Free Essay

None

In: English and Literature

Submitted By nilakashnandy
Words 6562
Pages 27
The richest man in the world explains how to save the planet.
At 58, Bill Gates is not only the richest man in the world, with a fortune that now exceeds $76 billion, but he may also be the most optimistic. In his view, the world is a giant operating system that just needs to be debugged. Gates' driving idea – the idea that animates his life, that guides his philanthropy, that keeps him late in his sleek book-lined office overlooking Lake Washington, outside Seattle – is the hacker's notion that the code for these problems can be rewritten, that errors can be fixed, that huge systems – whether it's Windows 8, global poverty or climate change – can be improved if you have the right tools and the right skills. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic organization with a $36 billion endowment that he runs with his wife, is like a giant startup whose target market is human civilization.
Personally, Gates has very little Master of the Universe swagger and, given the scale of his wealth, his possessions are modest: three houses, one plane, no yachts. He wears loafers and khakis and V-neck sweaters. He often needs a haircut. His glasses haven't changed much in 40 years. For fun, he attends bridge tournaments.
Related: Q&A: Bill Gates on How to Stop Global Warming
Related: Obama in Command: The Rolling Stone Interview
Related: Steve Jobs: The Rolling Stone Interview
But if his social ambitions are modest, his intellectual scope is mind-boggling: climate, energy, agriculture, infectious diseases and education reform, to name a few. He has former nuclear physicists helping cook up nutritional cookies to feed the developing world. A polio SWAT team has already spent $1.5 billion (and is committed to another $1.8 billion through 2018) to eradicate the virus. He's engineering better toilets and funding research into condoms made of carbon nanotubes.
It's a long way from the early days of the digital revolution, when Gates was almost a caricature of a greedy monopolist hell-bent on installing Windows on every computer in the galaxy ("The trouble with Bill," Steve Jobs once told me, "is that he wants to take a nickel for himself out of every dollar that passes through his hands"). But when Gates stepped down as Microsoft CEO in 2000, he found a way to transform his aggressive drive to conquer the desktop into an aggressive drive to conquer poverty and disease.
Now he's returning to Microsoft as a "technology adviser" to Satya Nadella, Microsoft's new CEO. "Satya has asked me to review the product plans and come in and help make some quick decisions and pick some new directions," Gates told me as we talked in his office on a rainy day a few weeks ago. He estimates that he'll devote a third of his time to Microsoft and two-thirds to his foundation and other work. But the Microsoft of today is nothing like the world-dominating behemoth of the Nineties. The company remained shackled to the desktop for too long, while competitors – namely, Apple and Google – moved on to phones and tablets. And instead of talking in visionary terms about the company's future, Gates talks of challenges that sound almost mundane for a man of his ambitions, like reinventing Windows and Office for the era of cloud computing. But in some ways, that's not unexpected: Unlike, say, Jobs, who returned to Apple with a religious zeal, Gates clearly has bigger things on his mind than figuring out how to make spreadsheets workable in the cloud.
When you started Microsoft, you had a crazy-sounding idea that someday there would be a computer on every desktop. Now, as you return to Microsoft 40 years later, we have computers not just on our desktops, but in our pockets – and everywhere else. What is the biggest surprise to you in the way this has all played out?
Well, it's pretty amazing to go from a world where computers were unheard of and very complex to where they're a tool of everyday life. That was the dream that I wanted to make come true, and in a large part it's unfolded as I'd expected. You can argue about advertising business models or which networking protocol would catch on or which screen sizes would be used for which things. There are less robots now than I would have guessed. Vision and speech have come a little later than I had guessed. But these are things that will probably emerge within five years, and certainly within 10 years.
If there's a deal that symbolizes where Silicon Valley is today, it's Facebook's $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp. What does that say about the economics of Silicon Valley right now?
It means that Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be the next Facebook. Mark has the credibility to say, "I'm going to spend $19 billion to buy something that has essentially no revenue model." I think his aggressiveness is wise – although the price is higher than I would have expected. It shows that user bases are extremely valuable. It's software; it can morph into a broad set of things – once you're set up communicating with somebody, you're not just going to do text. You're going to do photos, you're going to share documents, you're going to play games together.
Apparently, Google was looking at it.
Yeah, yeah. Microsoft would have been willing to buy it, too. . . . I don't know for $19 billion, but the company's extremely valuable.
You mentioned Mark Zuckerberg. When you look at what he's done, do you see some of yourself in him?
Oh, sure. We're both Harvard dropouts, we both had strong, stubborn views of what software could do. I give him more credit for shaping the user interface of his product. He's more of a product manager than I was. I'm more of a coder, down in the bowels and the architecture, than he is. But, you know, that's not that major of a difference. I start with architecture, and Mark starts with products, and Steve Jobs started with aesthetics.
What are the implications of the transition to mobile and the cloud for Microsoft?
Office and the other Microsoft assets that we built in the Nineties and kept tuning up have lasted a long time. Now, they need more than a tuneup. But that's pretty exciting for the people inside who say, "We need to take a little risk and do some new stuff" – Google, which is a very strong company across a huge number of things right now.
Yeah, they were sort of born in the cloud.
The fact is, search generates a lot of money. And when you have a lot of money, it allows you to go down a lot of dead ends. We had that luxury at Microsoft in the Nineties. You can pursue things that are way out there. We did massive interactiveTV stuff, we did digital-wallet stuff. A lot of it was ahead of its time, but we could afford it.
When people think about the cloud, it's not only the accessibility of information and their documents that comes to mind, but also their privacy – or lack of it.
Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out who did it. There's a general view there that it's not used to invade privacy in some way. Yet in an American city, in order to take advantage of that in the same way, you have to trust what this information is going to be used for.
