guvverment can not get cross if Bill hands out delivery coupons for future delivery.

  15. We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3

    The theory (I'll call this The Theory) goes like this: If you give free food to Africa, you'll price out African farmers who will starve because they have nothing else to do. And then the people will starve when you stop donating food.

    That complaint seriously misses the point. Let me tell you why: African farmers don't need to farm. They need to do something that pays for what they need. Any work will do, really. As long as an unskilled person can do it. So there are three possibilities here: Industrialization is impossible for African nations (so there can't be other work) OR there isn't enough investment to drive industry (so the farmers can't get other work) OR technological unemployment now makes unskilled work insufficiently profitable to support a person.

    Now African farmers are already doing something otherwise (effectively entirely) done by machine in first world countries. A farm in Europe requires far, far less human labor. A European farmer's job is more in the line of managing machines, scheduling planting, organizing finances, and so forth. You won't see him on his knees weeding a patch of land. You won't see him with a scythe in his hand at harvest time. You won't even see him helping a pig give birth or tending a sick cow* An EU farm averages "...an average size of 16.1 hectares per agricultural holding. An average EU farm has less than one person see here. 12 million farms, 10 million farmers.

    If the above theory about farmers going out of work is to be believed then it's impossible for farming to make up a significant percentage of employment. Otherwise the complaint would be invalid. So the farming singularity has not arrived in Africa. I'm going to beg the question that a strong industrial economy and a service economy also haven't, I think it's obvious. This leaves the third possible support for The Theory completely without support. In Africa unskilled labor can still pay what passes for a living wage. On to the first possibility.

    The statistics here tell us that Africa has averaged a 3 to 6 percent increase in GDP for the last decade. This is despite AIDS, Malaria, pants-on-head retarded or just evil actions by African politicians, revolutionary wars, and otherwise being the unwashed asshole of the world. More to the point, this increase represents industrialization. For evidence see this economic diversification report.

    It may not be enough yet, or even certain but it is happening.

    Going back to africaneconomicoutlook.org if we look at table 10, foreign direct investment we see that the middle objection to food exports to Africa is quite strong. Africa has averaged 51 billion dollars per year of direct foreign investment. For a whole continent that's shockingly small. As shown by continual growth through massive problems... problems that are going away one by one, Africa is at the cusp of a new era. All that needs to be done is entice a rational amount of foreign investment (say, 400 billion dollars per year) by parties interested in money, not power (actual economic investment, not strings-attached economic manipulation) and it will industrialize at a clip only seen so far in China's rise to power.

    If that happens:
    1. The Theory's complaint will be rendered moot very quickly by African farmers reaching par for productivity.
    2. Food can be freely given on the basis that the vast majority of

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      In terms of resource wealth Africa by all rights should be one of the most powerful continents on the planet, its economic output should be putting the US to shame the way the US currently puts most smaller African nations to shame.

      The problem is it's also been brutally colonized and had its economy, environment, and even borders completely fucked up by that. Africa's not going to get unfucked until a few more border rearrangements happen and the lines on the map actually line up with ethnic/tribal boundaries better.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If the blame is colonization, then how do you account for the many African countries which were worse off before becoming a colony, better off while they were colonies and suddenly took a massive turn for the worse after they gained independence?

      Wouldn't that indicate colonization was a positive benefit to those countries, not the cause of all their problems? Or are you one of those people who don't let facts get in the way of your professor's ideology?

      BTW, the United States and Canada were both colonies for a long time. Why don't they suffer similar long term ill effects of "colonization"?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You should not have posted that. Sigh ...

      Now we will get spammed by Americans asking and suggesting why we need 10million farmers to feed Europe. Wondering why our farmers have so small farms and are not farming 100 to 150 acres and employing illegal "Mexican immigrants" during harvest time.

      The Theory is obviously a bit more complex, e.g. "imperialistic companies" cough cough either buying up huge land areas or contracting huge amounts of farmers to produce stuff for the global market instead for local food etc.

      Hence a few farmers can earn enough to buy food in the supermarket by selling cotton, palm oil, etc., but there is no affordable food for the population.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      I was going to make an opposing case.

