Early this month, Bill Gates gave an exclusive interview with the Financial Times; ft.com/cms/s/2/dacd1f84-41bf-11e3-b064-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jXaraByW">the ensuing article is likely old news to most people, as the whole thing was (unfairly) summed up by about a million news aggregators as Gates bashing Zuckerberg's plan for bringing connectivity to the world. To be fair, Gates did say "it's a joke", referring to the concept of prioritizing connectivity over vaccinations. A pretty virulent quote, right? I don't think so. I think the whole Gates vs. Zuck thing was predictably blown out of proportion. In typical fashion, the deeper issue, which isn't about the philanthropic tycoons but the disadvantaged multitudes, was largely ignored. That's why I bring up some old news, to get some rational discussion. Who has the right plan for philanthropy then? Bill Gates? Mark Zuckerberg? Someone else?
At first glance, it's hard to argue with Bill Gates. When he starts getting snarky in response to prioritizing tech over the health of children in third-world countries, it is understandable. Saving children is a more important mission than bringing them wi-fi, and nobody (hopefully) would argue that point. That is a rational statement in its most simplistic form, but it may not tell the whole story. The rest of the article delves into many things, with a particular focus on his Foundation and its efforts to fight and eradicate diseases across the world. A noble cause, to be sure. And from what I've read, most people seem to think this variety of philanthropy is the most noble. However, I believe that focusing philanthropic efforts on what is optimal will yield far greater results than focusing efforts on what is noble.
Everyone has heard the adage, "give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". I am a strong believer that this is an absolute fact. It is no secret that positive reinforcement can be an incredibly strong influence on behavior, and positive reinforcement is easily supplied through crates of food, clothing, supplies and vaccines. This type of charitable giving is certainly beneficial, especially to the starving families that have no other recourse. But it also creates a dependency and in itself does little to empower these same families to provide for themselves or contribute to a fledgling economy.
I'm not a particularly devoted student of history, but I do know that technological advancement has led to economic progress which has led to an overall increase in quality of life in many countries, including the United States. And while providing Facebook to the third-world is laughable in its worthlessness, I don't think that is what Zuckerberg has in mind. Providing the internet to the third-world is a good way to teach men to fish. We usually only think of wealth in terms of goods and money; however, Americans have a wealth of knowledge that people in the third-world are not capable of accessing. Without this type of knowledge, no autonomous progress is possible, and people could continue to rely on philanthropy for support. In my opinion this is not optimal or sustainable.
I have no definitive conclusions on how the internet could be provided to the underprivileged. I merely offer my opinion, framed in the context of my education and experiences, that philanthropy could perhaps be more optimal if it were focused less on giving and more on teaching. A connection to the internet is a primary source of knowledge for Americans, and it could be the means by which poor starving families learn valuable skills that can help them provide for themselves. I don't disagree with Bill Gates. Philanthropy should be employed primarily to help those that are sick, starving, or destitute; but I believe that connectivity could be a means to achieving these same ends more efficiently, both for the philanthropists and for their beneficiaries.
I do hope this spurs some discussion, because I believe the real discussion has been avoided or ignored elsewhere.
You're overthinking this. Zuckerberg is a child and was put in his place by someone who knows what they're doing. Since money is the measure of everything on this forum....Gates is worth a whole lot more and winse. Just kidding. But you see my point.
Gates was guilty of wasting effort, time, and money as well when he first started out with philanthropy. When he started listening to people who knew what they were doing, then he started getting better results. Gates learned what Zuckerberg will learn: so what if you're good at your business. If you want to get good at something else, there is a learning curve. If he wants to be just another crazy billionaire teaching dying people to tap dance, type, or whatever else no one's going to stop him. But he will be ridiculed.
Zuck is no exception.
Not sure if you read the whole post, (I know it's kind of a textwall), but my main takeaway is that as incredible and generous as Gates' foundation is, I don't know if it's efficient in the long term. Providing free vaccines is super important, but unless it coincides with some sort of education, it will never be anything more than free vaccines. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it is an optimal way of helping.
No way is Zuckerberg's plan more impactful in any way than what Gates is doing, but as a supplement, connectivity is a much better means at providing long term autonomy and self-reliance.
I guess in simplest terms, I think that connectivity is pointless if people have nothing to eat or are dying from easily cured sickness. But receiving vaccines and sustenance will never do anything but maintain the status quo without some element of education to empower the underprivileged to eventually provide for each other. And connectivity can and probably would drive education.
I think there was a false characterization made in the media in assuming that communities that don't have access to the internet must also be destitute and need food, vaccines, clean water ect. There are plenty of communities around the world who are self-sufficient and just not economically important enough to warrant a telecom company building a cellphone tower nearby. Facebook says there are 5 billion people without access to the internet. The Gates Foundation is surely targeting the poorest of those 5 billion and I'm sure facebook will start out by targeting the richest.
