top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Sassin90 3319 points3320 points  (816 children)

Not sure why there is so much hate on Bill. It's well known he donates a significant amount to various causes regardless if the amount appears small compared to his earnings

[–]SoulsJunkie 2533 points2534 points  (533 children)

I agree. I think people are just disgusted with the super wealthy at this point. But if they were all like Bill Gates, it would be a different world. He's undeserving of the hate.

[–]casualescapism 1257 points1258 points  (227 children)

Let's face it, we're lucky to have Bill Gates. The majority of people would not be near as charitable as him, and he always strikes me as a nice guy. (Although to be fair, you've got to imagine that someone that rich can afford pretty good PR guys).

[–]Xudda 73 points74 points  (19 children)

Bill Gates is intelligent. Like, so intelligent that it’s stupid.

In all seriousness, he understands his position in the world, he knows he has power.

[–]pm_me_bellies_789 69 points70 points  (15 children)

And he uses it wisely and benevolently. It's rather unusual. But great.

[–]jAHnBlest 49 points50 points  (3 children)

Lucky to have his mom who encouraged his philanthropy.

[–]The_Mad_Chatter 6 points7 points  (1 child)

We are lucky to have Melinda Gates. Bill was a bit of an asshole especially while acquiring the wealth he has now. He's since done a lot of good with it, but it seems like Melinda was a huge infuence on that.

[–]JamesCDiamond 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good for her for encouraging him, good for him for changing.

[–]kfmush 69 points70 points  (15 children)

I think it’s important to point out that Bill Gates would probably not be so charitable if it wasn’t for Melinda. If I’m not mistaken he was barely, if at all, involved in charity before he married her.

There’s often a queen that rules the king.

[–]Exotli8 108 points109 points  (2 children)

The people we allow to influence our lives says much about who we are or who we want to become.

Can't knock him for surrounding himself with people that make him a better person.

[–]pm_me_bellies_789 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Good point. Not to take anything away from Melinda. I know nothing about her and good on her if she's influenced Bill to be more wise and kind with his wealth. But it was Bill who ultimately became a better man through his actions as.

Not to take any credit from Melinda, especially if she is the one responsible for who Bill is today, which I feel is very likely.

[–]CODESIGN2 7 points8 points  (2 children)

What do we know about Melinda before Bill though?

[–]beerhiker 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Her, along with maturing and getting out of Microsoft (where he focused on growing a business). I'd vote for him if he were so inclined to run for president. He does a lot of good (and seems happy) doing what he's doing though.

[–]sharpshooter999 28 points29 points  (5 children)

Bill and Warren Buffet are fine by me

[–]SoberSixSigma 56 points57 points  (132 children)

People are disgusted that so few have so much while so many have nothing.

[–]ispeakforengland 44 points45 points  (25 children)

And rightly so.

But you can applaud Bill Gates for doing something (when many others don't) while also campaigning to make sure no-one is allowed to be that rich. You can do both.

[–]Acysbib 36 points37 points  (23 children)

It would be a vastly different world if even 1% of the 1%ers were like Bill Gates.

I hated him long before he left macrosuck. But that was long before i knew him at all.

I stopped the hate when i found his kids get next to nothing when he dies. (Sorry a college fund and an account with 10m is nothing to an heir to multi billions (enough to live comfortably forever as long as it is not squandered) )

If Bill Gates controlled 51% of the world, this would be an interesting place indeed.

[–]amanhasnonames 24 points25 points  (10 children)

If 10 million dollars is next to nothing, then I guess that means I have less than nothing. I get your point though. I remember him once talking about what he's leaving his kids and he said something along the lines of, "I want my kids to have enough money so they can do anything they want, but I don't want them to have enough that they don't need to do anything." As for your other comment, i think if ANY person controlled 51% of the world, the world would be a much scarier place, regardless of the person.

[–]Acysbib 14 points15 points  (4 children)

If i owned 51% of the world... It would only be scary to people I do not like...

[–]Scherazade 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That’s how it starts.

That said, if you let me be your royal vizier, Lord Acysbib, I am sure I can make your tyrannical ways be tempered, for the good of the people.

[–]startyourengines 130 points131 points  (1 child)

Giving responsibly is complicated. A lot of organizations simply wouldn't be equipped to make the most of a 2x or 10x increase in budget. The process of finding and vetting and in his case even creating recipient organizations can be extremely time consuming as well. No doubt he delegates, but giving away billions, even just millions or thousands, takes time.

