Common Purposes

We need to get off our high horses and stop believing that comfort and instant gratification defines our self worth. We could all get by with so much less and be much better off for it.

I've lived twenty four years off grid, doing fine 99% of the time with a simple modest solar photovoltaics system. Southern exposure, thermal mass and an ability to wear long johns virtually eliminates need for fueled heat. My propane bill is simply for running a refrigerator and on demand water heater. Unfortunately, that comes to about $400 per year, or $33 per month.

We need to throw television in the garbage. For one who doesn't have it, to ever be around it is pure torture. How can people willingly tolerate it. It's nature's way of saying one is fiddling while Rome is burning.

We need to realize that religions are nothing more than surviving flat earth societies. We need to know that every person is a projection of ourselves and that indeed, a poor person shames us all. If the war machine turned into a housing machine, properly sheltered people could transcend the deperate plight for survival. But we all think these anonymous victims somehow get what they deserve while we smirk in smug judgment, oblivious to the fact that this eventually will be our own undoing.

The only real solution that media has slimed out of view is to be the silent example. There are concerned people whom are not able to amount to more than a brief spit in the blast furnace while the populace is titillated with filth. Our government sadly is a reflection of the spiritual impoverishment of our crazed consumeristic age. Decency, the former currency of national pride has fallen to rapacious greed, the great anti spirit. How hard will things get before learning the hard way will sink it. Probably very.

I think it's even worse, we learn the hard way, then we forget. Thanks for your thoughts. You've said it much better than I could.

One thing we need to think about much more is population reduction. We don't talk about it because it has serious moral dangers if it is done wrong and because people, especially children are profit-providing consumers.

Agreed for the most part, though I think religion gets a bad rap. Lets face it, people don't kill people over religion. People kill people over power, wealth, sex or out of fear and cloak it in religion. Religion has been around since man began walking upright, its a part of us that isn't going away.

As for the rest, you're right of course, but will anything change? You go to great lengths to belittle television, but clearly you use a computer. Ultimately, we are all hypocrites, we just like to believe we're less of a hypocrite than the next person. The 8 year old girl with her arm cut off, starving to death in a refugee camp in Africa, isn't helped any more by your righteous indignation then she is by the millions glued to the t.v. tripping over each other to vote for an "American Idol", or my nihilism. To her we don't even exist.

Rather than worry about what others are doing (or not doing), I recommend you find a person and help them unconditionally. In the big picture it may not amount to much, but to that person it will mean everything. Who knows, maybe someday I'll even take my own advice. For now I'll have to remain a hypocrite.

Although I am in basic agreement with you, the TV set is not the issue, rather it is how it is used. Watching TV in other countries has opened my eyes to the fact that the only function the media plays in the US is advertisement. Totally understandable as it's their bread and butter. After all, most of the garbage on TV (some of which were mentioned) is not worth watching. I cant imagine why people want to get cable or satellite TV to see more of the same.

I have always thought that, too. If under the pressure of lack of income from advertisers, free off-air TV is as bad as it is, I can guess how poor the subscription services are.

Interesting how far off topic the discussion has become so quickly!

Just saying that the problem is more population pressure on the natural resources of the earth than carbon emissions, unless the stance is taken that waste output, of which carbon dioxide is only one example, of the developed world can be cut by a huge percentage, maybe 95%. Then, the developing world needs to be held to that level too.

The only apparent way to reduce refuse production to sustainable levels, otherwise, is reducing the standard of living of people in the developed world by a large percentage. Think of how often the population is doubling, Once the waste output is cut by that huge amount, whatever it is, it needs to be cut by 50% again each time the population doubles. All this doesn't even take into account the increasing pressure of the population on the food supply and land. The oceans are becoming fished out. Milk prices are rising due to increasing demand from the world. One of the largest carbon dioxide sources is the destruction of equatorial forests.

Hi Roger,

I usually agree with most of your points, but I have to disagree with your statement regarding not killing because of religion.