Do you think some of these concerns people have are overblown?
There's always been a lot of information about your activities. Every phone number you dial, every credit-card charge you make. It's long since passed that a typical person doesn't leave footprints. But we need explicit rules. If you were in a divorce lawsuit 20 years ago, is that a public document on the Web that a nosy neighbor should be able to pull up with a Bing or Google search? When I apply for a job, should my speeding tickets be available? Well, I'm a bus driver, how about in that case? And society does have an overriding interest in some activities, like, "Am I gathering nuclear-weapons plans, and am I going to kill millions of people?" If we think there's an increasing chance of that, who do you trust? I actually wish we were having more intense debates about these things.
Thanks to Edward Snowden, who has leaked tens of thousands of NSA documents, we are. Do you consider him a hero or a traitor?
I think he broke the law, so I certainly wouldn't characterize him as a hero. If he wanted to raise the issues and stay in the country and engage in civil disobedience or something of that kind, or if he had been careful in terms of what he had released, then it would fit more of the model of "OK, I'm really trying to improve things." You won't find much admiration from me.
Even so, do you think it's better now that we know what we know about government surveillance?
The government has such ability to do these things. There has to be a debate. But the specific techniques they use become unavailable if they're discussed in detail. So the debate needs to be about the general notion of under what circumstances should they be allowed to do things.
It's difficult, though, because no one knows really what's going on. We want safety, but we also want privacy.
But even in abstract – let's say you knew nothing was going on. How would you feel? I mean, seriously. I would be very worried. Technology arms the bad guys with orders of magnitude more [power]. Not just bad guys. Crazy guys. Fertilizer wasn't too good for the federal building in Oklahoma City, but there's stuff out there now that makes fertilizer look like a joke.
You mean like a dirty bomb?
Or biological [weapons]. In the U.S., at least it's going to take a lot of explaining about who was in the surveillance videos. "You've told us things in the past that didn't turn out to be true, so can we really trust that you're only going to use them in this way?"
Should surveillance be usable for petty crimes like jaywalking or minor drug possession? Or is there a higher threshold for certain information? Those aren't easy questions. Should the rules be different for U.S. citizens versus non-U.S. citizens? There is the question of terrorist interdiction versus law-enforcement situations. If you think the state is overzealous in any of its activities, even if you agree with its sort of anti-large-scale-terrorism efforts, you might say, "Well, I think the abuse will outweigh the benefits. I'll just take the risk." But the people who say that sometimes having this information is valuable – they're not being very articulate right now.
Related: 5 Economic Reforms Millenials Should Be Fighting For
Let's talk about income inequality, which economist Paul Krugman and others have written a lot about. As a person who's at the very top of the one percent, do you see this as one of the great issues of our time?
Well, now you're getting into sort of complicated issues. In general, on taxation-type things, you'd think of me as a Democrat. That is, when tax rates are below, say, 50 percent, I believe there often is room for additional taxation. And I've been very upfront on the need to increase estate taxes. Particularly given the medical obligations that the state is taking on and the costs that those have over time. You can't have a rigid view that all new taxes are evil. Yes, they have negative effects, but I'm like Krugman in that if you expect the state to do these things, they are going to cost money.
Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale? Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is consumption and use that as a metric and say, "Have you been worried about having enough to eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go?" The poor are better off than they were before, even though they're still in the bottom group in terms of income.
The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. It's all high-overhead, capricious, not well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care of them versus someone who's really out on their own is not very good, either. It's a totally gameable system – not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why aren't the technocrats taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like that.
When we get things right, it benefits the entire world. The world's governments don't copy everything we do. They see some things we do – like the way we run our postal service, or Puerto Rico – are just wrong. But they look to us for so many things. And we can do better.
In the past, you have sounded cynical about the role that government can play in solving complex problems like health care or reforming anti-poverty policies.
Not cynicism. You have to have a certain realism that government is a pretty blunt instrument and without the constant attention of highly qualified people with the right metrics, it will fall into not doing things very well. The U.S. government in general is one of the better governments in the world. It's the best in many, many respects. Lack of corruption, for instance, and a reasonable justice system.
If I could wave a wand and fix one thing, it'd be political deadlock, the education system or health care costs. One of those three, I don't know which. But I see governments in very poor countries that can't even get teachers to show up. So in countries like that, how can you get very basic things to work? That's something I spend a lot of time on. And these things are all solvable.
What did you make of the whole health care rollout debacle?
They should have done better. But that's a minor issue compared to the notion of "Will they get enough people in the risk pool so that the pricing is OK?" And some of the price-rigging they've done, where the young overpay relative to the old, is a problem. You know, it's all intended for a good thing, which is access. But it's layered on top of a system that has huge pricing-capacity problems. Which it basically did not address.
You'd normally want to be able to tune something of this complexity. But because you have a political deadlock, you can't. Even the tuning that's being done – like delaying some of the mandates – is claimed to be against the law. So we're doing something novel and complex in a very rancorous environment, in an area where our achievements in the past have been pretty weak.