Very solid point, couldn't agree more. Thanks for adding this.
@ rhen - What I'm getting at is that on the order of priorities, being able to download porn would seem to rank substantially below not dying from malaria and starvation. I read the post and disagree. Did you read what Gates actually said and look at what he's actually accomplished? It's impressive and seems to only continue to get better.
Ultimately, business expansion and good governance are going to do far more for the long term growth of a people. The sad reality is that in the areas where things are the worst, business and governance are already highly dysfunctional and charity is doing damage control more than anything. I'm guessing that between the two of them, Gates and Zuk will do a lot of good. Who knows, maybe a little friendly competition will produce better results. It worked for rap.
Honestly, anything anyone gives to help others is commendable and I have no problem with what Zuk is doing, didn't mean to give that impression.
Fair points. And I agree - as does the original article - that if it's a question of priorities, Gates wins.
I just think that for every slobs that would use their new-found connectivity to download porn, at least one motivated soul could develop an interest in medicine or finance or engineering, gain the motivation and means to obtain a formal education, and then come back to their hometown and build a school, or an irrigation system, or start a clinic.
If this happens, these destitute communities can turn into villages, and then cities, and someday, maybe, thriving economies. This isn't possible (for many reasons) if all that happens is a few volunteers arrive with some crates of food and vaccines once a quarter.
This is a pretty rambling comment so forgive me:
Totally agree on the media blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Then again, we live in the age of "14 Ridiculously Cute Pictures of Puppies Pretending to Read Shakespeare," etc.
Re: Teach a man to fish. This adage is really only important in a resource constrained environment, no? The tacit assumption in the adage is that you don't want to be giving this dude fish everyday, so just teach him and be done with it. But in the case of Bill Gates, whose resources are for the purposes of this discussion basically limitless, who cares what he does?
Gates' point isn't that people need to learn to fish, it's all about the allocation of resources. Modern society has already developed the knowledge that has led to vaccinations. As a person who was lucky enough to be born into a developed country, I am able to benefit from this knowledge without knowing jack shit about them. Gates is wealthy enough to basically address this moral inefficiency: We already have the solutions. People just need access to them.
Plus, the vast majority of problems the Internet solves tend to be first world concerns, although admittedly, this might change as the Internet becomes the Internet of Things.
I actually think that the tacit assumption is that the man who learns to fish is better off getting his own fish. Economy is the reward of the self-sufficient.
Gates has "unlimited resources", sure. If that means he can give free vaccines and a meal to every needy person forever, then that's great. But then the time and resources spent doing that prevent him from tackling other huge socioeconomical issues. If the philanthropy instead taught people to develop and administer their own vaccines, not only would economies spring up and increase quality of life across the board, but Gates could then focus on other under-funded, but life-changing causes.
Efficient, progressive philanthropy (in theory) should have long term results that are better in aggregate than charitable giving, regardless of how generous it is.
Philanthropy in of itself often has net zero or negative impact on those it attempts to help. For example, all of the aid we provide to Africa in the form of free or far below market priced foods and clothing has decimated the economies of the region. Food growing and manufacturing along with making clothes is often the trigger that allows an economy to start and progress towards more advanced levels. This is what we need to realize, often our philanthropic endeavors are often done so for our own selfish reasons. We act like helping X group is the real reason we do it, but lets be honest we all do it because it makes us feel good and important.
Great input. Super controversial point, but I happen to agree that this is often the case. I would assume that many on this site would also agree.
Again it comes down to how philanthropy might be much more effective if instead of undercutting a fledgling economy, we supported it through education or other means.
As it stands now, food production in many parts of Africa are insufficient to maintain the indigenous population. Local food products are limited and are often of poor nutritional value and the populace is not educated in proper farming techniques. Additionally, the region suffers from parasitic infestations (malaria for people) and trypanosomiasis which severely limits livestock production.
If aid were to stop, the region would not magically become self-sufficient. That said, current economic "aid" efforts are questionable given that PE firms are beginning to troll the continent for returns.
In light of these challenges to produce their own food and raise their own livestock, wouldn't a better philanthropic cause be to work with them to solve these issues so that they can become self sustaining? This could of course be done simultaneously with providing enough food to balance the equation (and not undermine what little economy they have).
If they were in fact educated in proper farming techniques, many of these problems could be mitigated.
@ heister - what % of philanthropy, net, do you think yields any results?
It totally depends on what kind of philanthropy you are talking about. If you donate money for computers in schools then the return on the dollar is much higher than if you donate money to food for Africa.
Another issue I have with African aid programs are the corrupt governments and warlords whom take control of the food supplies and then use them to force their control over the population.
