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.
Yes, he can pay off debt of we’ll say 1M Americans. Then he’s out of money and people are still getting sick. Now what?