|
|
|
|
|
by vidarh
4617 days ago
|
|
He's being realistic. How many of us are donating even percent of our income towards malaria eradication? Eradicating malaria has been possible for decades. It has not happened because people amongst others continues to prioritize luxuries over other peoples lives. We can pretend we're not amongst "those people", but the fact we're spending time on HN debating this matter instead of doing something about it pretty much demonstrate that most of us are. |
|
The problem is that all sorts of other whacked conclusions can also be deduced from "not all lives are created equal", so you need a whole other host of values to protect against that.
However, I don't think the converse is true. If someone is focusing on expanding internet ahead of eradicating malaria, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe "all lives are created equal". It could instead mean they are simply ignorant, which is not bad if they are open to perspective. That is kind of Gates' point - he's being evangelical about pointing out that if you have that value, you should probably pay attention to things like malaria. Other sources point out the same thing. Check various conversations over at lesswrong, or check out the top-rated charities at givewell.org, or just google the many arguments on efficient charity-giving.