Off Topic Climate change/ pollution

[balkan tiger]

It's a big discussion, GFAW. A lot of the criticism is based on that he is using his wealth to guide public policy - philanthrocapitalism is the catchword. Why should a programming billionaire influence vaccine usage in Africa, for example.

Also, buying global properties, farmland, yachts, private planes etc whilst preaching isn't going to go down well with anyone.

Is he generous? He's giving away money that he will never be able to spend himself. Surely someone giving their last spare $50 to charity is being more generous, according to biblical principles.

It doesn't keep me up at night, but the level of wealth that a relative handful of men have on the planet, is worrying for the future.

I enjoy travelling and no matter where you go there is evidence of the rich people of years ago, it maybe a stately home, a factory, a housing estate, a castle, a museum full of old things and such like. All things bought and built years ago that we can enjoy today. What lasting monuments are the rich of today leaving for future generations?

 

[Gone For A Walk]

Much of what Gates on the face of it 'gives away as a philanthropic gesture' ends up making him more than he invested in the first place, and causes harm along the way.

What harm is he causing?
Sounds like he's having a major impact on disease prevention, even eradication, in Africa (and numerous other positive impacts).
And back to the original questions, what are the "evil intentions and past deeds"?
If he's making more money through his invesment portfolios etc then it's a bit irrelevant isn't it, even a good thing, given that he's demonstrably hell bent on giving 99% away anyway?

 

[Gone For A Walk]

I enjoy travelling and no matter where you go there is evidence of the rich people of years ago, it maybe a stately home, a factory, a housing estate, a castle, a museum full of old things and such like. All things bought and built years ago that we can enjoy today. What lasting monuments are the rich of today leaving for future generations?

As much as I disliked the man for what he did at City, I'm very suprised you are needing to ask that question given you are a City fan?

 

[balkan tiger]

What harm is he causing?
Sounds like he's having a major impact on disease prevention, even eradication, in Africa (and numerous other positive impacts).
And back to the original questions, what are the "evil intentions and past deeds"?
If he's making more money through his invesment portfolios etc then it's a bit irrelevant isn't it, even a good thing, given that he's demonstrably hell bent on giving 99% away anyway?

Rather than improving birth rates and life expectancy in the poorest parts of Africa he would be better teaching them birth control so fewer people could life a better life rather than having billions starving.

 

[balkan tiger]

As much as I disliked the man for what he did at City, I'm very suprised you are needing to ask that question given you are a City fan?

Took my off the ball on that one as I thought we were on about the mega rich billionaires like gates.

 

[DMD]

Rather than improving birth rates and life expectancy in the poorest parts of Africa he would be better teaching them birth control so fewer people could life a better life rather than having billions starving.

There's far less technology (profit) or control in doing that, despite it helping to reduce suffering.

 

[Chesh1recat]

Rather than improving birth rates and life expectancy in the poorest parts of Africa he would be better teaching them birth control so fewer people could life a better life rather than having billions starving.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Gone For A Walk]

The Gates Foundation DOES support birth control in Africa! It's one part of their so called 'women's health portfolio' over there.

Of course his investments make more money, that's a main purpose of investing! He (or at least his fund managers) are going to invest in technology, pharmaceuticals, renewables, etc as that's sensible investing these days. Do people expect him instead to invest in candlestick production and beta max recorders?

Back to the mythical man who's won the Euro Lottery and decides to give most of it away to good causes and dedicate most of his time to good causes. Do people expect he's also no right to swap his old battered ford focus for a range rover and a mercedes sports car (or whatever), to maybe buy a villa in Spain, take a few cruises and a few holidays to the Seychelles etc?

It seems like a no win double edge sword for Gates. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You could say well, jus sit quietly in the background, give the money away annonoumsly to good causes .... fair question ... but that's clearly not for him. He wants to make a massive difference, he wants to be personally involved, to make sure his money goes to where it's intended (100% understandable surely given the stories we all hear).

As said, I don't agree with all his views and actions, but more than that, I just don't understand the abuse and ott critiscism he gets ... hence the honest questions on here.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

Rather than improving birth rates and life expectancy in the poorest parts of Africa he would be better teaching them birth control so fewer people could life a better life rather than having billions starving.

I’m pretty sure that’s part of what the BMGF are researching.

 

[Heimdallr]

What harm is he causing?
Sounds like he's having a major impact on disease prevention, even eradication, in Africa (and numerous other positive impacts).
And back to the original questions, what are the "evil intentions and past deeds"?
If he's making more money through his invesment portfolios etc then it's a bit irrelevant isn't it, even a good thing, given that he's demonstrably hell bent on giving 99% away anyway?

If he wants to influence birth rates/malaria infection in the Congo, for example, he should move to the The Congo and put himself up for election in their public health organisation. If he wants to do it internationally, he should apply for a job at the WHO. He shouldn't have the power or wealth to operate on this level.

