Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bill Gates's Plan To Improve Our World

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the quest-to-bluescreen-malaria dept.

News 445

An anonymous reader writes "Bill Gates has written an article in Wired outlining his strategy to improve people's lives through philanthropy and investment in technology and the sciences. He says, 'We want to give our wealth back to society in a way that has the most impact, and so we look for opportunities to invest for the largest returns. That means tackling the world's biggest problems and funding the most likely solutions. That's an even greater challenge than it sounds. I don't have a magic formula for prioritizing the world's problems. You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women. ...I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest. This system is responsible for many of the great advances that have improved the lives of billions—from airplanes to air-conditioning to computers. But capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor. This means market-driven innovation can actually widen the gap between rich and poor. ... We take a double-pronged approach: (1) Narrow the gap so that advances for the rich world reach the poor world faster, and (2) turn more of the world's IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OpenSource (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406189)

Windows. All half of the wars on the world will cease automatically. (privacy)

Most of the problems listed have a single cause (0, Flamebait)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#45406199)

Religion.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1, Flamebait)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#45406281)

Why stop there? If you posit that religion is the single cause for most of those problems world-wide, then you must also see that certain religions are highly correlated to many of those issues, while other religions have a low or inverse correlation.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406387)

You must also see that certain religions are highly correlated to many of those issues, while other religions have a low or inverse correlation.

I.e: "This religion is good. Other religions are bad"

That's the exact argument that keeps humanity killing each other over stupid ideas. Fuck all of them.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45406723)

True. Your point?

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406285)

Religion is just one form of control. Get rid of it, and something else will be used, be it patriotism, racism, drugs, financial ruin or sports.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a year ago | (#45406737)

Most insightful comment today.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#45406309)

Don't forget money.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406323)

Capitalism

Nothing is ever that simple (5, Interesting)

Anubis350 (772791) | about a year ago | (#45406333)

Nothing is ever that simple and any attempt to boil something so vast down to a single word, no matter how far reaching, is naive. Religions exists because of various human needs, and people believe because of various needs. It can enrich lives or impoverish them. It can motivate, or demotivate. It can create and destroy. Help and Harm. Like anything manmade it can be used for peace, and for war.

Terrible acts done in the name of religion are symptoms of deeper, more intertwined problems in how we relate to one another, terrible teachings symptomatic of human needs for order, control, and normalcy. Absence of religion would not simply make the world a better place on it's own, something else would take the place, both good and bad, that religion serves . "If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him"

Religion is a nice fairytale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406479)

to explain off world intelligence - at the same time insulting our own

Re:Nothing is ever that simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406741)

For sure, it's not that simple. The very fact is that the nature of the religions embodies their own evilness. Religions are all based on dogmas and by definitions dogmas are inalterable, non debatable. Religions were, until proven to the contrary, created by humans and humans are fallible. Consequently, mistakes and errors in religion are there to stay. Creationism ? Universe 6000 years old ? We are the chosen one and all others are wrong ? ... ? ... ?

    These mistakes and error are the first steps to hate and bloodsheds.

Re:Nothing is ever that simple (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45406767)

The needs belief fulfilled don't exist anymore. We don';t need to grasp blindly and any reason for something, we have science.

" Absence of religion would not simply make the world a better place on it's own, something else would take the place, both good and bad, that religion serves .
No, that's not true at all.

Tenants of religion underlines and enhances most of societies ill on the global level.

" "If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him"
We did invent him, but we don't live in caves fearfull of lightning. We don't need to have one leader in order to survive.

Absolutely false. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406343)

Bzzt. Thanks for playing.
You can highlight lots of examples of power-hungry idiots using certain religious ideology to cause harm, but it's no more dangerous than power-hungry idiots finding some other, perhaps less convenient, excuse to do the same thing. Many have done that as well.
Even if you had a point, which you don't, "correlation does not equal causation" (we can't have a Slashdot post that doesn't mention that fact, or Nazis, or "trusting trust")

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406373)

I know a lot of people are going to downvote the hell out of this, but it is a sad truth.

A lot of the countries that suffer from these problems have a hugely corrupt religious following throughout them, or many warring religions.
And often times these groups have a pyramid approach where the "more important" people get most of anything and the "poor peasant turds" get the scraps. I remember we got past that corruption of nobility nonsense back in the stupid ages.

Religion itself is not bad, but without regulation it is.
And with time, that also gets out of control so trying to regulate it is GOING to straight up require hostile action, regardless.
It is a tragic world we live in. People like to pretend we are in an age of enlightenment, are we fuck, we are still baby steps at best. It is just like those morons that think humanity is in the space age, NOPE, that is like saying the iron age started when some dude tripped over some ferrite. Not how it works, sorry. Humanity is at best in the baby steps towards an actual space age. Come back in maybe 100 years if we don't blow ourselves up over fossils, again.
Well, maaaaybe 50 if these space mining operations actually do come about. Planetary Resources actually did have a really huge and so far pretty efficient schedule from what I remember reading recently, they are already sticking to plans more-or-less. I can't WAIT to be a space pir--trucker.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (2)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45406519)

I know a lot of people are going to downvote the hell out of this, but it is a sad truth.

