Jamie Drummond: Let's crowd-source the world's goals

i've had this exact same vision for a use of our increased connectivity

one point of critique. people who dont have access, hardly have a full understanding of what we are technically capable of, and thus their goals may be modest, to say the least.

government solutions will only fail if the governing is wrong.

Hayek's Fatal Conceit. Government plans will nearly always fail because govt can never have all the information of a distributed network. And look at the history of government "solutions." Drug war, war on poverty, bad foreign policy, NCLB... the list goes on and on. Honestly, how can you defend government solutions when the history so clearly shows that the vast majority of them are total failures? Power tends to corrupt. Government is force. These are fatal flaws to govt "solutions."

Well said!

if you can't think of examples of good governing, maybe you need to watch this video again

Yay, "crowd-sourcing". The wonderful new catchphrase that allows governments and businesses to use socialist and anarchist ideals for their own benefit without having to admit that they work and applying them to society.

That was the most uneducated thing that I've heard today.

I think it's funny how people care like something will ever get done.

I think it is too late to try something else. I think we need a to start off again with a clean slate.

We don't NEED the gross economic inequalities that exist now. Their continuation has more to do with the degree to which the ambition of the few overpowers the gullibility and complacency of the many. There are lots of tools that could be used to level playing fields and distribute the boons and burdens of modern life more evenly... the problem is in who gets first crack at the tool box and how they decide those tools get used.

Are you really complaining that most of the charities are religious based? I guess we see who puts their money where their mouth is. You just want the govt to take other people's money and use it for what YOU think is the "right charity". That's not freedom. That's just pathetic. As if the govt would really use it for what you wanted anyway. *smh*

Great Idea.

4:17 "Technocrats appointed by the U.N. and certain governments with the best intentions are busying themselves designing a new package of goals. And currently they're doing that through pretty much the same old late 20th century top-down elite closed process." He would rather take a system based on informed decision making and turn it over to the uninformed people of the world. You know how that worked out last time? People voted against fluoride in water and the recycling black water. Smart

i thought the mdgoals were already somewhat sophisticated. Do we really need a discussion about them - as Jamie suggests (if I get it right)? I mean it's not too long til 2015 - maybe we could crowd-achieve them - and THEN find some further goals? un.org/millenniumgoals/

Nice talk … the reality of the 21st century was such a letdown from all the books and sic-fi I had read before, and we have screwed up on everything. Just leaving the really rich people to their James Bondian evil global villianish plans while we see corruption after corruption, war, poverty and abuse - and nothing does or can change. We need to figure out what really needs to get done so people can have decent lives and then all work together to do it - PERIOD.

Small, steady victories are not has flashy and popular like big victories... But they ARE victories.

eliminate congress, when a decision needs to be made send a text message out to a random sample 4000 people who will be effected. They read the title and can get more details if they want online. They text back yes/no/idk and the vote is done. If two branches of government and the people say yes i think it will work. Its been proven time and time again the more people you poll for a question the more accurate the answer.

While I don't agree that those ideas are completely useless, they're certainly all being abused. Which is really my point. In an open society that recognized everyone's contributions, "crowd-sourcing" would be a redundant concept... BUT in our current socioeconomic context, you need the pithy catch phrase as an avenue for the status quo to have its cake and eat it too. All the intellectual benefit of an open society, without any of that annoying fair play, freedom and equal opportunity. Ya dig?

Cool idea. I can dig it. I've studied development and one of the hardests issues is that for every solution to a problem, comes other problems. there is no one perfect answer. The west's liberal ideologies lead us to question everything and then end up doing nothing, as can be seen in most of the comments on this video. But we have to do SOMETHING. And just getting people on board and thinking about it and active is better than nothing. Where do i sign up?

That guy in the end there looks so kind

Education, Education, Education. Create a skilled workforce, more ingenuity or creativity in the population to help fight the poverty they are in, and allow them to be able to have the same skills that aid workers are using in impoverished countries. Buy no means am i saying that we should stop other forms of aid, just saying that focusing education can be very beneficial short and long term.

Apparently, you didn't even watch the video and see the T-shirt lol. Go to Gapminder(dot)org and educate yourself.

Thanks for getting the word out through this video!

Crowd-sourcing world's ideals and goals. I share this vision! Thumbs up if you do too.

Translation world leaders stole money from people and decided to spend it on vaccines instead of guns for once. As a result 5000 babies a day were saved Therefore its good to give more power to world leaders so they can use the money for guns again. Nobody counts the lives that would be saved if the 'generous' world leaders would not steal the peoples money in the first place. Nobody counts what people would invest in and invent and what progress would be made.

Another story is that this problem is an endless well of misery. First world countries try to help third world countries. As a result those countries have populations way larger then they can support (at the time not overall if their economy would improve) and they require more help or there is mass starvation and first world countries development slows down. If the support was never given 3rd world countries would require less help and first world countries would develop faster.