 

[Kalman II]

If he wants to influence birth rates/malaria infection in the Congo, for example, he should move to the The Congo and put himself up for election in their public health organisation. If he wants to do it internationally, he should apply for a job at the WHO. He shouldn't have the power or wealth to operate on this level.

Tend to agree. Even if he has the best intentions of anyone on the planet, he’s still just a private citizen with a lot of money who is essentially playing God as a hobby. He’s not responsible to any of these sovereign African nations either.

It’s a bit like when Trump had Musk overseeing DOGE in an unofficial capacity despite Musk not being confirmed by the Senate as an appointed public official. You had one of the richest men in the world in an unofficial role with access to confidential government information and he wasn’t held accountable to Congress.

 

[Gone For A Walk]

If he wants to influence birth rates/malaria infection in the Congo, for example, he should move to the The Congo and put himself up for election in their public health organisation. If he wants to do it internationally, he should apply for a job at the WHO. He shouldn't have the power or wealth to operate on this level.

With respect, the 1st sentence / suggestion is rather silly imo.
Re. the 2nd. Seems a reasonable suggestion on the face of it. He does collaborate with the WHO but he also has some fundamental disagreements with aspects of the way they operate etc. If he did go full in with them then he would anyway have such a massive say / sway still due to his ridiculous wealth and level of monetary contribution.
As I say, damned if he does, damned if he didn't. What a twat eh devoting his multi billions and remaining years to eradicating horrible diseases and improving the lives of millions of the worlds poorest. Surely people can acknowledge and respect the good he's doing without needing to fully agree with his every belief and decision? Again, a bit like Allam senior - I disliked (understatement) what he did to our club and I personally don't like how infrastructure had to carry his or his wife's name but I can acknowledge and respect what his donations & involvements have brought to the benefit of the people of Hull, ER and beyond.

 

[Heimdallr]

With respect, the 1st sentence / suggestion is rather silly imo.
Re. the 2nd. Seems a reasonable suggestion on the face of it. He does collaborate with the WHO but he also has some fundamental disagreements with aspects of the way they operate etc. If he did go full in with them then he would anyway have such a massive say / sway still due to his ridiculous wealth and level of monetary contribution.
As I say, damned if he does, damned if he didn't. What a twat eh devoting his multi billions and remaining years to eradicating horrible diseases and improving the lives of millions of the worlds poorest. Surely people can acknowledge and respect the good he's doing without needing to fully agree with his every belief and decision? Again, a bit like Allam senior - I disliked (understatement) what he did to our club and I personally don't like how infrastructure had to carry his or his wife's name but I can acknowledge and respect what his donations & involvements have brought to the benefit of the people of Hull, ER and beyond.

It's not a comparison, GFAW - Allam senior dipped into his personal pocket to buy equipment for HRI and Castle Hill when he was informed by staff that the public purse couldnt or wouldn't. He didnt establish a role for himself as an overseer and start telling the doctors and staff how to treat cancer/heart conditions, according to what his research indicated.

You asked why some ppl objected to Bill Gates. The simple answer is his level of wealth and the influence and power that has been accorded to him because of it. I, and others, don't think that one man should have this level of control. Fair enough if you disagree, but that's how it is.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

It's not a comparison, GFAW - Allam senior dipped into his personal pocket to buy equipment for HRI and Castle Hill when he was informed by staff that the public purse couldnt or wouldn't. He didnt establish a role for himself as an overseer and start telling the doctors and staff how to treat cancer/heart conditions, according to what his research indicated.

You asked why some ppl objected to Bill Gates. The simple answer is his level of wealth and the influence and power that has been accorded to him because of it. I, and others, don't think that one man should have this level of control. Fair enough if you disagree, but that's how it is.

“his research”? Get a grip. It’s research he funds, he’s not sat in his mansion with a test tube & a lab rat.

The research he funds is carried out independently by many different research organisations. The BMGF simply fund the research, they don’t pay for the results they want, Bill doesn’t ring & ask for some results, he provides the money for research that will potentially improve the lives of people who are not so fortunate.

Some of the research, if successful, will lead to groundbreaking improvements to health.

 

[Heimdallr]

“his research”? Get a grip. It’s research he funds, he’s not sat in his mansion with a test tube & a lab rat.

The research he funds is carried out independently by many different research organisations. The BMGF simply fund the research, they don’t pay for the results they want, Bill doesn’t ring & ask for some results, he provides the money for research that will potentially improve the lives of people who are not so fortunate.

Some of the research, if successful, will lead to groundbreaking improvements to health.

Actually Ben, you're wrong on this. The size and the power of the foundation means that it's voluntary contributions change the conclusions and directives of organisations such as the WHO. It's largely focused on technical solutions. Not my words but the research conclusions of BMJ accredited reports.

As i wrote, no one man should be allowed that kind of power created through financial wealth.

 

[x]

I too am highly sceptical about the whole climate crisis agenda, net zero, etc. and wish we'd just take a sensible steady gradual path toward a less polluted, less consumerist, greener world.