Did you forget what site you are on? This is Slashdot, any pro atheist comment gets +5 informative/insightful and anything discussing not just a Religion, but contemplation of a "Creator" gets you -234 Flamebait/Troll.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45406777)

Or it represents the majority opinion, but you surely wouldn't allow yourself to accept that now, would you

Most of the problems listed have a REAL cause (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45406409)

Human beings.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a REAL cause (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a year ago | (#45406589)

To be fair, you should have seen the mess after the alpacas had their turn.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a REAL cause (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45406859)

I for one welcome our Alpaca Space Alien overlords and welcome their return to our out of control human reservation ...

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#45406427)

Such a bullshit response.

You have to be completely blind to 20th century world history and quite ignorant on top of that, to truly believe that the elimination of religion would actually solve even some of the world's problems.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45406677)

Mod parent up.

The knee-jerk response that Religion is the source of all problem indicates a very poor grasp of history of the last hundred years.
Religion is at best used as an excuse, but was never the principal cause of any major conflict since the Crusades.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406431)

Religion.

Atheism.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (3, Interesting)

ttsai (135075) | about a year ago | (#45406439)

Magnitude of evil perpetrated by "bad" people with religion == Magnitude of evil perpetrated by "bad" people without religion.

Religion is almost never the driving factor. In the absence of religion, such people would have found other means and justifications to perpetrate their evil. There are many such examples in history.

Unfortunately, the castigation of religion often reveals a hatred of religion more than a hatred of the evil acts.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | about a year ago | (#45406871)

Religion is a convenient wrapping paper when you need to move the crowds, that's it. As the masses are by definition uneducated and uninterested morons, it's simpler to pitch geopolitical issues in terms easily understood by many rather than telling the truth. Leaving aside natural events, the only two (human) driving factors for history are influence and wealth. These are the things that trigger wars, civil wars, revolutions, migrations, etc... And this will never stop because if you can't compete for resources and influence in a civilised manner, it might be that your best rational option is to use violence. As Emil Cioran wrote "L'heure du crime ne sonne pas en même temps pour tous les peuples. Ainsi s'explique la permanence de l'histoire." which roughly translates to "Murder time does not come at the same time for all nations. This explains the continuity of history."

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406459)

Although evil has been committed in the name of religion, I would still say that more has been done through religion to ease human suffering than any other system. By contrast, governments have killed more people than religion ever could, and if that government is a theocracy it is still a government. In the 20th century the tyrannical governments of Russia, Germany, and China have slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Many of the best hospitals in the world are run by religious organizations, there are many religious orphanages, and in every major city you can find a mission that focuses on the homeless. To blame everything on religion is just an easy answer for the popular culture which talks a good game but in the end does very little for the poor unless of course there is photo op involved.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (5, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45406463)

Wrong, the problem today is corruption and people accepting corruption as the normal. Our current shitty state of the union is not due to any Religion, it's due to corrupt people in power. The only thing mentioning Religion does is to show that religion is not above or beyond being corrupted.

Fact: The Catholic Church never taught people that pedophilia was correct, or good, or just. In fact they taught (and teach) their followers that it was bad, illegal, and that they would spend the rest of their lives in hell if they were to commit these acts. Meanwhile a bunch of corrupt leaders sat in a back room committing the crimes or covering up for those that did. That's not "Religion", that is "Corruption".

As long as you have biases and bigotry it's hard to see where the real problems are. While you bitch about "Religion A" being bad, the same corrupt fuckers are sitting behind a corrupted government, doing the same corrupt things. They laugh at how ignorant the masses are, and how easily they are fooled by bullshit propaganda.

"The Noble Lie" is not something that only "Good" can use, it's also something that corrupt evil people use.

Oh, and Bill Gates is corrupt lying fuck that I would not trust with my used toilet paper, let alone tell us what changes we need to make in the world or what sciences we should be studying.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#45406707)

Fact: The Catholic Church never taught people that pedophilia was correct, or good, or just.

There are two kinds of teaching - the one "by the letter" and the one by action.

On paper, the Hells Angels are a Harley Davidson fan club, you know?

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406875)

Actually it does. When you go study to become a priest you study a lot of materials ordinary people do not among them those 300 books bible actually is. I've seen students go atheist while studying to become priests.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406535)

Greed. Which is, of course, based on fear, which, is, of course, the penalty of human awareness. Unregulated capitalism certainly equals any other system in terms of global destruction and hardship for the people at the bottom. The greediest and most psychopathic people rise to the top of any unregulated system.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

zdepthcharge (1792770) | about a year ago | (#45406621)

Humans.

Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year ago | (#45406639)

The usual retort to that is that it's reversing cause and effect.

Religion does not cause poverty and misery. It's wealth and happiness that leads to secularism, agnosticism, atheism and the sort of bland and bloodless liberal theism which for most practical purposes is functionally equivalent to atheism or agnosticism.

Fan of capitalism (3, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#45406203)

Of course someone who made a lot of money helping a lot of other people make a lot of money helping millions of people have jobs to do. While pissing off the largest portion of the readership here due to quality of the product. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to get a fair shake here on Slashdot.

Things have changed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406405)

Most of the hate for Microsoft was due to their monopoly status; not so much anymore. That monopoly let them sit on their laurels and collect money without needing to produce the best product quality. Today, MS the _underdog_ in a lot of hugely important markets. Furthermore, Gates is only a Chairman at MS anymore and has little or nothing to do with day to day operations. He's spent a an enormous amount of time, effort, and money sincerely trying (and in many cases succeeding) to make things a little better for humans everywhere. People need to let go of the hate, it's no longer useful in this context.

