Early Retirement Extreme Forums

An interview with Bill Gates:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... t-man.html#
Truth remains, he's always been and will be, a very shrewd man who knows how and when to push the right buttons. Each part of the interview might ring something to each person. So I am sharing it with the forum.
Excerpts:

ERE with children, anyone?

he has given away $28 billion to charity, so is now personally worth ‘only’ $56 billion. But Jennifer, 15, Rory, 12, and Phoebe, nine, aren’t going to inherit anything like that much. ‘I don’t think that amount of money would be good for them.’ He won’t specify what they will get, but the reports that they’ll receive ‘only’ $10 million each can’t be far off, because he concedes, ‘It will be a minuscule portion of my wealth. It will mean they have to find their own way.
'They will be given an unbelievable education and that will all be paid for. And certainly anything related to health issues we will take care of. But in terms of their income, they will have to pick a job they like and go to work. They are normal kids now. They do chores, they get pocket money.’

Renaissance man and Educating yourself

Gates is a voracious reader and has a library packed with books. Ironically, he prefers his books in old-fashioned physical form: ‘I read a lot of obscure books and it is nice to open a book. But the electronic devices are good as well. Digital reading will completely take over. It’s lightweight and it’s fantastic for sharing. Over time it will take over.’
His pride and joy is the Codex Leicester, one of Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks, which he bought in 1994 for $30.8 million.
‘I’m lucky that I own that notebook. I’ve always been amazed by Da Vinci, because he worked out science on his own. He would work by drawing things and writing down his ideas. Of course, he designed all sorts of flying machines way before you could actually build something like that.’

Geekism

‘Hey, if being a geek means you’re willing to take a 400-page book on vaccines and where they work and where they don’t, and you go off and study that and you use that to challenge people to learn more, then absolutely. I’m a geek. I plead guilty. Gladly.'

---

I do admire his and Warren Buffett's pledge to not leave their children billions. I'm sure they won't have to work if they don't want to, but they won't be rich enough to have the power to control large swaths of the economy without at least earning it a little.

It is surprising how these two (Bill & Warren) are now referred to in the same breath nowadays, yet had lived chalk and cheese lives up to their philanthropy movement point of coming together.
In fact, Warren being older means we can see his children living out highly independent lives of their own... Farmer, musician...etc. Ironically seems like Warren's eldest (ex-)daughter-in-law helps with his company while his own children have blazed elegantly different trails....
Maybe we ought to sent Bill's children an ERE book for their respective birthdays (oldest seems to be 15, how times flies!). That book will open their minds on how it is possible to live a life where their "paltry 10 million" works for them to provide them aprovechar and sufficient lifestyles... Then then can look to other ways of living our more fulfilling existence!
This might sound callous and controversial, one of the parts where I sat up and re-read it was where Bill clearly takes a side and a stance on what he thinks is an "acceptable" mortality limit, i.e., coming to terms with yourself that you've lived a resonably good *AND* long (enough) life, so now it is time to let go

Gates decided vaccinating the world’s disadvantaged is a cost-effective, simple way to help the very poor.
‘You get more bang for your buck.’
Why not be the guy who cures cancer instead?
‘The motto of the foundation is that every life has equal value. There are more people dying of malaria than any specific cancer. When you die of malaria aged three it’s different from being in your seventies, when you might die of a heart attack or you might die of cancer (emphasis mine). And the world is putting massive amounts into cancer, so my wealth would have had a meaningless impact on that.’

@Surio - I thought they had some kind of semi-famous bridge game that they got together and played frequently long before the philanthropy.

@hichchick

They have been playing bridge a long time. At least from the mid-90's. You don't have a lot of peers who understand your position and can discuss it in a knowledgable fashion when you are as enourmously wealthy as they are. Even someone with a billion or two probably doesn't understand their situation.
I also like that they both support an inheritence tax.
@Surio

I'm always torn with certain ways of helping the world's very poor. It seems like by providing food, vaccines, etc. we are being helpful, but are we really? Is this just encouraging them to stay in their same situation? Or, encouraging them to keep having children? All of which just creates a worse problem in the future, which requires more charity.
Most of these people live in locations with little water, little fertile ground, and few natural resources. As the late Sam Kinison said, "You live in a F@#$ing desert! Move!" Obviously, movement is extremely hard for many of them, but maybe don't have kids.
I live in the captial of the most prosperous nation on the planet (how long that lasts, who knows) and I make a good salary, and I don't plan on having kids. In my mind they need to help themselves in some way before they deserve charity.
Harsh, but as Jacob's new doomsday blog post points out we are starting a time that will require harsh decisions.