But regarding Gates specifically, why don't you trust him and why do you suspect "evil intentions and past deeds"? Even if I don't agree with everything he believes in, I just don't get the ridiculous critiscism. Can you imagine if you won the Euro lottery and chose to dedicate the rest of your life to using the money and your remaining time to help charitable causes and improve the lives of those suffering only to get insults and the most ridiculous accusations thrown at you. It seems just an inbuilt trait of some people to do that. Jealousy? Mistrust?

He's already given away over £1 billion of his own wealth. He's pledged to give away 99% of his wealth (likely around another £200 billion). He spends his time largely serving good causes around the world with a mission to eradicate polio, preventable deaths of mothers & babies, Guinea worm, malaria, measles, alzheimers, etc. His money brings aid agencies together, improves education, and provides self sufficient energy to communities without.

If he was doing all this just for personal gain and to increase his wealth, then it would be a bit silly given that he's giving 99% of his wealth away (demonstrably on a path to achieve that).

Why this desire to pull down the philophrantic successful?

it's not a "desire" to pull anyone down. i have no problem with people having money or giving it away, as long as it was obtained legally. in the past i've argued against linux and apple mac absolutists that the prevalence of home computers was largely based on windows and microsoft and thereby inspired by gates' work in that sphere.

since then, i've heard stuff that isn't so good. this is stuff i've heard over several years and can't give you specific links to, but it's been enough to make me not trust him. you can trust him or not.

so, what things? well, he appears to believe he knows best in areas where he doesn't. i'm quite sure i saw a video in which he was talking about reducing the world population to half a billion in order to preserve resources, presumably for "the elite", but keeping enough "others" around to harvest and process the resources. you'll have seen what becomes of humanity in h.g.wells' "the time machine". i don't regard killing off 94% of the world population as goodness. is there some sort of "global elite" that have their own plan for the future of humanity? is that inevitable or just a fairy story?

there are other things, but i don't remember all of them. one i do recall was that he said to have been having some sort of vaccine tested in a bribable african country because it wouldn't have made it to that stage in the usa and tests in whichever african country it was resulted in a disproportionate number of deaths, but it was easily swept under the carpet, as he knew it would be.

according to an author who wrote a book about him, his sister described him as "nasty" and his parents said he was all about control, even within their family.

search youtube for "bill gates evil" and you'll probably find some stuff that i've seen. i don't expect everyone to share my suspicions.

 

[Cityzen]

It's a big discussion, GFAW. A lot of the criticism is based on that he is using his wealth to guide public policy - philanthrocapitalism is the catchword. Why should a programming billionaire influence vaccine usage in Africa, for example.

Also, buying global properties, farmland, yachts, private planes etc whilst preaching isn't going to go down well with anyone.

Is he generous? He's giving away money that he will never be able to spend himself. Surely someone giving their last spare $50 to charity is being more generous, according to biblical principles.

It doesn't keep me up at night, but the level of wealth that a relative handful of men have on the planet, is worrying for the future.

Sounds like Bono and some others just

With respect, the 1st sentence / suggestion is rather silly imo.
Re. the 2nd. Seems a reasonable suggestion on the face of it. He does collaborate with the WHO but he also has some fundamental disagreements with aspects of the way they operate etc. If he did go full in with them then he would anyway have such a massive say / sway still due to his ridiculous wealth and level of monetary contribution.
As I say, damned if he does, damned if he didn't. What a twat eh devoting his multi billions and remaining years to eradicating horrible diseases and improving the lives of millions of the worlds poorest. Surely people can acknowledge and respect the good he's doing without needing to fully agree with his every belief and decision? Again, a bit like Allam senior - I disliked (understatement) what he did to our club and I personally don't like how infrastructure had to carry his or his wife's name but I can acknowledge and respect what his donations & involvements have brought to the benefit of the people of Hull, ER and beyond.

Some people on here would have objected to Carnegie’s philanthropy. Would no doubt have asked who he thought he was building a library in Hull as wasn’t from here.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

Interesting read

https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/news...-and-the-great-philanthropic-misunderstanding

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

Actually Ben, you're wrong on this. The size and the power of the foundation means that it's voluntary contributions change the conclusions and directives of organisations such as the WHO. It's largely focused on technical solutions. Not my words but the research conclusions of BMJ accredited reports.

As i wrote, no one man should be allowed that kind of power created through financial wealth.

I’m right. No conclusions, for the direct BMGF work both, I & the rest of the Company I work for,
along with the other independent companies we collaborate with are bought, altered or changed to suit the funder.

 

[DMD]

Actually Ben, you're wrong on this. The size and the power of the foundation means that it's voluntary contributions change the conclusions and directives of organisations such as the WHO. It's largely focused on technical solutions. Not my words but the research conclusions of BMJ accredited reports.

As i wrote, no one man should be allowed that kind of power created through financial wealth.

The way that funding streams are set up and dictate research in academia and elsewhere is widely misused, and doesn't necessarily create the best benefits. Certainly not in a cost effective way.