"He's now trying to do to aids, polio and malaria what he did to Netscape."

Ouch, not even attempting to cure AIDs will go without mention of his past.

But it probably took about 10 coders at Microsoft to build IE and then package it with Windows. The problems he's trying to tackle around the world is much more challenging.

"Microsoft spent over $100 million a year[1] in the late 1990s, with over 1,000 people working on IE by 1999.[2]" (wikipedia)

I think the IE7 team was less than a dozen people. IE8 is probably a bit more.

Interesting variance. 1000 people for IE5/IE6, a few dozen for IE7 and a bit more for IE8 again?

Well, a browser is undoubtly a huge project but I wonder how you coordinate a thousand developers (or heck, more than a few hundred really) to produce something useful? I just can't think of enough non-overlapping tasks in such a project that would allow more than maybe 100 people to work simultaneously.

I doubt Gates is aware of this fascinating statistical truth: in the third world when you lower the death rate from disease, living standards fall and malnutrition gets worse. It's the same dynamic that sent living standards way up in the wake of the plague in europe. Living standards in much of west africa are now something like half what they were 100 years ago because medical technology keeps the death rate down.

It would be unwise to "doubt" Bill Gates on any substantive point related to his philanthropy. In the past 5-10 years, he has transformed himself into one of the world's foremost thinkers about this and many other matters.

Have any links? Has he written much on such topics?

I'd certainly start with his annual letter:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter

For that reason, he isn't only working on issues of disease, but also food supply, education, etc.

I doubt your 'statistical truth'. Other 'third-world' areas of the 60s and 70s, including India and Central/South America, haven't seen living standards fall after life expectancy increases.

Sometimes population declines, like after the plague in Europe, can improve the lot of survivors by freeing up resources and increasing the returns for labor. But the reverse -- that population growth makes things worse -- doesn't necessarily follow. It depends on a lot of other factors, and in most of the world, including most of the third world, lower death rates and improved living standards have gone hand-in-hand.

Also, do lower death rates mean lower birth rates?

I think so - the basic idea being people have less kids. That's because having more kids is an insurance policy for a high death rate.

I read the article in the Economist discussing that paper you cite the other day.

(a) Health is an end in itself. (b) Tackling non-letal diseases that keep people from working, will raise living standards.

Hey, I just had a great idea for an NGO!