Bill Gates is older than me. He’s richer than me/all of us; He’s more focused that me and he’s definitely a better BUSINESS man than me, his money is allowing him to do greater good than me, he may even be a more likeable than me.
Bill Gates is painted as being the genius behind the computer industry and now he’s regarded as Saint Bill? But was/is he? Critical analysis would suggest not.

He didn’t invent much himself…He didn’t invent computers, the pc, the micro chip, the data base or the spread sheet or the word processor, DOS or the GUI (graphic user interface) what we know as Windows. One could argue that if it hadn’t been for strategic mistakes of IBM Gates his may have been an also ran.

One could argue that he/his corporation’s tactics were/are ruthless abusing his corporate power in distorted or smothering the industry and not necessarily for the better. Thereby emasculating the alleged gods of capitalism, competition and better products for his benefit.

He was/is a brilliant entrepreneur and a ruthless business man. That’s it.

Now he’s spending his ‘ill gotten gains’ on philanthropy. It has been stated his goal (after all he is goal orientated) is to win a Nobel peace prize “no matter what the cost”.

I don’t write to bag Mr Gates or business in general but to pose the question

“Are our heroes and the Nobel prize for sale (i.e. the end justifies the means) or should we be more discerning about our heroes?

It's a reasonable question and in the past I would certainly have have agreed with you. BUT (yes, big but), recently since I have had reason to delve deeper into the B&M Gates Foundation, I have certainly changed my mind. For a start, they have spent more on research for malaria than just about anybody at any time.

Seriously.

The UN researchers complained about it at one time saying that their results were affecting public policy. That's because they spent more on it than any government ever bothered to. That is definitely a noble goal as there is definitely no money to be made in malaria research. Many researchers know this, as affects mainly poor tropical countries like those found in Africa.

Lastly, if Bill Gates can get 37 Billion dollars out of Warren Buffet to spend on disease research and addressing African poverty, then I think Bill Gates deserves it.

From history, my favourite is the reason that Howard Hughes set up his Medical Institute as a tax dodge, but after his death it became the beneficiary of part of his estate and a world leader in medical research.

That was an accident, but Bill Gates has made a conscious decision to share his wealth in a targeted manner, and since he has done this within his lifetime, I think that he deserves it.

Hell, if it means that more rich @#$%s may donate to charity and perceive their dollars being spent on something real like research and disease mitigation instead of missionary work, then I for one am willing to give them any public honour they want. It's no skin off my nose.

I hear he is into some charity work, cures for malaria or something, good on him and if he does well and it’s all above board, why not give it to him. To discriminate because he is wealthy and successful is just bigoted.

I agree with Ph00_stains (and am still laughing a strong contender if they ever gave Nobel prizes for logon names)

Is it better to acknowledge a person who, through their business, contributed to the betterment of millions or to someone whose endeavours, whilst deepening academic human understanding (George Akerlof), might have made no direct or very limited, practical difference whatsoever ?

So I will echo as said previously “To discriminate because of Bill Gates wealth and commercial success is just bigoted.”

The only consideration should be the significance of the advancements made towards peace….or the greater good for humanity. Nothing else. Let’s not worry about how Bill got his money.

I fear that his aid efforts, like those of just about every other aid organisation and government, are short-sighted and lopsided. He’s not addressing sustainability!

He’s attempting to improve the quality of life for perhaps millions of people, which is honourable. But in doing so, he is promulgating constant unsustainable population growth…and ever-increasing per-capita consumption, which is going to bring humanity unstuck, starting off with the poor.

What he should be doing with his vast wealth is putting it directly into the most important sustainability factors, not least, the rapid achievement of a stable global population, followed immediately by a steady reduction.

Ph00_stains, Col rouge
Thank you for your comments but I wonder if you both missed the point.
The point was “Do their (businessmen's) ends justify the means i.e. a peace (?) Nobel. (What’s ‘PEACE’ got to do with it? Same applies to the ‘I PPC/ Gore prize).

By that I meant that a business man who didn't create anything new and was ruthless arguably limiting choice/better products and potentially greater benefits for the world as a whole for most of his life now buy his 'redemption'. What this says about the world isn't that complementary.

WEALTH ISN'T THE ISSUE.

Malaria is the single biggest disease scourge of world (I’ve had it). To cure it is a wonderful goal ...but like TB et al there is more to the story.
One of the primary causes for drug resistant is not completing drugs therapy this is often because of poverty, ignorance and access to technology.
The B&M trust will not fix those problems. Yes, something is better than nothing but real change isn’t prize winning.

There is one strategy to win a prize but another to really make a difference.

Good deeds are their own rewards. Are Philanthropists really heroes or simply glory seekers

"In the coming decades we will have
astonishing new abilities to diagnose
illness, heal disease, educate the world's
children, create opportunities for the poor
and harness the world's brightest minds
to solve our most difficult problems..."
Bill Gates.

These are not empty words.
Gates is putting his money where his mouth is.
I don't believe it's a strategy to win a prize.
I believe that he really wants to make a
difference.

