I always wonder about the preference-order of world issues to deal with. Is it terrorism or global warming? Alternative energy research or poverty? Genocide or nuclear bombs? Every time I read about one of them or another, I keep changing my viewpoints. I’ve not found the answer to one question – Where should we begin?
Most important body to answer my question is UNO. I generally keep track of the things it does and I came to know that it has only $75 billion(roughly the sum total of global foreign aid budgets) to spend per year. If you look at this amount, it’s very small. Even Warren Buffett has $62 billion. So what’s the cost effective way to save the world? Most of us would make the decision based on emotions- witnessing the pain of hunger, or experiencing the fear of nuclear terrorism. But what if there was a way to calculate the exact values of global priorities, a way to figure out how much human suffering we could alleviate per dollar spent?
Recently I read a news article about this and it said “Last month Copenhagen Consensus, an organization gathered 8 major economists, including 5 Nobel Prize winners to come up with an answer. The result is very surprising. According to the numbers, the biggest problem facing the world isn’t global warming or terrorism. It is malnutrition in the developing world. And the advice of organization : Spend $60 million per year by supplying basic micro nutrients for 112 million kids who lack essential vitamins. It will give better health, fewer deaths and more worker productivity.”
Shocking, isn’t it?


Aaditya Ramdas 4:00 pm on July 1, 2008 Permalink |
interesting more than shocking
i didnt know u cud find the answer to such a question…(at least the questions u first asked)…i guess the CS answer to it wud be to do a BFS and not bother abt which DFS wud be better