Re:Fan of capitalism (0)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#45406433)

I'm pretty sure this isn't going to get a fair shake here on Slashdot.

About 75% of the readers will go apoplectic and started bleeding from the ears when they hit the "capitalism" part.

So yeah, let the hate-fest begin.

Re:Fan of capitalism (4, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406455)

Microsoft hating is soooo 90's, and we didn't know how good we had it back then. With the NSA around, why bother to get upset about bad software?

Re:Fan of capitalism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406495)

He doesn't help people out of philanthropy, let's stop this PR exercise. He only "helps" those that are in countries that allow his medical investment corporations use patent law his corporations can benefit from. His aid does not cross borders if the government has decided public research paid for by taxpayers should not be locked up by mega-corps. Gates is a fraud when it comes to aid. He only promotes help when he personally gains due to his diversifying portfolio. If he actually cared, he'd donate 90% of his billions to free education and health. He's getting richer because you morons believe he's helping the world. He isn't, he's boosting his wealth. That's pre business. Niggers dying 3 miles from his aid are part of that investment.

Re:Fan of capitalism (1)

brainboyz (114458) | about a year ago | (#45406683)

Try again. He's shed a large chunk of his wealth into charity. If I remember correctly, most of his wealth is invested to make money to give to charity and provide a continuous income stream for charity.
http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/bill-gates/ [davemanuel.com]

Re:Fan of capitalism (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45406745)

His aid does not cross borders if the government has decided public research paid for by taxpayers should not be locked up by mega-corps.

Citation needed.
If you look at what the Gates Foundation does, and where they do it [gatesfoundation.org] I think you will find yourself guilty of a cheap shot of the most misguided kind.

Re:Fan of capitalism (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about a year ago | (#45406581)

I'm pretty sure this isn't going to get a fair shake here on Slashdot.

No, no, I'm willing to be fair about this. Now that the web has such rich functionality, let's say he takes an important flagship product and makes the core functionality available easily to the poor over the web, so anybody could use it as long as they have some basic internet access.

It wouldnt need a lot of enterprise features, just something that people can use to perform basic functions. Start with a word processor and a spreadsheet, and make it possible for poorer users to maintain data without having to own and maintain their own hardware.

Only relatively richer people can afford that right now, and even if it wouldn't make that much of a difference, it would be a place to get started, and could be implemented by paying a few developers, maybe even the ones who contributed to the original products.

Re:Fan of capitalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406823)

the poor .. anybody could use it as long as they have some basic internet access.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but he's aiming at people a couple of rungs farther down on Maslow's pyramid than that. I don't give too many fucks about the performance of Office365 when I have fucking malaria, you know?

Ouch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406219)

"I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest."

Yeah Right -provided you are on the right end the rich interest's end.

Go back to africa bill, get some malaria and then talk some more.

Another alternative being "better?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406299)

And you assert he is wrong, because....? Jealousy, or just because rich people necessarily must be "evil" in order to further the cause of class warfare?

Re:Another alternative being "better?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406437)

Jealousy? Rich people are not evil, but are too often either disconnected or ethically ignorant, or just blind.:

Its too easy to sanctify the system that got you filthy rich, and then sit idly on a lounge chair while coming up with Investments in Controversial Corporations.

In bill's SPECIFIC case

http://www.socialmasala.com/business/bill-gates-a-billionaire-with-controversies/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/cimmyt-bill-gates-gm-crop-center_n_2695241.html

I could go on, but you know the drill.

Re:Ouch (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406497)

Yeah Right -provided you are on the right end the rich interest's end.

Look at it in context. He starts by paying homage to capitalism so people won't call him a blasphemer for saying "capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor" (damn, am I really defending Bill Gates?).

Problems the poor world faces, hm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406253)

" turn more of the world's IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face. '

Like the US and Imperialist Europe and their economic manipulation/hegemony? Great, get to work Bill.

Re:Problems the poor world faces, hm... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406517)

Like the US and Imperialist Europe and their economic manipulation/hegemony?

It's always so much easier to blame "them", and ignore the problems that many 3rd world countries have created for themselves.

Socialism vs. Capitalism (5, Interesting)

wrackspurt (3028771) | about a year ago | (#45406291)

I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor. The old question remains whether unbridled capitalism and philanthropy can better address the world's woes, or, would a more socialist political structure like those seen in Scandinavian countries better address and more quickly narrow the divide.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45406423)

The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor.

Yeah, like he said in the summary. But you were rushing in too quickly with your "government solves everything, even though it's made up of the people we think are too greedy to handle their own money properly, much less other people's" ideology.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406563)

Because anarchy will just make things better, of course.

Seriously, stop buying into this "government is evil!" propaganda -- governments have problems, like anything else, but they're the only mechanism we've really come up with to control any of this stuff. About the most that can be sanely argued is that the current governmental structure is poor, so we need a new one.... Which is pretty much what the GP said, when referring to the political institutions seen in parts of Europe being preferable in their opinion.

You institute structures similar to those those, along with non-governmental organizations that stand for workers' rights (i.e., unions -- a form of 'checks and balances'), and you'll get a system that's a heck of a lot more equal than the current one. Hell, the libertarian morons who like throwing around the term "meritocracy" would also get much closer to that out of such a system -- the current system has the business owners exploiting their workers, and acquiring several times the money from each worker's labour than those workers are paid. In a real "meritocracy", those workers would be getting paid the majority of that (after all, it's the value that those workers are creating), such as happens in a co-op.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406453)

The bit you quoted continues on with "market-driven innovation can actually widen the gap between rich and poor" so that's hardly a surprising argument.