I do not know why people are afraid to say this, but the 9/11 and 7/7 tragedies were both down to Islamic fanatics believing in an ultra extreme form of thier religuous ideals. Maybe we just want to umbrella these events under the title of "terrorist" activities as if they are the result of loonatics from any disafected background, because we are afraid of causing offence to their supporters and fear further retribution. But these atrocities are commited by persons specifically from an Islamic background. We read daily of these activists proclaiming for a "Holy Jihad". This is unequivically a religous concern.

If my view does cause offence to some, remember that whilst not all (the vast majority) of Muslims are extremists, all the bombers are.

Of course there are wider issues regarding poverty, power and even jealousy, but if there were no religious titles to contend with, these would be easier to resolve.

I also seem to recall that the Spanish Inquisition was about the Catholic clergy attempting to "enlighten" the protestant community.

Extremism isn't unique to religion. Nationalism has bred many extremists (Rome). So has Racism (Nazis). Religion is simply another excuse to act on urges motivated by fear, hatred, or lust for power.

Muslims are people, just like you and me. No different. Once we start labeling people we justify treating them differently. People are people. They laugh, they cry, they hope, they hate, they have families, and when they feel oppressed, they fight.

100 years ago, people really believed that some races were by nature more violent and less intelligent than others, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. Today we know that there are hardly any genetic differences between people of different races and to suggest one is more violent than another is just prejudice.

Lets not repeat our mistakes. Put people in bad situations and they'll do bad things. I have never been hungry in my life. I've never been forced to sleep outdoors. I've always had access to medicine when I was sick, even if I was uninsured. I can't begin to understand the circumstances that have shaped these people. I can't pretend to know what I'd be capable of if put in their situation and I'm not qualified to judge them.

I generally avoid threads about religion, but I've seen one too many "let's blame religion" comments lately.

What about all those regimes that were overtly hostile to religion? Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge come to mind. Taken individually, each killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition or the 9/11 hijackers.

A society without "religious titles to contend with" isn't necessarily the paradise that some atheists and agnostics would like it to be. The problem isn't religion. It's extremism - whether political, ideological, religious or otherwise.

Thanks for listening.

Our Global problems stem from overpopulation. Spend the $30bil on space travel so we can emigrate.

Hi,

overpopulation is certainly one of the most important threats,

but this is very difficult - may be impossible to fight - only China succeeded in slowing the rate of growth.

Global warming is not important, only simple minded people think that somebody can stop the momentary trend. Some of the western states will do a little bit about it - but not really effective.

South America, Russia, China, the rest of Asia and Africa will do nothing - so what do you expect?

Western states will spend a lot of money to burn food - ridiculous but reality.

This money will be no more available for education and infrastructure and scientific and technical developments - so the western states will decline to banana-republics pretty soon.

At the same time burning of food will starve the poor - many to death.

This may solve the population problem.

Then there will come the next iceage and the ridiculous politics and media will cry for warming (we had much longer time cold in the last 1 million years then warm!)

States at the maximum of wealth invariably try the wrong strategies - this is shown by history and I do not see anything else in the momentary global warming discussion: this is a globalised hystery.

Back to the first question: we will get global warming (not very important) and we will not get global health.

RHABE

Global warming is simply the triumph of greed and narcissism over objectivity.

Say what???? Could you explain to this local yokel what you are talking about? I'm sure your statement makes a lot of sense...but I don't have a Ph.D. and don't see the connection between Global Warming, greed/narcissism and objectivity.

Most of all, it seems to me that we have got a lot of very sick people in this world who don't take the clean water, air, plentiful food, lighting and what not for granted the way you folks here seem to do.

You all seem a bit fat dumb and happy with your thoughts about religion, greed, global warming and other esoteric matters. Maybe that's why this Warren Buffet dude has so much money and you don't.

With all do respect I'd suggest looking up those words in the dictionary and see what kind of spontaneous associations come forth. As long as the yardstick of capitalism is materialism, we are toast. With Asia following suit in the American folly, the world is basically doing a vivisection on itself.

Rape the moment, tomorrow never comes.

