This is an interesting statement, given that it doesn't sound like any of his inventions seem to be particularly focused on ending poverty in any direct way.
I read a lot of negative comments on Hacker News lately, including those posted as 'feedback' for things people have made and dared to post here, but also on articles where people are trying to spread some optimism and light amongst the typically depressing headlines we read every day.
So after reading this article, I of course clicked through to the comments hoping for some positive responses. Why? I don't know really, just because, you know, it might be nice to acknowledge the achievements of a man who dedicated his life to science, engineering and the betterment of society in general. It might be pleasant to, just once, instead of nitpicking, belittling, or demeaning the original poster or subject of the article, say something positive.
I briefly considered finding some evidence to demonstrate how much of a positive effect solar panels are having in developing countries (I'm fairly sure this is true). But then I decided not to, and just post something a bit more in the spirit of your original comment, a bit more thoughtless and petty.
If we were in a real life conversation, and someone brought up this genuinely interesting, game changing, benevolent gentlemen, and you responded in such a way, I think I would tell you that if you can't say something nice in such a situation, I suggest you don't say anything at all.
You comment is still basically unresponsive. Are we supposed to uncritically read everything we find on the web? Being critical is not the same as being negative, even if it's a feel good article.
@davedx: Thanks. More people should speak up about this sort of nonsense, cause it's really getting old...
I find GP's comment personally relevant, because I would like to make a impact for good in the world... but what I'm working on doesn't directly relate to that. One resolution is faith that better technology eventually makes everything better. This seems historically true. But there's something more...
At first, Darwinism seems purely competitive, a fight for survival. But symbiosis exists, and there's even some evidence for integration of cooperative organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin). Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation investigates the obvious cause, that cooperation makes evolutionary sense when it benefits both parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation).
What has this to do with a technologist indirectly addressing poverty? It seems to me that any technology that assists cooperation, or enhances its benefits, enhances the value of every human life. One natural outcome of providing more value is to receive more value in exchange, and thus reduce poverty. Another benefit is that it doesn't make sense to destroy your neighbour if he's benefiting you (this self-interest argument mightn't appeal to ethicists, but ethicists aren't the ones starting wars).
But there's a more direct route for Stanford. Providing options is another way to reduce poverty. He personally benefited from public libraries. Considering poverty in the third world, building public libraries might not be plausible. But what about small computers, perhaps with flat screens? Perhaps with rechargeable batteries and solar cells (so electricity infrastructure isn't necessary)? Might not this indirectly do more to alleviate poverty than any direct means available to him (or, indeed, to anyone)?
I think you're sincere in wanting a less nasty HN, but your comment isn't helping. It's part of the problem - "more thoughtless and petty" as you acknowledge. Partly it's because you interpreted GP's comment as mean-spirited, when it can be interpreted as objective, because it undermined your good feelings. In my opinion, the way to make things better is to find and act on what's better - in objective truth, not just personal feeling. (For this to be viable, you have to believe that objective truth will turn out to be good; i.e. that the universe is somehow "good". The symbiosis argument above convinces me.)
If you think my approach works better (in the preceding paragraphs), please copy it. If not, please show us a better way.
The point of my comment (in my own thinking) was not cynicism, nor even a disbelief of the impact his inventions would have on poverty, but an interest in the mechanics of the relationship between his inventiveness and his commitment to fight inequality and poverty. Perhaps he was incredibly far-sighted and visionary in being able to see how his inventions would have a significant impact on poverty in the long run, and it would be fascinating to see the intermediate steps he saw that would lead to that. Or maybe he thought his inventions would impact poverty in a trickle down way. Or maybe he simply had a sense of faith that if he invented as best he could, it would one day have an impact that even he couldn't imagine.
I would love to understand how best to join up inventive ideas with a commitment to end poverty and injustice. And I imagine Stanford Ovshinsky is a great model in that, but I felt like that one little statement from the original article left me hanging a little bit, and wanting more. I had hoped that the HN community could fill in with a few more ideas, or even details from Ovshinsky's life that would be further enlightening.
My apologies if I came across as disrespectful to a man who is clearly a hero and an inspiration - that was never my intention.
This selective blindness isn't so surprising. Genius in one area does not imply genius in another.
Just because the majority of us here on HN are selfish, doesn't mean Stanford was! ;)