Did Bill Gates maybe lie a little bit in his closing statement at TedTalks, which was an echo of his opening statement? Didn't he lie, because he denied the world a potential to battle deseases with sufficient effort, and to provide a desirable level of education to its children?
Well no he didn't lie, because he acknowledged upfront that he is optimistic, because the world without him has achieved amazing things: a strong reduction in child mortality, and an increase in the average lifespan.
Well he did lie, because here is an accomplished man, a man who emerged from the private sector, who did more for the world than any charity could claim, who competed in exchange for wealth, and who now continues to compete in exchange for wealth. The difference between the wealth he now pursues, and the wealth he amassed, is that the latter is a moral stature expressing his value to the world. The businessman Gates is the cause enabling him to be the holier-than-thou Gates. His cause is not selfless, but an expression of his success.
That's why I think he lies when he claims that his ability cannot be found in the private sector. His own was found there! He counts himself among the creed of brilliant minds, not among the marketplace that rewarded his brilliance. His own action, in his words, is not the result of the system that allowed his brilliance to emerge. Read his statements and judge for yourself:
Opening statement:
There are some very important problems that don't get worked on naturally, that is, the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the governments, to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and by having brilliant people who care, and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to.]]> Closing statement:
I'm optimistic, I think people are beginning to recognize how important this is and it really can make a difference for millions of lives if we get it right. Well, I only have time to frame those 2 problems. There are a lot more problems like that.... The skill sets required to tackle these things are very broad. The system doesn't naturally make it happen. Governments don't naturally pick these things in the right way. The private sector doesn't naturally put its resources into these things. So it's going to take brilliant people like you to study these things, get other people involved, and your helping to come up with solutions.
His words remind me of the concept of negative externalities. Yes, there are important things in life undersupplied by the market, but he himself is living proof that that must not be the case! He himself, the product of the marketplace, is naturally tackling a problem he denies others the ability to tackle. The brilliant people he wants to encourage cannot be brilliant unless their shining light is framed by the night sky of the marketplace. His mind made him brilliant not without the freedom of the American dream. The private sector does tackle important problems - naturally.
Is Bill Gates doing the right thing for the wrong reason? No, but he is not above the market, he is rooted in it.
]]>Well no, you wouldn't. Why make such a compromise? Why chop your brain into a fusillade of verse that only poets would normally wrestle with by choice? It's an art of speech you say. That I tell myself too, but the cause for it is unsettling: Twitter is plumage. The handicap of twittering, as compared to superior tools for chat, is accepted willingly in order to belong to the world.
Twitter is wonderful in a pre-chat, or loose-chat mode, but once your brain demands more, where do you go? Well, you stay, chopping your brain, grinding along.
At first, a limit of 140 characters elicits a mode of utterance otherwise muted, and therefore makes it easy to belong to the world. A reply tweet is less invasive, less bulky, than posting a blog comment (psychologically, not technically). Twitter is neutral space, where contact can be made as lightly as brushing past somebody on the street.
But then, once a chat develops, it is held bondage, bizarrely stuttering forward, in a motion that can only be familiar to people used to stop-and-go driving. The mode of exchange changes abruptly, as your brain squeezes through tiny blotches of space. This is your plumage, your art of mainfesting existence, your demonstration of worth, your brain hack. The more you surrender to the stanza, the more you can apparently afford to be wasteful with your time.
I'm talking about incessant twittering. There are people spreading their mind over hundreds of tweets to do what?! To splice into the flow the spit of their minds, wholeheartedly. Twitter is great for blobs of thought and a few repercussions, but for chat? Isn't Twitter a bit ugly for chat - ugly for your brain, to be more precise?
No, it's the handicap we love; the irresistable pull of boasting a staccato of tweets, for the sake of it, and the esthetic of it. If you can afford to blitz your mind over and over to pounce on the air raid of voices, you must be the man! Full lips, tight skin, and clear eyes could be your reward.
]]> As your voice ripples through the concert hall of human awareness, being slavish is a cost you can afford. You're the man. Once you start breaking your thoughts down into one or more tweets, you are giving up reason in favor of plumage. You're slavish, I mean, cool.A limit of 140 characters means there is more you can say, because you don't have to say much at one time. An exchange is all right, but the form makes me pensive. When two or more people circle a topic, they should have the freedom to jump out of the flow and onto the tarmac of unfettered talk. On a cocktail party, there should be rooms for retreat where dialogues can unwind.
We do have the freedom to jump, but organizing that action takes effort. Applications that allow you to jump out of the flow into superior forms of chat - do they exist? Will they be made?
Not that I am talkative, but I think an option to trigger a group chat on Skype (for example), where brains are permitted more leeway, could be useful. If Twitter would allow that option, I could then maybe send, not an @reply, but mark a tweet to indicate that I'm interested to expand on a particular topic with a different tool/software.
