It ain't all bad

December 18, 2014 9:59 PM

Bill Gates: Good News You May Have Missed in 2014
posted by gwint (49 comments total)

Much as I disliked Microsoft under his direction, he sure has made good of himself. I wish I had even a bit of his net worth so i could do a bit of the good he is doing.
posted by Windopaene at 10:14 PM on December 18, 2014 [7 favorites]

Still doesn't make up for Microsoft Bob.
posted by mazola at 11:25 PM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]

Good news is no news.

I'm happy to see his wife and he apply their considerable resources and intelligence to alleviate suffering where it is most prevalent as opposed to putting their name on a thing, per Carnegie. Not that Carnegie wasn't helpful - after years of having been by most definitions parsimonious evil.

This will get no attention though. Slate, Grauniad, and Gawker don't get clicks via good news. What will get attention is something with a hashtag.

Pity.
posted by vapidave at 11:26 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]

Fewer dead four year olds is good. More fifth birthdays than ever before, hm.
posted by Segundus at 11:39 PM on December 18, 2014 [6 favorites]

What I admire is not just his own philanthropic investments, but also the pressure (not the word I want, close enough though) he places on others in his economic class to do the same.

Fewer dead four year olds also means more mouths to feed though. D:
posted by This is the decision I made. at 11:46 PM on December 18, 2014

I can not find it in my heart to forgive his crimes against humanity.

But since it's Christmas here is another nice story, it's about a homeless person offering his last money to a young woman so she can get home, and the woman then collecting £21,000 for homelessness in her town.
posted by biffa at 11:58 PM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]

I needed this, thank you. God what an awful week to end up a difficult year.
posted by arha at 2:22 AM on December 19, 2014

Positive stuff, thanks! I noticed Nigeria resolving its Ebola outbreak efficiently. WHO commentary. Country to watch, I hope, although it is very dependent on oil exports, which are usually a curse.
posted by alasdair at 2:44 AM on December 19, 2014

Seriously? "It looks like you're using an older version of Internet Explorer which may not display all the features on this site." Sorry, but your web page is a broken mess. Guess there was nothing new and good in 2014.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 3:52 AM on December 19, 2014

Kudos to Bill Gates for recognizing it is diseases like rotavirus that do the real worldwide damage. Now let's eradicate helminthic infections and trichomoniasis.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:23 AM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

Two(2) comments expressing unqualified appreciation/recognition of good news, six(6) comments expressing qualified/partial appreciation of good news and one(1) of unknown intent. Not bad for MetaFi and the Holiday Season.
posted by rmhsinc at 5:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [6 favorites]

Fewer dead four year olds also means more mouths to feed though. D:

What
posted by Dr-Baa at 5:55 AM on December 19, 2014 [19 favorites]

Yeah those two comments were disheartening especially as I have five-year-old sleeping here beside me.

BTW lowering infant mortality reduces population growth rates. It may seem illogical but it's true.
posted by Nevin at 6:14 AM on December 19, 2014 [26 favorites]

Well pointed out Nevin! If your first born is more likely to survive into adulthood, parents are less likely to have 2 or 3 safety children. Overpopulation is a serious issue, but it's best combated with womens rights, condoms and education, not by letting disease run rampant.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 6:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [34 favorites]

The Gates Foundation is doing great work, especially on health issues, and there is legitimate good news to point to. I share everyone's distaste for the bullying tactics of the Microsoft of old, but I'm also a bit nostalgic for those days compared to Big Data and the commoditization of all everything I do. As noted, Gates is creating an expectation that the modern plutocracy will offload at least a portion of their fortunes on worthwhile causes and he is making a measurable difference in the world.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:52 AM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

Fewer dead four year olds also means more mouths to feed though. D:

Actually, in the somewhat longer run, no, less mouths, since people tend to get less kids if the survival rate is higher.

Traditionally, kids are a way to plan for your pension - the idea being they take care of you when you're too old to take care of yourself. If the survival rate is higher, you need less kids to reach that goal.
posted by DreamerFi at 7:10 AM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

Fewer dead four year olds also means more mouths to feed though

> What

Africa is projected to have 5 billion people by 2100 (1.2 today in Africa, about 7 billion globally).
posted by stbalbach at 7:15 AM on December 19, 2014

since people tend to get less kids if the survival rate is higher

Except.. that is not turning out everywhere. See Guardian link above.
posted by stbalbach at 7:16 AM on December 19, 2014

Africa is projected to have 5 billion people by 2100 (1.2 today in Africa, about 7 billion globally).

