Bill Gates Donates $258 Million to Fight Malaria 694
klubar writes to tell us that Bill Gates has donated approximately $258 million to fight malaria. From the article: "Malaria research accounts for about one-third of 1 percent of the total amount of money spent on medical research and development, even though it accounts for 3 percent of all the productive years of life lost to diseases, according to a report released Sunday." Gates was quoted saying "The report confirms what has been clear, and that is that the world isn't investing nearly enough in malaria R&D."
Let's give a hand to Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
say what you want about his business (Score:4, Insightful)
Bless The Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Borg icon appropriate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Im glad that bill is using some of his fortume to help fight this disease. Africa thanks you.
epic
Bill never was Mr Popular.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:just like all the other robber barons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's give a hand to Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because malaria, unlike those in your list, typically occurs Somewhere Far Away.
Malaria deaths (Score:5, Insightful)
An estimated 350-500 million clinical malaria episodes occur annually. At least 2.7 million die per year from Malaria.
Malaria is responsible for one in four global child deaths. These deaths could be prevented by means which are simple, effective and available.
So lets all give a hand to Bill Gates for helping prevent at least some of these deaths.
Reminds me of John D. Rockefeller (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Gates will be remembered likewise for his good works in reducing the worst misery in poor countries. I think we owe a lot to Gate's wife, Melinda. He didn't do this stuff before he was married. OTOH, we wouldn't do it if he felt strongly for this also.
I still don't like the Microsoft monopoly, but not all Computer billionaires are so generous and he doesn't have to do this. Thanks Bill!
Cynics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Indulgence (Score:2, Insightful)
opportunity cost (Score:5, Insightful)
One possibility, of course, is that they would have frittered it away on DVDs and beer. But it's also possible they would have done a million individual worthy deeds of charity, such as buying some shoes to send a soldier on tsunami relief, who knows a little girl who needs them, or cooking a hot meal for a neighbor with cancer, or buying a textbook for an inner-city school that's short. Or maybe some extra money would've let a brilliant but poor student not drop out of medical school, so he would get the education he needs to invent the malaria vaccine that works for 20 years. You never know, actually.
And that's the rub. Is the good that Bill does with that money necessarily greater than the distributed good that would have been done by the millions of original possessors if they'd kept their money because he sold his products more cheaply? I don't know, of course. You can argue it both ways: (1) Bill has time to study the issues very carefully before investing, make a single "strategic vision" and implement a cohesive overall plan, so maybe "centralizing" the charity decisions makes them better. Or, (2) Bill's only one man, he can't possibly have access to all the information all those millions of people at the "grass roots" level have, so their distributed "Open Source Charity" movement would make better, more flexible and effective decisions.
Re:whats the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway eventually a photo of the plant leaked out, and Western scientists identified the plant as an Artemisia (Wormwood) species and found it growing on the banks of the Potomac river in Washington DC.
Re:Let's give a hand to Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
That's ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mother Teresa liked feeling important and only helped people because it made herself feel good and needed"
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything. So they cannot understand when others do something charitable. All they do is throw stones rather than replicate or surpass the charity they criticize.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Bill Gates believes in helping people, and he has given a large portion of his wealth to helping these countries get out of poverty and disease. This is fact. The "Return On Investment" on helping Africa is multiple decades, long after he's dead. And even believing that Africans can be productive enough to provide a ROI to Microsoft is itself above and beyond everyone else's "Africa is a basket case" attitude on Africa.
What someone does in business, however shrewd, does not mean they don't genuinely feel for those who are suffering.
Re:Moral Corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:opportunity cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:say what you want about his business (Score:2, Insightful)
Where *doesn't* he push software? Where *doesn't* his foundation spend money?
How about that grant to help buy notebooks for every student in Maine? Did you happen to notice what OS was on those notebooks?
Re:say what you want about his business (Score:5, Insightful)
He's pumping money into fighting a disease that is known as a killer of the poor. It's mostly children and mostly in small, poor, non-computer-using communities where malaria is a killer. Piracy is rampant in Africa (a large center for malaria victims) and there's no real hope of getting them to fork out money to MS anytime soon.
I would agree that he may be looking at the larger picture. But he's still being generous - you can't fault him for that. Paul Allen spent $200 million on a yacht that has two helicopters. It costs him $20 million a year to keep the thing and he's never on it. Gates has given $20 billion to fight aids and now this to malaria. Of the two, who would you fault as the selfish bastard?
