Hacker News Reader

Comment by onmydesk | Hacker News Reader

Im going to be down voted for this.

To me, the speech was fairly embarrassing. Its as though some rich people saw some poor people on a poor person safari. Now they come back to tell of what they saw, as if everyone in their audience would be just as amazed at such things as they were.

Perhaps for a stanford graduate audience that is true?

Theres suffering in the world!? :O

Thats what I was left with. No-one rational could disagree with their points, the validity of the foundations purpose, etc etc and all of that.

But the speech made me cringe a little.

View on HN

I think you're just the type of person this speech was written for. Your post is nothing more than a middlebrow dismissal, made worse by the fact that you're disparaging something that's important.

Early in the speech, Bill talks about donating computers to poor people in South Africa. When he gets to there, he realizes that computers aren't what they need. Time after time, they tell heartbreaking stories that led them to actually change the world. That's the message - look at the suffering around us and do something about it. Use what you have to make the world a better place.

I almost didn't reply because I'm sure this is a troll. If it's not, try reading the whole speech.

No, my point was plainly that I was embarrassed to watch people who until they took on these valuable roles were so unaware of what most of the world is like.

If it was news to me too Id be as amazed by these observations as they seemed to be.

This place can be painfully self righteous, no-one is seriously suggesting the work they do isn't important etc etc.

Kids eh! :)

Stanford is nestled in the very heart of Silicon Valley, a place of understated yet immense wealth and considerable gentrification. You can spend months here and not have "a poor person" register in your consciousness. It's like the whole place is geared towards making you forget that bad things exist in this world.

So unfortunately, a "hey guys, there's suffering in this world" kind of speech may just be appropriate for Stanford and the kind of people who will tune into its commencement.

Sometimes you need speeches like that to remind you that it is out there.

Unless you personally have watched these things, you can only know about them vicariously, and emotive speeches motivate others to become involved. Cold hard facts rarely move people the same way.

Actually I think that's the point of the speech. A lot of folks (not just college grads) aren't aware of how lucky they are and are perhaps even more unaware that they have the ability to do anything.

It isn't true just for a Stanford graduate audience. Extreme poverty and discrimination will shock just about anybody who hasn't seen it. I live in India in a nice city and interact with poor people everyday. Even that didn't prepare me for the suffering that I saw when I traveled to different parts of the country.

Came hear to find out if Bill and Melinda were saying the same old things they usually say over and over. Yep.

There is one social model that has been truly successful in human history and has truly brought unlimited masses out of the darkness and into the light, and it is not based on altruism. It is based on (a) rule of law, not of men and (b) individual rights, especially property rights.

The Gates would do well to start preaching this model instead of the one that has failed over and over and over all throughout history, which is: you have a duty to be your brother's keeper (altruism).

The things you mention are a means to an end. Altruism is an end in itself. That's why we're alive. It's not to own more property.

> Altruism is an end in itself.

Prove it formally.

I can formally prove that it's not, so I'm just saying this to get you to think about what that would entail and reflect on how supportable your claim is.

I'd bet a 100 bucks there's an objectivist / Randian here; we all read the book as kids, but we recognized that the Randian model couldn't particularly deal with children, or family for example. Wealth creation is a laudable goal, but not the only one.

Yes, I'm an Objectivist.

You have some common misconceptions, allow me to teach you something new.

- I know a great many PhDs who are Objectivists (hopefully myself soon, too). It's really not a philosophy for teenagers and that is just something people spread to put it down without using a real argument.

- Objectivism can deal with children and family just fine. Lots of Objectivists have children and families, including Ayn Rand's closest philosophical associate, Leonard Peikoff.

- Objectivism does not say that wealth creation is the only goal. It says (summarizing) that self-preservation is the root of all values, and experiencing your values (in myriad ways) produces enjoyment. Wealth creation is just one way to experience your values, not the only way. Another way is, for example, through family. There are lots of Objectivists who choose non-lucrative career paths.

How does it deal with the elderly and the disabled?

A society is to be judged by how well it treats those who are worst off. Optimize for that. Not the average, the median or the mode.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com