Bill Gates on population control

I feel like this quote is being taken out of context. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Vaccines and better standards of health care save population, not control it. Unless he truly is alluding to an elite conspiracy in which health care and vaccines are used as a form of population control. In which case, I don't really mind the quote that much. At least he's putting it out there instead of being creepy and secretive about it.

 

There is a clip I posted on this thread of the whole speech. Not just a statement in it that is being taken out of context.

Interesting as now it is his responsibility to fix the world because he has money. Why do we abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own carbon footprints and then shoot the messenger.

It is not his job to feed the world.

 

ah i should have read the whole thread, but I didn't find one person that thought it was taken out of context in the first two pages, so I just gave up.

I agree that its not bill gate's responsibility to feed the world, although ideally the very wealthy would want to share their wealth as much as possible. If i'm ever in a situation where I have billions of dollars, I would like to think that I would spread my money around and only keep enough of it for myself to live comfortably. But we don't live in an ideal world. And bill gates does contribute a lot to charity, as someone pointed out. He probably contributes more than is on record, as a lot of wealthy people make anonymous donations.

 

Meliai, sorry as I did not mean to make it appear that it was directed at you. My apology.

A lot of people did not view the whole clip, and it is relevant as a statement to the whole topic not just a little one line sentence.

Again, my apology.

 

oh don't worry about it, i didn't take offense. I thought it was directed at me simply because it was the next comment after mine, but I thought you were trying to be helpful by directing me towards the clip more than I thought you were trying to call me out. no worries.

 

I agree with you 110%. I'm just saying that i believe we are coming into a time where we are going to need force "guns" to protect our freedom. I am not saying just kill people at will, im saying protect. I say that because the average person is not doing anything. Most are cattle doing nothing, and its really hard to fight when the average joe does not believe you. When the time comes, when shit is going to go down, you need guns.

Now if we stop paying and supporting corporations such as Wal-Mart, Safeway and such, things will change, but laws still exist, and the government will still support them. Police will still get funds.

When are things going to get so bad that people will stand up and say that is not right! My freedom has meaning, my privacy is no ones business! I hope people fight soon.

just saying...

 

Are we to use guns on each other? What good is that? We are the ones being taken advantage of, treated like cattle. Are we going to use guns on politicians? Not a bad idea, but not very practical.

Have things ever been solved with guns? Honestly? Wars have been won, enemies kept away from home soil, but if people feel that the revolution is going to involve toting a gun around to protect their freedom, can you imagine what kind of chaos and pain that would cause?

Why not do the same thing by simply educating people. We are only in this mess because we are conditioned and educated by the system from the age of 4. If instead we educate ourselves and learn how to get what we want, we can have it and no one has to die.

Revolution does not need to involve death.

Think of it this way; out of the thousands of people in one city alone who advocate the use of cannabis, how many run for major? How many devote their spare time to the cause? Many are happy to sit, smoke, and complain that they aren't legally allowed to do so. (Not all users do this of course)

Some people complain of heath maladies. Diabetes, obesity etc. Then they turn around and eat foods that are full of sugar and additives. (Not all who are overweight do this of course)

We are not conditioned to think that we can get what we want by forcing companies and politicians to give us what we want. We don't yet realize that because we are the ones who have and use the money at stores, that makes us the ones who are ultimately in charge of the way things go.

If we keep all our money to ourselves, spending it ONLY on essentials like food, cannabis (for some people), etc, you know what would happen? Big companies would get the message that we don't need or want their shit anymore. They'd no longer have the power to make us dependant on their teets. If we spent all our spare moments in numbers in front of government buildings, demanding what we want, we would get them. They'd realize that we are serious and that we won't settle for bullshit.

Right now big companies and politicians treat the public like cattle because we behave like cattle. Many just go to work, go home, drink beer or get high, and sit in front of the television or computer, complaining that things suck and how they don't have what they want. But what do they do about it? Ask one, the first thing most will say is some trademark apathetic catchphrase like, "what can I do," or "that's life."

The sales of stupid shit, alcohol, and anti-depressants let the government, and big companies know that what they are doing is working. It lets them know that we aren't serious about what we really want, and it lets them know that we are dependant. If we hoarded, or got rid of money (besides using it for essentials), stopped buying stupid shit, and spent our free time advocating what we want and doing it out in public instead of sitting at home whining about the state of things, they'd know that we're serious.