[–]r0b0c0d 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Absolutely this. Donating is useless if the money can't be used effectively. It makes much more sense to donate efficiently rather than just throw surplus at any given charity. There are so many scams out there where only a couple percent of the money actually goes to actually support the cause.

I'd much rather see effective donations happening over time, and I would not be surprised if a substantial portion of Bill's fortune goes towards a fund (and I'm sure by this point he has contacts for leadership) that provides ongoing support for disease research. He's one of the few hyper-rich that actually seem to give a fuck. Save the hate for the sociopathic misers manipulating our political system for personal gain all so they can have the biggest boat in the vacation ports they visit.

[–]yes4u 49 points50 points  (25 children)

I believe this hatred that you talking about (if one exists) is mainly due to his actions during his Microsoft days (example - browser war). I don’t think anyone hates his philanthropic actions.

[–]McLorpe 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not entirely true though. I do follow a lot of AMAs and comments about Bill Gates because I think he is an interesting man and there sure are haters who hate him for being rich.

These "critics" say that he should give away everything he owns because only then his "sins can be forgiven".

Some people are just insane.

[–]SensibleMadness 13 points14 points  (20 children)

This exactly. He earned a lot of hate in the 90s and rightfully so. He has redeemed himself now though through his charitable work. I haven't heard anyone hate on anything he's done since leaving Microsoft.

[–]orbat 16 points17 points  (15 children)

I guess the way people think about his actions is that he's being all charitable and nice now that he can afford it, but when he was out to build his fortune he didn't give a shit about ethics

[–]_thedarkknight 12 points13 points  (14 children)

Nobody thats is a top tier CEO did.

Elon Musk doesn't give a shit about his workers. Neither did Jobs or Bezos.

[–]K3wp 63 points64 points  (20 children)

Not sure why there is so much hate on Bill.

Try being one of his customers or competitors in the 1980's/1990's.

He was UNIVERSALLY despised then. Some pop-culture references from the early days of the Internet:


[–]jonny_wonny 11 points12 points  (4 children)

It could be said that the only reason he’s able to do the things he’s doing today is because of the things he did that made people despise him back in the 80s and 90s.

[–]classyinthecorners 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s amost the reverse of the “live long enough to become a villain” He basically committed enough crimes (monopoly and non-competition) and it helped him become the “hero” he is today.

[–]immerc 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Exactly. His monopoly was declared to be abusive in court, what he's giving away are literally ill-gotten gains.

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_THESES 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Actually, he makes it a point to have those donations be small, because he isn't concerned with the size of the donation, but with how smart it is. He wants the most bang for the buck. He explains, if he gives less to one cause he has more to give to another cause.

He has pledged half his fortune, anyway, so it really shouldn't matter if one particular cause gets little as long as many causes get a lot IMO.

His "smart but small" mantra is something I actually am in awe of. For instance, in the malaria case, I read somewhere that many people suggested he give hundreds of millions to buy the medicine, or to awareness, or to human costs, or to doctors, but after meeting with many stakeholders including the UN, drug makers, and country officials he concluded that the real challenge was distribution, so he gave something like 10% of the amount that was suggested, but dedicated to clear bottlenecks, and the result was that drug makers were able to reduce their prices 90%, having a geometric effect on the availability and usage of these medicines. A donation of a couple million had a billion-dollar effect.

So, I'm all for this.

[–]akromyk 35 points36 points  (6 children)

I wasn't aware people hated Bill Gates. Might be associated with some hate for Microsoft but nearly every large tech company pulls the same crap.

[–]NPPraxis 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Not sure why there is so much hate on Bill.

I'll answer this question.

Bill Gates has been a fantastic philanthropist, doing great things with his money in retirement, and that has helped rehabilitate his image. I've had nothing but positive feelings for his behavior in retirement.

But those of us who were tech followers in the late 90's and early 2000's remember Gates' ruthlessness and monopolism. A lot of the replies I'm seeing below are naive.

Microsoft deliberately sabotaged the tech and software industries everywhere it could. They had a strategy to prevent inter-system compatibility called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"- because they realized that if software ever became platform-independent, their Windows monopoly would be at risk.