Health care reform is one of the areas where there is a lot of discussion about the corrupting role of money in politics. And as Washington becomes increasingly unable to address big problems, you hear more and more about the corrosive role of special interests. Do you agree?
Money has always been in politics. And I'm not sure you'd want money to be completely out of politics. You know, I don't give a lot of political contributions, and I'm glad there are limits on political contributions. I wish there were more limits. But our government wasn't designed to be efficient. We've got a system with a lot of checks and balances. When you get into a period of crisis where the overwhelming majority agrees on something, government can work amazingly well, like during World War II.
But now you have people who are shrill about the size of government or how we're not doing enough about climate change. But they don't have enough of a consensus, and they're looking at a government system whose default answer is the status quo. Look at people who say, "I'm going to shrink the government!" Well, show me when they actually did shrink the government. They caused it not to grow as much, but shrink? When? You know, good luck on that. The principle of shrinkage may be agreed on, but when they get into the particulars, it's not as easy as you might think. Farm subsidies, yes or no? Research for medicine, yes or no? Loans for students, yes or no? So you have this frustration. But to label that as coming from an increasing amount of money in politics, that's only one of many things going on.
Well, there certainly is plenty of frustration with our political system.
But I do think, in most cases, when you get this negative view of the situation, you're forgetting about the innovation that goes on outside of government. Thank God they actually do fund basic research. That's part of the reason the U.S. is so good [at things like health care]. But innovation can actually be your enemy in health care if you are not careful.
How's that?
If you accelerate certain things but aren't careful about whether you want to make those innovations available to everyone, then you're intensifying the cost in such a way that you'll overwhelm all the resources.
Like million-dollar chemotherapy treatments.
Yeah, or organ transplants for people in their seventies from new artificial organs being grown. There is a lot of medical technology for which, unless you can make judgments about who should buy it, you will have to invade other government functions to find the money. Joint replacement is another example. There are four or five of these innovations down the pipe that are huge, huge things.
Yeah, but when people start talking about these issues, we start hearing loaded phrases like "death panels" and suggestions that government bureaucrats are going to decide when it's time to pull the plug on Grandma.
The idea that there aren't trade-offs is an outrageous thing. Most countries know that there are trade-offs, but here, we manage to have the notion that there aren't any. So that's unfortunate, to not have people think, "Hey, there are finite resources here."
Let's change the subject and talk about your foundation. How do you make the moral judgment between, say, spending your time and energy on polio eradication versus, say, climate change?
I want to focus on things where I think my experience working with innovation gives me an opportunity to do something unique. The majority of the foundation's money goes to a finite number of things that focus on health inequity – why a person from a poor country is so much worse off than somebody from a country that's well-off. It's mostly infectious diseases. There's about 15 of those we're focusing on – polio is the single thing I work on the most. And then, because of the importance of nutrition and because most poor people are farmers, we're in agriculture as well.
Agriculture is hugely important, especially in a rapidly warming world, and especially with the Earth's population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. How are we going to feed them all?
In the 1960s, there was this thing called the Green Revolution, where new seeds and other improvements drove up agricultural productivity in Asia and Latin America. It saved millions of lives and lifted many people out of poverty. But it basically bypassed sub-Saharan Africa. Today, the average farmer there is only about a third as productive as an American farmer. If we can get that number up, and I think we can, it will help a lot.
There is also this problem where as people get richer and join the global middle class, they want to eat more protein. It's a nice problem to have that people are getting richer. But eating meat is hard on the environment – it demands a lot of land and water. And yet we can't go around telling everyone they have to be vegetarians. So coming up with affordable plant-based proteins, basically meat substitutes, that really taste like meat is another area that can make a big difference. I've tasted a few of them, and I really couldn't tell the difference between them and the real thing.
In your annual letter from the foundation, you argued that there will essentially be no poor countries in the world by 2035. Why do you believe that?
We made really unbelievable progress in international development. Countries like Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia – there's an unbelievable number of success stories. The places that haven't done well are clustered in Africa, and we still have Haiti, where I was last week, as well as Yemen, Afghanistan and North Korea, which is kind of a special case. But assuming there's no war or anything, we ought to be able to take even the coastal African countries and get them up to a reasonable situation over the next 20 years. You get more leverage because the number of countries that need aid is going down, and countries like China and India will still have problems, but they're self-sufficient. And over the next 20 years, you get better tools, new vaccines, a better understanding of diseases and, hopefully, cheaper ways of making energy. So time is very much on your side in terms of raising the human condition. Even things like decent toilets, which is a particular project of the foundation, can make a big difference.
Progress depends on such simple things – like functioning toilets.
We take things like TV or Internet or a microwave or a refrigerator for granted, but moving people from basic lives to decent lives requires a lot less than that. You know, development sometimes is viewed as a project in which you give people things and nothing much happens, which is perfectly valid, but if you just focus on that, then you'd also have to say that venture capital is pretty stupid, too. Its hit rate is pathetic. But occasionally, you get successes, you fund a Google or something, and suddenly venture capital is vaunted as the most amazing field of all time. Our hit rate in development is better than theirs, but we should strive to make it better.