 

the problem is that a drastic change in the collective consciousness of the majority of people would have to take place in order for the public to take a stand. I personally do boycott big business. I avoid anything that reeks of "the man." Most people are entirely too ingrained in the system, however, to think that they can live outside the bounds of the system. Most people don't even think about it, period. That is why people that do think about it eventually shrug their shoulders and say "what can I do." There are plenty of people out there like you and I that don't allow ourselves to be cattle, but not enough for the impact to be so big that it stops government and big business in their tracks.

Its very frustrating to depend on a majority to change things. Individuals make small dents, but a large group is needed to generate enough force to make major changes.

Its my greatest hope that we're headed for a Great Awakening of sorts. The idealist in me really wants to believe this. The cynic tells me that our society is in decline.

 

i dont care what gates does really... just give me an OS that works!!

 

Lunar', but why should people do with out i-phones, snuggies and big screen televisions?
They are minor "luxuries
Lets be fair, the way things progress more is made with less i.e TVs (flat screen rather than 250lb monstrosities) and other electrical appliances.
There have been great strides to improve recycling and companies are constantly chastised and monitored relating to their environmental stewardship...especially in the US.

If you talked about owning 3-4 cars (one for each member of the family), HUGE gas guzzling cars in general, and MASSIVE de-tached houses owned by a family of 4 (the basic aspirations of the average American family...) then we might get somewhere.

Don't get me wrong I agree with your premise in general, but I think your targets are the wrong ones...or you just decided not to mention them.

With what you have said, you make it sound like everybody is after more more more.
Imho, that isn't quite true...I think you can concede that.
It also seems like you think if we consumed less poor countries would be helped...if only it was that simple.

Imho, Americans, for e.g, should be able to consume all your so-called luxuries, but reduce their massive impact within the actual homes they own and the cars they drive.

Consider the American middle class abode, basically up until the 1980's the average home for a family of four was about 1,500 square feet, but during the subprime era, people within society didn't consider themselves middle class unless they had a McMansion.

​

What is the average home size in the U.S.?
According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average home size in the United States was 2,330 square feet in 2004, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970.

http://www.phaster.com/_peak/_peak_expectations.html

You then go onto talk about additives in foods.
There are a few problems with that.
Consider the conclusions that have been made relating to Bill Gates, people actually believe Bill Gates is aiming for population control.
Hands up how many people think the vaccines he is talking about are ones that sterilise females?
Too embarrassed to admit it? Come on, we're all friends here.
How many of those same people think all additives are toxic and are likely to cause cancer at best three headed babies at worst?
Ok, obviously a little ott, but some people are extreme in their views.
Most additives are harmless and some are actually good for you...
...how many people would you think would make any distinctions?

What I am saying is, do we really need vast swathes of uneducated folks (I include myself here) creating strife about issues they know nothing about?
There are people that DO know what they are talking about lobbying various governments and companies.
I say let them do their job.
(I would not include Greenpeace or Peta in that as they are just crazy)

I think you mentioned a Mayor who smoked cannabis too? or advocated decriminalisation of cannabis? Ok, great...what else will he be doing as mayor?

 

you slip into personal insults and use these preconconcieved ideas of others to avoid questions very regularly

why quote me if you are only going to insult me and not answer a direct question?

the simple fact is that Gates has the personal fortune to do pretty much anything.. all he has to do is spend it... he could invest every penny in alternative fuel sources, destroy the oil industry and change the world forever, he could invest in cereal crops until the US has no choice but to drop trade embargos placed on the african continent, he could use the same resources that delivered your copy of windows 7 to deliver lunch to a family in flooded pakistan.. but he doesn't, he starts funds and charities that while doing marvellous things for a small number of individuals, they do fook all for the bigger picture and the real problems of poverty and illiteracy around the world... ergo, he is a wanker.. the epitome of the capitilist dream.... a man who can watch people dying on the worlds most expensive tv.

i'll happily bow out and leave you and your higher intelligence to the remainder of this debate

 

did someone say pancakes?..,

 

Thank you for explaining that so well. I only briefly heard of this speech and felt it must have been taken out of context or misinterpreted somehow. Your explanation made so much more sense of the whole thing!

 

Again you don't seem to have listened to the complete presentation, or understood it. Nowhere did Gates "lecture" about population control. It was about reducing CO2 and the average carbon footprint of each person. Reduction in population growth, not de-population, was but one small portion of the equation.

You are looking at from a rather simplistic perspective. How many multiple TONS of food gets confiscated annually by the regimes in power in the African countries where people are starving? What about dealing with the growing drought areas? What about dealing with the diseases that plague both humans and livestock there? What about just the simple logistics involved in getting food and resources to certain areas, especially those embroiled in war?
There is a lot more to the problems in Africa and similar areas than just food shortages. What do you want Gates to do, drop sandwiches from airplanes?
There is also a BIG difference between shipping DVD's and shipping and distributing millions of tons of food supplies, and the last time I checked you can't download a burger and fries.

