• expired

[eBook] Free - How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and The Breakthroughs We Need @ Gatesnote

16012

Bill Gates' new book is free to claim for a limited time. Just enter any temp email address and a school (I used my little bot's primary school) and the ebook will download. epub reader is required to read.

The Kindle version of this book is a #1 best seller and currently $17.99 on Amazon.

Related Stores

GatesNotes: The Blog of Bill Gates
GatesNotes: The Blog of Bill Gates

Comments

  • +16

    Avoid Bill Gates and his mates and your life will be much better.

    • +20

      Avoid Bill Gates

      Have you ever met him in person?
      I'm guessing not…

      • +32

        Meet him, you'd barely find him in his multiple mansions, superyachts or private jets…. I mean within his fleets of private jets.

        But you better take 5 minute showers or you will personally destroy the planet.

        • -5

          Not sure if you know that Gates spends millions of dollars offsetting his carbon emissions. Know any other businessmen who do that?

          • +1

            @ForkSnorter: Which world are you living in mate? I think you don't know the basics of how businesses operate? Whatever they do is only for either they get more than what they spend via these PR stunts or they are to evade taxes.

            • +4

              @DisabledUser318679: I know enough about Bill Gates to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              • @ForkSnorter: If you really know Bill gates. Why will you be arguing in Anonymous forums about his greatness? That job mainstream media and Bill gates Sponsered youtube channels and so-called trusted websites are doing that. You just read or watch them.

                • +17

                  @DisabledUser318679: I combat misinformation wherever I encounter it. The world has enough misinformation as it is.

                  I encourage you to question what you think is true.

                  I know it is enjoyable to believe you are right, because humans get a sugar-rush (dopamine) in their brain whenever they get their current beliefs validated, even if it’s only by selective information or circular arguments.

                  But if you’re genuinely interested in truth, you will know that over-confidence is the enemy of truth.

                  The success of empirical science over the past 400 years has shown us again and again and again that the only reliable way to discern truth and probability is though self-directed skepticism. The highest quality scientific studies and experiments are those that are designed to falsify the scientist’s current working hypothesis that attempts to explain the data. This is how we get closer to truth: by questioning what we (i.e. you) think is true. Again and again. The data/hypotheses/explanations that withstand such questioning are the most reliable.

                  Don’t assume you understand an issue perfectly if you’ve only read 0.01% of the available data interpreted by a biased non-expert.

                  • +6

                    @ForkSnorter: I don't have any issue with Global warming or Moon landing. My only issue is Bill Gates is evil and he doesn't have any moral authority to lecture on any topic except MS-DOS

                    • +6

                      @DisabledUser318679: I would question that opinion too. Bill Gates has the resources, the connections, the intelligence and the time to become an expert on any topic he chooses. He is constantly reading fat binders full of the latest information (compiled by experts) on a vast range of important topics. He is constantly having conversations with the leading experts around the world in these fields. He has the resources and the connections to be able to do that. He is highly skilled at organising and funding experts to take on big projects/issues. He no longer runs Microsoft, as you almost certainly know, and uses the same skills he used at Microsoft to tackle global issues of importance. And he has publicly pledged to give away nearly all (99.95%) of his wealth by the time of his death, an will only leave a small amount to his children.

                      • -1

                        @ForkSnorter:

                        And he has publicly pledged to give away nearly all (99.95%) of his wealth by the time of his death, an will only leave a small amount to his children.

                        Mate, What was the net worth when he pledged that, and what is his net worth now. These Billionaires' net worth always increases after giving pledge. You don't try that. You will go broke. They have expensive Lawyers and Accounts to do that. Don't know how reasonably clever people fall for these tricks. People who really donate their money, nobody remembers them because they don't advertise them and once they give away they will become poor and no one cares about them.

                        • +6

                          @DisabledUser318679: Notice how you ignored the main point of the paragraph, which clearly contradicted your main point?

                      • -2

                        @ForkSnorter: Are you Bill Gates?