So, any time a new technology came out that was "cross platform", Microsoft would embrace it, then make special "Windows-only additions" that would fracture the program, and other non-standard additions.

Remember how websites would "work best in Internet Explorer"? It's because when Netscape got popular, Microsoft took these steps:

  • They created their own standards-compliant web browser, Internet Explorer.
  • They bundled it with Windows.
  • They threatened any seller that gave out free copies of Netscape with a PC by threatening to revoke their Windows license.
  • They started adding non-standard features to Internet Explorer, and breaking compatibility with standard HTML.
  • They created easy webpage building tools (like Frontpage) that would output broken code that only worked with IE.

Pretty soon, websites could only work in Internet Explorer.

This behavior was everywhere. Java promised to let people write a program once and it would run in Windows, Mac, and Linux; Microsoft made "Microsoft Java" to break this incompatibility. They purposefully obfuscated the .doc format to make it hard to open by other apps. Microsoft went out of their way to break any technology that allowed cross platform compatibility.

Why? Because if everyone could use their applications on any platform, or if people could use the web on any computer, there'd be no reason to stick with Windows.

Microsoft was a horrible monopolist who set the computer industry back years by deliberately attempting to cripple cross-platform compatibility and attacking open source projects worldwide.

It wasn't just them being a walled garden a la Apple- they were actively sabotaging open technologies anywhere they could. Microsoft was a bad actor.

Bill Gates made his fortune heavily on the abuse of the public, and got away scott free by appealing ruling after ruling until he just got slaps on the wrist. That's why a lot of people don't like him, even if he's spent the last decade doing good things with that money.

[–]HelloIamOnTheNet 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yep I remember those dark days well. I'm glad MS got so badly slammed in the mobile market.

[–]immerc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not to mention that this isn't just annoyances, the US Supreme Court decided that Microsoft had illegally abused its monopoly position and ordered the company broken up.

There's a lot of evidence that Gates also falsified evidence in that trial as well.

[–]Pollo_Jack 18 points19 points  (2 children)

He also sold IBM an OS that he didn't have and then low balled the creator. The recent ads in Windows is scummy too. No one is going to criticize Carnegie for donating just what he did before all that.

[–]The-Harry-Truman 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Bill low balled the creator, Carnegie had long work hours, sometimes deadly conditions, deadly strikes, low pay and was even worse on monopolizing. Not really comparable

[–]Bottled_Cat_Farts 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s better to donate smaller amounts to an array of different causes than to donate all of it to one. He’s doing the right thing. Also, he recognizes that just donating money isn’t necessarily the best way to help make progress. Setting up a structure where that money can itself keep making money is the best way to be philanthropic. A one time donation can only get so far. Using that same money to create a system that generates continuous revenue will get your cause infinitely further.

[–]bkrugby78 15 points16 points  (8 children)

He does give a lot to charity. But that is what you’re supposed to do when you’re ungodly rich.

But people dislike him because he doesn’t just donate money to causes. He involves himself to the point where we have to do it his way and no other.

The current nyc teacher evaluation system is modeled on the one used at Microsoft. An evaluation system they abandoned because it contributed to low employee morale. Yes he promotes STEM and that’s good but he isn’t an educator. He gives money to charters and charters are not inherently bad, but more often than not their goal is not to help kids but to make a profit at the expense of children’s education.

Since he isn’t an educator it’s another wealthy person who thinks they have all the answers and ignores the opinions of those who are actually doing the work day in and day out.

[–]seetheforest 21 points22 points  (10 children)

I'm not Christian, but a story in the Bible offers a good perspective on this:

"He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, 'Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.' (Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4)

[–]furniture_warehouse 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I don't think there is "so much hate on Gates" honestly in today's age.

A lot of people know he denotes a lot. This is kind of old news.

[–]nittynat05 16 points17 points  (11 children)

Google “Healthcare Imperialism” and go down that rabbit hole for a bit. This peer-reviewed article is a really good place to start:

“The Gates Foundation, Ebola, and Global Health Imperialism” by Jacob Levich.

I accessed it through Wiley Online but now the link I used isn’t providing access, so hopefully you can find it or have access on your server/have an account. It’s a really interesting read though, definitely showed me a different perspective.

