91

I have seen the quote below on numerous sites (example), always being attributed to Bill Gates and treated as an admission of his malicious purposes, basically proving that his vaccination programmes are really thinly veiled population control operations. Did he really say this?

The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.

DJClayworth
  • 57,574
  • 26
  • 211
  • 196
mike glenndale
  • 999
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12
  • That bounty is a mystery? We have checked that he did say this indeed, exactly as quoted here. Now the bounty is asking for guesswork on motivations and overall moral judgement ("evil intent") to be included in any answer? Isn't that expressly unwanted here? Gates wants less people on the planet, fewer than current projections predict, and his tool to achieve it is, among others, vaxes. Whether 'less people in a few years' is 'good or bad' is a political view, whether vaxes promote infertility/fecundity indirectly —by choice— or directly by chemical consequences isn't contained in the quote. – LangLаngС Oct 21 '21 at 14:20
  • A potentially interesting point: if he means to reduce the 9bn plateau by 15%, that would mean a plateau at 7.65bn -- which is lower than the current world population. (10% implies 8.1bn, so we'd still have some room to grow). – Dave Oct 22 '21 at 15:24
  • The goodreads link ("example") is now broken. – Dave Oct 22 '21 at 15:24

1 Answers1

178

Yes he said it, in a 2010 TED Talk.

Vaccines reduce infant and child mortality, giving parents more certainty and making it more likely that they will choose to have fewer children.

In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. “It goes against common sense,” Gates says. Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die. (Forbes)

Most things that reduce the uncertainty in family planning (like vaccines, health care, reproductive health services) lead to lower birth rates.

Another effect of better health care is an increase in education levels, which is usually followed by lower birth rates in developing countries. (Education Leads to Lower Fertility and Increased Prosperity)

Oddthinking
  • 142,615
  • 46
  • 558
  • 646
  • 1
    So in other words, quality healthcare and education are maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective? – mike glenndale Dec 10 '15 at 00:09
  • 70
    @mikeglenndale: Depends on whether you consider the "goal" of evolution to be "maximize the population of the species" or "ensure that a stable population of the species survives for the longest possible time". In many cases, the two are in conflict. – Nate Eldredge Dec 10 '15 at 00:11
  • 63
    As a thought experiment, imagine that in some society, each family wants a 85% chance of having at least two children survive to adulthood. In a population where the infant/child mortality rate is 50%, a family needs to have 6 children, of whom an average of 3 will reach adulthood, so the population grows at a rate of 50% per generation. In a population where the child mortality rate is 7%, a family need only have 2 children, since there's an 85% probability they both survive. Thus an average of 1.86 children survive to adulthood and the population actually falls. – Nate Eldredge Dec 10 '15 at 00:21
  • 21
    Some other skeptics sites that support this answer: Skeptoid, Skeptical Raptor, Debunking Denialism. – Oddthinking Dec 10 '15 at 00:49
  • 28
    @mikeglenndale: Evolution is completely disjunct from population growth. (Or E.coli et al. would have to be the tip of the evolution, as they replicate much faster than humans...) Actually, evolution is not about improvement either. It's merely about adaption. "Survival of the fittest" is not about "fitness", but "best fit to the environment". – DevSolar Dec 10 '15 at 08:34
  • 6
    @mikeglenndale only if resources and space are infinite. In a situation with infinite resources and space and no threats, maximising reproduction is the best way to ensure the continuation of a species. In a situation without infinite resources and space then there are pressures both for maximising reproduction (still results in more instances of the species after all) and minimising reproduction (concentrate energy and resources into raising smaller number of offspring). Humans have far fewer offspring than sea-horses, but neither is a "better" strategy considered solely on that fact alone. – Jon Hanna Dec 10 '15 at 11:02
  • 2
    @NateEldredge fitness is defined as the number of viable offspring produced by an individual, relative to the population average. So, the only thing that natural selection selects for is increasing the number of offspring that can reproduce. Humans are unique in that we ascribe meaning to life beyond simple evolutionary fitness, but yes, any behavior that reduces the number of offspring would be maladaptive in the evolutionary sense. – DQdlM Dec 10 '15 at 14:39
  • 1
    @KennyPeanuts It's not the number of offspring that can reproduce, it's the number of offspring that also reproduce (that is, the number of offspring that survive long enough to reproduce and do so successfully). Or was that what you meant? – JAB Dec 10 '15 at 18:18
  • @JAB Yeah, that was my intended meaning. I didn't just mean fertile offspring but those that actually make it to reproduction. I was just being a little sloppy with my comment :) – DQdlM Dec 10 '15 at 19:11
  • 10
    @KennyPeanuts You might like to read up on the r- and K-strategies -- somewhat superseded now, but IIUC still valid to first order. A K-strategy species (such as humans) produces fewer offspring overall but devotes more effort to childhood survival; in the long run this can be just as adaptive as the alternative of having as many offspring as possible. – zwol Dec 10 '15 at 20:05
  • 8
    Please move questions about how evolution works to [chat]. – Sklivvz Dec 10 '15 at 22:23
  • 1
    This game demonstrates some of these dynamics somewhat simplistically: http://3rdworldfarmer.com/ – user117529 Dec 11 '15 at 18:50
  • 2
    I don't think this answer (as stands) covers the implications of those who cite the statistic. People talking about this are usually accusing Gates of plans for world domination, but when you listen to his TEDtalk, it's not about that. There are three kinds of lies... – Burt_Harris Oct 17 '21 at 15:06
  • 3
    @Burt_Harris it does exactly what it needs to do. It debunks the idea that Gates admitted that vaccines and healthcare are designed to kill people, which is what the conspiracy theorists claim he was talking about. – jwenting Oct 20 '21 at 07:10
  • @mikeglenndale - I realize that was tongue-in-cheek, but, certainly, a species overpopulating has been repeatedly shown to be maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective. – PoloHoleSet Oct 22 '21 at 15:59