                    • +6

                      @DisabledUser318679: Insecurity complex kicking in
                      Just because someone makes a boatload more money than you, is a lot smarter than you, and has a lot more philanthropic projects than you do, doesn't make them evil.

                      • @lyle88:

                        Insecurity complex kicking in

                        I must be over the top crazy to compare myself to a billionaire and feel jealous. I am very happy with what I have. I don't even buy a new phone every 2 years. Materials don't give me happiness. Your assumption may be false that I am jealous.

                        Just because someone makes a boatload more money than you, is a lot smarter than you, and has a lot more philanthropic projects than you do, doesn't make them evil.

                        Yeah, you are right about philanthropy and smartness, and money. I don't give a penny. Not every billionaire is evil. I made my points above and below this comment.

                  • +1

                    @ForkSnorter:

                    I combat misinformation wherever I encounter it. The world has enough misinformation as it is.

                    Not all information you see and perceive is true, even though if it is delivered from Experts. History will tell what is wrong, and what is right. Sometimes it may be late.

                    • +5

                      @DisabledUser318679: If you could provide even the slightest amount of reliable data supporting your bizarre opinion that “Bill Gates is evil”, I would take you more seriously than I take my dog’s opinion on this. Be honest, you are not interested in challenging your own opinion at all, which means you are clearly not interested in what is true.

                      • +2

                        @ForkSnorter: The giving pledge started in 2010. His net worth was 53 Billion. Now 135.4 Billion
                        That's how Billionaire economics work. They will not give their money to anyone. They will just divert funds from one company to another. Actually you are the one who blindly trying to prove yourself that you are right.

                        • +3

                          @DisabledUser318679: If you wanted to give as much money as you could to worthy causes before you die, while simultaneously trying to tackle global issues of importance before you die, would you try to increase your wealth and diversity your investments in the short term? Or would you sell all your investments right now and give it away right now? Seriously asking. Just because I know you question all your beliefs before you assume your current belief is 100% correct.

                          Just on a side-note, as of 2018, the Gates had donated $36 billion (mainly to improve the health, welfare and education of poor people), and were the 2nd leading philanthropists in the US after Warren Buffet. How much have you donated to poor people?

                          • -1

                            @ForkSnorter: Don't bother mate. Bill gates is the savior of the world. I don't donate a single penny.

                          • +5

                            @ForkSnorter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSnXI93lY-0

                            Enlighten yourself buddy.

                            You can give away a lot of money and you will do some good, no argument there, however incidental.

                            Curing Polio? His "charity" invests in heaps of polluting and unethical businesses, one of which is Coca-Cola which has been found to contribute to Polio in developing countries. Wait but he wants to get rid of Polio….. (really I think (yes my opinion anyone can have them) wants his name in the legacy for Polio eradication)

                            This obsession to cure Polio takes too much money rather than in areas that are more needed but Bill Gates has too much influence. He is not an expert, he is not an elected official.

                            Tried to run some education program in the US, paid money to influence the decision makers to take his plan. It failed because he is not an expert in running education. Tried to run it like a business. But you know he read binders full of information and is super smart or something.

                            Spoiler he is not really super smart he didn't create MS-DOS, he understood tech and was good at running business and by successfully running a business I mean exploiting workers and creating monopolies.

                            • @nathand: Yes, I know you’ve already made up your mind about everything, and so you will ONLY read, watch, and cite information that supports your preformed opinion, and disregard the rest. Great attitude if you want to build knowledge.

                              • @ForkSnorter: Sure, I only grew up with Windows and Microsoft and am an IT Professional and know all about Microsoft's business model and have followed all the antitrust cases in Europe, have an intricate knowledge of their licensing practices and also have friends who work for them, etc etc.

                                I am an IT Expert, I know Microsoft products and have kept an eye on the company and Bill Gates.

                                Life experience tells me that behavior is more of an indicator than words and media and self published books and documentaries, which I have watched.

                                You want me to go and cite a lot more information on here?