[–]absoluteskeptic 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Not sure why there is so much hate on Bill

  1. How he got his wealth

  2. Investments in private prisons, fast food, and big oil.

[–]spore_attic 9 points10 points  (0 children)

there is plenty of hate to go around. if you're confused about it, then you need to do some reading.

it's a price that Gates must pay to enjoy his riches, which you are trying to act like he completely gave up. it doesn't matter at this point at all who is deserving of the hate until the gap is closed.

bill gates won't be standing next to poor people when they revolt.

[–]jokoon 22 points23 points  (3 children)

I guess you could, maybe, extrapolate this to Al Capone. He was a criminal, but he also organized soup kitchens. Pablo Escobar was also a criminal, but he cared about poor columbians and built homes for the poor.

If I give $100 to fight tuberculosis, I won't get applauded, yet bill gates does get the praise because he gives much much more.

There is a problem with disproportionate inequality, and that's why people hate bill gates. If he pledges his money, it's not like people will change their minds about him. You don't just change your image by giving billions to good causes.

Redirecting huge sums of money to something benevolent is something normal, and should not be applauded because it's just the normal thing to do. When you have a lot of money, money doesn't matter, only the achievements do.

I find the whole thing to be a paradox, and it describes the ultra-rich problem very well because today, you will not get billions or make a name for yourself by fighting malaria, yet Bill Gates is doing just that.

Like it has been said in other comments, people hate him because of the methods he used to make money. Now it's true that managing this money well enough to fight malaria is a good thing because it MAY be more efficient than other organized attempts (the UN, governments, state efforts, charities) to fight diseases, but you won't convince me that it justifies the concentration of wealth.

I don't hate Bill Gates, but I'm a little perplex because all I hear is "Oh look, rich guys can be good! See, he totally deserves his wealth now, because he is using it so well!", while people would not have said that of him before, so that's a nuance. If it becomes another argument that capitalism is good because of bill gates, it certainly will bother me, because Bill Gates is a drop in the ocean of what capitalism really, and it's obviously not made of people giving their money away.

But that's just my opinion.

[–]Mylon 24 points25 points  (13 children)

Bill may or may not be the right target for this, but most charities are tax evasion schemes. The government gives tax breaks for charities under the guise that these people supposedly know how to spend their money better than government and instead the wealthy use it to fund their hobbies (notably travel and parties under the guise of awareness) without paying tax on it.

Additionally, charities that aren't schemes very much tend to fall into the trap of only funding causes that are 'sexy'. Child hunger gets tons of awareness, but it's a relatively simple problem to solve and frequently the underlying causes go untreated. Breast cancer gets tons of funding, but colorectal cancer is a shitty cause that no one wants to campaign for.

Overall, a better use of this effort would be getting government to properly fund broad medical research causes instead of giving the wealthy a means to bypass tax. These people have the means to influence government and educate both the public and government officials so that the money can be spent wisely, but instead they're merely working on improving their own brand and gaining influence.

[–]juanjodic 15 points16 points  (3 children)

You could be too young to have known the real Bill Gates. He was a major dick and basically stole everything he sold from someone else. Microsoft is a despicable company and their business practice is to extract money from their customers more than selling something you actually want to buy. Windows is a lot like gasoline, you buy gasoline because your car needs it to work, but it's not like you get excited when you go to the gas station, like you get excited when you go to buy your car, and Microsoft knows this. Why else do you think every mass market product they sell is a flop? And most than anything, I personally hate them from two things, suing my company because I didn't let them know what software I was using and destroying Nokia.

[–]oksoithought 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think there's a misconception of what wealth is. You read Bill Gates is worth $75b and think it's in his checking account. They don't realize he's donating billions a year and likely that's the majority of what he has aside from assets he's obtained to not need to keep "money in the bank" for himself. To get that full wealth he'd have to sell everything he owns, at market value, and there's some that still think that's "ok". Not realizing that means someone now owns MSFT and wants to make a profit fast and Windows 19 is now pushed to 2018Q2, people are laid off to outsource some code, and now we're paying $699 for Windows and it sucks for the next 10 years.

[–]Bolt32 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The guy that bought my local NHL team. Jefferey Vinik. I wish every obscenely rich person was like him. He's dumped so much money not only on the team, but rebuilding Downtown, charities and the like. If he ever ran for Mayor, regardless of the party he would slaughter his opponent without even trying. The only time I heard people actually stand up and applaud a rich guy is when he is giving a speech lol.

