Why we can count on Bill Gates to save the earth
section: common, for your questions: KezNews forum, 3.9.2007
Bill Gates is an improbable humanitarian. He built a reputation as a nightmare boss at Microsoft, a totalitarian who screeched at employees he thought were stupid. He bludgeoned competitors with his illegal monopoly.
He bludgeoned competitors with his illegal monopoly. And he's a nerd's nerd — someone who seems perennially uncomfortable around people and only at ease dealing with the intricacies of software code.
And that is precisely why he's now saving the world.
As you probably know, Gates is aggressively tackling third world diseases. He has targeted not only high-profile scourges like AIDS but also maladies like malaria, diarrhea, and parasitic infections. These latter illnesses are the really important ones to attack, because they kill millions a year and are entirely preventable. For decades, they flew under the radar of philanthropists in the West. So why did Gates become the first major humanitarian to take action?
The answer lies in the psychology of numeracy — how we understand numbers.
source:
bink.nu
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Bill Gates no longer richest man on earth || The quotable Bill Gates || Bill Gates' new project: Farming || The secret of Bill Gates success || Rant Collumn for Bill Gates
Comments(5)
hello!!! did this article get cut off half way because it seems incomplete making little
sense...... so gates is a mean boss who wants to wipe out diarrhea, and???
click on "source: bink.nu" to get full story
it’s a pity he did not cure the bugs and viri infecting his os which blight the lives of
millions. some humanitarian regard for his customers would also be welcome.
i've been reading the fascinating work of paul slovic, a psychologist who runs the
social-science think tank decision research. he studies a troubling paradox in human
empathy: we'll usually race to help a single stranger in dire straits, while ignoring
huge numbers of people in precisely the same plight. we'll donate thousands of dollars to
bring a single african war orphan to the us for lifesaving surgery, but we don't offer
much money or political pressure to stop widespread genocides in rwanda or darfur.
you could argue that we're simply callous, or hypocrites. but slovic doesn't think
so. the problem isn't a moral failing: it's a cognitive one. we're very good at
processing the plight of tiny groups of people but horrible at conceptualizing the
suffering of large ones.
in one recent experiment, slovic presented subjects
with a picture of "rokia," a starving child in mali, and asked them how much they'd be
willing to give to help feed her. then he showed a different group photos of two malinese
children — "rokia and moussa." the group presented with two kids gave 15 percent less
than those shown just one child. in a related experiment, people were asked to donate
money to help a dying child. when a second set of subjects was asked to donate to a group
of eight children dying of the same cause, the average donation was 50 percent lower.
slovic suspects this stuff is hardwired. psychologists have long observed that our
ability to discriminate among quantities is finely tuned when dealing with small amounts
but quickly degrades as the numbers get larger. our ears work that way, too. when a very
quiet sound becomes slightly louder, we detect the difference right away. but once a noise
is really loud, it has to increase dramatically for it to seem "louder." the same holds
true for our judgments of weight and, of course, less tangible quantities like money.
we'll break the bank to save baby jessica, but when half of africa is dying, we're
buying iphones.
which brings me back to gates. the guy is practically a social
cripple, and at times he has seemed to lack human empathy. but he's also a geek, and
geeks are incredibly good at thinking concretely about giant numbers. their imagination
can scale up and down the powers of 10 — mega, giga, tera, peta — because their jobs
demand it.
so maybe that's why he is able to truly understand mass disease in
africa. we look at the huge numbers and go numb. gates looks at them and runs the moral
algorithm: preventable death = bad; preventable death x 1 million people = 1 million times
as bad.
we tend to think that the way to address disease and death is to have
more empathy. but maybe that's precisely wrong. perhaps we should avoid leaders who
"feel your pain," because their feelings will crap out at, you know, eight people.
what we need are more bill gateses — people with aspergian focus, with a direct
sensual ability to understand what a million means. they've got to be able to envision
every angel on the head of a pin. because when it comes to stopping the mass tragedies of
today's world, we're going to need every one of them.
the article in the comment above continues frm the 1 at the top
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Making a connection
By The CAT on 04.09.2007 - 18:09