      Africa land is poor, because it didn't have glaciers crushing and moving the land etc. fertilizing it dozens of times. Lush forests are amazing but sustain on thin humus on top of worthless soil.
      Huge stretches are water poor.
      It's huge, like twice it looks like due to Mercator projection bias on maps.

      I'm sure it might turn out a lot better, still.
      I don't know about drawing borders on ethnical boundaries. No idea what the many cultures there think. Ethnical or tribal boundaries often are a US talking point : the US has wages multiple wars in the Middle East to dismantle and balkanize countries and it has been a huge disaster. A side victim was Libya, one of the better African countries to live in, which doesn't exist anymore.
      I'm more familiar with the French version of what a state is so I see half or more African country-states as French speaking and English speaking ones. Language that help with mutual intelligibility but also could help develop industries such as solar panel manufacturing, nanotechnology, batteries and reverse fuel cells or whatever is useful, manufacturing and operating satellites and drones, whatever.
      What if France was stuck on ethnical/regional boundaries : it would be like 15 or 20 countries each with their own languages, ditto Italy or Germany. Of course I'm applying what I know to a foreign whole continent so that has its limits.

      They may leapfrog into a facebook (sigh) society. What will happen then? I don't know and I hate to think about that. Shitscared that it would lead to surveillance societies where the powerful target people to "disappear" and torture at will.

    5. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the Soviet Union, the first part of your post. Going from (Soviet Union) to (Not Soviet Union) was a huge disaster for people involved. It's like a tremendous economical and political collapse kill people.

      US and Canada had it easy, perhaps the historical parallel would be eastern part of Roman Empire turned Eastern Roman Empire turned Byzantian Empire.

    6. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Russia had corruption issues going from the Soviet Union to Not Soviet Union, but the public within a year or two went from massive food shortages to being able to eat again, so I'm pretty sure they don't see it as that much of a disaster. The biggest corruption issue is that the pre-change elites running everything behind the scenes are pretty much the same post-change elites running everything behind the scenes. That differs markedly from the African post-colonial experience where they kicked out the colonial elites and put power in the hands of locals who didn't have it before. In a similar fashion, the US and Canada also had pretty much the same elite groups running things locally before and afterwards (especially in Canada). So maybe that made a big difference?

      From the Yale Economic Review:

      According to a 2002 paper by Leon Aron, in 1989, the average citizen spent 40 – 68 hours a month standing in line, reflecting the difficulty to acquire even the most basic consumer goods in Russian markets. In April 1991, less than one in 8 respondents to an opinion poll said that they had recently seen meat in state stores, and less than one in 12 had seen butter. ..
      In January 1992, most prices were liberalized. Queues disappeared and goods reappeared in stores. A mass privatization program, implemented during 1993–1994, transferred shares in most firms from the government to their managers and workers, as well as the general public. By mid-1994, almost 70 percent of the Russian economy was in private hands. In 1995, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, Russia stabilized the ruble. In just a few years, Russia’s economy had undergone a complete turnaround and had put the necessary reforms in place to progress rapidly towards economic liberalization and stability...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun talking high ideas from your ivory academic tower. You're ignoring the "transition casualities" that get to starve to death when their local economy tanks but before any other jobs pop up. This can be easily avoided if people just don't dump food aid but send money instead. But they are just "ignorant blacks" and need is to do what's best for them.

      This is currently happening in Mozambique and Malawi. Due to drought etc. trust me, your ideas change when you get to see some poor bastards starving to death.

    8. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really cannot grasp the answer to your question, try asking a Native American. They suffered some pretty ill effects, and still do. If you were born in Africa or a reservation, you would be incapable of spewing your political propaganda of privilege, because you would have firsthand knowledge that many that you deride have obtained through life experience, something you clearly have not had much of outside of suburbia.

    9. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      What's funny about your ignorance is that in your projected reality, I'm not part Cherokee (My Dad is a tribe member, descended from a baby who survived being abandoned on the trail of tears). Back in actual reality, most of the anti-colonialist ideologues are twenty- or thirty-something college graduates of privilege (of whatever race) who had some left-wing professor spoon feed them their opinion. Hit a little too close to home for you?

      Why is it that to the US left, everything has to be about race and group identity politics? It's as if they don't consider people able to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves, but insist everyone must be ruled by a master and conform to group opinion.

