This is a pretty horrible attitude to have, but to try to make something positive from this, which problems do you think Gates or someone in his position would be better suited to solving?
I do think one of the biggest possible changes could be a new religion based on 'working together', sustainability, education etc. but without any god figure.
Build up this religion in form of a hierarchical network. Bring in everyone and give them a chance to do things together.
Make basic rules which do not exclude too many people but make those basic rules clear and do not allow any racist crap, make it clear that its also not here to solve every problem.
I would like to do things and i sometimes clean our park but i'm not religion. I'm not going to a group every week and i will not take part in a social group which is based on religion. But i would love to meet up every week in something like a youth club for adults, etc.
With this network, he would be able to funnel money directly where it could make sense. Like the central club house which also hosts a school, basic internet etc. (more relevant of course in other countries); Add small hostel system to it, people travel around, share and care etc.
One problem Bill Gates has: When he is gone, who really will pursue it like him? I thought its not to relevant who is doing it as someone will do it but it took Bill Gates years to think more like he does now for one thing and on the other side, it needed him to take action when the polio vaccine stagnated.
You will be surprised to find most of what you describe is already in place in many forms.
Reach out to your local political party (hierarchical network designed to raise funds), the one most aligned to your values as that’s were you’ll meet a bunch of people, most over 50s that have been working to solve the exact problems you listed and they will be members of many other local groups with no party links.
They will have working groups and forums that meet regularly with people that have been campaigning and working for the last 20 to 70 years with your local community, on the ground, trying to solve racism, sexism, sustainability, education, local economy, corruption, inequality, poverty, hunger, climate change, civil rights...you name it.
The best part is that you can avoid 100% the politics if you so wish as they are most likely desperate for (younger) people that will actually get any work done, you’ll be so busy solving real world issues or implementing the structural changes you talk about that you won’t have time for politics.
I don't mean to be flippant, but what you have described sounds an awful lot like the economy. In the book Sapiens, the author describes organisations, money, Capitalism, Communism and more as religions without a deity. The detail that you included which stopped me from calling this utopian is "form of a hierarchical network". It is of course important to recognise that a classless society is impossible. As for solving racism, I think I'm less optimistic. I mean, I don't think people today can even agree on what "racism" as a term actually means.
So it's "let's all get together...except you religious types...y'all go stand in the corner...away from me."? Is that it??
Togetherness requires compromise. Togetherness requires empathy. Togetherness requires _understanding_. And sometimes we - not the proverbial "they" - must take the first steps.
I'm not advocating you join a religion. But if you attend a service or support an event or read a book...you'll be just fine. No bunnies or puppies will die.
Yes, some are over-zealous. No different than (e.g.) many Democrats and Republicans. Or Capitalists. Or crossfit'ers :) If you can't figure out what makes committed people tick your faux religion will forever be a religion of one.
As human beings we are flawed, as are so many of our paradigms and constructs. We tend to want to over-simplify. We're complicated. Life is nuanced.
The point is, the meeting point - for all of us, like it or not - is half way. The world is suddenly not going to come to us. We must go to it. Engage it. And nudge it and ding it from there.
Yes. Very unHN. I may be punished for it. I'll live :)
I tolerate religious people. I do believe that those religions put a deep wedge in our society but that has nothing to do what i meant.
I personally will not work/help an organisation which is build around a religion. I'm not a Christ, so why would i go to the Caritas?
My main problem is, with current existing big systems like churches, they put a lot of rules out. Don't be homosexual, they discriminate against females etc.
Now they do have and had a huge number of followeres. We need something similiar and with we i mean people who care about the environment and think its crucial for us to change. And that is more inclusive as the basic rule is not 'do not be religious' its just not based on it.
We do have science in a way, or at least i have as a believe system but 'we' dont have a lobby. We are not organized.
Let's take his toilet program. For the amount of money he spent, he could've build enough sewage treatment plant for a few African countries.
Similarly, the "affordable" nuclear powerplant programs are not suitable for developing countries. It unequivocal that a cheapest fossil fuel station is the best option for places that never had an industrial economy. Once it has been kickstarted, you can think of more exotic options.
Fossil fuels are a finite and dwindling resource, and its use is possibly causing an extinction event. The human race can't really afford to buy the cheaper option here.
Do you understand that even in a 30+ years, with the most optimistic forecast of technological progression, and availability of funds, the nuclear option will still be incomparably more expensive, and impractical for a small size power station in an undeveloped nation?
Do you have a source to support that claim? Because from what I’ve read and seen, the economics of nuclear are significantly better over a longer timespan.
I worked in the field of engineering since 2007. I can surely say that even simply the choice of materials, and metalworking processes mean that the nuclear reactor vessel alone costs like one diesel/LNG power stations.
Steam turbines are bigger, and more expensive than equivalently powerful turbines of a gas-turbine engine, and not to say that gas turbine is also its own source of hot gas.
I think the best option for undeveloped nations is to rent their power generation equipment until they can bootstrap their electric grid, and build proper power stations.
Yes, for a very long time, and to very little result. He chases too risky, and unrealistic prospects.