                                I believe the video I've cited gives an alternate opinion to you, did you watch it?? Are you open??

                                I'm trying not to pay the bridge toll but I have a feeling I am a goat to the slaughter for an ugly under bridge lurker.

                  • @ForkSnorter: Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

              • +1
          • +6

            @ForkSnorter:

            offsetting his carbon emissions

            Lol, this is greatest scam going. How exactly do you 'offset' your carbon emissions? You tick a box and pay a little more for things and that frees your conscience? I wish I had've thought of that.

            I'd love to hear how you think think offsetting works, and what actual, measurable impact (you know actual science) these schemes have had. I'll give you a clue. It's zero. But it makes stupid people feel good in the short term, and ultimately that is how the most scams work.

            • +2

              @1st-Amendment: “How exactly do you 'offset' your carbon emissions?”

              Good question, but why do I have to do your reading for you? There are now machines that pull carbon out of the air. Bill Gates funds, and pays, a company to pull carbon out of the air on his behalf to offset his omissions. He pays millions/ year for this. He also uses solar panels, drives an electric car, and campaigns for solutions to climate change.

              • @ForkSnorter:

                Good question, but why do I have to do your reading for you?

                The question was for the reader. I know exactly how it pretends to work

                There are now machines that pull carbon out of the air

                Yeah it's called Carbon capture, but do YOU know how they work? Hint: it's mostly smoke and mirrors, and when you see the cost of these things you'll realise why Bill Gates is on the bandwagon…

                He also uses solar panels, drives an electric car, and campaigns for solutions to climate change.

                He must truly be the messiah. But you never did answer the actual science question: "what actual, measurable impact (you know actual science) these schemes have had".

            • +2

              @1st-Amendment: Yup, it's the modern equivalent of the medieval Catholic Church's indulgences scam.

          • +3

            @ForkSnorter: I guess we should ignore the money that his company has been donating toward lobbying groups fighting against environmental regulations then, because he puts a few million to appease the green-minded wokesters…

            • +1

              @dmgmelba: And we shouldn't be worried in the slightest now that he is biggest farming landholder in the U.S.

              I'm sure he's just getting prepped to feed the starving world after all. /s

          • @ForkSnorter: Disappointing that people are neging you for your comment

          • @ForkSnorter: Spending money on carbon credits does not solve the fundamental issues that are causing climate change. Say that you cut down all the trees in the world, that's pretty bad, but hey you just planted an equivalent amount of trees, cool everything is alright now right???????? No not at all, you've still caused damage to the environment and its ecosystems.

            Here's a video spelling out the general ineffectiveness of carbon credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdW-6MXB0sI

            • @yilli: I guess you don’t read. Like I said above, Bill Gates pays a company to use the latest technology to pull carbon out of the air.

              • @ForkSnorter: Carbon capture technology is objectively stupid. It is not solving the issue. The issue of climate change is not something we can just patch up, climate change is a fundamental issue of how the richest peoples spend their lives (richest people including those in developed countries).
                The worlds largest carbon capture plant will only capture 3 seconds of carbon released within a year
                Source: https://www.computing.co.uk/news/4037683/world-largest-carbo...

      • +2

        Do you know what good he has really done? I guess not

        Who is Bill Gates
        https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/whoisbillgates:3

      • Avoid Bill Gates

        Have you ever met him in person?
        I'm guessing not…

        They seem to be doing a good job avoiding him then.

    • +8

      Now do I need to actively avoid him, cause I've been doing it by without even trying for a while now and I can't say my life has improved.

    • +11

      I can report that I have been very successful in that objective.

      In fact, I have managed to assiduously avoid any billionaires in both my social and professional life, and whilst that might sound exhausting to the lay person, I have made it look quite easy..

    • +6

      Man the nutters have come out of the woodwork.

      Bill Gates is the big bad guy? The guy who saved millions of African children from dying of malaria? One of the only billionaires who spends most of his time and money on charity work and saving the environment?

      How backwards do you have to be to hate the world's most influential philanthropist over all the corrupt politicians, dictators, and the billionaires who actually ARE screwing us over…

        • +1

          Nah,, idiots that think that spreading their misinformation are the the ones I’m concerned about.

    • +50

      The irony of the antivaxxer arguments are laughable. One of the major reasons why we are more fertile, healthy and living longer than anytime in history is because of vaccines. Has the population the earth reduced since vaccines were introduced? Has life expectancy reduced? Did mortality rates increase? Look up some of these and how vaccines saved the world:

      1. Polio

      2. Tetanus

      3. The Flu (Influenza)

      4. Hepatitis B

      5. Hepatitis A

      6. Rubella

      7. Hib

      8. Measles

      Etc

      • +19

        You forgot Smallpox. In 1950 (which is nearly in my lifetime) it killed 10 million people around the world when the global population was just 2.5 billion. We are now around 7.7 billion people which would equate to 30 million dying from it today (not to mention those disfigured by it). It was finally wiped out thanks to vaccines.

        • +3

          Yep. Show this photo to your nearest anti-vaxxer (we all know one)

          https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/qck0ik/smallpox_befor...

          • -1

            @R4: What a rookie, opening the blanket instead of handing it out to the indigenous folk like he was supposed to

          • +3

            @R4:

            Yep. Show this photo to your nearest anti-vaxxer (we all know one)

            That’s like what COVID does to your lungs.

        • +3

          Yep. And it was wiped out thanks to the work of the WHO. But mention that to an anti-vaxxer and they will tell you that the WHO created Covid.

        • Heard something the other day that made this very point.

          ‘Remember when they cemeteries used to have a lot of child grave sites… yeah.. you don’t see that much any more’

      • So you say that vaccines are actually increasing population of Earth?

        And world, according to Gates & Co, would be much better with less people ruining it?

        How do you manage to keep these two ideas in your head without going mad?

        • +21

          Vaccines reduce the chance of death from these diseases meaning lower mortality rates. Now you might argue this will increase the population and you're right, maybe for a short term. But Western countries have shown us that healthy, educated couples have fewer children when infant mortality rates are low, in fact some countries like Japan are having the opposite problem. This shows overpopulation can be controlled without realising deadly viruses onto society.

          I hate having conflicting views in my head to, which is why I try to resolve it using facts. Maybe if you had done the same, you wouldn't have had to ask.

          • +1

            @bkhm: Vaccines increase population by reducing child mortality and prolonging lifespan in countries where it is already common to have lots of children while at the same time western so called democracies are creating environment where it is economically not possible to have more than one child, if at all.

            Since the source of overpopulation is Africa and Asia the only solution to global overpopulation is stop vaccinating them.

            Is that not obvious conclusion?

            If it is indeed obvious why they're doing exactly opposite?

            • +2

              @DainB:

              Since the source of overpopulation is Africa and Asia the only solution to global overpopulation is stop vaccinating them.

              Again, high infant mortality rates just leads to people having more children. Yes, if we vaccinate them then the generation that had heaps of children will survive but future ones may not. Besides, prevention of diseases benefits us as well, Asia and Africa aren't isolated, we travel there and the more of a disease or virus you have going around, the higher the chance of it mutating and possibly by passing the vaccine. I mean look at what covid, a more deadly version of the flu did to the world.

              Let's say vaccines is the source of overpopulation, again letting diseases kill people is not the most ethical way of controlling it. If so, we might as well close up all hospitals and just let people die.

              Besides, there's plenty of models showing the population is going to plateau quite soon. Overpopulated isn't just how many people there are, it's whether we can afford to feed them. We could only have 100 people but if there's only enough resources for 10, then we're overpopulated. But generally speaking, there is enough food and land to house us all, the problem is how we do it. If we have everyone living like in Australia on massive blocks of land and mansions eating meat everyday then that's not sustainable. Dense green cities, prevention of food wastage, diets including bugs and hopefully lab grown meat soon, could be the solution. I'd rather find a solution that solves the problem of overpopulation where we're not letting diseases and viruses spread.

              western so called democracies are creating environment where it is economically not possible to have more than one child, if at all.