Gates is right.
Zuckerberg has an ulterior motive to his "philanthropy": getting more people on the internet means growth and money for Facebook. Ditto Google with their internet balloons. More people on the internet means more money for Google.
On the hierarchy of needs, Internet comes much after food, water, and health.
Sure, getting internet to people who don't have it is a worthy goal, there are just worthier goals ahead of that. Let the companies that can make money off of getting people on the internet go after just that, but don't guise it in the mask of philanthropy.
Philosophical question alert, but do motives even matter as long as it ends up helping people? And coming back to the hierarchy of needs, almost all charity has its roots in trying to achieve self actualization, itself a 'selfish' motivator. I don't think that makes charity/philanthropy any less inherently good.
And I guess I keep coming back to the fact that the internet can bring education/knowledge, which can improve people's ability to provide the food, water, shelter they need for themselves.
Of course, I work under the assumption that providing for your own needs is inherently better than having your needs met by someone else.
Wrong.
Commerce has done FAR more to lift people out of poverty than charity ever will.
"Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it." - John D. Rockefeller
By giving people access to the information they need to make educated decisions for themselves, Google will do more for the third world in one shot than Gates ever will.
This is a topic I am very passionate about because I was born in one of the 10 poorest countries in the world. The ignorance, false assumptions, and lack of perspective from some of those who have never lived in a developing country really grinds my gears.
There are internet cafes in the poorest villages and worst slums in my home country. Anyone with money can get on the internet, the issue is that most people who live in poor counties can't afford to spend their money on internet cafes because they're too busy trying to get jobs, food, clean water, shelter, and medicine.
It's great that companies like Google and Facebook are trying to make internet around the world faster and more accessible, but they are the putting the cart so far ahead of the horse it baffles the mind if you've actually lived in one of the areas they are looking to improve.
Before you worry about connectivity and educating people, you have to make sure they're not dying by the droves. Imagine if you went to Detroit and suggested that connectivity was the answer to the cities problems. Or Tijuana. That is exactly what Zuck is doing when he suggests technology will help the developing world. It certainly won't hurt, but until you address the underlying issues that affect these places, technology is only going to help those who are already successful.
A big issue in my country(and all poor countries) is that an overwhelming majority of successful people, who could do things to improve the situation, get the hell out of Dodge once they have the chance. This creates a vicious cycle where those successful people who decide to stay live very well(better than a middle class American family, and comparable to a lower upper-class family) and everyone else is fucked. The wealthy live in big ass mansions, can vacation to anywhere in the world and stay at the best hotels, have fleets of cars, and servants to attend to their every whim. Imagine living in North Dakota but getting paid like you work in London, then multiply that difference by a few dozen. While the poor struggle for basic things like clean water every day.
People with money will take advantage of these new technologies, using them to improve their lives, and the poor will continue to be poor. I understand why a company like Google or Facebook wants worldwide WiFi in terms of improving their numbers, but it's a really big stretch to call something like that philanthropy. That's just a company investing in their business.
What poor countries need are very basic things, like clean water, medicine for diseases like polio, and plumbing for people shitting in their backyards and covering it with dirt. Can you imagine going to one of these people and even suggesting they need internet more than those aforementioned supplies?
It took Gates time to figure this out, and I think eventually Zuck will come around, but in the meantime people who think like him have to get past this Silicon Valley mindset of technology is the cure to everything. The cure to polio is IPV, not a Google+ or Facebook account.
I watched a TED talk about what is killing so many children. The answer was lack of clean water, so many kids die of diarrhea and lack of sanitation, something we take for granted. So if philanthropists were to teach those destitute areas to clean themselves properly and have clean water, that would fit under the "teach a man to fish", right? 80/20 rule and it would save the most lives without relying on others to send food, NBA championship shirts of the wrong team, etc. My 2 cents.
evilbyaccident and TwoThrone, these are my thoughts exactly. I do think supplying food, clothing, vaccines is necessary, as long as it doesn't undermine a long term goal of weening people off of the charity so they can be self sufficient.
At ullam aut voluptatibus odio officiis. Optio totam dolorem et ad voluptates reiciendis dolorem. Iusto vitae ipsa quas cupiditate qui. Perspiciatis omnis quam ipsum molestiae vero.
Qui natus possimus odit recusandae officiis omnis tempore maiores. Hic quas sed enim et.
Eveniet ducimus veniam tempora tempora deserunt placeat alias doloremque. Assumenda laborum tempora cumque omnis minima at et velit. Et nihil id molestias sunt. Dolorem dolor voluptatem ut neque in.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eum vel dolore sit ut nobis. Deleniti iusto qui officia recusandae explicabo et. Vel modi qui molestias quam explicabo.