[–]garbageman13 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Not sure why there is so much hate on Bill.

Mostly because his philanthropy and humanitarianism are a complete 180 from his early life.

He spent decades leading a powerful aggressive software corporation focused solely on market dominance and corporate wealth.

If he had spent his life giving Microsoft software away for free, and using his technological genius to lead the open development world the article title might have read:

“Consider a world where the age-old scourge of paid-software is finally eradicated . . . where hundreds of millions of people no longer fight over who has the best software . . . and where we all freely share everything we develop.”

[–]jasonism1 860 points861 points  (160 children)

I would settle with considering a world where staying healthy does not cost you all of your retirement savings.

[–]Caboose_Juice 668 points669 points  (62 children)

It happens, just not in the US.

[–]FrankJoemanNew Democrat 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Laughs in Canadian

[–]LetsRengo 82 points83 points  (5 children)

Good thing that the US has such a capable President fighting for the poor. :)


[–]xf- 71 points72 points  (4 children)

Good thing that the US has such a capable President fighting for the poor. :)


[–]Jerico_Hill 167 points168 points  (4 children)

That's just the US. The most modern 3rd world country.

[–]gukeums1 25 points26 points  (11 children)

It's funny how having the most money in the world allows you to think in such big terms.

Most of us are thinking in exactly the terms you are, friend.

[–]FlameSpartan 20 points21 points  (9 children)

I just want to pay my rent

[–]Chernoobyl 17 points18 points  (8 children)

I have to move from the area I've been in my entire life (31 years) because I literally cannot afford to live here. Apartments are going for $2000 a month, thats basically like living in a damn hotel at that point. I am stressed beyond belief, I have no "safety net" to catch me, I have no money saved, and no family to lean on for help. I seriously am freaking out, in a few months I have to upend my entire life because some home owner that owns 20 other homes wants to squeeze every cent out of his "investments" by fucking over those who don't have any home at all.

Sorry, I'm just seriously stressed and didn't know where else to post this. I just want to work and be stressfree, I can't have kids, can't save, can't go out, can barely put food on the table. :( I don't know what to do.

[–]FlameSpartan 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I moved from my home of 23 years for a job that was supposed to hold me over for just a few months while I get some legal issues sorted out. Got fired because of a mistake that wasn't even mine. Living in an old lady's basement, tried to sell my blood the other day to pay rent, was turned away because of a simple issue with my pupils, now I need to see a doctor about that and for all I know, it could be anything from nothing to terminal cancer. Spent all of yesterday sending out applications.

Oh, and the best part? My freshly out of jail fiance is going to be moving out here only to live with the fucking asshole that got her into drugs in the first place, so there's a damn good chance I'll be going away for murdering him.

Life sure is grand sometimes.

I guess all I can say is, just do what you gotta do, man. Something will work out.

Edit: and I just learned that trying to boil eggs in a microwave results in exploded eggs. Lovely.

[–]MasterHobbes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You've gotta puncture the yolks! Crack them in a cup, one at a time, and puncture those yellow, exploding fuckers. You'll basically get "poached" eggs, but boiling them in a pot is super easy, too. If you have a pot, or a working stove...

Also, if you do end up killing that asshole, it'll feel really, really good. Lotsa pent-up frustration/energy release. So there's that!

[–]DerpDerpingtonIV 17 points18 points  (48 children)

Yeah, the system is so rigged against the middle class it is sick.

You work hard, play by the rules, save some money and bam you get sick or get old or both and all your money goes down the toilet. Oh, that is if you have any money after sending your kids to college or private school.

And our scumbag politicians all pretend to be on the side of the middle class when in fact the MC is the lifeblood of political power and privilege.

[–]ThatBants 25 points26 points  (38 children)

I don't know what you're talking about tbh, almost all first world countries do very well in terms of medical treatment and protecting democracy.

Out of the top of my head the only modern world country that really sucks politically and in terms of medical service is the US, and I would honestly suggest you just move to Europe if you what you wrote above is a big issue for you because luckily it isn't like that in most places!

[–]shitoutyourmouth 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Are they looking for sick people? If moving was an option I would have done it already. But I’m fucked here and no other first world nation is openly accepting visa applications for disabled people. At least that I’m aware of

[–]lostan 469 points470 points  (77 children)

can we add cancer? adding cancer to that list would be amazing. dementia too. that'd be great.