But really why does the divide matter? Aside from that people are greedy and jealous and are happier when other people are less well off.

If we pick some arbitrary unit of "richness", then if capitalism ends up making 1% of the people have 1,000.000 such units while the poor have only 100. Why would that be worse than an alternative in which the 1% only have 120 units and the poor have 90? If capitalism makes the gap larger but also raises the minimum - surely that's better than a system with a lower minimum but a more even distribution?

Note: I'm not actually claiming capitalism does such a thing. I'm just don't see why "the gap" is a problem in and of itself. A smaller piece of a larger pie can be better than a bigger price of a small pie...

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406797)

I'm not actually claiming capitalism does such a thing.

Good, because there is no evidence for it.

I'm just don't see why "the gap" is a problem in and of itself. A smaller piece of a larger pie can be better than a bigger price of a small pie...

Two reasons. First, nobody believes your hypothetical any more than you do. Second, when income disparity goes beyond a certain point, many people start to think it's unfair. There are even theories that a dislike of unfairness is innate to a large degree (toddlers display it, including acting fair towards their peers), and a sense of fairness serves a social purpose. If you think that's childish, consider this. Your rich Uncle Ned dies, and his only heirs are his three nephews. You're one of them. You and Bob each get $1k. Dave, who always treated Uncle Ned like crap, gets $1B. Do you have any cause for complaint? If so, why? You are $1k better off than you were before.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406861)

I large gap ties up the money supply at one end of the population. This in turn makes the economy dysfunctional. Last time the gap was where it is now was in the 1920s.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406473)

A thought just occurred to me on the subject improving the world. I don't disagree that the a more socialist structure does more to ensure that the basic needs of the lowest rung in their society are met. Many countries have show this with plenty of gradient in between. What though, of the the lowest rung of other countries? The US is often seen as throwing its money away on defense when it should be helping its poor but where are Sweden's aircraft carriers providing supplies and air support for natural disasters in Asia? Nuclear weapons move us every closer to destruction but how much has Norway done to explore other planets? If we want to talk in arguments of scale we have to compare the US to the EU, many nations of which have been able to feed social programs for their own citizens while outsourcing defense, intelligence, and a large amount of research and aid spending to a nation that they mock for not providing free healthcare and secondary education.

Maybe the socialist mindset works better at focusing people inward, maybe immigration backgrounds, not capitalism, focus more attention outward. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, part of the law of unintended consequences.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406551)

Uh, the more socialist structures like the Scandanavian countries survive off the capitalism elsewhere in the world.
Capitalism works fine, most all governments able to spend more than they take in, not so much.
When capitalism cannot support even the USA govt, someone is fucking things up, and it ain't private businesses.

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (1)

green is the enemy (3021751) | about a year ago | (#45406565)

Could we discuss this issue instead: Is it better to allocate your donations yourself, or to simply give it to the public (government) and let the public decide? What makes one think that they are better qualified to allocate public spending than elected representatives? (Yeah, you can make the argument that it's my money, I decide how to spend it. But, you already decided to donate it to public causes....)

Re:Socialism vs. Capitalism (1)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#45406681)

> I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

The argument can be made that capitalism widens the divide between rich and poor.

Oh, please. Even addressing that point seriously is just stupid. Of course he's a fan of capitalism - it made him the richest man on the planet for many years.

People at the top are significantly more likely to be fans of the system than people at the bottom. What a surprise!

is this guy still relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406295)

I thought he retired.

Re:is this guy still relevant (1)

Jakeula (1427201) | about a year ago | (#45406335)

The dude still brings home like 5 billion a year. He's always relevant.

Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406327)

Keep in mind that Bill Gates has always had a Poker Face for business.

Anything he could do to to grow businesses that reduce poverty, is in his interests. However you won't see him just throwing money into impoverished nations or even funding initiatives on American soil that won't have results.

Ask yourself, which is more likely to have results, spending 10 million dollars on developing better educational facilities, or handing out 10$ to one million people in poverty? The better long term outcome is the better educational facilities since it may help for 50 years. Yet many people would rather take the handout and keep taking handouts as long as someone is doing the handouts. This is why the concept of "welfare" is broken in developed countries. In developed countries, the welfare system allows people to never work at all during their lives and produce as many babies as possible. So all this does is lead to a population explosion of yet more people on welfare.

You'd be surprised at how often kids just do exactly what their parents did. You don't break that cycle unless you can education them out of that cycle.

Re:Bill (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406641)

In developed countries, the welfare system allows people to never work at all during their lives and produce as many babies as possible. So all this does is lead to a population explosion of yet more people on welfare.

Wow, are you living in the past (particularly about the US). Welfare queens driving Cadillacs was a line Reagan pushed in the 80's. In case you pulled a Rip van Winkle, here's an update: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act [wikipedia.org]

P.S. Don't say anything good about George III.

Whups (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45406329)

'We want to give our wealth back to society in a

... BURN THE WITCH!

No, seriously. As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor. There's an inverse relationship between income and charity. The more you make, the less you give, proportionally speaking. You can outline all the reasons why it would be better if this wasn't the case... I doubt you'll find much disagreement here. But making the case for it doesn't mean anyone's going to adopt it; A concept Mr. Gates and the company he used to captain both seem ill-equipped to grasp. Simply understanding the problem better doesn't result in a solution; It is one of the oldest delusions humanity has to offer... that knowledge will lead to action.

Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less, and address the issue within that cognitive framework. And the Just world phenomenon is a great place to start: The belief that you deserve whatever is happening, or has happened, to you. Fundamentally, I think you'll find the reason the rich give less is because on a subconscious level, having adopted the belief that they earned their wealth rather than simply having won a cosmic lottery, they then build on that with confirmation bias. That is, every action that comes after that in some fashion just confirms that they're more deserving than the next guy... and eventually, that makes them not very charitable. Afterall, if I did it, you can do it, right? It's such a basic failure of reasoning that entire books have been written on the subject, and yet... here we are... still not getting it.

Re:Whups (4, Insightful)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year ago | (#45406353)

"Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less"

Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.

Re:Whups (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45406595)

Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.

That does not explain how people who were previously poor, and then became wealthy, also follow the same pattern. Not everyone who becomes wealthy changes their social class, but most do. Put another way, once you're rich, you don't hang around with poor people much. And thanks to socialization, it's not very long at all before those old behaviors and worldview fractures and dissolves. Does it happen to everyone? No. But it seems the only people resiliant to this are those that suffered a significant trauma prior and usually early on in life that became a core belief.

It's not a coincidence that when you read about people who ran into burning buildings to save a bunch of children, or saw a car run off the road, lept from their car to go assist... everyday heroes tend to have one thing in their background: They grew up in a small town. Go look it up. And surprise, most people who join the military also come from small towns. Their personalities are no different than those in the city, but their social environment imparted certain values -- specifically, that they're not just a face in a crowd. In the city, we choose our own subculture, our own groups to be a part of. In a small town, you have to learn how to be part of a community you may not strongly identify with. Avoiding certain types of people isn't an option. So as a consequence of that, we get people who later move to the big city or whatever, and retain that sense of community... so when they see someone in trouble, they don't have a tribalistic view.

We are social creatures; And our desire to help others is based directly on how much they are like us. They have to be part of our tribe. It's how we're wired. And social class is a big division -- when you surround yourself with rich people, you start to think like rich people do. It seems like a really obvious thing to say, but then I see people like you say things like this and I realize... you're not understanding this tribalistic element of human behavior.

Re:Whups (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#45406605)

I think the previous poster is correct to talk about the "just world fallacy". Without getting into too much of an argument as to who is "right", we all create a world view that helps to prop up our own ego.

It's common for rich people to believe (or want to believe) that we are all in control of our own lives, and the reason they have so much is because they deserve it. They think that they're either inherently superior people, or at least that they've done better things and made better choices. To believe otherwise would induce a lot of angst.

Meanwhile, if you're poor, it's much more ego-soothing to believe that we are powerless in our own lives, and the reason you have so little is either because of luck, or because someone has screwed you over. To believe otherwise would imply that you are somehow inferior to everyone who makes more money than you.

If all that is true, then it would help to explain why poor people would give more, proportionately. You have one set of people who believe that poor people are unfortunate, and another set which believes that poor people deserve their problems. Which would you expect to donate more to charity?

Re:Whups (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about a year ago | (#45406695)

And I'd say the converse of that holds as well. Consider how many people live off of $35,000/year (gross income)--not even nearly poor--and the reaction you see from so many people on /. about how "hard" it is to live off twice as much for a salary. Certainly locality has something to do with it, but that doesn't explain the rich or very rich for which no locality is so expensive that they ever have a "hard" time living off what they earn. Instead, they have a hard time seeing any real benefit to giving to others. It's easy to understand why, too. If giving just means more people asking for more, with a lot the people able to live fine without the money, it's hard to remain charitable or focus on the people who really need the money.

But, then you start to ask if they "deserve" the money. Well, no, probably not. But, then, did you "deserve" the money, either? A poor person who suddenly is paid well can begin to really appreciate that question, but when you're wrapped into the ideas of capitalism and the theory behind it without really considering its practical effects, you have people who have a very warped concept of the word "deserve". Add to this the idea that everything has to work on incentive--as if the poor would suddenly all become well-fed multi-millionaries if they only tried harder--, and it's little wonder that charity "begins at home" a lot more than it is out helping random strangers.

It's one of the reason why it's hard to take most rich people seriously when they give to charity. I'll give Bill Gates some credit for the point that he seems to have vision and knows enough about strategy to get things done. I don't particularly question his motives or necessarily his methods--you should see the sort of things the Salvation Army will sell*, for example. That said, a large part of Bill Gates' success with Microsoft was Steve Ballmer--a businessman who could work that part of the relationship. I presume that Gates needs someone similar in the charitable space to actually succeed in a significant way. Who that person might be, I don't know.

*This weekend, I happened across a copy of Carmageddon at a Salvation Army, so that was interesting.

Re:Whups (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#45406549)

Add in the fact that a good portion of the rich, in addition to believing they're more deserving of wealth, have also taken moral and ethical shortcuts to increase that wealth. These ethical and moral lapses are very contrary to charitable giving.

Re:Whups (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406553)

As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor.

But that hardly seems to apply to Gates (damn, second time I'm defending him, truth is stranger than fiction).

Re:Whups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406629)

It really boils down to what you believe "helping the poor" really means. If somebody gives $10 to the Red Cross, United Way, or one of the other seemingly countless charities that offer free services to poor people, most people count that as helping the less fortunate (even if the money is completely wasted and no one really benefits from the gift).

