

Count on Geeks to Rescue the Earth (or why not everyone should be a social worker) - jamiequint
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-09/st_thompson
I've gotten into more than a few arguments with people who disparage entrepreneurs (read capitalists) as greedy, and too insensitive. What do you think the world would be without some of them? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, greedy, I think not.
======
mynameishere
Malaria is an interesting case. It was our sympathies for the poor little
birdies dying of DDT that doomed millions of people to death. Next time you
hear about the wicked conservatives, just remember that most of the mass
murders of the world have come from the left...with moral righteousness and
absurdity combined in full force.

Still, there's something sensible (in a primal way) about our sympathies for
one suffering servant, but not a hundred. When that many people are dying it
strongly suggests that the malady is an epidemic...and that our best strategy
is evasion.

~~~
Tichy
I don't know the story very well, just wondering: what were people doing
before DDT was even invented? I am guessing that because of DDT the structure
of the population changed, so that when it was taken away, millions of people
were exposed to Malaria, who would not even have existed without DDT?

------
Tichy
I am not entirely convinced by the arguments yet. Maybe it really makes more
sense to donate to individuals? I think what we like to see is our donations
have an effect. It is easier to imagine that one child could be helped, than
that 8 children could be helped. Looking at a whole country full of squalor,
one simply doesn't feel as if one could make a difference. I mean it is not
that we feel less sorry about the mass of suffering people, only less
confident in out ability to help.

OK, so that would still be a problem of perception. On the other hand, I am
also not sure that I accept the other premise of the article, that throwing
lots of money at a problem is going to make it go away. It is great what Bill
Gates is doing, but it has not yet proven that it will work, or has it?

------
staunch
This geek numbers theory is pretty weak. I think the main reason he'll be so
effective is that he's not a stupid bureaucrat. Not only is he not a stupid
bureaucrat, he's a really smart guy with tons of experience learning how to
win.

Most politicians who are responsible for running government aid programs could
never dream of taking over as CEO of Microsoft and being successful. That
requires actual ability and intelligence, neither of which are required to be
a politician.

Bill Gates is doing the same thing he did to a lot of huge companies (like
IBM). He's showing them what happens when you have someone who's not a
mediocre hack running things.