... and that's all assuming that there is no corruption and all the money goes as aid to the population and not to warlords that cause even more suffering. And that assumption is naive to say the least

thats actually not true. Doing NOTHING is much better then doing SOMETHING that is harmful. And most things that seem like a good idea are harmful. Pouring gas on fire is exactly the SOMETHING that people are doing. Charity is increasing population growth in areas that are uneducated and sponsors wars because of corruption.

That's an incredibly broad statement. Iphones and coltan probably cause more war than charity. The MDGs pick basic solvable problems. It doesn't nail down the root causes of inequality, but it offers tangable goals and a way to move forward. Corruption is everywhere, because some people take whats offered and use it for evil, doesn't mean we should deny those with genuine need.

Crowdsourcing in graphic design for example does a horrible injustice to the worker. It demands work from 300 people and only pays one for it. It is only good for the person holding the money. I DO agree that collaboration is better than competition but that's not the context I have seen crowdsourcing used in.

graph show decrease value of $, not decrease of poverty.

There is no such thing as a COMPLETELY abolished apartheid, because there is always going to be someone somewhere who has a prejudice or discriminating view about someone/thing (that is beside the point). We live in a world which has lost it's "democracy" and so there has been no major advancements in our world such as an improvement in agriculture that leads to the annulment of starvation. now back to the topic off discrimination, it is this ignorance that leads to a halt in our development...

For me there is a big question how you can crowd source the priorities of the world. Setting priorities in very compex settings is the hardest thing. You need access to knowledge and have a deep understanding of the systemic aspects. The politicians are failing on setting sensible priorities every day. Companies are much better in this - at leas as far as their business is concerned. A democratic process may not lend itself for this type of challenge - you need to connect the best minds.

Great idea.

yes, but with the people involved and mattering, momentum will gain and the reality of success should become believable and then realized

Haha. :D An inverted graph would show the increase of chinese currency's value. :D

I love this idea! However, when a large percentage of the human species is not very intelligent, uninformed, prejudiced and superstitious I am rather afraid of what the outcome of a global judgement (what this eventually comes down to) will be!

working hours per week.. global target: 40 hours per week :)

TL;DR anyone? Got a test nearly, and I don't want to watch this bullshit

I say use Google plus to start.

Add a possible test in to the application for a vote maybe? To ensure sound mind and judgment?

Agreed and an open clear platform that has moderators and people well suited to the task of defining the common issues needs to be created first. I believe that it can be done and is well on the way to becoming a reality. Crowd sourcing business models are flourishing as we speak.

why do we need a larger world population? in usa you need a license to breed dogs, but any woman can give birth as many times as she wants.

I don't trust this guy.

News flash - the owners of the world don't want us to innovate because we would eliminate their oppression and control. The problem is not a lack of creativity - the problem is the people don't understand the game.

I am concerned that the culturally distasteful things for developing nations that would be most effective such as women's education would be shouted down with this method. I strongly feel that women's education is the root cause of the world's problem's. Yet cultural norms in many, not all but many, developing countries are at odds with that as a primary goal.
Women's education -> women's independence, delayed families and contraception
-> leveling of population ->more resources per person for education, medical care, etc ->increased prosperity,health, etc. and an upward spiral.
It has been all to fashionable in recent decades to deny that population growth is the great threat that it is. Saving children has been the exclusive goal with almost no attention payed to reducing their numbers. 

Jamie Drummond brings up some great points about what the United Nations set out to do by 2015 to make the world a healthier and more successful place by diminishing disease. In the year 2000 the world leaders made the Millennium Development Goals and set out to rid the world of bad and evil, in regards to anything health related. The developed nations were to help the developing nations by dropping debts and increasing smart aid and trade reform. In most cases they did a great job in things like increasing the number of people that get life saving medicines like ARVs fro 50,000 to 5,000,000 in Sub-Saharan Africa to help reduce the number of people affected by AIDS. Nearing halving the deaths caused by malaria in African countries fro 1,000,000 to 655,000 people. Saving over 5,000,000 lives by giving vaccinations to those without them before. The most impactful one being that 5,000 fewer kids will be dying every day, 2,000,000 fewer kids will be dying every year by the time they reached this year.
There are still thousands of people that are sick and needing help so we cannot let those problems get out of hand while focusing on others. There are a group of nations trying to propose the new set of goals for the next how ever many years. Drummond is trying to get the entire population of the world to put their input out there and connect and pull together. This collective data will be unbelievable to see and it will really give a sense of what we need to do to make our world a better and healthier place to life. But how does anyone really expect everyone to be respectful of other autonomy and not just be selfish and list what they want. I think that it is a great idea but an unrealistic one at that. Maybe if Drummond were to start at a smaller scale and then work up to his wide scale of the entire worlds population working together.

How can ı reach this talking's script?