      If you don't know anything about someone's actual life and background, then it's pretty ignorant/stereotypical to make such broad assumptions. But then, that sort of racism is what we've come to expect from people who spout about "privilege" and have the idea that where you were born determines your life story and choices. It's people like you and the ideas you support who've turned a once proud people into miserable rez dwellers.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    10. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny about your ignorance is that in your projected reality, I'm not part Cherokee (My Dad is a tribe member, descended from a baby who survived being abandoned on the trail of tears). Back in actual reality, most of the anti-colonialist ideologues are twenty- or thirty-something college graduates of privilege (of whatever race) who had some left-wing professor spoon feed them their opinion. Hit a little too close to home for you?

      Why is it that to the US left, everything has to be about race and group identity politics? It's as if they don't consider people able to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves, but insist everyone must be ruled by a master and conform to group opinion.

      If you don't know anything about someone's actual life and background, then it's pretty ignorant/stereotypical to make such broad assumptions. But then, that sort of racism is what we've come to expect from people who spout about "privilege" and have the idea that where you were born determines your life story and choices. It's people like you and the ideas you support who've turned a once proud people into miserable rez dwellers.

      What's funny in your attempted rebuttal is that you think your unsupported claim is somehow demonstrating that you would be aware of the conditions experienced by others through link arising from a purported genetic heritage.

      Why do you think that gives you an insight into the experiences of a particular group? And do note, you're the one making a claim based on racial inheritance, whereas the claim you don't want to addressed is based on a combination of events and circumstances instead.

      But yes, you don't and haven't demonstrated any awareness of the actual life and background of the people you disregard as "miserable rez dwellers" and use to fuel your condescension towards blaming someone who calls to your attention to the situation that you don't understand due to your own lack of experience. The fact is, mere chance of birth does influence your life, what happens to you, and what choices you can make. As much as you laud people's ability to think for themselves, reality intrudes as mere chance can inhibit the development of that capacity as shown by any number of studies of the environmental impact of a variety of substances that cause problems in human cognition.

      Ultimately, though, that is merely an excuse for you to disregard any feelings of compassion, any sentiments of guilt, because you can just dismiss those reactions by attacking others who obviously are the ones to blame. It's like a con-artist who goes through life thinking that anyone who they victimize is the one who bears the sin of their scams.

    11. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the blame is colonization, then how do you account for the many African countries which were worse off before becoming a colony, better off while they were colonies and suddenly took a massive turn for the worse after they gained independence?

      Wouldn't that indicate colonization was a positive benefit to those countries, not the cause of all their problems? Or are you one of those people who don't let facts get in the way of your professor's ideology?

      Which ones? I mean, really, you're basically making an empty set of claims, without any specific facts, while claiming others have a problem with ideology, as if you had presented facts yourself. But your post is lacking in the particular details that provide supporting facts.

      Are we supposed to read your mind and know which ones you're talking about? It'd be one thing if you were offering simple conjecture, but you chose to engage in criticism while your own words were no better in substance.

      I'm afraid that is a demonstration of behavior that is not in your favor.

      BTW, the United States and Canada were both colonies for a long time. Why don't they suffer similar long term ill effects of "colonization"?

      Oh, there are possible explanations that can be speculated upon. For one thing, the time period is different, and their native populations were almost thoroughly exterminated, leading to a "virgin" resettlement. What is left, yes, there are problems there, and there were lots of conflicts too. And there have been places with problems, just ask the Sooners. Or even the West Virginians. And there's a lot more in the rest of the Americas.

      That said, maybe it was because the exploitative and extraction companies stuck around in Africa, and continued their business. And let's not forget the Cold War, the US and USSR did engage in destabilizing activity, and so did their puppets. Those Cubans weren't in Angola to be nice and hand out puppies.

      Even now, there is a lot going on that could be disruptive, and while the aid from Brazil and China is often touted as being beneficial, it's possible that it isn't.

      So plenty of speculation available to explain any number of outcomes. Of course, if you want substantial proof, you'll need to summon Hari Seldon, and I doubt you have that capacity.

      None of us have that, so despite your pretensions, you're not offering a superior explanation. That you claim you are, does, as I said, discredit you, however.