A misleading "question"

Your question is indeed an interesting academic exercise, much in line with the Dane Lomberg asking what we would do with an hypothetical $500 bn (not sure if the amount is correct but you get the point). Anyone with empathy towards fellow mankind - whereever she/he lives - would be hard-pressed not to consider using say $500-1000 bn towards combating aids, poverty, etc. Funneling such money towards something as ultra-long term as trying to avoid a potentially very different world in the year 2050 or 2100 due to a warmer globe is just beyond most peoples mental grasp.

But what nobody seems to consider here is that the question falters on it's premisis. The fact of the real world is that this money exists only as fiction. Sorry evidence of this faltering premisis reconfirms again and again, lately from the G8 summit where we witness money promised from the rich to aid Africa is not forthcoming after all.

So my point here is that such an exercise ultimately provides ammunition to those opposed against any activivities to alleviate for instance poverty or aids etc. Instead what we see is that all this supposed "money" flows towards maintaining and fueling wars. A more valid question would be to ask if people think it wiser to use $100 bn to aid poverty and health as opposed to making bombs and killing machines.

You also fail to understand the potential link between environment and for instance health, poverty etc. These are in many ways linked closely together, and often impossible to seperate. Asking questions like the above fails to put the finger on the correct "trigger", and instead moves our attention away from where the hard questions linger.

Mr. Johannessen, Norway.

Thank you, Thank you, Mr. Johannessen from Norway. I very much appreciate the thoughts you have brought to this discussion. And, for introducing a much larger and important perspective.

In my attempt to be brief, I focused on the two key issues that I believe I (and other engineers, CR4 readers) can bring my expertise; however, I made no mention of military expenditures and actions that are so costly and so damaging in ways that we cannot comprehend. I do hope that others will write to build on what you have shared.

But, from my own perspective, I still agree with what Mr. Buffet has chosen to do by giving the majority of his wealth to help those whose needs are so great and can be treated so immediately. Mother Theresa did not have great wealth but by working with one lonely, dying soul at a time, she touched all of us. Mr. Buffet has much wealth that may not have the same impact of Gandhi or a Mother Theresa but it will make a difference far beyond the monetary value.

I hope that others with such wealth will follow his lead. And, I hope that those of us who have other gifts will offer them to making this a more peaceful world. And, whatever it will take to stop military actions, it will take even more to bring our gifts to those in need.

We're way off topic here. I share the blame in turning this into a discussion about religion, so I'll do my part to get things back on track. Would anyone like to discuss MillMatt's original proposition? Here's my take on things. If I had $30 billion to give away, I'd establish an organization like the MacArthur Foundation, but one that was focused on alternative energy.

My motives have nothing to do with global warming. In fact, I'm tired of the topic. Those who believe it's happening never seem to to convince those who don't, and vice versa. But on behalf of all those working stiffs who curse at $3-gallon gas and can't afford to buy a $40,000 "eco-friendly" car, I cast my vote for alternative energy.

Hear, hear!

Education, getting the word out, restraint in activity. Those things don't require a whole lot of effort, but almost a type of conservatism, a lack of action, a peace, a stillness. It is almost a problem in itself to amass that much money because it involved the taking of wealth and resources that probably detracted from the planet or society in some way, unless the source of the energy in the process was direct solar, and the human effort was purely for pleasure.

Edit: I know...practically heretical talk from an engineering perspective

The great secret that selfish minds will never grasp is that in moderation, less is more. There are cliches that address that but have become obsolete, such as the more one posesses, the more one is posessed.

The actual best way to help the Earth and provide kindness and good health is to spoil your dogs. The best feedback and gratification without using energy is right there.

We affect that which we interact with.

