The tire fire that Elon Musk seems to be making out of his new toy, Twitter, is leading some to call for an overdue, society-wide jettisoning of the whole “if he’s a billionaire, that means he’s a genius” myth.
AP (9/13/22): “Gates’ view on how countries should respond to food insecurity has taken on heightened importance in a year when a record 345 million people around the world are acutely hungry.”
Here’s a hope that that critical lens will extend not just to Elon “don’t make me mad or I won’t fly you to Mars” Musk but also to, can we say, Bill Gates, who, while he doesn’t talk about other planets, has some pretty grandiose ideas about this one.
Fifty organizations, organized by Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and Community Alliance for Global Justice, have issued an open letter to Gates, in response to two high-profile media stories: an AP piece headlined “Bill Gates: Technological Innovation Would Help Solve Hunger” (9/13/22) and a Q&A in the New York Times by David Wallace-Wells (9/13/22) that opened with the question of the very definition of progress: “Are things getting better? Fast enough? For whom?” and asserting that “those questions are, in a somewhat singular way, tied symbolically to Bill Gates.”
In their letter, these global groups—focused on food sovereignty and justice—take non-symbolic issue with Gates’ premises, and those of the outlets megaphoning him and his deep, world-saving thoughts.
First and last, Gates acknowledges that the world makes enough food to feed everyone, but then goes on to suggest responses to hunger based on low productivity, rather than equitable access.
He stresses fertilizer, which the groups note, makes farmers and importing nations dependent on volatile international markets and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, while multiple groups in Africa are already developing biofertilizers with neither of those issues.
New York Times (9/13/22): Bill Gates is “by objective standards among the most generous philanthropists the world has ever known.”
Gates tells Times readers, “The Green Revolution was one of the greatest things that ever happened. Then we lost track.” These on the ground groups beg to differ: Those changes did increase some crop yields in some places, but numbers of hungry people didn’t markedly go down, or access to food markedly increase, while a number of new problems were introduced.
AP says the quiet part loud with a lead that tells us: Gates believes that
the global hunger crisis is so immense that food aid cannot fully address the problem. What’s also needed, Gates argues, are the kinds of innovations in farming technology that he has long funded.
Presumably “Squillionnaire Says What He Does Is Good, By Gosh” was deemed too overt.
But AP wants us to know about the “breakthrough” Gates calls “magic seeds”—i.e., those bioengineered to resist climate change. Climate-resistant seeds, the letter writers note, are already being developed by African farmers and traded in informal seed markets. Gates even points a finger at over-investments in maize and rice, as opposed to locally adapted cereals like sorghum. Except his foundation has itself reportedly focused on maize and rice and restricted crop innovation.
Finally, the groups address Gates’ obnoxious dismissal of critics of his approach as “singing Kumbaya”: “If there’s some non-innovation solution, you know, like singing Kumbaya, I’ll put money behind it. But if you don’t have those seeds, the numbers just don’t work,” our putative boy-hero says. Adding pre-emptively, “If somebody says we’re ignoring some solution, I don’t think they’re looking at what we’re doing.”
Community Alliance for Global Justice (11/11/22) et al.: “We invite high-profile news outlets to be more cautious about lending credibility to one wealthy white man’s flawed assumptions, hubris and ignorance.”
The open letter notes respectfully that there are “many tangible ongoing proposals and projects that work to boost productivity and food security.” That it is Gates’ “preferred high-tech solutions, including genetic engineering, new breeding technologies, and now digital agriculture, that have in fact consistently failed to reduce hunger or increase food access as promised,” and in some cases actually contribute to the biophysical processes driving the problem. That Africa, despite having the lowest costs of labor and land, is a net exporter is not, as Gates says, a “tragedy,” but a predictable and predicted result of the fact that costs of land and labor are socially and politically produced: “Africa is in fact highly productive; it’s just that the profits are realized elsewhere.”
At the end of AP‘s piece, the outlet does the thing elite media do where they fake rhetorical balance in order to tell you what to think:
Through his giving, investments and public speaking, Gates has held the spotlight in recent years, especially on the topics of vaccines and climate change. But he has also been the subject of conspiracy theories that play off his role as a developer of new technologies and his place among the highest echelons of the wealthy and powerful.
The word “but” makes it sound like a fight: between holding a spotlight (because you’re wealthy and powerful) or else being subject to presumably inherently ignorant critical conjecture (because you’re wealthy and powerful). Not to mention this anonymously directed “spotlight”—that media have nothing to do with, or no power to control.
Along with “spotlight” being media’s responsibility, the phrase “held the spotlight” does not necessarily imply positive or negative, even in the context presented. There’s a massive amount of wiggle room they create for themselves.
Excellent piece.
Transport seems to be one hindrance, along with economic inequality.