Polio eradication is a big focus of yours. The eradication program has made remarkable progress; India is now free of the virus. But it's hanging on in a few places, including remote regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and northern Nigeria, where vaccines are viewed suspiciously and vaccinators have been attacked. In some ways, it seems that wiping out the disease is now more of a political problem than a logistical problem. Would you agree?
That's only partially correct. Those last three countries are, by definition, the toughest countries. We've improved the vaccine and are using disease modeling to understand when to use which flavors of the vaccine in different regions. We're using satellite maps to figure out the population counts. We use GPS to track where the people are going. So the tools are improving. But it is true that we'd be done in Pakistan if it wasn't for politics – the intentional spread of misinformation about the vaccine and its benefits, as well as attacks on the people doing the work.
So are you as much of an optimist about being able to eradicate this virus as you were a couple of years ago?
Yeah, I'd say I'm more optimistic now, even though there have been some setbacks this year. We could get lucky and get access into Waziristan [a remote region of Pakistan where the vaccine has been banned by the Taliban], or we could get unlucky and not. We also had two re-infections last year – one in Somalia and one in Syria, and usually we have one of those a year, so to have two is not good luck. Syria was doing fine; it was just that because of the war, the vaccination system broke down, so very young kids there were getting paralyzed. In Somalia, the vaccination system has never been that good.
In the world of viruses, polio is a devil we know. Newly emerging viruses are potentially more frightening. How concerned are you about global pandemics?
It's a serious risk, and it's something the world could be smarter about. The worst pandemic in modern history was the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed tens of millions of people. Today, with how interconnected the world is, it would spread faster. But we are most worried about outbreaks where you don't show symptoms for a long time. AIDS is kind of the extreme case where you typically don't show symptoms for more than six years after you're infected. Viruses that stay latent create the huge problems – you literally can get hundreds of millions of people infected before you understand what is happening.
Let's talk about climate change. Many scientists and politicians see it as the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced.
It's a big challenge, but I'm not sure I would put it above everything. One of the reasons it's hard is that by the time we see that climate change is really bad, your ability to fix it is extremely limited. Like with viruses, the problem is latency. The carbon gets up there, but the heating effect is delayed. And then the effect of that heat on the species and ecosystem is delayed. That means that even when you turn virtuous, things are actually going to get worse for quite a while.
Right . . . we're not virtuous yet, are we?
We're not even close – we're emitting more CO2 every year. In order to get a 90 percent reduction of carbon, which is what we need, the first thing you might want to get is a year of global reduction, and we have not had that. U.S. emissions are down right now, partly because we buy more goods from overseas. But even if you invented some zero-carbon energy source today, the deployment of that magic device would take a long time.
Related: The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
Are you hopeful that global climate talks will lead to a solution?
Many climate-change discussions are off-target because they've focused on things like the $100 billion per year that some people believe should be spent by the rich world to help the developing world, which is not really addressing the problem. At the same time, discussion about how to increase funding of research-and-development budgets to accelerate innovation is surprisingly missing. We haven't increased R&D spending, we haven't put a price signal [like a carbon tax] in, and this is certainly very disappointing. I think it's a real test of the boundary of science and politics – and an acid test of people's time horizons. Before the economic downturn, attitudes in the U.S. about climate change had become quite enlightened, and then there was a big reversal, which I believe was a result of people's worries about their immediate economic situation. Talking about problems that will have a significant effect 30 or 40 years out just gets off the agenda, and there's this shrill political debate that is distracting people. So we've made some progress, but you can't take the progress we've made and linearize it – if you do, you really are going to find out how bad climate change can be.
Let's say climate change was delayed 100 years. If that were the case, science would take care of this one. We wouldn't have to double the Department of Energy budget, because there's five or six different paths to go down. And 100 years, at the current rate and speed of science, is a long time.
We're heading for big trouble, right?
Absolutely. That's why I happen to think we should explore geo-engineering. But one of the complaints people have against that is that if it looks like an easy out, it'll reduce the political will to cut emissions. If that's the case, then, hey, we should take away heart surgery so that people know not to overeat. I happened to be having dinner with Charles Koch last Saturday, and we talked a little bit about climate change.
And what was the conversation like?
He's a very nice person, and he has this incredible business track record. He was pointing out that the U.S. alone can't solve the problem, and that's factually correct. But you have to view the U.S. doing something as a catalyst for getting China and others to do things. The atmosphere is the ultimate commons. We all benefit from it, and we're all polluting it. It's amazing how few problems there are in terms of the atmosphere. . . . There's just this one crazy thing that CO2 hangs around for a long, long time, and the oceans absorb it, which acidifies them, which is itself a huge problem we should do something about.
Like cut carbon emissions fast.
Yes, but people need energy. It's a gigantic business. The main thing that's missing in energy is an incentive to create things that are zero-CO2-emitting and that have the right scale and reliability characteristics.
It leads to your interest in nuclear power, right?
If you could make nuclear really, really safe, and deal with the economics, deal with waste, then it becomes the nirvana you want: a cheaper solution with very little CO2 emissions. If we don't get that, you've got a problem. Because you are not going to reduce the amount of energy used. For each year between now and 2100, the globe will use more energy. So that means more CO2 emissions every year. TerraPower, which is the nuclear-energy company that I'm backing, required a very long time to get the right people together, it required computer modeling to get the right technology together, and even now it's going to require the U.S. government to work with whatever country decides to build a pilot project – China, maybe. In a normal sort of private market, that project probably wouldn't have emerged. It took a fascination with science, concern about climate change and a very long-term view. Now, I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be successful, although it's going super, super well, but it's an example of an innovation that might not happen without the proper support.