Re:Moral Corporations (Score:4, Insightful)
And who does that? People that dislike most large corporations do so because most large coporations, in my opinion and theirs, do bad things. People that disagree with this view put forward the notion that we just hate the corporations for being large, because it's much easier to demonstrate a fault in that position.
To debate ethically, they should actually address the criticism made of large corporations.
What the history books show... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Bill realises that he's done wrong by a signficant portion of the world, and more will come to light as the world's computer users become more savvy (as they are with each generation), and more stories of graft, exploitation, and injustice emerge. Microsoft is a business which routinely uses deceit and law breaking as part of its arsenal of tools to maximise profit. Even if they get caught occasionally (and usually they don't), fighting the occasional law suit with their fleet of lawyers, they still wring more money out of the hapless computer user than if they "did the right thing".
Some might admire Bill's approach, but I don't. Anyone who believes that all is fair in love, war, and business is definitely not someone I'd do business with. The market depends on contract, and ultimately (since we know justice can be bought), contract depends on honour - and the value of reputation. If a business, like Microsoft, finds it cheaper to pay spin doctors to cover up its wrong-doings, then it doesn't really have to worry about its reputation.
Bill realises that eventually, his chickens will come home to roost (so to speak), and the history books will piece together all the really crappy things Microsoft has done under his watchful eye. So, given that a few billion $$ here and there aren't going to have a noticable impact on his lifestyle, why chuck a spare $billion at the masses, targetted with advice from a team of "philathropy advisors" to maximise publicity value. Maybe giving a bit of it away makes him feel better about all the nasty things he did to get that money from the people who earned it in the first place. Who knows, maybe the history books will remember Bill Gates as a beneficent, visonary philanthropist. Maybe they'll see him as a calculating mob-boss who tried too late to exorcise his demons.
All I can say is, the money is great for the people it helps, and I won't knock that. And good for you, Bill... better late than never. I guess we all need to sleep at night. A question one might ask, though: is it really generosity if you have so much you couldn't realistically spend it all yourself anyway?
Either way, sadly Bill donating to charity (especially when it's in the form of MS software licenses, one of MS's favourite tricks, which have 90%+ profit margins, and are thus grossly over-valued as a contribution), doesn't really do anything to polish Microsoft's irreparably tarnished Death Star image.
Dave
Linux on the desktop since 1994.
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, there's a difference between starting a charity and donating to charity. I haven't seen the speech by his father, but just because he didn't want to start his own foundation doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't actively donating to charitable causes, or that he isn't/wasn't charitable. I would bet that close to 100% of the people out there donating thousands of dollars per year don't have their own charities. Are they not charitable?
As for his contributions to his foundation, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the estimated current endowment of his foundation is $28 billion. It looks like the initial endowment was $5 billion, so from that I'd say he's been contributing. They also claim that Gates has given one-third of his lifetime income to charity. Sure, given the billions he has, there's room for more giving. But I'm hardly ready to call him a scrooge.
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind that's intended to last forever, so that it can continue giving out 5% of its net worth in perpetuity.
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll go one further - I don't believe that people are even really capable of truly selfless behavior. Every gift however magnanimous, holy, or other-serving, is truly and only done for self - feeling good, satisfying a feeling of guilt, impressing the ole' lady so you get some tonight, whatever. No, I'll go two further - I believe that once you do away with the silly idea of "pure" giving, it's much easier to appreciate and love people for who and what they are! And, this doesn't detract from the positive effects caused by the selfish behavior.
There are people who really want to be known as the selfless, giving type. One person I feel is that way helped me out when I was a child, going through some abusive situations with my dad's wives. I can recognize that she has this desire to appear selfless and giving, and that she carefully arranges her surroundings so that people have lots of opportunities to see and publicly recognize her "selflessness". As an adult, I find this just a little amusing, but there are few people on this earth I owe more to for my current state of well being, and I love her very dearly for it.
She deserves it, too, and I make sure she knows it.
I spend lots of time on my children. I home school, all 5 of them. I feel it this is my best option for having well-adjusted, intelligent, successful children. I also recognize that my reasons for putting out all this effort (and it's a h377 of a lot of work) is primarily selfish. When I'm an old guy, I want my kids to know in their hearts that I was good to them and loved them, and gave them the best chance I could for their happiness. I want to be able to confidently brag about how good I was as a father, and I already enjoy being the parent who answers questions on how to raise happy, successful kids. My kids (now age 8-16) are intelligent, strong, capable, and hardworking. It makes me feel good knowing I've taken the role of father and done well with it.
