The Copenhagen Consensus, a group of 50 economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, studied the major problems of the world to see how we could best use resources to help improve the lives of the world's people. The idea--if $75 billion were to be invested, what would the priorities be.
The answers were interesting. Global warming was not in the top ten. Three proposed solutions came in at the 14th, 29th and 30th in the top thirty cost effective solutions. Combating malnutrition among the 140 million children of Africa with vitamins would cost only $60 million, but would yield "benefits" in terms of reduced health care costs and other associated costs of this loss of over $1 billion. In fact five of the top ten solutions were related to malnutrition, one (immunization for children) had to do with disease, one had to do with increasing trade to help provide economic stability, and one was related to education. The results can be seen in full in this .pdf file. The next twenty were dominated by solutions related to dealing with diseases and water supply (6 of 10).
I have referenced this study before in a number of conversations, and impressed by the group's thinking(Link to site here). While not saying that global warming is a problem, the study's participants believe that seeking to implement most proposed solutions is prohibitively expensive, will yield less than significant results, and would take away the chance to deal with problems that are as devastating to people but are, in fact, treatable.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
John Piper: "20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists"
John Piper has a way of thinking that, in my humble opinion, both stimulates thought and provokes joy. He has done so again with this blog entry. For those too lazy to follow the above link to the original, here it is...enjoy! For the record, #1 isn't as true in my experience as his, but I'll grant that many do "fit." I especially appreciate #16 and #20!
20 Reasons Why I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists
1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I've met).
2. They believe in truth.
3. They believe that truth really matters.
4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.
5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.
6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.
7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).
8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.
9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.
10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper.
11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don't have any better track record than non-Christians.
12. They resist trendiness.
13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.
14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.
15. They still sing hymns.
16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.
17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.
19. My dad was one.
20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.
20 Reasons Why I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists
1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I've met).
2. They believe in truth.
3. They believe that truth really matters.
4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.
5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.
6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.
7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).
8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.
9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.
10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper.
11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don't have any better track record than non-Christians.
12. They resist trendiness.
13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.
14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.
15. They still sing hymns.
16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.
17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.
19. My dad was one.
20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Tom Peters: "Leadership is the Same in the 21st Century AD as it was in the 21st century BC."
Below is a video of Tom Peters on leadership's unchanging nature. I've enjoyed his writing in the past, and he makes a very interesting point about the nature of leadership.
Tom Peters on the Definition of Leadership from Tom Peters on Vimeo.
Tom Peters on the Definition of Leadership from Tom Peters on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
