9 ms·

A quick browse of his foundation's Wikipedia page [1] makes me think old habits die hard. I hope all the positive press coverage is true (and not the work of ex

A quick browse of his foundation's Wikipedia page [1] makes me think old habits die hard. I hope all the positive press coverage is true (and not the work of extremely well funded PR agencies) but these questions keep coming up. I don't know enough about this to decide yet but I'd like to see some more impartial examination of the foundations net benefit to society, as I think the coverage so far is lacking. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation#Criticism

mseebach 13y ago
These are extremely minor points in the grand scheme of things. Seriously, read the rest of the page, also. That's not saying that they may not be fair and relevant criticisms (but also not saying that they are - there's certainly pettiness in there). Nobody and no organisation is perfect, not by a long shot, and the inability to raise concerns at all with such a large operation would be a total failure of imagination.
pmelendez 13y ago
Some of those criticism are arguable. For instance one of them is criticizing higher paids in AIDS research arguing that it taking away professionals from the regular care. Well, yeah, that's a side effect and a challenge but it happens in any area where you gives incentives.
njx 13y ago
Does anyone know why he is associated with Monsanto? http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-dodges-questions-on-why-he-owns-500000-shares-of-monsanto/ http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-dodges-questions-on-why-h...
- jordan0day 13y ago
  Who better to help feed the world's hungry than a giant ag company?
- canvia 13y ago
  High yield GMO rice and wheat allows developing countries to feed themselves even when they lack ideal farming conditions. Monsanto might be evil but it appears that Mr. Gates believes allowing people to die from starvation is a greater evil.
  - pm90 13y ago
    Yes, and then they sue the hell out of the farmers who use the seeds to grow their own crops (because you need to buy fresh from Monsanto every time). If there's one company that is pure evil, it is this one.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      No, they don't. Having studied the case histories of Monsanto, I can say with confidence that they are careful to bring cases only against farmers who they think have deliberately infringed on the patent agreements. As a plant scientist who has studied the history of agriculture, I can tell you that since the 1950s, farmers have freely chosen to purchase seed every year from suppliers. This was initially because hybrids became the best-yielding varieties, and hybrids only keep their best characteristics for one generation ("hybrid vigour"). Now it's because licensing requires it to fund the massive R&D spend that improving crop productivity requires. For the vast majority of farmers, it makes economic sense to buy every year. It's not a trap, and they aren't idiots being fooled by "big ag". Monsanto have done some evil things in the past when they were a different company. Now they're a pretty decent company with a terrible PR problem.
      - mistermann 13y ago
        If you're on reddit, you must have like negative ten trillion karma.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Because he has a great team of advisers who understand plant molecular biology and are betting on Monsanto's technology playing a role in future food security.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  I've been reading up on Monsanto recently, and I've grudgingly come to the conclusion that they aren't as bad as propaganda paints them. There's a couple of big stories that paint them as heartlessly oppressing helpless small farmers, but if you look into them further you find that they're not nearly so black-and-white. That, and GMO as a concept is absurdly demonized. Like everything else, it needs to be done carefully and with suitable oversight, but people act like genetic engineering means "putting poison in it." As the population keeps rising and arable land keeps disappearing, we're gonna need GMO crops to keep large parts of the world from starvation.
