What is an example of a response to a question that wouldn't be a platitude?

Big-G tells me that "platitude" means: a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.

He was asked: What do you think the greatest threat to humanity is at this moment?

And responded:

There are some things that aren't likely but we should worry about - nuclear bombs and bioterrorism (from nation states or terrorism), or a big pandemic. This is the 100th anniversary of the Spanish flu and if it came back the amount of travel would make it spread faster than it did last time.

Once you get past those threats then the biggest question is global cooperation to avoid climate change and reduce the risk of war. It is disconcerting to see a rise of countries turning inwards and not investing in alliances which have helped us avoid big wars since World War 2.

Climate change is a real test of how we can work together globally since it is a complex problem where major changes need to be done well in advance of the big harms.

With a link to: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_25... (a 431-word expansion on his thoughts on climate change)

I don't think any of his responses have fit the definition of "platitude".

I think an example of a "platitude" would have been the response: "War, we need to give peace a chance!"

What you're not considering: the person doing the AMA chooses which questions to answer.

I don't know if they are platitudes but they just sound like some generic PR drivel. Take from that what you will.

I'm curious what kind of answer you would consider "not PR drivel." Specifically, if sounds like there is nothing Bill Gates could write that you would consider genuine.

Some kind of personal anecdote or something that is even remotely specific instead of that generic comment that looks like something that was written by the same people who write apologies for Facebook.

Why should he have to annotate his personal beliefs with anecdotes and specifics?

"I pay way too little in capital gains tax and it is a thorough shame that nobody in Congress has fixed this issue in 30 years. In fact they've made it worse"

He did write something that amounts to that, just with more words.

And yet... how many other billionaires do you see going out and saying that the capital gains tax rate is too low and climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.

Buffett has been beating the "higher taxes for rich people" drum at least since the 2008 recession, maybe longer. He won't actually open his wallet to push for these policies mind you. That would be a bridge too far.

Are you really saying the billionares who pledged more than 90% of their wealth to charity, and will "only" leave their kids 10 million dollars isn't backing up what he says?

charity is part of the problem, and not part of the solutions.

It's not like you just send the government more money if you feel like they should tax more... People like Buffet and Gates donate so much in part because they believe that wealth should be redistributed better than the government currently does

Would his money be better spent lobbying politicians largely by swelling their campaign war chests, or directly funding charitable causes?

Well his buddy Warren Buffet also says he should pay more taxes. I find his stance refreshing - he's going to pay only what's required while advocating changing the rules so that everyone pays more. Lots of people say "well he's free to pay more if he want's to but he's not". Some call it hypocrisy. Some call it humility.

A lot? I know Warren Buffett has similar views, and I've seen other very wealthy liberals claim taxes and climate change were big concerns. When people get very wealthy, they seem to think less about their finances and more about their legacy and public perception, and honestly when you're that wealthy, you have so much that taxes don't really matter anymore.

There are a lot of very wealthy philanthropists, and I think that's because people seek meaning in their life once they no longer get benefit from earning more.

Some do, some don’t. Bill and Warren are of course prominent examples of billionaire philanthropists.

Conversely I could name on famous multimillionaire frequently in the news these days, that has a track record of treating charitable foundations as tax dodging piggy banks. So there are all sorts.

I agree they probably stop caring about their tax bill because they are billionaires. I find it disingenuous however to then look down the income ladder to people earning more than $1 million and including them in your “we don’t pay enough taxes” bucket.

It's not the same, but even if you are not a billionaire, there comes a point where giving relatively more of your added income serves a greater good (i.e. funding for gov't) than the money just being in your bank account. Once you make more than you need to keep up your lifestyle (at whatever level that may be) the suggestion to give back more is not unjustified.

The question is which is more effective at serving "the greater good": the government or charity? Or option #3: free enterprise, which creates jobs, goods, and services?

The idea that billionaires pay too little tax is considered a radical idea in mainstream media, so that doesn't seem like a platitude.

The media is not truth. The idea is not radical in any sense.