That's an interesting issue in it's own right, but fewer children dying is still an unmitigated good thing. Suggesting that child mortality is a good thing because it marginally contributes to a lower population growth rate goes beyond tone deaf into gross and distasteful.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:20 AM on December 19, 2014 [7 favorites]

Between this and the Cuba thread I am seeing a number of people determined to find the cloud to every silver lining. As someone who deals with sick kids daily the thought of more children living past their fifth birthday brought a big smile to my face.
posted by TedW at 7:21 AM on December 19, 2014 [8 favorites]

> What

Africa is projected to have 5 billion people by 2100 (1.2 today in Africa, about 7 billion globally).

I know you don't mean this, but you're essentially arguing that more children should die. As an argument, it's tone deaf, utterly lacking in empathy, and totally indefensible. In short, it's perfect for Internet discussion boards.

Reducing infant and child mortality does not equal overpopulation. You learn that in high school social studies class.
posted by Nevin at 7:23 AM on December 19, 2014 [11 favorites]

I would just like to point out that Alfred Nobel is known more for his Peace Prize than for being the inventor of dynamite and a "merchant of death." Whereas the BASIC interpreter that, AFAIK was Bill Gates' only personal contribution to MS-DOS, not only didn't kill people, but did inspire a lot of children (myself included) to learn to become programmers.

History will be kind to Bill Gates, methinks.

Thanks for the positive post.
posted by tempestuoso at 7:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [19 favorites]

If you think you need a net worth of $80 billion to do good in the world, then you're missing the point. Yes, the scale may be different, but I guarantee the one person you help won't care how much money you have.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

Suggesting that child mortality is a good thing

Only you made that suggestion. The poster raised a valid concern about food security with increased population.
posted by stbalbach at 7:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]

you're essentially arguing that more children should die. As an argument, it's tone deaf

*sigh*
posted by stbalbach at 7:25 AM on December 19, 2014

Childhood malaria is a solution to the population problem the same way that oil tanker spills are a solution to the global warming problem.
posted by theodolite at 7:31 AM on December 19, 2014 [9 favorites]

We were listening to an old Prairie Home Companion Jokes Show CD on a car trip last summer. There was a whole section of Evil Bill Gates jokes that no longer made sense. Boy has his image changed.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:36 AM on December 19, 2014

Only you made that suggestion. The poster raised a valid concern about food security with increased population.

Perhaps. But "more mouths to feed" is a little opaque. Anyway, food security is a different issue than reducing infant and child mortality which is intrinsically good.
posted by Nevin at 7:49 AM on December 19, 2014

*sigh*
stbalbach

I know you don't hold this opinion, but I've certainly seen people arguing that kids dying is just a natural valve to let off population pressure. These are usually also the ones harping on Malthus, saying we should implement China-style One Child policies, and advocating eugenics programs.

On the other hand, I've also seen environmentalists almost gleeful at the idea of global warming leading to massive human die-offs.

People can be kind of fucked up.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:54 AM on December 19, 2014

Only you made that suggestion. The poster raised a valid concern about food security with increased population.

Linking overpopulation with decreased child mortality in developing countries is what is tone deaf. Doubling down on that does not reduce the tone deafness.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:02 AM on December 19, 2014 [4 favorites]

It surprises me that Gates is still reviled by so many despite his philanthropy while Jobs was a colossal bullying jerk and who was not known for his charity work still gets a pass by many on the Blue.
posted by Ber at 8:50 AM on December 19, 2014 [11 favorites]

Christ, did anyone see the smilie at the end?
posted by sfts2 at 8:54 AM on December 19, 2014 [2 favorites]

I am impressed that he has made good on his big talk about "having enough money" and "giving back" in the 90s, but I just wish Gates would confine his philanthropy to the developing world and medical/technology things. Every bit of the Gates Foundation reforms pushed on the public schools in the US have been an unmitigated disaster.
posted by absalom at 9:12 AM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

Well, that escalated quickly.
posted by yoink at 9:15 AM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]

Dip Flash, what's tone deaf is your inability to have an adult discussion on a complex topic without immediately resorting to personal attacks and presumptions of bad faith. For example you could have linked to Bill Gates discussing the link between population and child mortality in developing countries:

The myths persist despite the fact that Africa is experiencing something of a boom time. Demographers document a paradoxical reduction in population in countries where child mortality goes down. As families can be more confident their babies will survive, they will have fewer of them.