              Because children don't die so it's fine. That's the point. You can't make it economically not possible to have more than one children if you have a high child mortality rate. It's a much better solution imo.

      • -4

        Give all these to antivaxers, they don't believe it anyway. What do we have to lose? Just some idiots who deserve these diseases, without a vax, just enjoy it.

        • +9

          I guess it is enjoyable getting the first jab, the second jab, and then a 6 monthly booster for the rest of your life that is currently being proposed for Australians, in line with what is happening in Israel etc? I don't recall having to get a yearly vaccine for Polio, Rubella, Measles etc etc.. where 1 jab dealt with it once and for all.

          • +2

            @Logical: User name really doesn't fit.

            Polio, Rubella etc etc are totally different types of diseases to COVID.

            More relevantly, people in Oz have been getting yearly influenza boosters for years.

            • +4

              @jackspratt:

              More relevantly, people in Oz have been getting yearly influenza boosters for years.

              I never took Flu jab. I got flu once and suffered for 3-4 days, and I am perfectly fine. I didn't even take Panadol

          • +3

            @Logical: Not all of the vaccinations were "1 jab".

            One was oral. One was a skin scratch. Some were a series of multiple injections. Tetanus has ?5 year boosters.

            Influenza is reformulated each year to adapt to a mutating virus.

            • +3

              @gesco:

              Influenza is reformulated each year to adapt to a mutating virus.

              But no-one forces you to get one. That is the crux of the issue here.

              • +1

                @1st-Amendment: Because we don't have deadly flu outbreaks that kill thousands of people in one day anymore. If a vaccine was available during the Spanish Flu it would have most likely be mandatory.

          • @Logical: Sorry but you are actually sprouting false info.

            Many vaccines have a 3rd dose.

            The proposed for Covid vaccine was for a 6 month booster.
            Not a ‘very 6 month’ booster.

      • -3

        Classic strawman.

      • +1

        Agree except fertility. Male fertility has declined pretty steeply

      • +3

        Dylan Alcott put it to the heart of the issue when he said "No polio suffers are attending the antivaxxer protest!"

        And why would having faith forbid anyone taking vaccines to save lives? Then what is the difference with taking modern medicines?

        • Well no; they all died of their horrible, untreated polio before they could make it down there. Probably for the best because we don't need another big polio outbreak and amongst anti-vaxxers it'd be especially bad.

          I believe the argument for faith-based healing as it's known is that if God (or his equivalent) wanted you to live, you wouldn't need the medical treatment because his plan was to save you anyway and with faith and prayer he will save you. If you die that was also just part of the plan because God is omniscient and it must be for the greater good. Interference by "modern medicine" would be akin to slapping God on the face, then the arse and spitting on his heavenly sandals.

          The argument conflicts with itself in my opinion because if God has all these plans (like for you to get polio) how was it not part of the plan that modern medicine would come about? New diseases can evolve but our understanding of treating illness can't? If medicine is so bad because it's made by people and interferes with the natural survivability of humans, aren't houses ungodly?

          And that's just me thinking out loud, sorry you had to read all that

      • -1

        This Bill Gates? Where the UN admitted his “vaccine” spread Polio? GTFO https://lichtnahrung2015.wordpress.com/2020/09/06/un-forced-...

      • -3

        Look up some of these and how vaccines saved the world:

        1. Polio
        2. Tetanus
        3. The Flu (Influenza)
        4. Hepatitis B
        5. Hepatitis A
        6. Rubella
        7. Hib
        8. Measles
          Etc

        This is a common fallacy peddled by those that don't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

        Improved sanitation, personal hygiene practices and better nutrition were the most significant factors responsible for eliminating those diseases and the rates of death from all of those illnesses were trending downward from the 1930s - 1950s all across the world, well before childhood immunisation against became widespread even in Western countries, never mind the 3rd world.

        You can see from this graph produced by the WHO themselves that a majority of children worldwide (especially in the 3rd-world, where statistically most children live) still hadn't received immunisations against TB, Polio, Measles, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, HIB and Whooping Cough even in the 1980s.

        Death rates for the Measles, Polio, Tuberculosis and Diphtheria all massively declined well before a vaccine was developed for any one of those diseases, let alone distributed to a majority of countries worldwide.

        Has the population the earth reduced since vaccines were introduced? Has life expectancy reduced? Did mortality rates increase?

        The answer to all three of those questions is yes or that statistics are trending that way.

        Millennials are the first generation to be born in countless centuries that will have worse health outcomes than their parents and likely shorter lifespans:
        The Decline In Millennial Health Needs To Be Addressed
        Why millennials are surprisingly unhealthy
        44% of older millennials already have a chronic health condition
        Millennials have worse health than Generation X, and they'll pay more for care, too, report says
        American millennials are unhealthier than ever

        US life expectancy fell for the first time in 2020 since WW2 by 1.5 years.

        Global population growth rates peaked in 1968 at 2.1% and have been declining ever since.

        Fertility rates have steadily plummeted since the 1960s and most Western countries are below population replacement levels and have negative birth rates, with only immigration supplementing their growth artificially. This means most industrialised nations can expect to see their population levels halve by 2100.

        • +3

          I cannot believe you open with "correlation doesn't equal causation" then go on to outline a view that does exactly that. If personal hygiene, sanitation and nutrition was as effective as vaccines then we wouldn't have had the COVID outbreak we have currently across the globe and continue to see evolve. COVID is evidence that there's little correlation between the factors you outline and eliminating viruses.

          • -2

            @DreaminBargains: So I guess the death rates for those diseases just dropped off a cliff before vaccines were available because… people knew a vaccine was coming decades in the future? Their hope enabled them to overcome their immune system's failings?

            Sure buddy, way to sidestep the cold, hard data I just posted and reassure yourself of your cognitive dissonance with a bunch of absolute nonsense.

            Most of the world wiped their asses barehanded before the 1950s and 1960s and didn't know to route their sewage downstream of their drinking and irrigation water. Hell in large parts of India the average person still doesn't know that and people will defecate into streams that others are washing themselves in a few metres away. Public hygiene and sanitation was simply non-existent in most of the world before 1950 and even in many Western countries, seriously lacking, before about 1980 or so.

            It was a huge issue whose solution is given nowhere near enough credit for solving countless endemic problems from improvements in children's cognitive abilities, economic growth and public health.

            I also did want to add that even in first-world countries like Australia, infant mortality has plateaued and even seen a slight uptick in recent years.

            Modern people are nowhere near as healthy as they imagine themselves to be, but you continue patting yourself on the back because… SCIENCE!

            Also, member since 24/10, lol.

            • +3

              @Gnostikos: Here is some data for you in relation to Australia:

              Infant mortality rates have dropped from 2% to less than 0.5% since 1960s.

              Life expectancy has increased from 65 to 85 over the same period. That's a mammoth increase of nearly 25% in just 40-50 years. If that has been done despite the fact that we are more unhealthy today than back then, it adds to how much progress science has made to assist our longevity.

              Fertility rates have dropped but there's a great deal of evidence this correlates with wealth. While our fertility rate has dropped, because we choose education and career over domestic life, our GDP per capita has increased from less than $3k in the 1960s to approximately $60k. See other comments above. This is true for many developed nations. The opposite is true for developing nations like Egypt and Nigeria.

              https://datacommons.org/place/country/AUS?utm_medium=explore...

          • -2

            @DreaminBargains:

            If personal hygiene, sanitation and nutrition was as effective as vaccines then we wouldn't have had the COVID outbreak we have currently across the globe and continue to see evolve. COVID is evidence that there's little correlation between the factors you outline and eliminating viruses.

            Then why has the annual flu season disappeared since last year?

Login or Join to leave a comment