  - gurkendoktor 13y ago
    > people act like genetic engineering means "putting poison in it." Well, but isn't that pretty much it, in the form of pesticides? Does Monsanto do GMO that is not just roundup-readiness?
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      I don't know about Monsanto's product specifically, but a lot of genetic modifications aim for larger yields; greater inherent resistance to pests and/or disease; greater resistance to extremes of temperature and/or moisture; and greater concentrations of certain nutrients, among other things. There's a lot more to it than just pesticides. And pesticides aren't exactly an optional luxury, either. People can die if an entire region's crop is eaten by locusts or aphids or caterpillars or whatever.
      - dhughes 13y ago
        Coming from a farming and fishing region in Canada it seems some "city-folk" seem to think their food appears in the store via magic.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      Monsanto makes two types of GM crop products. The first, Bt crops, have the gene for a Cry protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted so that they are toxic to the larvae of lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). The Cry protein works by aggregating into crystals in the lepidopteran larval digestive tract which then pierce the lining of the midgut, killing the larva. It doesn't affect any other animals, including us, because the crystallisation requires strong alkalinity and the presence of certain bacteria that are unique to the lepidopteran larval midgut. Bacillus thuringiensis is also widely used in organic certified agriculture. So no, this isn't poison. The second are glyphosate resistant plants. These have a bacterial form of the ESPS gene inserted that doesn't get inhibited by glyphosate. We ingest many different forms of the ESPS gene every day - it's in basically every organism - and it's harmless. Glyphosate is one of the most harmless pesticides ever invented, which is precisely why resistance is desirable. Using glyphosate means we don't have to use the much more harmful pesticides we used to use. So no, this isn't poison. In summary: no, it's not poison.
moomin 13y ago
Investments: a potentially valid criticism, it also applies to a lot of other charities, including the very high profile (in the UK) Comic Relief. Diversion: Well, ultimately you can't win, every significant investment diverts from other things, but his endgame is to eliminate these diseases. Then the diversion will stop. It's worth bearing in mind that malaria wasn't nearly as high profile before Bill started attacking it. Education: An awful lot of improvements to education are criticised for undermining public education. IMHO, public education needs undermining. (If you have no idea why I'd say that, I'm guessing you a) haven't got a child in a failing state school and b) haven't seen Season 4 of The Wire) Grantee Communication: Looks like they agreed with the criticism and addressed it.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Education: An awful lot of improvements to education are criticised for undermining public education. IMHO, public education needs undermining. (If you have no idea why I'd say that, I'm guessing you a) haven't got a child in a failing state school and b) haven't seen Season 4 of The Wire) My issue isn't that they're undermining public education, but rather that they're actively making all education worse by doubling down on its worst aspects. The only thing Gates has done w.r.t. education that I'm okay with is backing Khan Academy and the notion of flip teaching. That said, I'm pleased that he's trying.
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    I wish he would do more free online course funding and less lobbying of trying to force the terribad microsoft ranking system into public ed.
    - n09n 13y ago
      It may not be a good system for long term repeated application, but for an organization that has a lot of incompetent members that need culling like US public education, it could help a lot.