    12. Re:We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because most of the work is done by farmhands and mechanics not farm owners.

  16. Bolivia is a rich country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Coca-rico. It doesn't give a chickenshit for some cocoricos.

  17. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Funny

    Look at least he is not trying to give them Windows 10, that would really be insulting.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  18. By the same definition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A part of adult & children in the US are malnourished. No, seriously it is estimated by the same definitions that about 6 millions adults and 3 millions children are malnourished.

  19. Well if thats how they feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should send sandor clegane instead

  20. How is that propery spelt ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do spell the genitive singular of the name Gates or is it a genitive plural. If "Gates" is a singular ending in 's' then the genitive should be Gates's. Or is Gates a plural noun then the word should be spelt Gates' as in the article.

  21. Exactly, what about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of this stupid habit of people replying to "Government/Country X is shit!" by saying "The USA is shit too!". Yeah, I've visited the US and the first thing to hit me was the contrast between the wealth of the country as a whole and the rampant poverty on the streets. It's shit... but so fucking what? How does that make any bald-eagle-buggering difference to how Bolivia is?

  22. Chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our news chicken overlords.

    This is poestry.. Well done, Bill Gates. Congratulation.

    Maybe Microsoft will design robots to feed, kill, and roast the chikens.

  23. Thank you 0.1-percenter! by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Come on, Bill. Your best response was NO response but instead you had to make a snarky, self-important blog post. You've never been hungry or poor in your whole life, even before Microsoft and therefore have no standing to dole out criticism.

    1. Re:Thank you 0.1-percenter! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are dumb. He wasn't giving them the chickens to eat. The idea is that small numbers would be distributed to poor rural people who would them breed them and raise them for income. Obviously the Bolivian governmental official doesn't want the competition to the established large chicken producers.

    2. Re:Thank you 0.1-percenter! by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about chickens. I just commented on Bill's global elitist attitude.

    3. Re:Thank you 0.1-percenter! by Scutter · · Score: 2

      So, your opinion is that the 0.1 percenter who has done more humanitarian work with his money that you could possibly dream of while you sit behind a keyboard and bitch about it should keep his mouth shut? I think I'd rather have him talk about his projects and why he stands behind his decisions. Honestly, I wish you'd make up your mind. You either want the billionaires to share their riches or you don't. You can't demand that they share and then complain when they do. I don't think he should have to apologize to you because he had a plan that you didn't like.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    4. Re:Thank you 0.1-percenter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't though... Most of the money go to himself or to profit himself. You should do at least a little research before gargling his balls.

    5. Re:Thank you 0.1-percenter! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The idea is that small numbers would be distributed to poor rural people who would them breed them and raise them for income. Obviously the Bolivian governmental ...
      Obviously you are an idiot. "The poor" are already raising chickens and eat them or sell them.

      Bolivia has about 10 million inhabitants. If 1millions so poor that they deserve a chicken, then only 1 out of 10 will get one.

      The idea is fail on all scales. And your idea that it is the governments fault is: idiotic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. Re: Trump 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a change we can believe in

  25. chickens created by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He allready raised millions of (human)chickens with his Operating System called windows.

  26. Hopefully by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they didn't click the Red Cross to say thanks but no thanks for your chickens because they will probably get delivered anyway...

  27. Re:please don't feed the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zoo rules

  28. Well, The Netscape Chicken Retail Stock by retroworks · · Score: 1

    just crashed. Thanks Obama

    --
    Gently reply
  29. Why does he have 100000 chickens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where does he keep them?

  30. Bolivia average income by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the inter web:

    With a per capita income of $2,800—as compared to an average of $8,200 for other Latin American countries

    Bolivia stands as the poorest nation on the continent.

    Furthermore, real GDP per capita in Bolivia is less today than it was 27 years ago, while 64 percent of the country lives below the poverty line.

    Maybe a few chickens wouldn't hurt. The Bolivian President has a country the size of Bolivia but an ego the size of China.

  31. Chickens in the altiplano by Tuqui · · Score: 1

    I doubt that raise chickens in the altiplano is a good idea. The most poor population in Bolivia are the altiplano over 3000 m. about sea level. If they did a real field check of the plan they would be donating Llamas or Alpacas and Tools needed for fiber produce.