[–]geirmundtheshifty 684 points685 points  (21 children)

“Imagine a world where bad things stopped happening and instead we only had good things. Yeah, that’d be sweet.”

  • Bill Gates

[–]Crazy_Mann 20 points21 points  (0 children)

"What a brave new world"

[–]GlassPomegranate 46 points47 points  (3 children)

Hedonism for beginners

[–]KallisteDia 23 points24 points  (2 children)

I’m sorry to be that person, but I think you’ve misunderstood the meaning of Hedonism.

[–]kirbythad 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think the way in which u/geirmundtheshifty has ambiguously worded his joke warrants u/GlassPamegranate 's response joke.

[–]Caboose_Juice 41 points42 points  (17 children)

Cancer would be a bit trickier imo. We can definitely end/treat certain types of cancer, but as a whole there are too many ways for rumours to form :/

Edit: should’ve been tumours omg

[–]King_Joffreys_Tits 15 points16 points  (2 children)

I get cancer from peoples rumors too. Or is this the British form of rumors, like colour is to color?

[–]Mithlas 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The fact that "cancer" is an umbrella term for a wide variety of problems only complicates things. There are hundreds of kinds of cancer and the more research that comes out, the more it looks like each kind of cancer is its own "disease".

Kind of hard to invent a cure when every single instance of it has slightly different triggers, pace, and resistances.

[–]funnyterminalillness 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I think Bill's biggest thing is diseases of poverty, although the BMG foundation does fund a lot of cancer research.

Source: Used to work for a cancer company that not long ago got a fuck-off huge investment from the gate foundation.

[–]anonym_sten 21 points22 points  (18 children)

There is no way to eradicate cancer. It happens spontaneously and can't really be prevented (even if risks can be lowered) and in too many different forms to have any single cure.

Demential is just a catchall name for a series of neurological disorders/diseases, and again can't be treated with one single method. And it's not the result of a contaminant but rather something that happens spontaneously.

You can't cure those two short of basically curing death. You can, however, eradicate malaria since it's a parasaite.

[–]lostan 23 points24 points  (5 children)

You can't cure those two short of basically curing death

Let's just do that.

[–]adlerhn 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Great idea! Why did no one think on that before?

[–]Like_A_Wet_Noodle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

2018 and people still dyin


[–]lostan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sometimes, once in a generation maybe, a great mind comes along. I guess this is just that time. ;)

[–]Trenks 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You can't cure those two short of basically curing death

Reminds me of a Norm MacDonald bit where he says "I think scientists should look into the whole death thing. They seem to focus on diseases. I go to the doctor and he says 'hey I cured your disease' and I say 'am I still gonna die' he says 'yeah.' That's why I can't get behind politicians. Imagine a guy going: "By the end of my first term there will be no more death!" I'd vote for that fucker"

[–]incapablepanda 348 points349 points  (22 children)

what about a world where Nestle doesn't own all the fresh water?

[–]Carmenn14 39 points40 points  (14 children)

Consider a world where your taste of music got recognized as a contribution. Consider a world where communication was not bragging but life sustaining psychologically resetting bad thoughts. Consider a world where uniting meant that fewer chaotic world leaders would rise. Consider not being told what to choose rather than choose from your urge to know. Consider a free world.

[–]HotgunColdheart 28 points29 points  (7 children)

Considered, now what?

[–]IcarusRisen 43 points44 points  (4 children)

Now wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first.

[–]otis_reading 17 points18 points  (1 child)

How the hell am I going to get on reddit and whine about how unfair the world is with a bunch of wishes smeared all over my hands?!?

[–]Carmenn14 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Consider baby-wipes. (ps: The ecological planet sustaining ones)

[–]yupdannym88 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Was curious about this saying so I Googled it:


“Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first."

  • Stephen King, The Dark Tower

[–]Phrostbit3n 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's an old saying that was said in the book, not vice versa Source: my grandmother says it and predates the dark tower

[–]Angry_Concrete 213 points214 points  (72 children)

I'm glad he's donating money to these cures. Except I have this nagging feeling about once the cures do come to fruition, mother nature is going to have someone hold her beer.

[–]branchoflight 154 points155 points  (59 children)

Imagine a world that's immensely overpopulated.

