Hacker News Reader

Comment by grandalf | Hacker News Reader

I don't know how he should spend his time, nor do I claim to.

Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world.

I also worry about the overall risklessness of what he's doing. He's pledged all of his money, so who can criticize it? For most people it's beyond reproach just because of the stated goals.

When Gates dropped out of Harvard he was doing something that a lot of people thought was stupid. That's how big ideas are. I'd like to see him doing something that might actually result in people mocking him for having lost his fortune on a bad idea.

View on HN

The merit of an action is not determined by its risk of looking stupid. Not in either direction.

When doing something not-risky is bad, the reason is usually that it isn't ambitious enough: that you've avoided doing something that could have been better because you were afraid of failing. But the total eradication of malaria is not an unambitious, can't-possibly-fail undertaking: it's a huge task, it's not obvious that it can be done, and it would bring enormous benefit to the world. If it's immune to criticism, then as you suggest it's because it looks like a noble and generous thing to do. In other words, the lack of criticism isn't an indicator of lack of ambition, of aiming too low.

Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world.

Instead of, say, eradicating malaria? You're kidding, right?

grandalf has a fair (if self-interested) point. He's not gonna contract malaria and neither am I. But I'd kinda like a phone battery that lasts a month.

Not just self-interested. I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

I might accept "greater good". There's no way I'll accept "greater malaria eradication".

The Gates Foundation is working on malaria eradication because it's one of those things where you really do get great returns by just attacking the problem head on. Batteries have nothing to do with malaria.

The other thing about super-batteries is that there's no shortage of sensible profit-chasing money pouring into it. If Sony, Samsung, Ford, Toyota, General Electric and Rolls Royce are all already pouring billions of dollars into it, there's not much point in Bill Gates throwing a couple of billion onto the pile. But apart from the Gates Foundation hardly anyone with deep pockets is targeting malaria.

The cotton gin eradicated lots of diseases. If you think that the battery I describe wouldn't have a similar impact on developing economies, you're experiencing a bit of an imagination failure.

I just used batteries as an example. The money being poured into batteries is commensurate with the overall value to society of creating them. This is not a market failure. The reason money isn't flowing to malaria prevention is because the structural problems that lead to the disease prevent the resulting human capital from having much of any economic value.

It seems like some of the responses here are missing the point. Sure, we get to play Angry Birds the whole way on a flight to Australia. But countless people in areas where electricity is still hard to come by suddenly gain the ability to use cell phones and computers, while only needing to charge them infrequently.

Given the impact of mobile devices we've seen in Africa so far, this sort of innovation would have a huge impact.

That said, I don't agree that Bill Gates is necessarily the best person to go solve this problem, nor that this would be an obviously more optimal area for him to invest in than those he's chosen so far.

>Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world.

Wow, amazing. I'd hate to live in a world where you had a say.

Technology is going to advance just fine with or without Gates. We'll have eventually have batteries that last years or something that obsoletes them all together. Unless enough wealthy people get malaria it might never get cured without heroic efforts like what Gates is doing.

Amazing. Who cares about people dying, I want to be able to play Angry Birds non-stop when flying to Australia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com