Gates moves on, but Microsoft keeps 'quests' alive

I mean, really. To Connaught with Bill Gates. he's a useless speed bump in "The Road Ahead"

Globalization requires a response to human welfare wherever encountered. A global concept of family or village or solidarity is not optional under our present historical circumstances, irrespective of whether the action is self-serving or entirely philanthropic. The spread of AIDS from Africa is an example of how isolation is impossible.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

Any organization that is worth its mission ought to invite healthy criticism. My reservation with the Gates Foundation, from what little I know about it from its website, is an apparent reliance on a bureaucratic method of conducting its affairs. After all, if this sort of institutional structure were capable of solving the massive problems of poverty and health confronting the Third World, then why has not the United Nations solved the problems? Or any of the other minor and major charity organizations?

I am proposing that the gateway; i.e., the modern institutional model; IMPEDES progress more than it contributes to it. This out-moded model is reflected in the insistence of college degrees as an entry-level route to at a minimum having your voice heard and your ideas aired.

Did not Bill Gates drop out of college? Would there be a Microsoft today if he had not dropped out of college? So why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be screened out of the running for non-technical positions if I have the wrong degree or no degree?

I have proposed that mentoring bright minds is an alternative method.

Do not misunderstand me. I am in favor of higher education. I myself have a graduate degree. But there is little time for doing business as usual. The world needs ideas and rapid results, not another layer of bureaucracy.

GATES UNIVERSITY

As proof of my own support for higher education, I would encourage The Gates Foundation to build its own university with a curriculum centered around the aims and objectives of the Foundation. But this should not be just another university dedicated to the liberal arts. It should be a World University reflecting universal values and disseminating them throughout the world.

Students should be selected from around the world based upon merit alone, not quotas. Merit is defined as potential rather than academic qualification. How should I judge the academic qualification of a nomad youth from the sub-Sahara, for example. Oprah Winfrey opened an academy in South Africa. Perhaps some lessons can be borrowed from her experience. One of the most important lessons would be her personal involvement in the selection process.

Once an alternative, effective model for higher education is developed, the model itself can be replicated and offered to the world.

I expressed some of the core values for an effective model when on May 24, 2008, I wrote:

The Gates Foundation website is:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

From the Homepage we read the mottos:

"Bringing innovations in health and learning to the global community."

And,

"Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world."

Even with the vast resources available to the Foundation, its goals appear so broad and diffuse it is questionable about how much impact it can have in solving the defined problems.

Is the Foundation merely supplementing the work of other charities or governments? What guarantee does the Foundation have that its efforts and resources will produce a lasting effect?

I advocate a "social contract" approach to problem solving. Why? Because theoretically the results would be better over the long-term.

I further advocate a "systems theory" approach to solving problems. A "system" is defined as a living unit such as a cell, an organ, a body, a family, a city, a county, a state, a nation, a universe; having an internal cohesiveness and clearly defined boundaries separating it from its external environment. This approach allows for the development of effective boundaries, or controls, to minimize the tendency of a "system" from becoming either diffuse ("bleeding itself to death") or rigid ("starving itself to death").

So, for example, if I approach the issue of malaria using a medical model of treatment, I isolate the disease, treat it, and hopefully eliminate it. But the medical model does not typically treat the person; rather, it treats the disease. Now consider this medical approach in the context of systems theory. I defined a "system" as a living unit such as a cell, an organ, a body, a family, a city, a county, a state, a nation, a universe. The medical model goes no further along this continuum than the treatment of a cell!

Bearing this in mind, one should ask oneself whether this approach (given the treatment model) is a wise use of resources? Ultimately, an effective approach will have to address each "self-contained" system along the continuum.

I do not believe that curing malaria in and of itself will result in a greater good. (I also do not claim that my position is the position of The Gates Foundation.) What is the Foundation prepared to do about the increase in the population, a population presumably threatened by profound destabilizing factors such as the whims of nature and external security threats?

The Foundation will have to assess its successes in way that are publicly credible. Did its successes create more problems than solutions? Someone along the stature of Gates or Buffett should not want his legacy tainted by a record of failure.

In order to promote global health, Gates and Buffett must address the whole person.

Given that personhood is physical, mental, and spiritual; there has to be more to health than curing a single disease, or even a host of them. A PERSONAL, holistic approach is the answer, not subsidizing charities and third-world governments. If the latter were able to achieve these objectives, then they would have done so already.

No. Human "life" is more than breath within an organic organism. In fact there are many people whose quality of life is so poor that their life for them is not worth living. So there has to be something larger and better for which to live. I believe that larger something is "nation building".

There comes a time when a person realizes that his or her life really does not matter much within the larger scheme of life. He comes to know that personal pursuits are not satisfying and yearns for something more to fill the emptiness. He knows this path involves the abandonment of his own personal life and limited personal aims.

Is a Gates or Buffett prepared to build a people from the ground up? What would the stamp of their mental and spiritual vision look like?

I have an holistic vision and plan. This is why I insist on a "social contract" as a new paradigm.

I will not take the time at this point to discuss what I mean by "social contract", but it includes concepts such as mutual responsibilities, personal ownership, and social obligations and ethics.

A better, fitting motto for The Gates Foundation ought to read: "Failure is not an option."

But what do I know? I am a little cripple residing in a rural Washington State nursing home, having no status, and barely subsisting on less than $2 per day. After all, I do not live in Africa and I do not have AIDS or malaria.

THE QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP

Global health, including the defeat of malaria, is not a pursuit sufficient unto itself. Human beings are holistic and need to be treated as such. All problems should be approached bearing this in mind. There needs to be a whole solution, not a partial, temporary, and often self-defeating solution.

Also, the poor are with us always. We should not romanticize the formidable work awaiting elsewhere while we neglect our own people. I will use myself as an example of neglect. As stated, I subsist on less than $2 per day, right here in the State of Washington, home to Microsoft and The Gates Foundation. I borrow money in order to make the payments on my computer and software, as well as pay for the internet service. Is it unreasonable for me to wish that someone, anyone, would say, I respect that you are trying to make the world a better place. May I sponsor your internet connection for one year?

It is important that we subscribe to the notion that history is a combination of movements under intelligent, deliberate oversight. Only time will tell whether Bill Gates and his Foundation sit at the right hand or the left hand of moral leadership.