To those who think environmentalism is all about prioritizing starfish over humans, read on: WHO released a country-by-country analysis of health issues in 192 nations, factoring in agricultural methods, noise pollution, workplace hazards, climate change, and more. In 23 countries, more than 10 percent of deaths could be traced to just two fixable factors: unsafe water and indoor air pollution from cooking fires. Poverty-stricken Angola, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Afghanistan fared the worst in the rankings, but environmental health is of course an issue in developed countries too; the report indicated that 1.8 million lives could be saved annually in 53 countries around Europe if a healthy environment was prioritized. Iceland and Israel keep their people the healthiest, according to WHO, followed by Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Britain, and the U.S.

Source: International Herald Tribune

The UN released a study which finds that climate change is a contributor to the Darfur crisis.

Link

I agree with this study - I have been looking at the effects of lesser rainfall/greater water use, and by now feel that the fresh water crisis is much more important than the oil running out - we will find ways of living without oil, but not without fresh water. The water tables are dropping in many places - Spain seems particularly bad right now.

(summary)

You give the WHO and the UN a lot of good credit, that they don't deserve.

I worked on an indiginous care program for the UN. And, I had enough dealings with the WHO to know that they are asleep at the switch.

It's odd that countries with dictatorial governments, are allowed to "self report" their health statistics. Castro and Qadaffi have made these organizations into propaganda machines by simply reporting a continual improvement each year. In 1989 Qadaffi claimed that only 10 people died in his country. The WHO wanted to publish the statistic, thankfully the Italian delegate at the WHO statistics commitee said "yeah right." Sound surreal yet. Castro claimed that the country of CUBA had 35 "State of the art" MRI machines. At a time when the Country of Canada had 4. Moral of this story, Be careful of using the WHO's data, source it first.

The UN brought us a lot of foolishness too. The study on dysenteric diseases, due to bad water supplies, cost the UN 16.5 million dollars (American $). It did nothing to help one person. Just for gigles figure out how many katadin filters you could buy for 8 million dollars and assume the other 8 million for the cost of shipping via fedex overnight.

The UN is now a laughing stock, and the WHO is headed that way.

Don't you just love statistics!

Just as those who produce statistics can twist them to their own viewpoint, in this case the countries supplying the figures are asked to decide what is "State of the art" in their country. If Canada had just spent many millions of dollars on new, 3rd (or whatever) generation equipment, they would want to call the new equipment "State of the art".

If Cuba had just bought in all the old stuff from around the globe as their first MRI machines, these would be "State of the art" there, even if they were much older and used.

Personally, I only take this type of statistics as an indication of how a country's government wishes to be perceived: Cuba wants to be seen as healthy, Canada probably wanted to be seen as ahead of the game but did not reckon on others having a different view of "State of the art".

There is a great problem with these statistics in that those authorities who declare figures to put them at the bottom may get aid, but will also risk the wrath of their electorate/insurgents/? for making the country look bad to the rest of the world.

I think one of the funniest issues, is when you actually trick someone into doing the math about buying the filters. Back when the UN spent the money, they could have sent a filter to every other head of household in half of Africa. I don't know what it is now, probably got cheaper to build the filter's. Fedex is more efficient now too, so it may have creeped up to 60 - 65% of Africa.

It always boils down to the fact that there is more money spent deciding where it is best to spend the money, that projects like these run out of funds after the initial assessment, and then by the time more funds are found the assessment is deemed out-of-date, and needs to be re-assessed.................

And, just like their lawyer counterparts in private practice, these lawyer bureaucrats keep coming after the ones with the "deepest pockets", good old, good-hearted or bleeding-hearted, USA. They take our money, and then teach their youth to hate us. Seems like a paradox, doesn't it?

So, why aren't the Saudis, and the other OPEC nations, as well as the Chinese (who by now may hold more US dollars than the US Treasury), and the Russians, too, paying more of their fair share? We have poor people, too. We have people living in squalor, also. We have people living on the streets because they can't seem to hold down a job (for whatever reason) or cannot find suitable work due to the economy.

Shouldn't we use money going to "foreign aid" to help our own people first? That's what other wealthy and/or larger countries are doing. But then if WE do that, we are "being selfish", and they have a "right" to hate us even more.

OK, I am being a bit facetious, but there is some truth there as well.

