imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. where would you spend it?
為了討論的方便，請想像一下，假如你每個星期可以捐獻一些時間、每個月可以捐獻一些錢——你希望這些時間和金錢，可以用到對拯救生命和改善人類生活有最大作用的地方。你會選擇什麼地方?
for melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.
對melinda(註：蓋茨的妻子)和我來說，這也是我們面臨的問題：我們如何能將我們擁有的資源發揮出最大的作用。
during our discussions on this question, melinda and i read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis b, yellow fever. one disease i had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the united states.
在討論過程中，melinda和我讀到了一篇文章，裡面說在那些貧窮的國家，每年有數百萬的兒童死於那些在美國早已不成問題的疾病。麻疹、瘧疾、肺炎、B型肝炎、黃熱病、還有一種以前我從未聽說過的輪狀病毒，這些疾病每年導致50萬兒童死亡，但是在美國一例死亡病例也沒有。
we were shocked. we had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. but it did not. for under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.
我們被震驚了。我們想，如果幾百萬兒童正在死亡線上掙扎，而且他們是可以被挽救的，那么世界理應將用藥物拯救他們作為頭等大事。但是事實並非如此。那些價格還不到一美元的救命的藥劑，並沒有送到他們的手中。
if you believe that every life has equal value, it's revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. we said to ourselves: "this can't be true. but if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving."
如果你相信每個生命都是平等的，那么當你發現某些生命被挽救了，而另一些生命被放棄了，你會感到無法接受。我們對自己說：“事情不可能如此。如果這是真的，那么它理應是我們努力的頭等大事。”
so we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. we asked: "how could the world let these children die?"
所以，我們用任何人都會想到的方式開始工作。我們問：“這個世界怎么可以眼睜睜看著這些孩子死去?”
the answer is simple, and harsh. the market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. so the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.
答案很簡單，也很令人難堪。在市場經濟中，拯救兒童是一項沒有利潤的工作，政府也不會提供補助。這些兒童之所以會死亡，是因為他們的父母在經濟上沒有實力，在政治上沒有能力發出聲音。
but you and i have both.
但是，你們和我在經濟上有實力，在政治上能夠發出聲音。
we can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. we also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.
我們可以讓市場更好地為窮人服務，如果我們能夠設計出一種更有創新性的資本主義制度——如果我們可以改變市場，讓更多的人可以獲得利潤，或者至少可 以維持生活——那么，這就可以幫到那些正在極端不平等的狀況中受苦的人們。我們還可以向全世界的政府施壓，要求他們將納稅人的錢，花到更符合納稅人價值觀的地方。