Eh, I was surprised at how much I agreed with Gates about the malaria vaccine. We lived with my wheelchair bound grandmother for several years, so I'm a little more sympathetic to the older folks.
Honestly, I think Warren Buffet is a giant tool. Sharp guy, but he had a decent head start and, you know, the part where he's a GIANT TOOL.
Of course, I realize I'm becoming more of a Marxist every day. >.<
Although, has anyone else around here noticed the exquisite irony in the overlap of the pinnacle of capitalism (ERE) and communal living (lower expenses, get a roommate)?

@Chad - One of the things the Gates Foundation supports is greater access to birth control/family planning.
@hickchick - I think you mean "corporate" living It is certainly possible to live together and have individual ownership. In principle nothing needs to be shared. In practice, it makes it somewhat easier (until people get divorced).

@Jacob

I knew that and I didn't mean to suggest they didn't. Nor do I necessarily suggest they should stop the food, vaccines, etc. I was just pointing out that all aid is not good aid and that some can even be bad for the people receiving it and the human race as a whole. There really should be a coherent aid plan backed by real science (as real as it can get in the social sciences), which from what I have read seems to be the case for the Gates Foundation.
@hichchick

There definitely is an overlap. But, in my mind it seems natural.

@Hi Chad,

> It seems like by providing food, vaccines, etc. we are being

> helpful, but are we really?

I had this question thrown at me by HSpencer in the trade tirade post, but didn't have the bandwidth to invest in an answer. My views capture what you've just pointed out. I have mentioned of this anecdote earlier in the forums of DW's ex-colleague participating in a UN mission to a Central African nation. They were so used to the gravy train that it was planting season and they were provided with seeds and other things to start off their road to recovery, but simply chose to wait for the lorries and label themselves "victims".
Oscar Wilde discussed it in his essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_o ... _Socialism

I know, he offers up Socialism as a remedy, but at least it was of the Eugene Debs variety and not the Chairman Mao variety
> Most of these people live in locations with little water,

> little fertile ground, and few natural resources.
Left to their own devices these people somehow seem to plod on with their own fragile, yet equilibrious ways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin
Usually it is with the injection of some political machinations that things start to sour, but boy they do sour quickly. Then it sometimes goes to ridiculous levels......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28region%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wal ... _Sahara%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_Conflict

http://205.188.238.181/time/photogaller ... 66,00.html

(Can I bash McDonalds, please please, this once )
> and I don't plan on having kids.

Right up front, I wish to state I deeply admire people like you and Jacob and others who decide on this momentous decision. Plain and simple. I would like to start a family of my own and pass on some of the things I learnt in life to my children. So, it is definitely a big step in my eyes when someone consciously decides otherwise.
> Obviously, movement is extremely hard for many of them,

> but maybe don't have kids.

You know I've heard that "Fertility drops with increased living standards", and everyone seems to assert this as an axiom, pointing to Europe, Japan and US (white population stats) as the proof. No one proffers an explanation for this phenomenon though.
I have my own theories though... As living standards increase we eat processed foods and vegetate in front of TV and start marking a "price" on everything (cost of children leading to college!) thereby dulling most instinctual needs in humans! Procreation as a form of recreation! Ha! (Well, flippers are known to do so in the wild)
So, an effective solution that remains to be tried out is to supply all major population centres around the globe with free TVs like what they do in some Indian states!

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/13 ... y-20110413
But, we seem to be the exception to the rule anyway, as our population doesn't seem to stop despite the proliferation of TV everywhere! We've been running the family planning programme for decades now (even resorting to forced sterilisation for a brief period!), yet the population ticker grows unabated!
The evil twin of negative population seems to be immigration which tends to be very double, even triple-edged and dangerous sword to play with....

On one hand there are die-hard immigration supporters (the secularists?)

and then there are some that open cans of worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thilo_Sarr ... mmigration
P.S: @hickchick, I never focussed on the timeline of the events. I always thought, the bridge and philanthrophy was some kind of business mixed with pleasure things between the two. chuckled at your giant tool reference to Warren.

@ Chad and Surio - Sharon Astyk had a very thoughtful piece about population not too long ago. Excellent reading.
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2 ... ak_out.php

I must say, I don't agree with most of what the article says.

@Surio: There's a long discussion of the connection between fertility and resource security in Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's amazing book Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. She's a primatologist, and the book surveys motherhood throughout the animal kingdom.
She makes the case that a female whose situation is not secure typically will have more offspring to diversify her "reproductive investment." It happens among most animal species (or maybe all, can't remember), not just in humans.