[–]stirling_archer 27 points28 points  (5 children)

People have fewer children when child mortality rates go down and/or they become more prosperous. Early on the net effect is still a slight increase in growth, but not much further on the effect is a significant decrease in growth. Source. The most effective way to stabilise the population is to make the lives of individuals more predictable and more prosperous.

[–]walking_on_the_sun 20 points21 points  (17 children)

I wouldn't be too worried about that. In many areas of the world populations have started to level off or are now falling. The human population may continue to increase for another century, but I'm confident we'll hit a plateau. There may be challenges as we continue to increase population, but humans are good an innovation.

[–]Saganaut5589134 9 points10 points  (2 children)

There are already too many people.

[–]OceanFixNow99carbon engineering 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Birthrates go way down when you combat disease.

[–]OceanFixNow99carbon engineering 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Birthrates go way down when you combat disease.

[–]cartman82 127 points128 points  (6 children)

If all that came to pass, the lives of 99% of people reading this page would remain pretty much the same. That's why it's harder to get excited about the Bill Gates's projects than Elon Musk's. Gates is pulling up the bottom of humanity, while Musk is pushing up the top.

[–]mynameisntjay 36 points37 points  (0 children)

That is an amazing metaphor, wording is on point!

[–]ethanoffthechain 117 points118 points  (7 children)

Now consider a world where the treatment for all those things are held hostage by greedy pharmaceutical companies who charge more for a month of treatment than most people make in a year. Oh wait.

[–]RileyViolent 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Where have I heard this before? Plot of a movie?

[–]allmydawgsindahood 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Top lad right there. Thank god some of the wealthiest people on this planet are actually doing their best for society

[–]Rasputinov 94 points95 points  (60 children)

if every wealthy person in the world was like bill, our global problems would've been solved 30 years ago.

[–]Squirrel_force 50 points51 points  (13 children)

How about if every person was?

[–]AFourEyedGeek 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I don't want to give my money away though, can only the rich do it please?

[–]strangeelement 34 points35 points  (13 children)

Unfortunately, for every Gates there are 5 Kochs, Mercers or Murdochs spending all their money on making the world a worse place.

It's really not a good solution to our problems. 5 steps back for every step forward when oligarchs are handling these things. Publicly-funded efforts always give better results overall precisely because of that horrible ratio.

[–]arcoknuti 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Imagine a world with 12 billion people that is a living hell because our social and self consciousness has not evolved beyond mine and yours, males and female, cops and robbers, strong and weak, haves and have nots, natives and immigrants.

[–]MarioKartGuy27 2 points3 points  (1 child)

sadly, the places where its rampant also have problems with feeding their people.

[–]OceanFixNow99carbon engineering 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Happily, this has only improved every decade.

[–]austinsoundguy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I consider this every day of my life as do countless other good souls. Only difference between us and Bill Gates is billions of dollars.

[–]LFGKara 27 points28 points  (12 children)

Then, remember Trump dissolved the HIV/AIDS council on a whim.

[–]hy_dra 18 points19 points  (7 children)

And California made intentionally spreading HIV only a misdemeanor.

[–]GeriatricHeartbreak 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Then figure out how we’re going to feed them all, house them all, and provide medical care for them all.

I hope another benevolent billionaire is working on at least one of these issues.

[–]lispychicken 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This surely isnt going to help with TB:

"The risk of tuberculosis outbreaks among people fleeing hardship for refuge in Europe is heightened. We describe the cross-border European response to an outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among patients from the Horn of Africa and Sudan."


[–]CptFizz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish he would find a cure for the overpopulation that kills our planet.

[–]NicoGames 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And then consider the price you have to pay to get it.

[–]Orbit-Man 117 points118 points  (119 children)

So.. massive overpopulation?

[–]lughnasadh∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 300 points301 points  (51 children)

It's a long established fact, that the less poverty there is, the less babies women have.

Large families are a reaction to poverty (parents need the economic security of carers for their old age).

The richer people get (and the more they have access to education, family planning & contraception) - the trend is for smaller families.

[–]jfk_sfa 18 points19 points  (19 children)

I definitely agree and get that but aren't we more prosperous than we have ever been at any point in history?

[–]kenmorechalfant 36 points37 points  (3 children)

Depends on who "we" is. Not every where in the world has caught up yet.

