is timeless, including this one.

But since you asked, you appear to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

The first -- Borlaug -- is a public servant, successfully implementing public policy for the welfare of the public.

The second -- Gates -- is devoting his perhaps ill-gotten gains in a cause which presumably will save poor people's lives most effectively.

Both the first and the second are operating in a secular framework.

The third -- Teresa -- asked herself what her God wanted, and followed her conscience. I really have to wonder just how "well-financed" her missions were, by the way; it did not strike me that she lived in the sort of comfort to which both Borlaug and Gates were accustomed.

That minor point to one side, the main thing is, in a sectarian framework the salvation of the soul is worth eternal reward; the secular good work is only an outward sign of intention to follow God's word.

If you ASSUME a secular, de-spiritualized world, of course that's the only one you can perceive.

concept from Apple. He then built Microshaft by using predatory unethical and dare I say Satan inspired business practices. His company was sued by the government for anti-trust practices only to result in the penalty of further proliferation of the Microshaft operating system. He then when on to build and redefine new galactic heights in financial skullduggery. Since then the predatory ethics of Microshaft begat the Business Software Alliance and the general decline of western civilization as we know it.

Methinks you mix Satan's minions with saints.

Both Borlaug and Mother Teresa did good, but were unable to see the "big picture."

Borlaug couldn't see that his "green revolution" without family planning would just lead to more famine and warfare. He totally ignored the effects of the market as well. I blogged about him a bit here:

http://bexhuff.com/2006/09/open-letter-penn-teller

Teresa believed that suffering was noble if it was suffering for God... so instead of helping a few really well, she helped a lot very poorly, and ensured that they continued to suffer... but in the name of God.

Again... blinded by their beliefs.

Gates saw the "big picture," and still does. He stole ideas -- as we all do -- and greased the palms of powerful men to build an empire. Now he's using that empire to alleviate suffering. Many people hate Gates for his techniques... but he never hired union busters to shoot at peaceful protesters, nor did he run sweatshops.

Plus, he's probably the first person in history that demanded charities prove that they do good, before he'd give them any cash.

Because of their standards, I doubt either Borlaug nor Teresa would have gotten a grant from the Gates foundation.

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

Oh, I think it's timeless, when honest and earnest.

How altruistic are tax break loopholes and charitable donations thus consequentially motivated? Not very. So, let us not consider them.

Those who make sandwiches for the homeless hungry or bother to check in ill and elderly neighbors living alone are timelessly altruistic.

Certainly, the New York Times even presuming to comment on this subject is comparable to the Whore of Babylon commenting on the virtues of virginity.
And Mother Teresea wasn't rich, much less a man, unless she was just cross dressing as a nun and I rather doubt that.
Silly.
Let's discuss if Brittany Spears or Lindsay Lohan is the better mother.
I sure the NYT could delve into that one.