This quote supports your position. Is it true? I don't know, I tend to trust Gates because he does his homework, but it's also a complex issue which I have not researched in depth. For example this June 2014 study found:

Child mortality rates have fallen substantially in developing countries since 1960. The expected fertility decline has followed only weakly in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other recent and historic demographic transitions. Disease and anthropometric data suggest that morbidity remains prevalent in Africa despite child survival improvements. The uniquely high infectious disease burden among children in Africa reduces population health and diminishes the returns to human capital investment, thwarting the quantity–quality tradeoff for children that typically accompanies the mortality transition. Individual-level data from the Demographic and Health Surveys are used to show that persistent morbidity has weakened the positive relationship between child mortality and total fertility rates throughout the region, slowing Africa's demographic transition.

Africa is a special case since the majority of new population grow, globally during the 21st century, is projected to be in sub-Sahara Africa.
posted by stbalbach at 9:24 AM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]

It surprises me that Gates is still reviled by so many despite his philanthropy

Shit, I know people who despise him for the philanthropy. There are gross/weird/racist conspiracy theories about "what Bill Gates is really up to".
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:26 AM on December 19, 2014

Shit, I know people who despise him for the philanthropy. There are gross/weird/racist conspiracy theories about "what Bill Gates is really up to".

Despising him for doing good is silly, and conspiracy nonsense is pointless, but I do worry a little about the return to the Gilded Age model of philanthropist billionaires solving our problems.

I think we should be setting up actual social safety nets instead of relying on the benevolence of a wealthy few. I think it's part of the continued libertarian dismantling of society in favor of some neo-feudal state where the peons rely on the protection and generosity of the powerful few to survive.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:33 AM on December 19, 2014 [4 favorites]

This news, coming just after the Peshawar massacre, is very good thing for my soul.

Makes me feel we haven't entirely failed as a species.

\feeling happy.
posted by TheLittlePrince at 10:45 AM on December 19, 2014

Linking overpopulation with decreased child mortality in developing countries is what is tone deaf.

Well yeah, I agree. Bill G should have known better. Lower child mortality is a notable improvement in human welfare, more children than ever is disastrous and in bad taste to mention in a list of good news.
posted by sfenders at 10:59 AM on December 19, 2014

I totally disagree with you. There are reasons to be optimistic. Besides, reducing infant and child mortality is intrinsically good.

The issue here is not that there are too many mouths to feed. The issue is distribution of resources. That's a human problem, not an environmental one, and human problems have to be solved.

The first step on the road to change is to have hope for the future. While realism and pragmatism are critical, cynicism (and perhaps thinly-veiled misanthropy) are the path to failure. Cynics don't have to try. It's a failure of imagination and potential.
posted by Nevin at 12:02 PM on December 19, 2014 [2 favorites]

Nevin:

What you say is correct, this is truly a 1st world - 3rd world issue. While distributing resources still will have some effect on the environment unless alternative energy research is funded and the water supply issues are addressed.

The myth of overpopulation

(I believe I'm cynical/trollish in my humour not generally misanthropic)
posted by This is the decision I made. at 12:52 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]

Wow. That myth of overpopulation video put a quick end to my attempt at suspension of disbelief after less than two minutes when it made the claim that it's clearly not a problem since everyone on earth could fit into the state of Texas. That old bit of nonsense was debunked for me by an elementary school teacher sometime in the 1980's. It's reminiscent of Burt Rutan claiming that global warming can't be a real problem, because if you stacked all the human beings alive today in a big pile, it would be so very small compared to the earth that we obviously can't have much effect on something so big.

I steeled my nerve and watched the rest of the video. So bad I momentarily suspected it might be meant as a parody. But no, it turns out to be the work of an organization that appears devote itself to opposition to all forms of "family planning", for Catholic reasons. Next time the subject inevitably comes up, I recommend finding a better video attempt to pretend that overpopulation isn't by now well past the point of being obviously at least somewhat problematic. There are at least a few out there that aren't so offensively simple-minded.
posted by sfenders at 1:33 PM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]

The myth of overpopulation

What a load of logical fallacies, false information and twisted facts. "Overpopulation" is the new global warming.

If you want actual information on global demographic trends and consequences try Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?

(+ what sfenders said. I'm convinced there must be a campaign by conservatives to infiltrate MeFi it has become noticeably more right-wing in the past few years most of them new accounts).
posted by stbalbach at 1:34 PM on December 19, 2014

stbalbach: I feel that in some respects global warming is the new overpopulation due to the impact it has already had and the fact that it has been ignored in the general dialogue (although the two are inextricably linked).

Also it must be a conservative campaign because it surely could not be linked to an ever expanding representation of diverse philosophies and viewpoints on the internet. Metafilter should be strictly limited in access to those who belong to the far left, screw the moderates and conservatives.

sfenders: Of course it's an important religious agenda because that is how to spread their influence globally. There is a fairly well documented consensus in the relative scientific community as well as the global governing bodies that overpopulation is not only a future but also a current dilemma facing humanity. I would be skeptical of any argument that differs in thought.