    1. Re:Chickens in the altiplano by PPH · · Score: 1

      I don't think chickens would be bothered by the altitude. Otherwise how would they be able to fly?

      -- Bill Gates

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Chickens in the altiplano by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      I would have thought a pressing issue was the environment.

      e.g. Lake Poopo dried up this year. Whether it will ever fill again has scientists worried.

  32. Re:You are not chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did someone say they were, MOOOOO here!?!?

  33. Not funny period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry you're not missing anything. There's no punchline, point or satire if that's what you're looking for.

  34. They would probably take a different donation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bolivian government stated that they would accept a personal check instead. To avoid abuse of the funds Bill Gates should make it out to the official Bolivian relief organization Chickens Aren't Sufficient Help, preferably using their acronym, C.A.S.H.

  35. Re: Trump 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he does change his story every week, so yeah everyone believes he'll change. Again, next week.

  36. Socialists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the rhetroic of Bolivia's lefits government were true, no one would want these chickens, they'd already have enough thanks to the generoristy of their socialist overlords. There'd be no need to refuse what no one wants. The reality is that poor countries always have really poor people, people who can benefit from getting these Gates' chickens. I know. I spent a summer on an island in the West Indies where most people were poor. Another few chickens could make a big difference.

    Bolivia's government would rather their poor stayed poor and hungry than for anything to happen to cause them to see that its "Socialism Good. Capitalism Evil" propaganda isn't right.

    Think of George Orwell and the ruling pigs who proclaim "Four legs good. Two legs bad." (I quote from memory.) Gates has two legs. He has to be seen as evil. And if thousands of Bolivians go hungry who would have otherwise be fed. Well, these are socialists. They don't care.

  37. Bing Sucks by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    He does not know Bolivia's reality

    If Bill Gates knows nothing of Bolivia, it is probably from using Bing.

    I'd hazard a guess that it is Bolivia's government he knows little about, more so than Bolivia itself.

  38. As God as my witness, by gijoel · · Score: 1
  39. Chickens will kill people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, you just don't get it do you? Bolivia != Nigeria.

    For starters, don't give "them" anything, "they" are not children and they can take care of themselves. The region is fucked up because of historical shenanigans of Europeans and Americans. It is time for these countries to leave the Bolivians alone.

    What do you think would happen if you dropped a few thousand chickens on a village outside Cochabamba? Well, the farmers would already have enough chickens, so they'd slaughter them and take them to market and sell them, collecting a bit of a bonus. But the farmers in the village that doesn't have the "aid" would also be taking their chickens to market, as usual, except that all the sudden there's a supply gut and they can't get enough return on their sale to keep the farm going. So village A has a minor bonus and village B is screwed for years. It's called Aid Dependency and it kills children! They want an apology because Gates almost killed children by negligence.

    I have my issues with Morales: I think the guy is a racist and he is wasting a large part of the country's Gas resources by refusing to trade with Chile. But you cannot deny that his government has done more to improve the lives of the poorest than any other in the last 50 years. He's done this by providing infrastructure: he builds roads, markets and schools. And it is working: the number of absolutely poor Bolivians is at its lowest in... ever.

    Now, if the Bolivians were to ask for help, and they surely would if they thought they would get real help, then we should help them. If we're afraid of corruption, then we should provide things that they say they need, not things we assume they need because, hey, we're rich so we know better. The successful, popular and democratically selected government of Bolivia is full of shit, right?

  40. What a dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can give those chickens to me. I'm not too pround to accept them.

  41. They don't want to turn into homosexuals by jgfenix · · Score: 1

    Some years ago Evo Morales said that chickens were full of feminine hormones and are the cause of homosexuality.

    1. Re:They don't want to turn into homosexuals by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      God, i remember that. Morales, Kirchner, Correa and Chavez bring shame to the region.

    2. Re:They don't want to turn into homosexuals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only chickens. Most food is packed with estrogen. The upside is girls get better tits.

  42. Any place could use 100,000 chickens by Pulzar · · Score: 1

    Texas produces 5 billion chickens a year, and it could still use a gift of 100,000 chickens to poor and unemployed who could get some income out of raising them. As if often happens, pride and politics are getting in the way of helping some people :(.