Nuclear power has failed to fulfill its promises for a variety of economic and technical reasons for 40 years. Why continue investing in nuclear power instead of, say, cheap solar and energy storage?
Well, we have a real problem, and so we should pursue many solutions to the problem. Even the Manhattan Project pursued both the plutonium bomb and the uranium bomb – and both worked! Intermittent energy sources [like wind and solar] . . . yeah, you can crank those up, depending on the quality of the grid and the nature of your demand. You can scale that up 20 percent, 30 percent and, in some cases, even 40 percent. But when it comes to climate change, that's not interesting. You're talking about needing factors of, like, 90 percent.
But you can't just dismiss renewables, can you?
Solar is much, much harder than people think it is. When the sun shines, electricity is going to be worth zero, so all the money will be reserved for the guy who brings you power when there's no wind and no sun. There are some interesting things on the horizon along those lines. There's one called solar chemical. It's very nascent, but it comes with a built-in storage solution, because you actually secrete hydrocarbons. We're investing probably one-twentieth of what we should in that. There's another form of solar called solar thermal, which is cool because you can store heat. Heat's not easy to store, but it's a lot easier to store than electricity.
Given the scale of problems like climate change and the slow economic recovery and political gridlock and rising health care costs, it's easy for people to feel pessimistic about the way the world is going.
Really? That's too bad. I think that's overly focusing on the negatives. I think it's a pretty bright picture, myself. But that doesn't mean I think, because we've always gotten through problems in the past, "just chill out, relax, someone else will worry about it." I don't see it that way.
When you look on the horizon over the next 50 years, what is your biggest fear?
I think we will get our act together on climate change. That's very important. I hope we get our act together on large-scale terrorism and avoid that being a huge setback for the world. On health equity, we can reduce the number of poor children who die from more than 6 million down to 2 million, eventually 1 million. Will the U.S. political system right itself in terms of how it focuses on complex problems? Will the medical costs overwhelm the sense of what people expect government to do?
I do worry about things like the war in Syria and what that means. You wouldn't have predicted that that country in particular would fall into horrific civil war where the suffering is just unbelievable, and it is not obvious to anybody what can be done to stop it. It raises questions for somebody who thinks they can fix Africa overnight. I understand how every healthy child, every new road, puts a country on a better path, but instability and war will arise from time to time, and I'm not an expert on how you get out of those things. I wish there was an invention or advance to fix that. So there'll be some really bad things that'll happen in the next 50 or 100 years, but hopefully none of them on the scale of, say, a million people that you didn't expect to die from a pandemic, or nuclear or bioterrorism.
What do you say to people who argue that America's best days are behind us?
That's almost laughable. The only definition by which America's best days are behind it is on a purely relative basis. That is, in 1946, when we made up about six percent of humanity, but we dominated everything. But America's way better today than it's ever been. Say you're a woman in America, would you go back 50 years? Say you're gay in America, would you go back 50 years? Say you're sick in America, do you want to go back 50 years? I mean, who are we kidding?
Does bad politics kill innovation? Immigration reform, for example, is a big issue in Silicon Valley right now.
Yes, the U.S. immigration laws are bad – really, really bad. I'd say treatment of immigrants is one of the greatest injustices done in our government's name. Well, our bad education system might top it – but immigration is pretty insane. You've got 12 million people living in fear of arbitrary things that can happen to them. But you can't argue that all innovation has seized up because of the problem – I'm sorry. Innovation in California is at its absolute peak right now. Sure, half of the companies are silly, and you know two-thirds of them are going to go bankrupt, but the dozen or so ideas that emerge out of that are going to be really important.
Our modern lifestyle is not a political creation. Before 1700, everybody was poor as hell. Life was short and brutish. It wasn't because we didn't have good politicians; we had some really good politicians. But then we started inventing – electricity, steam engines, microprocessors, understanding genetics and medicine and things like that. Yes, stability and education are important – I'm not taking anything away from that – but innovation is the real driver of progress.
Speaking of innovation, I want to ask you about Steve Jobs. When was the last time you talked to him?
It was two or three months before he passed away. And then I wrote a long letter to him after that, which he had by his bedside. Steve and I actually stayed in touch fairly well, and we had a couple of good, long conversations in the last year, about our wives, about life, about what technology achieved or had not achieved.
Steve and I were very different. But we were both good at picking people. We were both hyperenergetic and worked superhard. We were close partners in doing the original Mac software, and that was an amazing thing, because we had more people working on it than Apple did. But we were very naive. Steve promised us this was going to be this $499 machine, and next thing we knew, it was $1,999. Anyway, the Mac project was an incredible experience. The team that worked on the Mac side completely and totally burned out. Within two years, none of them were still there. But it was a mythic thing that we did together. Steve was a genius.
You're a technologist, but a lot of your work now with the foundation has a moral dimension. Has your thinking about the value of religion changed over the years?
The moral systems of religion, I think, are superimportant. We've raised our kids in a religious way; they've gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief.
Do you believe in God?
I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know.
This story is from the March 27th, 2014 issue of Rolling Stone.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