I don't know about the US, but here there are adverts encouraging workers to "grass up" those who claim benefits and have some work.

Last year, there were a number of arrests of illegals working on the harvest - previously there were our nationals who were employed, but the rules on benefits mean that they cannot afford to work seasonally, as the length of time they wait to get their benefits back afterwards uses all their cash, and more.

A divide and conquer strategy - keep the workers looking over their shoulder, and at each other and they will not have time to do anything about the real enemy.

I am not one who believes that social problems can be solved simply by funding programs that primarily address awareness or direct cash transfers. So that means I am definitely NOT a liberal.

I also do not believe that eliminating government involvement in social issues and letting the private sector do as it wishes, because a "a rising tide floats all boats" and benefits will "trickle down" to those at the lower end of the economic ladder. So I guess I am not a conservative either.

What I do believe, is that, although technology does not provide all the answers to national and worldwide problems, it can be one of the best tools to use in solving those problems. Maybe I have a warped perspective because I was trained as an engineer and see things from that point of view. However, I think that experience has shown this to be true. For example, more modern agricultural methods and equipment introduced to third world countries that previously depended upon, literally, stone age agricultural techniques that had not changed in millennia have done much to stem the tide of famine in many countries and raise the standard of living for farmers. Western medical technology and health practices are having an impact on critical health issues in the Third World, as well as here in the US.

While billions are spent to boost the economies of poorer nations through loans and direct aid at the highest levels, what is being done to directly affect people living day to day? For one thing, there is a growing movement of providing small business "micro-loans" to budding entrepreneurs and to encourage the growth of family business. This does not mean just those on the cutting edge of technology, software gurus, etc. but even the single mother in a small African village who makes a little money by selling prepared foods from a street-side stand. For her, the ability to buy staples in bulk, to cook more efficiently, and to prevent spoilage through refrigeration could be realized with the smallest of loans, yet it would have a great impact on her business and her ability to provide for her family. And when the loan is paid back the money goes to help someone else. Like the local potter, who can double or triple his productivity with a modern kiln and a few quality tools.

Another way to help is technical education, both directly in situ, and through funding those who would want to take advantage of better opportunities outside their own borders. Funding for scholarships and organizations that provide teachers and classroom technology at no expense to the locals would greatly enhance people's abilities to bootstrap to a better life.

Finally, I see not-for-profit design and manufacturing centers as a way to allow technology to benefit people all over the world. Many technology needs do not get addressed because they might be deemed "unprofitable", yet a technological solution to a social problem might be just what is needed. Sometimes engineering we take for granted in the US, such as building reservoirs for water storage and water purification equipment, might be unheard of in some locales, yet could make the difference between hundreds of thousands dying of thirst or dysentery.

So to recapitulate: If I "had US$30 billion,...and wanted to ensure the money was used wisely for future generations" I would fund a private non-for-profit corporation that had a commitment to reach people on a one-to-one basis or for small groups, tribes, villages, etc. to extend a "hand up, not a hand-out" in the way of providing enabling education, financing, and technological solutions to their everyday problems.

Why does everyone hate profit margins, and capitalism? Profit margins are what make growth, and capitalism is what makes innovation possible. Trust me, Steve Jobs didn't build the I phone because he wanted to. He would probably rather be at home bending his elbow and watching Star Trek re runs, like everyone else. Instead he wanted the money that goes with the production of his, ahem "superior product." (sarcasm)

Were it my 30 billion, I would invest the money in strong economies. With the interest set up half in the following. half for building principle, and the other half for use. The half of the interest set for use would be used to create a series of contests. Each contests theme would be to create a sensible solution to a tiny problem, that can be fixed easily, but lacks attention. Such as the economical production of safe drinking water in the third world. The technology, product, etc. however, has to be designed in such a way as that it goes to the people themselves, bypassing the often corrupt third world government.

