He could smile because it's refreshening to hear questions or other people talk about critical things that are constantly being ignored by even the highest ranking politicians. He could also smile because he might find it funny that people bring those topics to him as if he were responsible for everything. We'll never know.
The charitable take is he's still a socially awkward nerd. The uncharitable take is he's still as ruthless as he was during the embrace, extend, extinguish days and since the pandemic has been great business for him why shouldn't he be happy.
What are you taking about? The man devotes his time and considerable resources to public health and solving the tough to solve issues instead of spending his time owning sports teams and racing yachts. Yet...you still look for the negatives in his motives?
“Great Business?” The man is literally giving away his money, all this pandemic is doing is taking more of his precious time up than normal.
The worst tyrannies are those that are initially put in place for the public good. They're the least scrutinized and hardest to resist. I worry that he and others like him see COVID-19 as an opportunity to remake the world in the technocratic mold they for a number of reasons prefer.
You really thing he's all altruism now? Remember how he got there. It wasn't on the backs of good things. He crushed all of his competition. I don't understand how people see him as some kind of hero now.
He wants more power. The Gates funded oral polio vaccine in India was a fucking disaster!
People can’t change? That’s silly, people are always changing. People mellow out as they get older. They’re less combative, more willing to help and be part of a community.
I don’t think that’s the point anyone’s trying to make.
$15mm probably isn’t enough to make big systemic changes to humanity and Oliver’s donation surely alleviated a lot of suffering and should be applauded. However, Gates has resources on a very different scale than $15mm.
Especially with billions to deploy to try to do some good in the world, it seems reasonable to me that someone would attempt a more ambitious plan that essentially tries to address the root cause of something rather than addressing symptoms.
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.