However, if some rich guy like Bill Gates invests $100 million of his own money to get a new company off the ground and that company provides gainful employment to hundreds of people (who in turn spend their earnings on things that cause other people to be employed); builds truely useful products that improve the lives of everyone who uses them; then they are just "greedy capitalists" who could not care less about poor people to the anti-captialist crowd.

Re:Whups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406827)

The point of charity is to aid others.
The point of investment is to enrich the investor.

Can you see a difference yet?

Re:Whups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406657)

It depends on the person. John D Rockefeller titled 10% of his income during his adult life, unlike Gates who decided to become philanthropic after he retired and decided he better start some charities so history will remember him better. Not to mention that Gates' charities also end up funneling money back into MSFT.

Re:Whups (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#45406839)

As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor.

It's worth pointing out that this statistic takes into account all spending by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for over a decade. The Foundation was started in 1997. Sixteen years of fairly spectacular giving by the Foundation has failed to move that bar. I haven't seen the most recent statistics that would take into account Warren Buffet's mammoth donation of Berkshire Hathaway stocks to the Gates Foundation, but I suspect the rich still contribute a lower percentage.

I don't think knowing why will make any difference, either. If indeed the reason can be known. Certainly the I Deserve It and lack of empathy theories sound very reasonable, but social "science" isn't science. Science requires facts, and those motivations are unknown even to the people acting on them because people are so good at lying to themselves. Peel away the self-deception and other-deception and those theories would simply become justifications and the relative net giving would remain more or less unchanged. And that doesn't even take into account the fairly self-evident fact that an unusually large percentage of rich people display sociopathic or psychopathic behavior. People with those disorders famously lack empathy. For those people, no self-deception is involved—they have no empathy and therefore have no need to justify their behavior to themselves. "Because I want to" is sufficient and the plight of the poor is entirely irrelevant to their decision-making processes.

I like his choice in where to focus (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45406351)

In the old days when this was a small town calling itself a city, I'd frequently be at a play with Bill or some other event.

I like his focus on where we need to fix it, but the cold hard fact is he lives in an area where the ultra-rich are taxed much less than the poor, and he goes to great lengths not to pay taxes on many levels.

Capitalism is no problem - but Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, railed against Mercantalism that Bill worships at the head of.

Re:I like his choice in where to focus (1, Interesting)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45406471)

We'll ignore your claim that the ultra-rich pay fewer taxes than the poor.* But imagine that every rich person filled the gap with charitable contributions. Why do you care that they're paying fewer taxes, when they're getting the wealth to the people who need it more directly?

* Indeed, in the USA, the poor not only avoid all federal and state income tax but they receive credits; this usually helps negate what little other taxes they pay.

Re:I like his choice in where to focus (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#45406625)

We'll ignore your claim that the ultra-rich pay fewer taxes than the poor.* But imagine that every rich person filled the gap with charitable contributions. Why do you care that they're paying fewer taxes, when they're getting the wealth to the people who need it more directly?

* Indeed, in the USA, the poor not only avoid all federal and state income tax but they receive credits; this usually helps negate what little other taxes they pay.

Um, our state (where he lives) has no income tax. His federal return is usually around 8 percent, like mine.

I know you worship the rich, but you sure don't act like them.

Most of our taxes are sales taxes (which he doesn't pay much of, and his nonprofits either) and property taxes (ditto).

Please take your anti-tax screed worship of the ultra-rich somewhere else.

There's a reason why you hire good lawyers and accountants first, and set up trusts.

a wealthy, intelligent idiot (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#45406355)

But capitalism alone can't address the needs of the very poor. This means market-driven innovation can actually widen the gap between rich and poor. ... We take a double-pronged approach: (1) Narrow the gap so that advances for the rich world reach the poor world faster, and (2) turn more of the world's IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face.'"

- a bunch of absolute nonsense.

The people are not suffering poverty because of any 'widening gap' between the rich and the poor. The rich of today pale in comparison to the wealthy of the last century. Rockefellers, Carnegies had 10 times as much wealth as Bill Gates, the 'wealth gap' was much wider, yet the standard of living for the poor was rising, not falling the way it is today.

The reason for it is lack of free market capitalism, not abundance of it. USA has almost no free market capitalism compared to what it used to have 100 years ago. The problem for the poor nations in Africa for example is their government, not the fact that there are people with more money.

The more people with more money exists in the world, the better for everybody, as that money is used as investments. The problem is that the rich ARE NOT as rich as they used to be. Again, Bill Gates is a wealthy man, but he is nothing when compared to Rockefeller and Rockefeller started from scratch, while helping everybody in the world to get access to cheaper, higher quality product (oil in his case). The problem today is that the collectivism has destroyed free market capitalism in places like the USA and Europe, but in Africa the governments were even worse in many cases, completely out of control, seeing the citizens nothing more than a nuisance that needed to be removed from the lands.

The problem is lack of individual freedom and private property ownership and of large government.

fap fap fap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406379)

fap fap fap.

He forgot hair loss and erection problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406381)

I saw a documentary once and it said that in the future we'll have our greatest minds working on those.

Bill, its not the disparity in income that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406401)

to the poor, its the standard of living their income provides that matters. If the entire World were millionaires it doesn't matter that some people like you are 10,000 times richer. Technology trickles down to the poor. There are cell phones in Africa and they're not there because of charity, they're there because mass production have made them economically viable.