None

...None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this. None I don’t want to give you rights to any work but this....

Words: 1132 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

None

...KEEP THIS BOOKLET FOR YOUR RECORDS Assistance Application Information Booklet Welcome to the State of Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) We have programs to help you and/or your household (everyone living in your home) with food, medical care, child care, cash and emergencies. We can also tell you about other programs and resources that may help meet your needs. We look forward to helping you and your household. If you need help with reading, writing, hearing, etc., please tell us. If you need an interpreter, we will provide one or you may bring your own. Steps to Assistance - Apply online for assistance programs at www.michigan.gov/mibridges. You may bring, mail or fax your assistance application to the DHS office in your area. You can find the address and phone number to the office in your area in your phone book under the state government section, or online at www.michigan.gov/dhs-countyoffices. 2 - Read this booklet and keep it. It tells you about our programs and has important information. When you sign the assistance application, you agree to the rules in this booklet. 3 - Answer the questions on the assistance application. We need your answers to decide what help you may receive. You can apply for all or some of our programs. 4 - For some programs we may need to ask for more information (proof). We will let you know what we need. 5 - We will send you a letter in the mail telling you if you are approved or denied. Keep this letter. It has important......

Words: 19332 - Pages: 78

Premium Essay

None

...Also he found out none of them had been sent to the clinic for a mandatory drug screen. At this point his frustration was through the roof but, the bad news did not end there only continued. Soon he found out, after reviewing the scheduling log for the training room he notice that there was yet another problem. The training room where he is to hold the orientation for the new trainees is booked up and reserved for the entire month. Alternatives Fighting procrastination is an...

Words: 682 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

None

...With skills, we find objects and forces, that are perceptional, and none perceptional; that we can keep intake. We find a universe that’s always changing. Idols are conceived, breathed, and ended. The solar system is after an agenda course as everything in it. In life, we’re models of constellations, and goes after our fate. You know everything is different because it’s in a current. Within our sense skills, this is the knowledge of oue universe. B. Is The Physical World Real, More or Less Than The Spiritual or Psychological The physical universe is more realer than either, because the physical is concerned on seeing and observing things. With the spirit you doesn’t see it, it’s what embeds the soul, and believing by faith. The psychological is within your mentality, because it causes you to imagine and fantasize with hallucinations; which is really not being there. That’s why I say that the physical is more real than either one, because you can touch, feel, taste, hear,...

Words: 977 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

None

...None of the Above E. All of the Above 2. What is the estimated amount of neurons in the human brain? F. 1 Trillion G. 450 Billion H. 100 billion I. 895 million J. 1,000 trillion 3. What is the correct explanation for encoding memory? A. Encoding in psychology is taking information into the mind and coding it with brain code and storing the information for later retrieval B. Encoding memory is when memory is recalled to working memory for use and access, then returned to long term memory when the information is no longer required C. Encoding in psychology is the transformation, as well as the transfer of information into a memory system that requires selective attention which is the focusing of awareness on a particular set of stimuli or events. D. Encoding memory is when your brain applies “1’s and 0’s” to information that is collected and placed in long term memory or discarded depending on if the memory is rehearsed or discarded • True or False questions: True False 1. Can a false memory seem real and be perceived as a genuine memory? True False 2. Is long term memory controlled by the hippocampus portion of the Brain? True False 3. Do researchers and scientists understand how memory works with precise knowledge? True False 4. In the childhood stage, focusing on adolescence, the process called “synaptic pruning” takes place Word Bank: Choose the correct word to input into the sentences below....