The things Gates is funding are things that will help make a fundamental difference concerning poverty and illiteracy in the world. If you investigated what he does rather than just basing it upon a three minute sound bite, you would realize that.

You say he has the financial power to change the world, that's laughable and if he did try according to your methodology, you would then be throwing rocks at him claiming he was trying to take over the world.

Your ideas are very grandiose and idealistic but show a lack of comprehension concerning the problems in their totality. It is not as simple as you make it out to be, if it were than hunger would have been eradicated decades ago.

 

if you were bill gates, you would do exactly as he does? if you felt inclined to help others of course

 

Maybe not exactly, but I would target the fundamental causes rather than just the symptoms, the same as what he is doing. Charitable institutions have for a long time only primarily focused on the symptoms rather than the disease. Not all of them and not exclusively, but that is where the major focus has been. What is needed is an attack on both fronts. I feel that is what Gates is attempting to do.
People are shocked and appalled and maybe spurred into action based on the symptoms of the disease and often don't consider the underlying causes. Or if they do consider the underlying causes to such world wide issues, become discouraged and give up because the causes don't lend themselves to quick and immediate solutions. They require an investment of years and decades.
As I pointed out previously, the population issues that Gates address' in his presentation are cultural and economic that are very deeply rooted in the mentality of many of the people being adversely effected by those very cultural ideas and traditions.
"What do you mean I should only have one or two children? Who will provide for my old age? Who will work the fields?"
It is a mentality that worked for eons when large portions of the globe were still hunter/gatherers and agriculturally based societies. It no longer works in todays global and technological society. But try convincing some of these underdeveloped countries of it. I am simplifying it to some extent, but that is what Gates by and large was talking about concerning population decreases. Not some evil genius plan to control the world. He was talking about a demonstrative shift in perception. Show these people that there is no longer the need for large families to ensure survival. You demonstrate that by decreasing infant mortality rates, improving health care for those that survive, and education, both book learning and practical agricultural education. All those efforts, if accepted and understood would result in a decrease in population growth.
This is very different than say the Roman Catholic attitude that birth control is a sin. Thats just silly.

If you watch the entire presentation if you haven't already you will see that a large part of his vision IS getting away from fossil fuels.
If you look at what his foundation actually does, you would see that a large part of it is devoted to ending illiteracy.
If you look at what they actually do you would see that they DO make efforts to feed and house people worldwide.

That is why I made the smart ass remark. Because based on your statements it appeared as though you did not actually investigate just what Gates does do.

So let me ask you, chapter13, if you had Gates money, how would you tackle these issues?

 

you bring up a good point. Its nearly impossible to get aid into certain places in Africa. Bill Gates and 100 of his closest rich white friends could all get together and come up with enough food and other supplies to help every single person living in Africa, and the only people that are going to get the aid are corrupt governments or tribal bands of militia. You could throw all the money in the world at Africa and it wouldn't help anything. Of course, on the other hand the idea of wealthy elite sitting around twiddling their thumbs and brainstorming on ways to treat the root problem of Africa creeps me out a little. I think its very hard for outsiders to truly understand the root problems in Africa.

 

Why? Those "wealthy elite" are in a much better position to research, fund, and implement those solutions more so than you and I. They also by virtue of their wealth and status are much more likely to get heard by the governments involved than you or I.

Plus, at least as far as Bill Gates and the presentation that started this whole thing, the problem of overpopulation and Africa is but a small portion of the equation. Gates is looking at the root causes of the poverty and overpopulation and looking into ways to address those issues.
The main focus was eliminating CO2 as a waste product in energy production.
Why does that seem to elude most people commenting in this thread?
I guess because that understanding would take the wind out of the "VIVA La Revolution!!" battle cry doesn't it.


You need to drop the "hippie conspiracy theory" idea that anybody with wealth is automatically the "bad guy". It is baseless and not supported by fact.

 

I'm all for Bill Gates getting a vasectomy

 

My hippie conspiracy theory is that hippies are evil due to the fact they lobby against giving GMO corn and rice (that has added vitamins/supplements) to starving people in Africa cos they don't believe in GM stuff. Yeah you guys can starve because over here in the 1st world where everyone's on the moral high ground while they get fat and waste everything, we think it's wrong. the lesser evil of course being that you don't get any food. Genetics is wrong people! Genes are evil. yep.