Still probably a net positive, though. Hell, he could kill 110 Million people added to every sars-cov-2 death combined and still be net positive.
Comment on Malaria
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months agoMaybe, but that’s clearly not his intention as he has showed many times.
Take for example case covid
In April 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates was criticized for suggesting that pharmaceutical companies should hold onto patents for COVID-19 vaccines. The criticism came due to the possibility of this preventing poorer nations from obtaining adequate vaccines. Tara Van Ho of the University of Essex stated, “Gates speaks as if all the lives being lost in India are inevitable but eventually the West will help when in reality the US & UK are holding their feet on the neck of developing states by refusing to break [intellectual property rights] protections. It’s disgusting.”
Gates is opposed to the TRIPS waiver. Bloomberg News reported him as saying he argued that Oxford University should not give away the rights to its COVID-19 information, as it had announced, but instead sell it to a single industry partner, as it did. His views on the value of legal monopolies in medicine have been linked to his views on legal monopolies in software
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
That’s one stupid argument backed with made up numbers there
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
Covid19 has killed less than 8 Million people total, and you can argue in good faith that Bill Gates would be responsible for some of those deaths by advocating for full commercialization of the vaccine.
Yeah, it’s a lot, but compared to a random estimate from The Guardian of 122 Million lives saved by the Gates Foundation… yeah.
Now, I realize some people would say saving any number of lives wouldn’t justify murder, but anybody who says Bill Gates is anything other than a net positive impact on the world is out of their fucking head.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Some people would say that he has given negative 130 billion, or whatever his net worth is right now
THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 6 months ago
Hmm you do make a compelling argument
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
It’s easier to just assume all billionaires are evil. The chances of it being wrong is about the same as for any good person to become a billionaire
THE_ANTIHERO@lemmy.today 6 months ago
That is true maybe there were some exploits done by them here and there but everything is gray there are no black and white.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No, it’s pretty black and white with Billionaires. None of them have changed the world NEARLY as much as literally any figure from history. At all.
No billionaire has earned their billions for the simple fact that a person cannot produce that much wealth on their own. They MUST steal from others to get that rich. It literally HAS to be the case, because there is no physical way they generated that wealth themselves.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Yeah obviously. I’m not saying an evil person cannot do good things, Hitler was responsible for VW Beetle - objectively one of the most beautiful cars in human history. We just can’t call Hitler a good person because of that one thing