I donate time and money to the Homeschool Association of California [hsc.org] and I'm happy to do so. It makes me feel good, giving to a cause greater than myself.
Selfish? Yeah, perhaps. But the result is that I have 5 happy, well-adjusted children that show all indications of being roaring successes at life, and I think this is a good thing.
Don't bother trying to find out if somebody's being selfish when they give - everybody is. It's OK! Instead, take a look at what their particular form of selfishness benefits, and enjoy or discredit from there. You'll find it's alot easier to love somebody when you do away with the stupid idea of "pure" giving, and just decide on whether you like what they're doing!
Re:Malaria deaths (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been consistently demonstrated that reducing infant mortality is the first step to reducing fertility rates and thus stabilizing population. It's no coincidence that population grows the slowest in nations that have low infant mortality. Check Joel Cohen's How Many People Can The Earth Support? for details.
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea is that a principal is invested so that the recurring interest can be put to good use. It's a way of ensuring stable, sustainable giving. The fact the net worth of the Foundation is growing every year means they have more to give. In that light, 5% sounds about right (or even high) for current interest rates, don't you think?
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:0, Insightful)
the end justifying the means? Some might think, that's a mighty slippery slope
Re:The history of DDT (Score:2, Insightful)
So not only do you get resistant mosquitos there's now no natural mechanism in place to stop them reproducing in even greater numbers!
And some people want to return to this insanity? I guess conspiracy theories are better than real science.
Re:There was one condition (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Best way to help the world: Fix Windows XP (Score:3, Insightful)
Occasionally when I come here, I get the impression that some people feel that societies would magically get better if everyone just used Open Office and submitted kernel patches.
Technology is great and all, but it's a bit lower in priority compared to food, shelter, and medicine. The basics count, and if Bill Gates wants to donate a quarter of a billion dollars to help cut down on the millions of annual deaths from malaria, there really isn't any good reason to criticize him. Malaria certainly isn't a glamorous cause, but it is no less important.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does good (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, Gates has backed research into treating the maladies that vex the third world. These are diseases that do incredible harm, but frankly aren't commercially worth the spending medical research dollars on because the people they afflict are so poor. This is why a few hundred million here and there from Gates is such a huge thing. He spends the money that no commercial interest could ever justify spending to try to alleviate the suffering of the worlds poorest residents.
Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing positive to say about how Bill made his money, but he does deserver credit for how he disposes of it through his charity.
Re:We already know how to stop Malaria!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you and the moderators insane ?
Maybe they should use DDT and Bill Gates can then donate his money to research into preventing cancer and birth defects that would result from this well known highly toxic substance ending up in the people it was suppose to protect.
This chemical has been banned everywhere where people have an ounce of sense. Using highly toxic substances to eliminate mosquito's is not a solution. The arguments in this article that there's no conclusive proof that DDT causes cancer is pretty much the same tripe used to validate smoking cigarettes. They will wait a generation or two before discovering the costs of spraying DDT inside houses. This is a gamble, with a short term payoff, and a very probable long term cost that may prove to be far more worse than malaria itself.
This is +5 stupidity, not +5 interesting.
I guess there's just not that many ways to spin this one against Bill. God forbid you'd actually commend him.
Re:Bill screwed up with the wife again (Score:3, Insightful)
Until he got married, his charitable contributions were non-existent.
Probably has something to do with having kids and suddenly wondering what the future for your descendants will be like.
Re:Let's give a hand to Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, Bill Gates is identified with Microsoft, and is its largest shareholder, but the two are different entities. Microsoft is a public corporation, run in the interests of its shareholders, and may well make donations as part of its PR. Its shareholders, who may well include the people who will pay your pension (or maybe not, depends on your situation), expect and encourage them to do this.
The charitable foundation is not expected to act in Microsoft's interest - it answers to a board of trustees, and is presumably regulated by the American equivalent of the UK charities commission. Presumably if it did start to make donations that were in Microsoft's interests, its tax-free status would come under scrutiny quite quickly.
Re:Before we canonize Saint Bill: (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked Bill had not deprived me or anyone else of anything, either physically or financially. Whenever I have bought something from Microsoft, I have handed over my money of my own free will and received something back.
The reason people are fawning over his gesture is that he could have quite easily spent all that money on frivillious crap for himself. There are plenty of other multi-millionares who do.