[–]FactualNeutronStar 15 points16 points  (4 children)

It's the 1-3 generations of transitions that create huge population growth. As conditions improve but the culture still dictates that you should have 8 children, you get huge growth until people see that 2-3 kids is enough.

[–]Lelukeson 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Of course we are, but then comes the economic problems of bad wealth distribution.

[–]Ariadnepyanfar 10 points11 points  (6 children)

And all the prosperous nations have below replacement birth rates. The only reason they have stable populations is because of immigration. Japan is the only nation in a pickle because they refuse to open up their immigration restrictions, and thus are suffering a declining and rapidly ageing population. Hence the big push for aged care robots there.

[–]IkeaViking 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, but that's why so many developed nations have shrinking populations, while developing nations with large impoverished populations are still growing.

[–]Backmaskw 33 points34 points  (17 children)

how will poor countries suddenly become rich just by being free from these diseases?

[–]Blubbey 29 points30 points  (8 children)

Lower infant mortality rate means fewer births. If there's a reasonable chance a child dies that necessitates a higher birth rate and resources combating that previously high IMR can then be utilised in other ways like education and employment.

[–]JosceOfGloucester 14 points15 points  (4 children)

The drop in western fertility in the 70s was driven a lot by contraception. I don't think the low infant mortality story is that convincing.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

This is not a story: This is a well-researched phenomenon. Contraceptives help of course, but even in the most conservative societies the decline in infant mortality is followed by a decline in fertility.

Take Bangladesh, a conservative Muslim society, which saw a decline in fertility rate from 7 to nearly 2.

[–]Blubbey 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Contraception (and lower stds for example) comes through education and lack of necessity for high birth rates. People in developing countries won't use it if there's a good chance their only child could die when they depend on them.

[–]Whitepictures 11 points12 points  (4 children)

I'd suggest you read "The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality" by Angus Deaton, it gives a lot of insight in to how various diseases affect economic development.

[–]toastee 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's easier to earn a buck when you're not dead.

[–]tahlyn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Less poverty... Fewer babies.

[–]ThatInternetGuy 52 points53 points  (24 children)

The world population is projected to never reach 16 billion. As more people have better living conditions, they actually start to produce fewer children. We have more and more first-world countries with declining populations. Fertility rate used to be around 4 children per woman back in 1970 but now it's barely 1.5 children in many first-world countries and will continue to drop. Less developed countries see drops in fertility rate too as their countries continue to get better.

In South East Asia, a woman back in 1940 used to have 8 children each but now most families prefer 3 or less, and some just want one child to continue their lineage.

It's projected to never reach 16 billions because each one of us doesn't live forever. If we have fewer deaths, there will be fewer newborns too. It offsets.

[–]djamp42 23 points24 points  (8 children)

The last 3 generations of my family name went 5 -> 3 -> 1 (Currently)

[–]ThatInternetGuy 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Well mine is 11 > 4 > 1

[–]babywhiz 5 points6 points  (1 child)

14 > 3 > 2 > 3 > 2,0,1

[–]mealzer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

15>4>3>0,0,0 so far

[–]casualescapism 26 points27 points  (2 children)

6 -> 3 -> 0, thus ending the cycle.

[–]remtard_remmington 33 points34 points  (1 child)

So your parents didn't have any kids? Must be weird for you

[–]Glasse 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Look up Kurzgesagt - overpopulation on youtube. Really good video on the subject.

[–]Dr_Who-gives-a-fuck 5 points6 points  (5 children)

That's not including the point in time in which we extend human lifespan considerably, or even indefinitely.

[–]ThatInternetGuy 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Planet of the Aged, yep and most aged people can't have children.

[–]Grimli_son_of_Groin 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Birth rates decrease as nations develop, and health systems being strengthened is a foundational element of economic development. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.

[–]Buce123 16 points17 points  (9 children)

If you cure everything, then people are going to have to reproduce responsibly

[–]LoneCookie 9 points10 points  (3 children)

First world countries are barely reproducing

It is an odd phenomena.

[–]Shnazzyone 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Gotta admire a person who became insanely rich and decided to do good instead of using his money to further the corporate corruption destroying american society right now.

[–]ariel2359 7 points8 points  (0 children)

ITT: But whatabout [insert every other bad thing that happens in the world.] Bill Gates is such a dick!