mseebach 13y ago

These are extremely minor points in the grand scheme of things. Seriously, read the rest of the page, also. That's not saying that they may not be fair and relevant criticisms (but also not saying that they are - there's certainly pettiness in there). Nobody and no organisation is perfect, not by a long shot, and the inability to raise concerns at all with such a large operation would be a total failure of imagination.

pmelendez 13y ago

Some of those criticism are arguable. For instance one of them is criticizing higher paids in AIDS research arguing that it taking away professionals from the regular care. Well, yeah, that's a side effect and a challenge but it happens in any area where you gives incentives.

njx 13y ago

Does anyone know why he is associated with Monsanto? http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-dodges-questions-on-why-he-owns-500000-shares-of-monsanto/ http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-dodges-questions-on-why-h...

jordan0day 13y ago
Who better to help feed the world's hungry than a giant ag company?
canvia 13y ago
High yield GMO rice and wheat allows developing countries to feed themselves even when they lack ideal farming conditions. Monsanto might be evil but it appears that Mr. Gates believes allowing people to die from starvation is a greater evil.
- pm90 13y ago
  Yes, and then they sue the hell out of the farmers who use the seeds to grow their own crops (because you need to buy fresh from Monsanto every time). If there's one company that is pure evil, it is this one.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    No, they don't. Having studied the case histories of Monsanto, I can say with confidence that they are careful to bring cases only against farmers who they think have deliberately infringed on the patent agreements. As a plant scientist who has studied the history of agriculture, I can tell you that since the 1950s, farmers have freely chosen to purchase seed every year from suppliers. This was initially because hybrids became the best-yielding varieties, and hybrids only keep their best characteristics for one generation ("hybrid vigour"). Now it's because licensing requires it to fund the massive R&D spend that improving crop productivity requires. For the vast majority of farmers, it makes economic sense to buy every year. It's not a trap, and they aren't idiots being fooled by "big ag". Monsanto have done some evil things in the past when they were a different company. Now they're a pretty decent company with a terrible PR problem.
    - mistermann 13y ago
      If you're on reddit, you must have like negative ten trillion karma.
Blahah 13y ago
Because he has a great team of advisers who understand plant molecular biology and are betting on Monsanto's technology playing a role in future food security.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
I've been reading up on Monsanto recently, and I've grudgingly come to the conclusion that they aren't as bad as propaganda paints them. There's a couple of big stories that paint them as heartlessly oppressing helpless small farmers, but if you look into them further you find that they're not nearly so black-and-white. That, and GMO as a concept is absurdly demonized. Like everything else, it needs to be done carefully and with suitable oversight, but people act like genetic engineering means "putting poison in it." As the population keeps rising and arable land keeps disappearing, we're gonna need GMO crops to keep large parts of the world from starvation.
- gurkendoktor 13y ago
  > people act like genetic engineering means "putting poison in it." Well, but isn't that pretty much it, in the form of pesticides? Does Monsanto do GMO that is not just roundup-readiness?
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    I don't know about Monsanto's product specifically, but a lot of genetic modifications aim for larger yields; greater inherent resistance to pests and/or disease; greater resistance to extremes of temperature and/or moisture; and greater concentrations of certain nutrients, among other things. There's a lot more to it than just pesticides. And pesticides aren't exactly an optional luxury, either. People can die if an entire region's crop is eaten by locusts or aphids or caterpillars or whatever.
    - dhughes 13y ago
      Coming from a farming and fishing region in Canada it seems some "city-folk" seem to think their food appears in the store via magic.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    Monsanto makes two types of GM crop products. The first, Bt crops, have the gene for a Cry protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted so that they are toxic to the larvae of lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). The Cry protein works by aggregating into crystals in the lepidopteran larval digestive tract which then pierce the lining of the midgut, killing the larva. It doesn't affect any other animals, including us, because the crystallisation requires strong alkalinity and the presence of certain bacteria that are unique to the lepidopteran larval midgut. Bacillus thuringiensis is also widely used in organic certified agriculture. So no, this isn't poison. The second are glyphosate resistant plants. These have a bacterial form of the ESPS gene inserted that doesn't get inhibited by glyphosate. We ingest many different forms of the ESPS gene every day - it's in basically every organism - and it's harmless. Glyphosate is one of the most harmless pesticides ever invented, which is precisely why resistance is desirable. Using glyphosate means we don't have to use the much more harmful pesticides we used to use. So no, this isn't poison. In summary: no, it's not poison.

moomin 13y ago

Investments: a potentially valid criticism, it also applies to a lot of other charities, including the very high profile (in the UK) Comic Relief. Diversion: Well, ultimately you can't win, every significant investment diverts from other things, but his endgame is to eliminate these diseases. Then the diversion will stop. It's worth bearing in mind that malaria wasn't nearly as high profile before Bill started attacking it. Education: An awful lot of improvements to education are criticised for undermining public education. IMHO, public education needs undermining. (If you have no idea why I'd say that, I'm guessing you a) haven't got a child in a failing state school and b) haven't seen Season 4 of The Wire) Grantee Communication: Looks like they agreed with the criticism and addressed it.

saraid216 13y ago
> Education: An awful lot of improvements to education are criticised for undermining public education. IMHO, public education needs undermining. (If you have no idea why I'd say that, I'm guessing you a) haven't got a child in a failing state school and b) haven't seen Season 4 of The Wire) My issue isn't that they're undermining public education, but rather that they're actively making all education worse by doubling down on its worst aspects. The only thing Gates has done w.r.t. education that I'm okay with is backing Khan Academy and the notion of flip teaching. That said, I'm pleased that he's trying.
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  I wish he would do more free online course funding and less lobbying of trying to force the terribad microsoft ranking system into public ed.
  - n09n 13y ago
    It may not be a good system for long term repeated application, but for an organization that has a lot of incompetent members that need culling like US public education, it could help a lot.