From the majority of people from 1st world countries, it is more valuable. I'm never going to meet anyone who has had malaria, or even anyone who knows someone who has had maleria. It's a non issue. But I'll certainly experience and interact with a larger internet population.
> I'm never going to meet anyone who has had malaria
You likely have done so, many times. For many countries malaria is so endemic that most people have had it once or more (malaria is not very lethal if you have access to the right medicines; the problem is a lot of people don't). Except for people living in places with extremely low immigration levels, it is unlikely that you'll go very long before coming across someone who have had malaria.
> , or even anyone who knows someone who has had maleria.
He's being realistic. How many of us are donating even percent of our income towards malaria eradication? Eradicating malaria has been possible for decades. It has not happened because people amongst others continues to prioritize luxuries over other peoples lives.
We can pretend we're not amongst "those people", but the fact we're spending time on HN debating this matter instead of doing something about it pretty much demonstrate that most of us are.
I don't know about "realistic", but it expresses a value other than "all lives are created equal". I think if someone has a value other than "all lives are created equal", then focusing on expanding internet usage ahead of malaria eradication is a conclusion that could be deduced from that (when combined with other values we might all share).
The problem is that all sorts of other whacked conclusions can also be deduced from "not all lives are created equal", so you need a whole other host of values to protect against that.
However, I don't think the converse is true. If someone is focusing on expanding internet ahead of eradicating malaria, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe "all lives are created equal". It could instead mean they are simply ignorant, which is not bad if they are open to perspective. That is kind of Gates' point - he's being evangelical about pointing out that if you have that value, you should probably pay attention to things like malaria. Other sources point out the same thing. Check various conversations over at lesswrong, or check out the top-rated charities at givewell.org, or just google the many arguments on efficient charity-giving.
All lives are not created equal. That's just bs. Of course not all lives are created equal. For example if I had to pick between the lives of Einstein and Hitler, I'd pick Einstein.
From the majority of people from 1st world countries, it is more valuable. I'm never going to meet anyone who has had malaria, or even anyone who knows someone who has had maleria. It's a non issue. But I'll certainly experience and interact with a larger internet population.