Words: 316 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

None

...This immediately caused a work stoppage, to where none of the travel agents could perform assigned responsibilities, affecting existing, and new customers. An informal communication channel, of a telephone call to the IT Department, determined the cause to the username and password problem. Because there was no formal communication put in place by the travel agency, this dictates an informal communication channel. The IT Department determined the...

Words: 614 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

None

...Elemental Geosystems, 5e (Christopherson) Chapter 1 Foundations of Geography 1) Geography is described as A) an Earth science. B) a human science. C) a physical science. D) a spatial science. Answer: D 2) The word spatial refers to A) the nature and character of physical space. B) items that relate specifically to society. C) things that are unique and special. D) eras of time. Answer: A 3) A principal methodology governing geographic inquiry A) is behavioral analysis. B) involves spatial analysis. C) uses chronological organization. D) is field work. Answer: B 4) Which of the following best describes the current emphasis in the field of physical geography? A) understanding soil development B) modeling economic interrelationships among countries C) studying weather D) understanding how Earth's systems interact to produce natural phenomena Answer: D 5) Which of the following most accurately characterizes the goal of geography? A) the production of maps B) memorization of the names of places on world and regional maps C) memorization of the imports and exports of a country D) understanding why a place has the characteristics that it does Answer: D 6) Which of the following......

Words: 5034 - Pages: 21

Premium Essay

None

...WEAKNESSES OF THE BIG BANG THEORY According to Marmet (2005) , the big bang theory believes that the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is called the big bang theory. Moskowits (2010) describes the big bang theory as an assertion that the universe began extremely hot and dense. Around 14 billion years ago, space itself expanded and cooled down eventually allowing atoms to form and clump together to build the stars and galaxies we see today. Taylor (2012) says According to the Big Bang theory, all matter and all space was originally part of an infinitesimally small point called the Singularity. The theory says nothing about where that singularity came from. It is assumed to have come about by a random quantum event. The theory was first proposed in the 1930s, based on Edwin Hubble's discovery that distant galaxies are receding. Hubble measured the distances to a large number of galaxies which was based on the observed brightness of certain stars within them, he went on to collate these distances with their electromagnetic spectra. As it turned out, more distant galaxies had the features in their spectral lines shifted to lower frequencies in a linear manner: that is, more distant galaxies exhibit greater redshifts. The only known mechanism for generating a spectral shift is the Doppler effect, which means that distant galaxies are receding from us. Another dominant idea connects the dots between......

Words: 1683 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

None

...Psychoanalytic Psychology 2004, Vol. 21, No. 3, 353–370 Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 0736-9735/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0736-9735.21.3.353 THE UNEXPECTED LEGACY OF DIVORCE Report of a 25-Year Study Judith S. Wallerstein, PhD Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition and University of California, Berkeley Julia M. Lewis, PhD San Francisco State University This follow-up study of 131 children, who were 3–18 years old when their parents divorced in the early 1970s, marks the culmination of 25 years of research. The use of extensive clinical interviews allowed for exploration in great depth of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as they negotiated childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and adulthood. At the 25-year follow-up, a comparison group of their peers from the same community was added. Described in rich clinical detail, the findings highlight the unexpected gulf between growing up in intact versus divorced families, and the difficulties children of divorce encounter in achieving love, sexual intimacy, and commitment to marriage and parenthood. These findings have significant implications for new clinical and educational interventions. The study we report here begins with the first no-fault divorce legislation in the nation and tracks a group of 131 California children whose parents divorced in the early 1970s. They were seen at regular intervals over the 25-year span that followed. When we first met......

Words: 10773 - Pages: 44

Free Essay

None

...MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY GNED 1401: Intermediate Composition Instructor: Sharren Patterson Exercises Sentence Fragments Identify and correct sentence fragments wherever they occur in the following exercises. Some of these are correct sentences. If the sentence is correct, indicate this by writing a capital "C" beside the sentence. 1. Why she persists in refusing to look for a job. 2. Part-time students assembling to discuss tuition fees. 3. Animals that are abandoned are brought to this shelter in the hope that they will be adopted. 4. In rare cases, cruises beginning in July continue until September. 5. Which I knew about in the first place. 6. What I have always liked about it. 7. What are his chances of recovery? 8. Barring unforeseen complications, somewhere in the neighborhood of six to eight weeks, if he’s careful. 9. Whatever she does, wherever she goes, there are problems. 10. Repairing the roof was a costly and difficult job. 11. Will he answer? 12. Though I’ve never been to Vancouver before. 13. Because he had never seen a case of encephalitis, the diagnosis took some time. 14. As long as you know what you’re doing. 15. Move over! 16. Even though you ought to know better. 17. Money talks. 18. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. 19. Who’s the designated driver? 20. The terrier that growled at the intruder. Run-on sentences (comma......