Irrespective of the tax perks that he gets, I (and plenty of others) would prefer that he spent his money in this way rather than on a space trip, a number of islands and a couple of yachts.
Re:There was one condition (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway - most knighthoods are for services rendered to the governmant of the time...
Actually, he isn't BRITISH either, so he can't be a REAL Knight if you want to get specific about it.
But for some silly reason, England and the Queen thought his efforts were worth the title, even if it honorary and he doesn't get to be called Sir Bill G.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
He donates more money than rich countries like the US for this type of research and care to the world.
I don't care what you think of MS or Windows, this is about someone with money actually doing good with it, I wish I could say the same for other people in our industry with a large amount of company made wealth. So even if you hate Windows and Dell forced you to buy it at some point, it should make you feel better than it may have been your $80 bucks that went to help people in the world and not just buy another CEO(CSA) a new car.
Re:Let's give a hand to Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
> time MS was spending 2x as much in advertising to try to drive India
> away from FOSS and toward Windows.
Okay, but Malaria is mostly a problem in places whose annual budget for software is, to a first approximation, zero. Places like the Cameroon, for instance, where in the *cities* people are lucky to have electrical power 30% of the time, and the internet is non-existent because nobody has a phone line to dedicate to it. (You want to make a phone call? In the largest cities you can rent a phone line in a booth in ten-minute increments...) When these people buy computers, they're buying ten-year-old used computers, and they don't trouble themselves over software licenses, and nobody, not even Microsoft, begrudges them the second-hand software that comes on those computers, because whatever money they have is better spent on more vital things such as seeds to plant so they can make it through another season.
There's a reason Malaria research is underfunded. I think just about the richest country with a serious Malaria problem is Brasil, and their Malaria problem is primarily in the North along the river, and their economy is centered around Rio and Sau Paulo, far to the south (six hours or more by plane). *Most* of the countries with a big Malaria problem have economies (if you can call them that) charactarized by subsistence farming. Nigeria. The CAR. Laos. Countries that import food and whose exports mostly are inexpensive raw materials, or tourism if they can convince anybody it's safe to travel there. Countries that can't afford to feed their own people, much less fund expensive research. Countries whose governments, if they spent significant time on issues like copyright law, would be guilty of gross negligence because of the more pressing needs they'd be ignoring to do so. Countries that have a military coup every few years as a matter of course and the rest of the world barely even notices (the CAR being especially bad in this regard).
I'm not a big Bill Gates fan, but I'm fairly certain that when he's funding Malaria research, the motivation is not directly financial. More likely he's calming down his conscience.
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, now that the obvious joke is out of the way, you do have to hand it to the guy for doing this. As an orphan disease, malaria research doesn't get nearly enough funding. Doing something like this puts him on the side of the angels (for this particular skirmish).
Re:There was one condition (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There was one condition (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Is there any disadvantage to doing it openly? Assuming it was pure philanthropy, what would possibly be his motivation to make it anonymous? It just doesn't matter. So there's no way to know if that was a consideration.
Now, I'll go on to assume publicity was a consideration because in general people like to be recognized for their good deeds. And this is a good deed. And what is wrong with being recognized for that? If people can be recognized for their bad deeds (who wants those to be anonymous) then it should be the same with good deeds. It's only fair.
Why are we so cynical now that even a good act is labeled self-serving if the person could get even a pat on the back for it? Oh Bill! You selfish bastard! You did something nice publicly! People might actually talk well of you!
It's weird how bitter we all seem. People just love to hate.
Cheers.
PS - I'm a Linux and Mac user, so no motive here other than to give credit where credit is due. Oh wait! I'm trying to look generous and forgiving! That must be my ulterior motive! I'm such a self-serving bastard!
Re:We already know how to stop Malaria!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cancer is a disease that wealthy people in the first world worry about, because just about every other natural danger has been elminated. But don't forcefully project your western bias on the rest of the world.
Polar bears and birds didn't die out back in the 1960's when Canada and the U.S. were dumping massive amounts of DDT on crops and in the water supply right next to the bears... so don't pretend the threat of small-scale use of DDT in Africa having some minute effect half a world away in North America is enough of a threat to let millions of Africans die. And don't pretend that you in America or Europe have some greater love over the animals and nature of Africa than native African's do.
If we want to eliminate the use of DDT in our own countries, that is fine! But it is clear that Africans, when given a choice (which all too often they aren't), choose to accept whatever "risk" DDT presents than to watch millions of people die slow and painful deaths.
People's attitude towards this just wreaks of arrogance!