Bill Gates pledges 120 million to boost African, Indian farmers | Hacker News Reader

Bill Gates pledges 120 million to boost African, Indian farmers

news.yahoo.com

44 pointsFlemlord32 comments

Open articleView on HN

applauds effort

A lot of people hate on Bill, but the man sure knows how to invest his money wisely.

But it's all dirty Micro$oft money! That can't be good!

How do you define "good" ?

The same way you'd define "sarcasm," I imagine.

Well, it's Bill Gates' Microsoft money, so it's actually the good part... remember when MS used to be the good guys taking on the big guys?

"good" and "big" are not mutually exclusive.

I love how everyone on HN is so well-versed in sarcasm.

</sarcasm>

Vote parent up. Sarcasm is an art in danger of dying.

But it also wasn't funny, or should we just vote up arbitrary sarcasm?

Not necessarily. But it shouldn't be at minus 2 :)

Why does the news always only cover the "pledging" and not follow up with how/when and if at all that pledge and subsequent giving has helped the people they were supposed to help?

Maybe we could convince them to use a system like http://akvo.org which has reporting tools from projects that have been funded. Soon we will have SMS field reporting tools as well, so you don't even need an internet connection to do it.

Disclosure: Yeah, I am a cofounder of Akvo.org.

He doesn't say what area or which country but I spent a few weeks in Burkina Faso in West Africa. ( it will rank as one of the poorest countries in the world) I hung out with a friend who was working on a food security program for a US based NGO, so I have a good idea about the current conditions. The farmers are trying to grow crops in terrible conditions and I don't think any amount of money is going to help them. It's just an arid barren soil with absolutely zero infrastructure. Which doesn't really matter because these farmers are trying to grow food just to live, not to sell. I think most of the country has conditions not suitable for human habitat, but those are the people that need help the most.

I don't understand your argument. There are farmers trying to grow food on dry, possibly salty, soil without infrastructure, without fertilizer, without much irrigation, without knowledge of modern agricultural methods, without access to good seeds, and you're saying better methods and better infrastructure, more knowledge, etc would not help them? Why not?

I know Bill Gates is in no position to do this but the best way to help farmers in third world countries is to stop paying out the stupendous subsidies that the developed world pays to keep their farmers "in business".

If anything, they should look into supporting the One Acre Fund.

http://www.oneacrefund.org/our_results/program_dashboard

They are doing an incredible job and and a question and answer session about their work can be found here:

http://globalswadeshi.ning.com/forum/topics/global-swadeshi-...

Some more info on the One Acre Fund.

The One Acre Fund a group operating in Africa doing incredible work: doubled food production, halved (or better) infant mortality, as shown below. Sample size was 4000 farms, now they are involved with 12000 farms.

I used to admire such humanitarian actions, but I've come to question the effectiveness of it. Bill Gates, and many others in the West like him, want to prevent suffering in the world, and I admire that, but I think it might actually create more suffering by creating means for more people to survive and create more offspring who in turn end up being just as poor, suffering just as much, creating an even bigger humanitarian crisis.

What we have now is the product of exactly what you are advocating: doing nothing. So how do you think it will get better?

I understand your point and I don't have a clue as to what will end poverty, I really don't think it's possible. I do know this, you say that the current state is a result of doing nothing, I don't find that to be factual. Billions of dollars (probably trillions) from the Western world has been given to poverty stricken areas, technology has been given and shared, schools built, peace keeping forces have been put in place in some areas, hospitals have been built, and so on.

There is no Corruption-Free delivery system in India because 85% Indians do not have any Bank Accounts.

http://tr.im/kJHv

And this is the way Indian Leadership will keep its Voters SUBSERVIENT.

It's all about the Benjamins, sadly.

I don't mean to be an idiot, but at this point all life saving charity should aim to secure a reduction in population growth to offset the lives saved.

Being merely a humanitarian is a moral luxury with an environmental cost.

What are the causes for high population growth? Can they be countered?

Well, the only (+) way we know to lower population increase is urbanization and increased living standard. So democracy and industrialization are the ways forward on the population bomb.

Arguably, Gates' grants works towards that. It will result in better agriculture, in the future leading to mechanization -- which means people moving to cities.

(+) Let us leave discussions of e.g. reintroducing the plague to Al Qaeda. 1/2 :-)

Edit: I might add that I think human lives are worth the environment, inside sane limits. Pollution go down with increased wealth, anyway.

Actually I've heard a quite compelling case that the emancipation of women is the single biggest factor in reduced fertility rates in the developed world. Obviously it is a corelate of democracy and development, but the former without the latter may be insufficient.

You can of course make a long list of additional preconditions, starting with "good governance".

It isn't relevant to my counter argument that Gates' grants in fact works towards stopping the population growth you feared.

Increased wealth has always led to reduced population growth and sometimes to a declining population.

Downvoting? Is there not a valid argument to be had, or a valid position to take.

There is nothing wrong with being humanitarian, (its a bit species-centric), but we need to take a long term view.

How will the farmers who don't get any money be able to sustain their business when the farmers who do are able to lower their prices due to the subsidy?

I don't think there's going to be a problem with the demand-side for food in Africa.

It will be critical with how they structure it. Less aid, more investment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com