You're missing my point. EarthIsHome is arguing that someone with that amount of money could give it directly to people in need, which would do the most good fo

You're missing my point. EarthIsHome is arguing that someone with that amount of money could give it directly to people in need, which would do the most good for those people right now. bluedevil2k is arguing that it's better to fund research that might help a potentially greater number of people who would need it at some point in the future. bluedevil2k noted that even if Bill Gates helped a million people today, it would be futile because sickness would still exist. The dismissal implies that regardless of how many people's suffering could be alleviated today, it's still preferable to invest in future research. My comment is meant to underline that point. I want to see if there's a point of compromise between these standpoints.