A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (4, Insightful)

gilgongo (57446) | about a year ago | (#45406449)

This is worth a read:

http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics/ [newint.org]

TL;DR

Gates's and others' philanthropy prolongs poverty by sowing as it does the seed of more inequality (in Gates's case, through the formation of health policies in the third world that make it easier for Western drug companies to open up markets for treatments there). They give away the fruit, but never the trees.

As Oscar Wilde observed of the philanthropists of his era: ‘They seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see in poverty, but their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it.’ Then and now, as Wilde said, ‘the proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.’

This is really the question that needs to be addressed: why is poverty still possible - and why can it even get worse - after 200 years of Gates's capitalism? Surely by now if capitalism was the answer, we'd not be where we are today.

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#45406593)

But yet there is still truth in the expression:

"Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."

If everyone in the world were still subsistence farming, then we would have equality for all, but it would still be worse than what Capitalism has generated.

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406731)

That's always been capitalism's strength. It adds gap to rich vs poor, but even the poor are richer. The USA has history's richest "poor".

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406813)

False dichotomy: Capitalism or subsistence farming. Really?

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406833)

But yet there is still truth in the expression:

"Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."

Wrong, better things have been tried. [youtube.com]

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406785)

The reason Capitalism is breaking is that a core underpinning is being broken by technology. For the longest time the reason that labor had value is that the skills necessary were held behind a paywall - lack of ready communication, then guilds just after the printing press, then unions in the industrial era, now ... labor has nothing. Education via communication is becoming cheaper and work is being done by automation or easily moved somewhere with no rules / cheaper labor. We are nearing singularity and as we get closer all labor drops in value. At some point labor is worth very little and capital is all that matters, unfortunately the vast majority of people only have their labor to offer. When capital becomes fully "king" we are all serfs again.

Capitalism tries to balance relative value of inputs (capital, labor, raw material, land) but if the sole input most people can offer, labor, isn't worth enough to keep them alive then the system becomes unstable and untenable. Why? your markets will disappear if the serfs can't buy anything. It staggers the mind how our current crop of economists can't see this coming.

You have poverty when your labor isn't worth anything and your ecology and/or economic structure and/or population's expectations cannot support a hunter-gatherer or subsistence farming lifestyle.

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#45406791)

This is really the question that needs to be addressed: why is poverty still possible - and why can it even get worse - after 200 years of Gates's capitalism? Surely by now if capitalism was the answer, we'd not be where we are today.

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.
--Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406803)

"Warren Buffet once said of his approach to finance: ‘I don’t look to jump over seven-foot bars. I look around for one-foot bars I can step over.’ Gates asserts his philosophy of philanthropy to be the opposite: ‘We should be looking around for the seven-foot bars; that’s why we exist."

Looks like someone's been spending time in those bars indeed. :)

Re:A reasonable critique of Gates's philanthropy (1, Interesting)

TheSync (5291) | about a year ago | (#45406889)

why is poverty still possible

The problem is that there still remains too much socialism and regulation of free market activities in much of the developing world. A graph [myopera.com] of economic freedom versus per capita GDP tells the story. Countries with lower economic freedom [heritage.org] tend to have lower GDP per capita, correlation=0.67.

The good news is that the adoption of less socialism and more capitalism (especially in India and China) has lead to less global income inequality: [isn.ethz.ch]

"The period between 1988 and 2008 witnessed the first decline in global income inequality since the Industrial Revolution"

I'll admit that the best thing Gates could do is to research why it is so hard to eliminate entrenched power structures that continue to keep low levels of economic freedom present in many developing countries, and what could be done to change things there.

How about we start with Microsoft? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#45406475)

I don't have a magic formula for prioritizing the world's problems. You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women.

All of those things are good causes, but since Gates is struggling to find a place to begin, I'd like to suggest that he starts by fixing the blight-on-humanity that he created. Microsoft screws many of us over on a regular basis. It hurts the economy. It hurts technological progress. How about pushing his company to be more cooperative? How about pushing for open standards? How about pushing back against terrible patent and copyright abuses, insane EULAs, and absurd licensing fees? How about open sourcing old versions of their software so that software from a few decades ago can be preserved for historical/artistic purposes, if for no other reason?

It's like a man coming into your house, pissing all over your rug, and then saying he's struggling to figure out how he can improve your property value. Maybe start by not pissing on my rug anymore?

Re:How about we start with Microsoft? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#45406669)

Microsoft screws many of us over on a regular basis.

Much as I hate having to use Microsoft products, I don't feel too sorry for myself compared to people living with endemic malaria.

All take, no give (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406483)

There are millions of poor kids in America, Gates.
Don't you care about them?

Memories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406523)

Remember when every /. article related to Microsoft had that cyborg pic of Willy next to it? So glad he didnt turn out like the Waltons! :)

That and I dont think Ive heard the plight of our people and the path towards resolution ever put so succinctly.

Altruistic capitalism. Bravo Willy, bravo!

self-interest serve the wider interest. (2, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#45406537)

I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest.

Someone forgot to tell Bain Capital.

I personally know someone who worked for a mid-sized IT firm out of Texas. They were small but growing and successful. Then Bain Capital stepped in, waived some money around and purchased the company. The day after the deal was finalized, everyone was fired and the company was liquidized - sold of bit by bit. The poor lady is now in the Mid-West working in a call center.