His 'awareness' of the needy in this
world came rather late in life. When he graduated
from Harvard - he was unaware of the problems
of the poor. It took several decades for him to learn.
In the meantime he made a fortune. That in itself
takes a certain amount of talent, which not many of us
possess.

However, making a fortune, should not be the bottom
line here. It's what Gates has now chosen to do with
it that matters here.

A man who's set up a Foundation and left
over $70 billion (and growing),
to be distributed towards
funding worthwhile projects
on the deaths of himself and his wife ...
his integrityhas to be taken seriously.

As for the Nobel Prize.
I'm sure that it's something that
is not that easy to obtain. Certain criteria must be met,
and its a panel that decides on the final outcome and
'worthiness,' of the nominee. They will judge Gates.

Personally, I feel the man deserves the prize.

Nobel Peace Prise, hay?

Didn't they give one of them to Gore, & the IPCC?

Hell, with that sort of company, who'd want one?

Dear Foxy,
I too am glad he's doing good now.
I am afraid you are a little too forgiving at times.
It is almost unthinkable that in the 60/70 (in particular) he wasn't aware of the plight of the 3rd world et al. But having said that, he wasn’t my target.

It was the end justifying the means. His wealth that ALLOWS him to play (?) Hero now.
Ask your self:
• Does HE more deserve a prize than Geldoff and/or Bono? They weren’t ‘ruthless’ in making their money….and they’ve been at it longer.
• Are these 3 more deserving of a prize than someone who spent a lifetime at the dirty end of aid? Consider too the Quakers who go about the same activities without recognition let alone a prize.
• Perhaps the woman who dedicated her life to the orphans in Thailand?
• Or for that matter the person who has been the ‘somebody else’ in the community who everyone leaves the boring community tasks to?
• Is the Hero one who spends the most (publicly)?
• How about NGOs and those who work at the pointy end.

Consider the Westfield owners who have given millions to Israeli charities and yet allegedly caught squirreling $100’s millions away to evade tax are they heroes?

Then there’s the Aussie Jew who gives millions to orthodox Israelii Jews so they can build new settlements on occupied land further exacerbating the crisis there. Is he a hero?

My concern is that to most first world people crave heroes so that we can ignore the problems of others knowing that a HERO is doing what we should.

Are we like puppies in that we need praise for doing what we should?

Leaders, lead the rich give lots, we give what we can: isn't that the Humane (Religious way too)

Dear examinator,

I'm sure that there are many worthy people
out there, who deserve recognition for their
good work - and don't get it.

As you pointed out
giving meaning and purpose to one's life
by performing worthy deeds is its own reward.

However, your thread is about Bill Gates,
not about the lady in Thailand who dedicated
her life to helping orphans, or the worthiness
of Bono, Geldorf, the Quakers, and many others.

I tried to answer your
question concerning Bill Gates,
as best as I could.

Giving money for worthwhile causes is great,
giving lots of money, is even better. And,
pursuing where and how the money is being
used, is better still - and it's this
dedication that to me makes Bill Gates
rather unique. He's not a Donald Trump.
Bill Gates - does not spend money in glorifying
his own name. He doesn't own a 'Trump Tower.'

Whether this meets the criteria for the Nobel
Peace Prize, I don't know.

It's up to the judges of that prize to decide.

I'm not deliberately trying to be contentious
here.

As I said previously, I feel that Gates deserves
the prize.

That's just my personal opinion.

Foxy
Oops sorry, I was just trying to engage in a discussion.
Your opinion is valid and under no circumstances were I criticising or judging it.
I don't believe that there are right or wrong answers to questions like these just considered perspectives. If I appear as didactic I apologize.
Previously you posted that you would appreciate more questions that political or religious …I thought that an excellent idea so I posted some what I call interesting questions for the thinkers. Perhaps I went over the top in trawling too wide in some of my responses. I guess that’s just me. My communication skills (?) aren't as good as I would like.

I watched a puff program the night before about Bill and Melinda Gates on TV the night before. A couple of the interviewees said that the real driving force for the trust was Melinda. It was also stated that Bill being a goal oriented person has set the goal to win a Nobel peace prize. A number of issues occurred to me
1. Surely Melinda should be the front runner for the prize she’s the visionary. Bill is just more high profile manipulator an (end justifies the means) guy. His skills are as a businessman… not a visionary in the creative sense (leopards and spots).
2. We revere the skilful users rather than the inventors e.g. We all recognize Vegemite but who knows the inventor's name?
3. The basis on which we choose heroes. How unfairly/unrealistic it favours the high profile?
4. Why we do this?
5. What happened to our community responsibility? As Dr Alice from “Don’t die young” (ABC show) put it “We inhabit Stone Age bodies” and I would add Stone Age emotions and motivations i.e. Short sighted, survivalist and are largely still driven by instincts than logic or considered thought.
6. This latter observation is more often denied or ignored in our prognostications to our ultimate detriment.
Of course the committee decides but not in a vacuum.

Dear examinator,

Thank you for being so sensitive to the opinions
of others. It's a rare quality.

