Bill Gates offers $1 million for world’s next-generation condom

“Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates promises to offer a $100,000 of initial funding, with up to $1 million of possible continued funding through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to anyone, from students and scientists to entrepreneurs, who can invent a next-generation condom,” Benita Matilda reports for Science World Report.

“Chris Wilson, Director of Global Health Discovery & Translational Science at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said in a press statement, ‘Inspiration can come from anywhere and we are hopeful that this new round of Grand Challenges Explorations will uncover innovative approaches to improve lives around the world,'” Matilda reports. Bill Gates“According to the Gates foundation, the proposals should have a testable hypothesis, a connected plan, and should be able to generate an explicit data plan in Phase I to be considered for Phase II.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Bill’s got expensive taste in Mackintoshes.

Related articles:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto – August 26, 2010
Report: Gates Foundation causing harm with same money it supposedly uses to do good – January 10, 2007
Bill Gates wants to create a 21st-century toilet – August 15, 2012
Bill Gates’ ‘charity’ foundation finances U.S. newspaper purchases – August 21, 2006


    1. “First toilets, now condoms. He’s on a roll.” Well his MS was a failure in the tablet market before Apple showed the way, so I guess he figures to create what the people want with their iPads… Gotta have something to do when doing that do-do or after whoopie!

      1. Agree, and if condoms end up with less people to feed in poor, overpopulated areas, that’s also beneficial. IF they’ll use the condoms he creates. The people having the largest number of kids these days are all the ones that couldn’t even feed and clothe a single child, or even just support themselves. And that goes for this country as well as elsewhere.

        1. ok, you 2-3 Gates of Hell condoners who think he’s a philanthropist, when he did not give till retirement as he had nothing better to do as he failed the world with not a single invention & nearly got into shoe ads…when he will profit from 15B units sales in condoms & his foundation is founded on bribes & $1B in fees/salaries of tax avoidance they blame Apple on etc.

          anyway, did you guys/girls ever leave the usa? have you lived in africa? some u.s. social workers tried the condom thing there. they cut off the tips as their dicks didn’t fit! it’s not that they’re dumb, it’s just not part of their cultural understanding. westerners think we can solve everything with our arrogance.

          the bigger question is: condoms have not really worked and are only used by 750M out of 6B+ people. they rips. they don’t feel natural. rolling wastes time when you’re in heat or kills the heat! it’s calculated sex – unspontaneous.

          i have a simpler, cheaper solution that does not require god damn charity: at the last moment, take your dick out. if you wish to be responsible with sex, you can handle that, it’s just like condom prevention & feels natural.

          the other question is: if Billy did high tech all his life & accomplished all you guys say, why not invent a non-prophylactic solution?! a higher tech solution?! who wants to dress up? solve it simpler, easier…

          1. “i have a simpler, cheaper solution that does not require god damn charity: at the last moment, take your dick out. ”

            (A) that doesn’t always work. Even if you get it out in time, you can still get pregnant.

            (B) not much fun for the woman hoping, wondering, if you are going to manage that feat.

        2. Imagine being so destitute the only pleasure in life you could attain was some intimate time with another poor destitute soul.

          Perhaps we should work on the poverty itself, instead of population control measures that do not work.

          Effects of Uneven Income Distribution

          The widening gap in the distribution of income is a major cause of environmental decline. In 1960, the richest 20% of the world’s people absorbed 70% of global income; by 1989 their share had increased to 83%. Over the same period, the poorest 20% saw their share of global income decrease from 2.3% to 1.4%. The ratio of the richest fifth’s share to the poorest fifth’s share rose from 30 to 59 over this period. The rich really do get richer and the poor get poorer.

          The inequality of income distribution is bad for the environment for two reasons: it encourages excess consumption, waste and pollution at the rich end of the spectrum and it perpetuates poverty at the poor end. Both categories of the population are more likely than those in the middle to do serious ecological damage – the rich because of their high consumption of energy, raw materials, and manufactured goods, and the poor because they are often forced to cut down forest, grow crops and graze cattle in order to subsist on the land.

          A similar picture emerges at the national level. The rich countries have a large per capita impact on the environment because of their high rate of consumption and waste. The U.S., with only 4.7 percent of the world’s population, consumes 25 percent of the world’s resources and generates 25 to 30 percent of the world’s waste. Compared to an average citizen in India, a typical person in the U.S. uses:

          50 times more steel
          56 times more energy
          170 times more synthetic rubber and newsprint
          250 times more motor fuel
          300 times more plastic

          Each American consumes as much grain as five Kenyans, and as much energy as 35 Indians, 150 Bangladeshis (a whole village!) or 500 Ethiopians.

          Paul Ehrlich has suggested that we should measure the environmental impact of populations not simply as a function of the number of people but by using the equation I (environmental impact) = P x A x T, where P is the size of the Population, A is Affluence (or consumption), and T is a measure of how environmentally malign are the Technologies and the economic, social, political and political arrangements involved in servicing the consumption. Mainly because of the high level of “T”, the population growth in the United States is more serious for the environment than anywhere else in the world.

            1. It is not about logic, thats my point.

              Despite what the religious right would have you believe, sex is one of the purest, most natural of human desires. It also represents a temporary escape.

              When you find yourself with nothing, no food, no water, no prospects, desperation, it is like a crushing burden every waking moment. You want so badly to escape it, getting lost for a time in the pleasures of the flesh provides that outlet, that brief escape.

              That is my point. To stand on high and say “well your stupid boy, that don’t make no sense. you should be suffering 24 hours a day” isn’t very human, nor particularly realistic.

              Condoms are not the answer to ending the poverty. They may assuage our guilt at letting others subsist and reduce the number suffering, they will not eliminate poverty, they will not improve the world.

        3. Would “they” the target condom users, agree that it is beneficial or are we projecting our desires?

          I maintain that Billy’s money would be better spent on water and agriculture programs. These are people and despite being born into the poorest possible conditions, they also have pride, and it has been proven that the programs that are most beneficial include the stakeholders and work toward improving the environmental factors which contribute to the poverty.

          Somehow I do not see walking into a village, telling the men they have too many babies, and BTW use this uncomfortable object to destroy the one pleasure in life they have being an effective program.

          Personally, I find the desire to force condoms on these people to be no better than the crazy fundies who want “abstinence only” education for american kids. Neither strikes me as being realistic, nor effective. Yet both come across as agenda driven, forced controls on the populace.

    1. FWIW, ‘Mackintosh’ is British slang for raincoat, and as such, a euphemism for rubber, aka condom. (I feel like Don Cheadle’s character in the Ocean’s 11, 12, 13 movies, explaining this.)

    1. All the geeky nerdy Bill Gates fans, who never had a girlfriend, will come up with some crazy shit. Something with a display and batteries, attached to a blow up doll, probably.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.