An individual can give six time the funds of small countries — ain’t right.
Keep writing
Good article, thanks.
Curious how Bill Gates, in spite of all the fantastic PR Press & adulation for his wondrous benevolence the past 20-odd years…has actually gotten Much richer during that time.
Clearly, instead of truly sharing his vast wealth (mostly stolen in a variety of sly ways), he’s slyly worked the systems to vastly increase his fortunes.
We should greatly admire someone who has stolen hundreds while tossing out a few pennies*.
*those ‘pennies’ were given to jack his stock-investments in the companies he pushes.. for ex: Gates has long pushed…GMO via the dislikes of Monsanto/Bayer.
Gates is a Rapacious Sociopath..who buys media adoration via his PR buys.
What a snarly and fact-less opinion piece. At no point did this author even attempt to examine the evidence behind Bill Gate’s claims that advanced science techniques should not play a central role in agricultural innovation, especially to challenge climate disruptions. All she provided was faceless comments from organizations known for their embrace of advocacy rather than for promoting mainstream science. Professional science journalists dispassionately examine studies and evidence rather than relying purely on opinion rebukes. Why do you think poorer countries like Bangladesh (insect resistant eggplant that has cut pesticide use by 70%), Philippines (GM rice fortified to produce beta carotene to address an epidemic of blindness); and Kenya (growing GM wheat and modifying banana trees to resist diseases that reduce the crop yield by 50%+. They use it because it works. This broad-brush spittle of a piece is neither informative nor nuance; it’s pure propaganda. And please, if you choose to reply, address the facts I’ve raised and don’t stoop to ad hominem attacks..
“What a snarly and fact-less opinion”
-&- “from organizations known for their embrace of advocacy”
-&- “This broad-brush spittle of a piece is neither informative nor nuance; it’s pure propaganda”
All applies to the comment above.. just more BS PR for Monsanto & Bayer & all the other Big Chem/Ag, etc that Bill Gates is leveraging to continue vastly increasing his personal wealth.
Gates approach: Steal from the many; Give to the rich, especially to Bill himself.
That’s why Gate’s (& other mega-wealthy ‘philanthropists’) have been steadily getting Richer the past 20+ years vs poorer.. they’ve found ways to exploit their ‘giving’ to make ever more. Their so-called ‘philanthropy’ is just another sly way to rake in ever more $Billions while basking in PR-driven limelight for being sooo sweet & charitable.
Rapaciousness on speed and it is profoundly sickening.
“the evidence behind Bill Gate’s claims that advanced science techniques should not play a central role in agricultural innovation”. Hmmm. Perhaps in your rush to condemn the author of this piece, you didn’t pause to think or even to check your work.
“We already live in a world that produces enough food to feed everyone. Thus, hunger results from inequity, not food shortage. Unequal distribution of quality food among communities suffering from poverty is the primary culprit in today’s world hunger, not abundance or quantity of food stocks. For those suffering from malnutrition, access to quality food depends on a variety of political, environmental, and socioeconomic factors—most notably, armed conflict and natural disasters.”
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/are-genetically-modified-crops-answer-world-hunger
I noticed that too.
But maybe it was just a Billyan slip.
Ha ha ha.
What is not so funny is that some folks don’t think the opinions of the people on the receiving end of “techno-solutions” really matter.
If one learned anything at all from the last half century of aid to developing countries, it should be that the opinions of those people matter a great deal in whether even the most sound, scientifically based policies are ultimately successful.
If there is no “buy in” — personal involvement and vested interest – on the part of the people affected, the policies are doomed to fail.
Some people obviously never learned that lesson.
Incidentally, some folks who did learn that lesson (after failing the traditional approach to aid) and whose aid to Africans has been wildly successful are Martin Fisher and Nick moon who founded Kickstart International, whose low tech solutions (eg, a human powered water pump) have helped lift thousands of families out of poverty.
There is really nothing magic to it. People like to be treated as equals, not told what to do.
And told what is best FOR THEM , by a billionaire or “science journalist”
I burst out laughing when I read the line
“Professional science journalists dispassionately examine studies and evidence rather than relying purely on opinion rebukes.”
Yes, of course, “professional science journalists” are completely dispassionate, unaffected by human biases and emotions– like Spock on Star Trek
Ha ha ha
PS
Anyone who is a scientist or has ever worked with one knows that even scientists themselves are not “dispassionate” and devoid of bias and unsupported opinion.
And science journalists are not scientists.
Welcome to ‘FAIR’ as they don’t let facts get in the way of their dogma and desired narrative.
I’ve long thought of rich people like Bertrand Russell did saints: “Innocent until proven guilty is a noble concept and I support it wholeheartedly. However with saints, it should be just the opposite: guilty until proven innocent.”