Words: 3597 - Pages: 15

Free Essay

None

...Ms. Silver-Greenberg, in her article entitled “As Foreclosure Problems Persist, Fed Seeks More Fines”, noted three key points, 1) the Federal Reserve is interceding with regards to the foreclosure dilemma, 2) there are flaws in the foreclosure process and 3) consumer’s may quality to request an “Independent Foreclosure Review”. Ms. Silver-Greenberg states the Fed is interceding in the foreclosure dilemma. After an extensive investigation, extending over 2 years according to Silver-Greenberg, by the Federal Reserve resulted in a report entitled “ Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices” (2011). The Fed’s have imposed a guideline for the mortgage institutions to follow and if they choose not to, there are talks of imposing stiff fines. The actions of these lenders have affected not only the borrowers, but also the mortgage industry, investors, and the economy itself. I feel that it is a shame lenders were able to get away with their procedural defects as long as they were. This resulted in more consumers being affected and as an end result exacerbated the decline in the economy. According to not only Ms. Silver-Greenberg, but also the report submitted by the Federal Reserve, (2011), there are flaws in the foreclosure process. These flaws are not only inappropriate signatures of bank officials, but also issues with organization of paperwork, customer service, lack of quality control, just to name a few. After reviewing this report, which until......

Words: 558 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

None

...J Clin Epidemiol Vol. 50, No. 12, pp. 1311–1318, 1997 Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Inc. 0895-4356/97/$17.00 PII S0895-4356(97)00203-5 The Powerful Placebo Effect: Fact or Fiction? Gunver S. Kienle* and Helmut Kiene ¨ Institut fur Angewandte Erkenntnistheorie und Medizinische Methodologie, D-79112 Freiburg, Germany ABSTRACT. In 1955, Henry K. Beecher published the classic work entitled ‘‘The Powerful Placebo.’’ Since that time, 40 years ago, the placebo effect has been considered a scientific fact. Beecher was the first scientist to quantify the placebo effect. He claimed that in 15 trials with different diseases, 35% of 1082 patients were satisfactorily relieved by a placebo alone. This publication is still the most frequently cited placebo reference. Recently Beecher’s article was reanalyzed with surprising results: In contrast to his claim, no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited by him. There were many other factors that could account for the reported improvements in patients in these trials, but most likely there was no placebo effect whatsoever. False impressions of placebo effects can be produced in various ways. Spontaneous improvement, fluctuation of symptoms, regression to the mean, additional treatment, conditional switching of placebo treatment, scaling bias, irrelevant response variables, answers of politeness, experimental subordination, conditioned answers, neurotic or psychotic misjudgment, psychosomatic......

Words: 6897 - Pages: 28

Free Essay

None

...Liberty University Research Paper The Origin of Anabaptist Submitted to Dr. Jerry Sutton “Church History” – CHHI 694 By Jonathan Whitfield August 11, 2013 Table of Content Thesis Statement 3 Introduction 4 Origins 5 History 7 Beliefs 10 Rituals and Worship 12 Ethics and Community 13 Conclusion 15 Bibliography 16 Thesis Statement The Anabaptists were distinct because of their assertion of the necessity of adult baptism, rejecting the infant baptism practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, and by defining their characteristics in the belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of the saved. Introduction Four hundred seventy years ago the Anabaptist movement was launched with the inauguration of believers' baptism and the formation of the first congregation of the Swiss Brethren in Zurich, Switzerland. The movement was formed to give men and women the opportunity to follow the whole Word of God by the virtues thought by Jesus Christ. This movement also gave a significant stance of issues that were pertinent to their beliefs and the local community. In our view of such participation we would call them dominant and forceful especially when it came to the questions on slavery. This was more than just an active voice, they responded to slavery by assisting the escape efforts......

Words: 2875 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

None

...Payable = Total Debt Side note: Equity also includes preferred stock, but this company has none ii. $1,200,000 – $720,000 – $375,000 = $105,000 2. Part B: AFN = (A*/S0) ΔS – (L*/S0) ΔS -MS1 (RR) i. A* = Assets = $1,200,000 ii....

Words: 667 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

None

...Title Name SCI 207: Dependence of man on the environment Instructor Date Title Abstract In these experiments that we have conducted, we used oil, vinegar, laundry soap, and soil to simulate contaminated groundwater. We then constructed a variety of filters to attempt to clean the ground water and make it drinkable. We also tested various bottled and tap water for certain chemicals. Introduction Many areas have water containing impurities from natural or artificial sources. These impurities may cause health problems, damage equipment or plumbing, or make the water undesirable due to taste, odor, appearance, or staining. Those impurities which cause health problems should be attended to immediately; other problems caused by water impurities can be corrected if they are a nuisance. Before beginning any treatment plan, have water tested by an independent laboratory to determine the specific impurities and level of contamination. This will help you select the most effective and economical treatment method. (Ross, Parrott, Woods, 2009) The reason why we conducted this experiment is to test the filtration to remove oil, vinegar, and laundry detergent has on soil before it reaches groundwater. These chemicals go to our local water supply, but first it goes through the soil. Materials and Methods The materials and methods section should provide a brief description of the specialized materials used in your experiment......

Words: 687 - Pages: 3