The contest prize is not some lump sum payment. Instead it would guarantee the inventor and commercial producers with royalties and profits equivalent to what they would get if their product was a commercial success, plus a motivating extra 25%. The royalties and profits would be based on producing enough of the product to fill the need, by quota. The inventors and commercial interests make a good profit without having to produce an obscenely priced object with the subsidy. The people in need get a product capable of filling their needs. And, due to the economic influence of the 30 billion, everyone gets a hand up.

The wealthy industrialized nations would at first be able to produce some products. But, they would eventually run out of hands to do the jobs, making investment in the under utilized third world a necessity. Those who invest in these third world countries want stability, not widespread chaos, so the third world governments have to behave themselves, inorder to attract investment.

Voilla the world is now saved. All of you may go back to hating capitalism and profit margins, and in general being pessimistic. I will be off to work now, as I am motivated by making profits and maintaining the financial stability that makes bending my elbow, and watching Stargate possible.

"Why does everyone hate profit margins, and capitalism?"

IF you are responding to my posting (#25), well I never said that I hate profits and capitalism. I merely said that private sector (profit-seeking) entities do not always address all the problems they could and "trickle down" just doesn't work that well. So what I was offering was an alternative, one that did not replace capitalism, but rather augments it. And since it is also in the private sector (although not-for-profit), it is hardly socialism either.

"Profit margins are what make growth, and capitalism is what makes innovation possible."

Again, I do not disagree with your statement, but there is also "more than one way to skin a cat", and when you have a lot of cats that need skinning, it doesn't hurt to look at alternate ways to do it.

"Trust me, Steve Jobs didn't build the I phone because he wanted to."

Well, that's for sure. Apple is making the iPhone because it needs to be profitable, nothing wrong with that. But does the world really need another cell-phone/mp3player/internetbrowser/PDA combination gadget? Sounds like Apple is trying to do to the Personal Wireless device world what IBM did to the personal computer world when it introduced the PC so many years ago, using software (MS-DOS, or PC-DOS) that Bill Gates basically copied from the software he developed for Apple (AppleDOS), making Apple take second or third, or fourth place (what is its market share for Macs now?) to IBM and its clones.

Nothing wrong with your idea to set up prize contests either. There is a long history of such contests working to the benefit of mankind. It is just one more "way to skin a cat". Good idea.

I think we both hit on the same theme though, generating solutions (technology, product, etc.) that would benefit people all over the world, and not just "often corrupt third world government".

Maybe you should have entered this as a general post and not a response to mine. I don't believe that I am in the group you denounce as "hating capitalism and profit margins, and in general being pessimistic."

Besides, I like watching Stargate also! Were you, like me, a little disappointed in the last episode of Stargate:SG-1? As a series ender, it seemed a bit incomplete, but I guess that's because they want you to keep wanting more and go see the Stargate movies when they are released!

I think the casting of Adria was inspired. Getting "girl next door" sensuality and "Queen of All Evil" lustiness into one character was sensational. And, I have to believe that the writers were nerds in their youth. How else do you explain the nerdy, un-suave, Daniel Jackson getting all the action from so many inter-stellar babes, from Adria and her Mom, Vala, to several she-Goa'ulds, and (forgive the pun), a host of hotties? <grin>

Actually I did mean to post it to the original thread, but your button was unfortunately, and unfairly hit (ooops). And, I apologize.

As for Stargate, I have all the episodes on my DVR right now, and I am waiting until I have the time to sit down and absorb them correctly. Method, A really tall Hurricane, some clove ciggarettes, and the fast forward button for all the comercials on the Sci Fi Channel. I swear the show would be 5 minutes long if you edited out the commercials.

And yes, Adria (Morenna Baccarin), Vala (Claudia Black), and Hathor (Suanne Braun) are some good looking specimens. Though I think Morenna Baccarin was a better Actress in Firefly, and Serenity. Okay enough of that, I need to re ducttape the bridge of my glasses.

Note to Sci Fi channel executives that may be reading this --- Charge more for the commercials and play 5 less commercials per break. And, 3 less commercials promoting the show I am currently watching. You have my attention, I am not going anywhere. In return I promise to buy at least one of the products per week wether I use it or not, provided the accrued cost is less than buying the season on DVD. Better yet, just E-mail me a list of items you want me to buy, don't play the comercials at all, and I promise to buy two products wether I need it or not, again provided the accrued cost is less than the DVD's.

I think this is a good deal.

He could have given all or part of his wealth to organizations addressing global warming. Doing so would surely have impressed devotees of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". But, Mr. Buffett chose to address a palpable, immediate social good where his wealth could help the most people in a timely fashion. He definitively chose global health as the most significant issue of our generation and of generations to come.

Unless you know Mr. Buffett your conclusion is not sound. Perhaps he chose to fund direct health action for other reasons. The enormity of Global warming is such that his 30 Billion would have been of no use - It requires policy changes at Government level. There would be no point channelling money into an issue that will not change without government support. Helping groups of people gives the return of knowing something will be worthwhile. He may have preferred to tackle global warming but felt that his generosity would be wasted by squabbling politicians. I applaud his philanthropy , but you can't presume to know his motives. Maybe using the Gates foundation took the difficulty out of smaller scale endowements. Only Buffett knows the answers to his decision.

Initiating a discussion with 'Global Health vs Global Warming' is like arguing 'Medicine vs Food'.

I'll bite. Let's argue 'Medicine vs Food"!

I would argue for Food, because a starving person has little need for Medicine, which can only treat the symptoms of his condition. Also, good nutrition is one of the best preventatives for many of the medical problems seen in many Third World Nations, or even in Western nations with supposedly good food and health care, primarily because of education or poverty keeping people from making good nutritional choices. Plus, money for food goes to farmers who need it and not rich doctors who don't.

Might be oversimplification of a complex issue, but that is my view. Your mileage may vary.

'Global Health vs Global Warming' is like arguing 'Medicine vs Food'.

In the comparison Health=Medicine,Warming=Food

I would argue for Food....

So by analogy that's a 'yes' for Global Warming being the more important issue ? If it is I agree. Money must be directed to dealing with health and warming, but a healthy world population is pointless with no habitable planet left. Buffetts choice was a good call, but world leaders need to follow by doing similar for the planet by policy change and funding the massive cost of new energy developments.

Taking your literal interpretation, I again agree that food is a more fundamental need than medicine.This is also a case of apportioning budget.Glad I don't have to make such choices because you'll never please all the people all the time.The cruel truth of us all is proximity to a problem.We'd all do plenty if our next door neighbour was suffering starvation and disease, but anonymous people....It's a sad reflection on us all. To further the analogy, Global warming seems remote and individual effort to stop it provides little indication of any result. That's why Government scale action is needed.

"In the comparison Health=Medicine,Warming=Food

I would argue for Food....

So by analogy that's a 'yes' for Global Warming being the more important issue ? "

Guest#37:

Wait a minute. Assuming that Guest #35 is not the same as Guest #37 (or else he/she has a split personality!), that is not how I interpreted "'Global Health vs Global Warming' is like arguing 'Medicine vs Food'. I think the analogy between the two that Guest#35 was trying to make is that they are both inappropriate comparisons.

He could have just as easily said "Apples vs. Oranges", and by your logic Health=Apples and Warming=Oranges. I guess you could argue for the validity of that, since "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" and oranges only grow in very warm climates!

Saying "I would argue for Food" is NOT a "yes" for Global Warming being a more important issue than World Health. I was only taking on the "Medicine vs. Food" argument, mostly just for fun, hence "I'll bite".

I am not convinced that Global Warming is the huge threat many say it is, or if it is, that it is more than a naturally occurring situation. If a real threat, we should do whatever we can to prepare for it, but it would take co-operation of all the governments of the Earth, and all the people of the earth for humans to have much of an impact in stemming the tide. One's personal fortune, no matter how large, would do very little, unless, perhaps you bought off the right politicians! <grin>

By the way, for both you "Guests", if you are going to participate in these discussions, you should really register and log in to avoid confusion. You can still maintain your anonymity by using a screen name if you wish.