Should you make a fortune with this idea, please cut me in.
]]>High salaries are simply high. This is simply a fact, and what others think about it should not matter, unless you think that somebody should rule over our salaries. Do you? Do you want the government, or anybody else to legislate salary caps? Based on what rule would you decide what an acceptable salary is? Based on justice? Ok. Then tell me, what is more justified than giving you the freedom to negotiate your salary and granting others the same freedom? What is acceptable to you must not be acceptable to others. Maybe you are willing to work for 1.000,00 USD a month, because nobody really needs more than that to survive, right? Right! Why not forbid salaries higher than 1.000,00 USD then, right? Right! Everybody will continue working as though they could earn more, right? Right, go on deceiving yourself!
The only acceptable rule is your choice, made for none other than yourself.
Why do people pay 0,99 USD for fart apps. Isn't that obscene and unfair? Why don't you give that little money to charity instead? Because you want that fart app!
]]>Interessant ist auch die Meinung von Marco Nink, Strategic Consultant bei Gallup Deutschland:
Vielmehr sind die Ursachen für den relativ geringen Anteil emotional hoch gebundener Arbeitnehmer in Deutschland hausgemacht und gehen auf Defizite in der Personalführung zurück.
Aha, die Personalführung ist also dafür verantwortlich, dass Menschen einer Beschäftigung nachgehen die sie glücklich macht? Wofür ist dann der Mensch verantwortlich? Diejenigen die erwarten, dass andere für sie zu sorgen haben, sind Möchtegern-Tyrannen. Wer nicht selber für sich sorgen will oder kann, plädiert dafür, ein Recht zu haben andere für sich zu verpflichten. Wo kommt diese Vorstellung her? Abgesehen vom Spiel der Personalführung, gibt es in Deutschland einfach sehr viele indoktrinierte Sozialisten, die sich dessen nicht bewußt sind. Darin liegt der Hauptgrund dafür, dass in den Köpfen deutscher Arbeitnehmer der Arbeitgeber zum Feind gemacht wird. Employee Engagement wird zu Employee retaliation. Das ist ungefähr so, als ob ein Kind seiner Mutter (dem Versorger) in den Bauch tritt.
]]>I say no. What do I mean by reasonably? By that I mean thinking about conventions, in contrast to thinking inside conventions; thinking with logic, instead of culturally and politically conditioned thinking; thinking: why can I be happy, while others can't, and not: Gosh, life is a miracle.
It is not.
The 3 women, all of them mothers with jobs, would be a sensation if delivered to prying, enlightened eyes via webcam. I think they would, because they're so humorous in an apparently good-natured way. Chatter and laughs? Lots. Sneers and smirks? Lots. From recipes to politics, there is nothing they would not talk about. They're a bunch of seasoned, smart, sensible, grinding girls, taking it easy. What alarms me is that below the shield of apparent interest in the world, below the comic, superficial judgements passed on each and everyone, there lurks a horrible mistake. Here is the story of the beggar, as told by the most talkative of the three women:
I passed a beggar on the street. He asked me for some money, saying that he is hungry. I gave him two oranges. The beggar, unthankful and derisive, took the oranges, but would have preferred the money. So I told him (mockingly) that he should give the oranges back, because he obvisouly wasn't as hungry as he had claimed.
The other 2 women joined her by relating their own experiences with beggars. "How dare they be so unthankful?", said one. "There you go, giving your old, worn clothes to charity, thinking that it's right to do good, and all they do is to tear the stuff out of your hands. They're rude," said the other.
]]> I know what they mean. I gave to beggars, thinking that somehow they ought to appreciate it.Hell, no! They don't because there is no reason. How dare you expect a beggar to be thankful for giving him alms? How dare you expect anybody to accept alms willingly? How dare you think that someone has the capacity to be thankful when you highlight his need? Do you really think it's good to engage somebody's need to wrench from him any sort of appreciation? Need provides no basis for expectations.
Somebody in need is unable to be thankful, because what you give is not treat nor reward; because your gesture of pity is merely a stab into an unreflective form of self-worth. Reminding somebody of his plight is not help at all. It only stoops him further into knowing that he is needy, and unable to return value for money.
They'll take what you give, not because they volunteer to deal with you, but only because they're in need of whatever. They won't grant you the illusion that you're merciful. You're not. You will only meet indifference when faking generosity. If you give in order to receive thankfulness, choose people who can earn to be your trading counterpart.
]]>I don't have a dog, but I had two minutes with Shiba Inu Puppies. And I have a spider in my bath room, which, for experimental reasons, I am allowing to stay, to see how big it grows and how long it lives. Anyways, the news is dog collars, and ID tags!
]]>