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  43. Insightful? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Bolivia has plenty of chickens. This is a tiny amount for them; furthermore, just about anybody can afford to buy some chicks and start on their own. If he wanted to help the poor with chickens he'd provide education on raising them and maybe some chicken feed... It's incredibly ignorant to think that giving any group of people on earth free chickens is going to greatly benefit them.

    Next we'll hear about Gates giving poor Hindus cows or drilling water wells in the Amazon or providing winter coats to north Africans or high-tech toilets...(anybody remember that one?)

    If it must be food related, get people willing to eat insects like grasshoppers and show the how to raise those...

  44. Come to Venezuela by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    To buy a chicken you need to spend anything from 4 to 12 hours in a line. A donation like that would help, but sadly i think it would be rejected by the government as well.

    We desperately need food and medicines and countries have tried to help, but the government doesn't allow it

  45. chicken fried spywarez? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    password: nsa

  46. "if I were in their shoes, that's what I would do" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and of cause make sure all other chicken farmers around me fail with semi-legal underhanded business practices."

  47. Just one image in head reading headline by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "With God as my witness, I thought chickens could fly"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  48. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they would reject a pile of Genetically modified Chickens that are a part of an experimenthttps://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/18/1919211/bill-gates-donation-of-thousands-of-chickens-rejected-by-bolivia#

  49. Rich people like free stuff, too. by Nastee · · Score: 1

    I know for a fact that guys that operate the machines that create everyone's CPU's have chickens. Here in USA. And I know those guys wouldn't say no to some extra free chickens. This is obviously a political move by people in power that care nothing about their own people.

  50. Who knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe the chickens will have the added benefit of reducing fertility rates by 15%.................

  51. Gates is the typical flushe clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fool. Gates is an idiot who hasn't a clue about the subject. Never probably thought of the problems of feed, water, and worse chicken feces, besides injecting diseases into the local populace of native animals and people. These counties don't have the same health care that the rich and ignorant Bill uses. So, put a chicken in Bill's country yard and see how fast it is killed and thrown into a waste bin.

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. Moo, say the chickens. Re: You are not chickens by XXongo · · Score: 1
    It wasn't funny the first few dozen times it got posted.

    But it's actually starting to get funny, just because it makes no sense whatsoever.

    or maybe my brain is just melting. Hard to tell.

  55. Selected for local conditions? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    I've had some interest in an indigenous Southern African breed of chicken called Boschvelders. They have been from 3 indigenous varieties, which through natural selection have become adapted to a very rural environment. As a result, the resulting breed is reported to do exceptionally well in the local Souther African climate, is very hardy and resistant to illness, and can survive and even produce on no additional feed, only what is foraged in the sometimes less-than-ideal environment. The birds' temperament is reported to be quite human-friendly (tame), the eggs produced are highly prized, and the birds seem to be naturally resistant to predators (good evasion instincts).

    The point that I want to get to is that even though these birds look excellent on paper, they are adapted to a certain environment. I have my doubts that they would necessarily do well in a cooler northern-hemisphere country with different climate, ground, food sources and where they probably will be confined to laying batteries... And vice versa: if some well-to-do charity goes and dumps thousands of birds that are the preferred commercial variety in the charity's country of origin (meaning probably an easy supply), they just might not do as well in a different climate and environment. Many of the traits that are desirable in a variety are inbred, from mothering instincts to laying capacity to size to growth and the pros and cons of various breeds are endlessly discussed. Now imagine a locally adapted breed being flooded with unadapted genetics... In the long run, selection may of course again run its course - but in the short run, this might just lead to some drastic and hopefully unintended disasters (or conceded, all might just run without problems and only with benefits).

    Still: why presumably import chickens? Why not set up breeding facilities to increase the numbers of local varieties - on location?

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  56. Overview by gavron · · Score: 1

    Bolivia cried fowl over Gates' plan.

    E

  57. Re:Moo, say the chickens. Re: You are not chickens by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    Is it bad that Slashdot is giving us Stockholm Syndrome?

  58. Go Vegan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I flipped a quarter to a man on the street, he flipped it back to me.

    Let them eat cake. . .or kelp.

  59. A lesson here about by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    Looking gift chickens in the mouth?

    Regardless of whether you feel it's in an insult, dude - free chickens.

  60. Golly! Maybe the government of Bolivia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be better able to help its poor if it was not spending so much on Windows Licenses and anti-virus software, etc.

    Typical Limo-Lib. Gets ultra rich, often sucking money out of poor countries, then wants to be seen as a good guy so he spends a tiny fraction of that wealth on a symbolic act which might not have any real benefit because he cannot be bothered to actually take the time to learn about the place and see what might work best there.

    I'll bet he buys carbon offsets so he can fly all around the globe on private jets with a clean conscience - not because he has done good, but rather because he bought a clean conscience certificate (indulgence/carbon offset) from Al Gore, thus helping to make Gore rich...

  61. What's the matter Bolivia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...chicken?

  62. Bolivia's feigned offence. by bjwest · · Score: 1

    It's my understanding this was offered to poor countries in general, not directly any country, let alone Bolivia. So is Bolivia offended that they have to not fill out the donation paperwork for chickens in order to not get said chickens? Or they offended that there's a donation out there that they don't need, therefor cannot take advantage of? Either way, Bolivia needs to get over it and just not take the chickens instead of bitching about something other countries can and will use.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  63. It had to be Said by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    It's not the first time Gates laid an egg, or got some on his face. If he wasn't so cooped up and henpecked, maybe him and Buffet could figure out a better plan...birds of a feather and all that.

    I'm here all week folks.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  64. Re:Moo, say the chickens. Re: You are not chickens by WallyL · · Score: 1

    The real cow guy would never joke about inserting the word "chickens" so it's obviously a copy-chicken, a funny one!

  65. Yup. by darkharlequin · · Score: 1

    Socialism!

    --
    i am so very tired....
  66. GMOs chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows if these are genetically modified chicken. He pushes GMOs and all of unhealthy crap.

  67. Heck, worse with baby formula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it has to be made drinkable by putting water in it and, unlike the water in the mother's system, not at least partially disinfected and cleansed by their biology, that water is LETHAL to children.

    But it

    a) made westerners feel better
    b) made the company a tidy offset to taxable income
    c) was a good headline for that company

    Bill Gates ISN'T IN BOLIVIA'S SHOES, so how the fuck does he know what they should do? He needs to give up all his money and position and take up subsistence farming for a year, THEN see what he thinks needs to be done. Then try doing it as that subsistence farmer.

  68. Foretold minister by Rato+Ruter · · Score: 1

    Nobody mentioned that the surname of the minister of land and rural development (Cocarico) sounds like the sound of a rooster wake up?

  69. Don't kid yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Praising Bill Gates for philanthropy is like praising a bankrobber for using his haul to fund a soup kitchen. Sure what he's doing is good and all but don't kid yourself that he suddenly found secular religion and transfigured himself from the cold calculating baron he's been all his life to saint. He's just graduated from buying companies and hard assets to people.

  70. Vaccines anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These chickens better get drug tested before they enter Bolivia; may as well run some DNA tests to make sure there's no impending outbreak to which the WHO can swoop in and save humanity from itself.

  71. They screwed up by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I guess they skipped diplomatic school. The right answer was - "Thanks for the offer. We're doing fine. Please offer them to someone else." Like a civilized society/government would do.

    Not the crazy whacko leftist reaction we see.

    Never know when Bill may be able to help them in the future. Maybe he would have offered them medical help or other stuff they could use. Don't be that ungrateful child.

  72. chickens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they give chickens to a bunch of poor people who can't afford to buy them or to buy the feed necessary. then they can sell them to who? other poor people that can't afford to buy chickens? i think gates should just bypass the middlemen and give them the money. that's what bolivia is telling him.

  73. Might have been better..... by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 1

    if they had provided a interest free deferred loan for the chickens and/or farm equipment. That way it doesn't come off as either charity or yet another white man knowing what a country needs.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
  74. Hog wash by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Why can't Gates just set up a Lottery system and give them couple of US dollars directly e.g. https://www.givedirectly.org/e...

  75. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was cock-blocked?