Capitalism for the wider interests my ass. When the wider interests are served, it's incidental. Capitalists only care about the 99% when it means making more money off of them, and they wouldn't serve the wider interests if they didn't have to. Granted, they often do, but it's not because they are on the moral high ground. Perhaps Bill Gates really truly is trying to say that the evils of capitalism truly equal good for the people, but I don't think that makes it a good system - it's open to mutation and a future where we see the raw, unabashed, exploitation of the people. Like I said, it's incidental. We are carefully watching the US government become dystopian, while corporations are more quietly doing the same. Bill gates might be a true philanthropist, but he is nearly alone in his level of giving and is kidding himself if he believes all capitalists have the greater good or wider interests at heart.

Great! (1)

quilombodigital (1076565) | about a year ago | (#45406587)

Does this means he will fund Linux?

messing with local elections??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406647)

So Bill Gates combined forces with Bloomberg and the teacher's union in Douglas county to try to politically turn over the Douglas county schoolboard, AGAINST the will of the people in Douglas County. I don't want this kind of "philanthropy" from any of these types of people. No thanks.

Philantropy for dummies (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#45406649)

'We want to give our wealth back to society in a way that has the most impact, and so we look for opportunities to invest for the largest returns.

Well, Mr. Gates, here's how:

Don't take away their wealth in the first place.

It's well-established fact that the poor make the best use of money. There is less waste and more immediate progress than with any organisation or institute. Micro-credits are a blasting success wherever they are granted in the interest of helping people. (they fail when the same banks that caused the housing bubble/burst get in on the game hoping to make a quick buck, because they don't screen the applicants).

Monopoly rent is known to damage the economy disproportionately. For every $ you give to charity now, Mr. Gates, you've already taken two away.

"Don't be a greedy bastard." is a much, much better formula for helping other people than giving away even most of your money. Because it's not a zero-sum game, it's not just redistribution of wealth, the 1% gain most of their wealth not just by taking it from the rest, but by causing damage in excess of their profit.

Just a smoke screen....... (1)

BlindBear (894763) | about a year ago | (#45406715)

Bill wants you all to love him, that's all.... and vote him a Nobel Peace prize for saving the world. He's been trying for a while now, one wonders how much money he has invested in pursuit of the prize.

No thanks (2, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#45406759)

After the way he "improved" my computing experience over the last few decades, I will take my chances without his plan.

gates's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406805)

Gates'

The apostrophe defeats programmers yet again. Programmers who eagerly want to learn as many complex and disparate ways of doing the same thing but are confused for all eternity by '

Gates = inBloom, Common Core, and NSA Kinect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45406883)

Bill Gates is a depravity who is PROUD to model himself on the founders of America's 'great' eugenic foundations- you know, the organisations that gave the world "racial science" that Hitler and the Nazis (amongst other monsters) so willingly adopted. Go read about the history of IBM and the Nazis of WW2.

Of late, Gates has been the main driving force behind three horrifying initiatives in the USA
1) The inBloom full surveillance database of every child in the USA, across the entirety of their childhood. Bill Gates built the inBloom system in partnership with Rupert Murdoch. Now I KNOW you sheeple are thick- so very very thick- but how do you explain Rupert (FOX NEWS) Murdoch working hand in hand with Bill (MSNBC) Gates, when you sheeple are told that every conventional 'liberal' considers the war mongering right wing filth behind Fox News to be the very definition of evil?

2) The 'Common Core' curriculum. You cannot dumb down people properly unless you take control of their early education.

3) The 'NSA in every home' platform we know as the Xbox Kinect 2 sensor system. When SF, futurist and political writers of the past wanted to BANG their readers over the head with a vision of the ultimate nightmarish police-state future, they imagined a world where every ordinary person had government cameras in their own homes, and government broadcast services that could not be switched off. No sane person wants the government in their homes, and none of the early adopters of the WWW (which obviously excludes Gates and Microsoft- they were VERY late to the party under Gates' braindead leadership) desired that the Internet would take that direction.

Gates, like Tony Blair, travels the world, meeting with people FAR more important than you (by the definitions of 'importance' used by Blair, Gates, and the other monsters in their circle), constantly pushing a single theme- modern technology, including the media and computers, MUST be used to take rigid control of the sheeple once and for all. Gates is a member of Blair's Fabian cult- a cult that states that ALL types of Human must be given the chance to rise to the top (no racism or any similar pathetic nonsense tolerated). BUT, after a suitable period where equality of opportunity has existed, those that fail to rise to the top MUST be recognised as cattle, just as those that successfully rose are recognised as 'masters'.

Gates and Blair both actively call for a massive cull of the 'useless eaters'- a process by which the 'ideal' population of the Earth is determined, and excess population eliminated by any possible means. Blair tells all those that will,listen that this MUST be accomplished by another World War- cleansing the Earth and moving Mankind into the next era, just as his ilk claim WW2 (and to a lesser extent WW1) did. Gates prefers a more 'scientific' approach to the culling of billions of Humans. Like those that headed America's eugenic foundations before him, Gates would prefer a world that accepted compulsory sterilisation and euthanasia.

The NSA revelations should have blown away any illusions you sheeple have about the inherent 'goodness' of your masters. Humans who achieve power over other humans inevitably despise those people who accept their position in life 'on their knees'. When you let Gates put NSA spying in your home via the Xbox One, or do not destroy Gates' inBloom and Core Curriculum assaults against your children in your local communities- then you are choosing to live on your knees.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?