Personally I think that Gates and his wife are a good
team. They compliment each other. She may be creative,
but where would she be without him? Her 'creativity'
would possibly be rather limited in its use.
So, things balance out.

You said that decisions are not made in a vacuum?
Ideally that's how it should work. But the Committees,
Boards, and Panels, that I've been on, the general
consensus always went with, 'whatever the Boss' wanted.
I spoke out quite a few times, even wrote reports -
to no avail. Still, I had the satisfaction that I did
try, and could sleep well at night, with a clear conscience.

As for heroes... of course my personal choices are the
quiet achievers - whose vision becomes clear only
when they can look into their own hearts - and
act accordingly.

But this is about Bill Gates and the Nobel Prize.
And that's a different story. People are chosen,
who are globally famous for doing 'good' globally.
They already have established 'world-wide'
reputations.

From memory, the only Nobel Prize winner that I
remember getting excited over was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
It was during my university student days, and I
was absolutely smitten. Perhaps because what he wrote
about struck a cord so close to home.

If Gates's Foundation is truly worthy then there should be no reason to deny him the prize merely based on his occupation.

The difficulty is deciding worth, comparing and assessing the criteria in relation to the prize. The work of the Gates Foundation has certainly been important in the field of health and poverty but is this relevant under the criteria for a Peace Prize - I don't know the criteria and how they might be weighted.

It could be argued that progress in the areas of health/poverty aid in the promotion and likelihood of peace in avoiding international or internal conflict. Similarly Al Gore's contribution - although I am not sure how it relates directly to Peace.

Not thinking of Bill Gates specifically but any businessperson; is the way their fortunes are made important in considering the merit of awarding these sorts of prizes or awards?

Speaking of businessmen generally (as per examinator's original question):

For example, what if a businessman did any of the following:
1. exploited or underpaid his workers
2. knowingly produced a faulty product
3. followed the extreme rules of planned obscelence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
4. cheated the Tax Office hence burdening the lower and middle income groups
5. was involved in illegal activity
6. actively worked against competition
7. infringed copyright (or any other commercial infringement)
8. failed to pay creditors

(I am sure there are other activities I haven't thought of that could be included on the list)

Do businessmen deserve to be recognised if any, some or all of these activities took place, even if some of the enormous wealth is used for good? Or do we just accept this is 'normal' in business and ignore it in terms of allocating the prize?

Maybe a new prize catgory should offerred for Personal Dedication to Life-Time Philanthopy. Thus, requiring "personal" involvent for several "decades". If Bill Gates has just left Microsoft, he should be in the running say in 2020, if he is consistant. Albeit, pragmatically, if millions of lives saved, should we be pedantic about the rules being followed? Gates is certainly a better candidate that was Arafat.

Quite the conundrum you have raised here, Examinator. There is no easy answer as Pelican's succinct post has clarified.

As someone who has recently shrugged off the expense of the built-in obsolescence of Windows, (Am happily running my OS on Linux) I feel that the means do count. If Bill had a history of altruism maybe, but then he wouldn't have made so much money, so the argument goes in circles.

I like the example he is setting to other vastly wealthy people, but is it worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?

There are far more people, who selflessly assist others, who have none of the financial advantages, yet simply help out neither receiving nor expecting any reward or acknowledgement.

Is the Noble Prize being cheapened? While I admire Al Gore, I don't think that his award was appropriate and perhaps has lowered the standard now that people like Gates are being considered.

In conclusion, there are many more people who are far more worthy than Bill Gates.

The list of criteria that Pelican made up for
business men to meet - would knock most of
the successful ones out of the picture.

Of course there are more worthy people
out there than Bill Gates. He's only one of
the contendors. It's not an easy diecision
chosing the right person. I personally would
not have given Henry Kissinger the prize.

In my earlier post I made the error of naming
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a Nobel Peace Prize
recipient. I meant to say - Nobel Prize for
Literature. I apologise for that mistake.

Whoever gets the prize - may not necessarily
deserve it, (in our opinion), but hopefully
it may encourage others of the same ilk to
do good.

I think this is a very interesting question.
I don't have anything against Bill Gates and I think his targeting of aid money to areas like malaria is exemplary.
However, hearing that he aspires to a Nobel prize for his philanthropy leaves me feeling very ambivalent. Shouldn't it be enough that he has been fortunate beyond the wildest dreams of 99.999999...% of the world's population? It's not as if he has to make the slightest sacrifice of his lifestyle to still be able to distibute his munificence.
I would agree that there is not enough recognition of the real "heroes" (I hate that word).

Kassie
I'm impressed you've succinctly nailed the issue that was my subliminal concern, thank you.
In term of Christianity (which I'm not a follower) it's the principle of the widow's mite (the level of sacrifice not just the quantum). That, determines the 'extraordinariyness' of an action that makes it special, worthy of some award. Even a new category of the Nobel.
I celebrate the individuals achievements in terms of exceeding their personal limitations/circumstances. Otherwise the act is within their everyday capacity and not extaordinary. Gates (Plural both B&M) have yet to reach that goal.
Thanks to you, my troubled mind is resolved at least on that issue.
:-)
Regards Examinator ant