Also, Bill and Melinda Gates probably know what they are doing and the possible effects of their actions as well as their involvement in multiple other charities and initiatives. (they good smart people)
posted by This is the decision I made. at 2:37 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]

Of course it's an important religious agenda because that is how to spread their influence globally.

Right, well I do feel like I should justify with a link my careless assertion that the Population Research Institute might be some variety of religious lunatics. Dear readers, you will not need to spend much time on their site to make up your mind. In fact I advise against it. Looks like they may have been founded by Catholics but perhaps since then evolved into a more contemporary Sarah Palin style of insanity. Fascinating.

So getting back to the optimism and stuff, Melinda Gates would not be a fan of these maniacs. She may spend a lot of words in the annual letter of 11 months ago arguing with a Malthusian straw man (we hardly need her for that around here), but she's down with the crucial importance of family planning and demographic transition as by far the most preferable way to slow down population growth.

These changes don’t just happen by themselves. Governments need to set policies to help countries take advantage of the opportunity created by demographic transitions. With help from donors, they need to invest in health and education, prioritize family planning, and create jobs. But if leaders set the right strategic priorities, the prospect of a virtuous cycle of development that transforms whole societies is very real.

— 2014 Gates Annual Letter

posted by sfenders at 3:47 PM on December 19, 2014 [2 favorites]

I am on the far left. That's why I think overpopulation is an intrinsically conservative distraction from things we can actually do something about. We have a clear and immediate crisis of developed world overconsumption and exploitation to deal with, and the political and economic tools to try. Overpopulation is hazy, unpredictable and lacking in clear policy approaches. Focusing on it allows us to shake our heads at the state of the world while excusing ourselves for doing nothing about it.
posted by howfar at 2:34 AM on December 20, 2014

I read The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich in 1969 and what an impact that had. Took the country by storm.

We're all supposed to be dead by now; in fact, we were supposed to be dead a long time ago.

What else is new? Nothing. The same alarmist material, recycled and given new stats, comes to the top again. It isn't that I doubt that overpopulation is an ongoing problem in certain areas or that I doubt that it could be a global problem if all the stars/circumstances aligned just so to make it happen, but at this point it's definitely in the best interest of the entire world to do all we can to stop polio, stop malaria, stop ebola, stop AIDS, stop rotavirus and other horrors that cause such suffering and death to so many people.

And that is what this post is about. The GOOD news that there is progress being made even at the same time we're fighting our own political and economic woes - and that's GOOD news; but wait - we can't have this - somebody find the negativity and spread it on.

Whatever evil things Bill Gates ever did they were matched indeed by Steve Jobs, in the first place, and in the second place, Bill and Melinda Gates have done more to bring health and stability to the outer ranges of our awareness - Africa, most notably - which, in turn, will improve the future for those of us who live in "developed" countries than any government, any individual or any combination of the two have in my lifetime.

So when the absolutely bizarre response to this positive information showed up - that being the noxious point that if more five-year-olds survive there will be that many more mouths to feed - just floored me. Sorry for the language, but WTF? Um .. which five-year-old, privileged American/Canadian child should have died so there would be less mouths to feed?

I find this really disturbing. Maybe it's just not thought out, maybe it's someone who's just bound and determined to find the negative in everything and point it out, or maybe it's just plain mean. I refuse to let it ruin the good news, whatever it is.

Thank you, Bill and Melinda Gates and The Gates Foundation, for your help.
posted by aryma at 3:59 AM on December 20, 2014 [1 favorite]

Sorry for the language, but WTF?

Whenever any comment is made observing that there are now so many billions of people around that the earth is going to have a lot of trouble sustaining us all in the long run, there will always be someone ready and willing to make great leaps of imagination, no matter whether or not one carefully phrases things to avoid giving such an impression, no matter how many times it's been refuted, no matter the length of the preceding thread that you'd think by now might have got past such a point, who will interpret it as saying that in order to solve the problem you want to go around mass-murdering people. It's some kind of law of nature.
posted by sfenders at 8:57 AM on December 20, 2014 [2 favorites]

The solution to "more mouths to feed" is well known and understood - voluntary family planning ie. birth control. Bill Gates not only advocates it, his foundation is the leading supplier of birth control in the world (through a UN program). He even funded the invention of a new high-tech super-thin condom made from graphene. Because what couple wouldn't want Bill Gates in bed.
posted by stbalbach at 7:47 AM on December 21, 2014