6 January 2008 - 23:53Top Ten Global Problems worth solving

Here’s the premise- there are many problems in the world, and only so much money and effort with which to solve them. Given that, what should you solve first?

I like this approach because it breaks down solving global problems into separate pieces: (1) how much of a problem is it? (2) What specifically can you do to solve that problem and (3) with a fixed amount of money, how much good could you do towards solving that problem?

Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world.

Official spiel: Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg put this question to economists and students around the world, and the answers they came up with may surprise you. Ranking our toughest problems not on any moral scale but simply by how effectively they can be solved, Lomborg and his colleagues demand we take a fresh look at doing good.

My spiel: Bjorn Lomborg made a list of the big problems that people are nervous about and got 3 ideas on how to solve them from the most influential people he could get his hands on. Then he handed those solutions to a team of economists and had them rate the solutions, not the problems, for their benefit to society. This is basically saying that instead of taking a problem you are passionate about and pushing for funding, take the viewpoint of a government or a huge charity and look at all the solutions out there and see where you can do the most good.

Before we go too far though, I should warn you that Bjorn Lomborg first got his fame for claiming that the environment isn’t nearly as bad as scientists would like to claim via his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. His opinions on Global Warming are thus quite controversial.

Now, assuming that he didn’t mess with the economic panel that he put together (and with 4 Nobel laureates on the panel it doesn’t look like he did) and that he let them come to their own conclusions, the Cophenhagen consensus came up with the following fascinating results:

(1) Global warming solutions are not very good. They cost a ton and do little good as compared to other efforts. He summarizes it in better in the talk, but keep in mind that it is not that Global warming is not a terrible problem, but that our solutions to date do less good than other known solutions.

(2) Preventative efforts get you more bang for the buck than cures. Obvious, no? But this would indicate that malaria nets and HIV prevention should far outrank HIV cures or medical treatments.

If global warming is a touchy subject for you, ignore that part. The rest of the talk is fascinating and honest.