As many people know, I think of large scale issues and consider what needs to be done as operating at that level, despite what I do on a daily basis. The May/June issue of Foreign Policy has a feature on what needs to be done. It can be accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3783
and individual solutions read that way. One can also use the UW electronic journal to get to a pdf form of the journal is you want that.
There might be some interesting issues to discuss.
I liked chess champion Kasparov's global magna carta, because today's problems will require a new way of considering people on the planet.
My favourite piece is Gardner's look at inequality (for the US) and his solution makes eminent sense.
Eberstadt highlights the problem well, but is quite constrained in what to do about saving Russians. Their declining health had nothing to do with changes in medical care.
I was intruged by Duflo being a professor of poverty alleviation, a first to my knowledge. Throw money at it? No, stop exploiting!
I was not impressed with the professor of defense analysis at the Naval Post-graduate school's ideas.
Domain naming was something I hadn't considered before, so maybe this is a reasonable way to work. Or maybe the sugar bowl, or the sock?
Prahalad suggests the business model, exemplified by Amul in India is the way to go. Amul was successful because it was a cooperative. Maybe we can learn something there.
HOmer-Dixon espouses experimenting. That is what we have been doing since the dawn of civilization 5000 years ago. We know what works. It just depends on who it works for. The current system has produced phenomenal wealth very successfully.
Others' thoughts?
STephen
and individual solutions read that way. One can also use the UW electronic journal to get to a pdf form of the journal is you want that.
There might be some interesting issues to discuss.
I liked chess champion Kasparov's global magna carta, because today's problems will require a new way of considering people on the planet.
My favourite piece is Gardner's look at inequality (for the US) and his solution makes eminent sense.
Eberstadt highlights the problem well, but is quite constrained in what to do about saving Russians. Their declining health had nothing to do with changes in medical care.
I was intruged by Duflo being a professor of poverty alleviation, a first to my knowledge. Throw money at it? No, stop exploiting!
I was not impressed with the professor of defense analysis at the Naval Post-graduate school's ideas.
Domain naming was something I hadn't considered before, so maybe this is a reasonable way to work. Or maybe the sugar bowl, or the sock?
Prahalad suggests the business model, exemplified by Amul in India is the way to go. Amul was successful because it was a cooperative. Maybe we can learn something there.
HOmer-Dixon espouses experimenting. That is what we have been doing since the dawn of civilization 5000 years ago. We know what works. It just depends on who it works for. The current system has produced phenomenal wealth very successfully.
Others' thoughts?
STephen
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment