TED Conversations

Jason Pontin

Editor in Chief/Publisher, MIT's Technology Review

TEDCRED 100+
TED Attendee

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

"Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?"

I'll be giving a TED U Talk in Longbeach at the end of the month. I'll be asking "Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?" I think that blithe optimism about technology’s powers has evaporated as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve, such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age, have come to seem intractably hard.

I'd love to know what the TED Community thinks our difficulties are - or, even if the idea is true at all.

Here's a URL to the story I wrote in MIT Technology Review on the subject: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429690/why-we-cant-solve-big-problems/

+16
Share:
progress indicator

  • Susan Bui

    • 0
    Mar 13 2013: Change is gradual. And like any big project, small steps must be taken to solve a problem as a whole. "Big Problems" are being solved gradually by individuals breaking down these big problems into smaller problems. For instance "How do cure cancer?" has been broken down into "How can we better detect cancer?" "How can we better improve treatments?" "How can we do more research to learn more about this disease?" We've been able to answer these questions so far through fundraising efforts, increasing research, and development of detection devices have been improving and valued over the past few years and will continue to be. If this strive for change continues then big problems will continue to grow smaller and we'll continue to provide solutions.

  • Marino Hernandez

    • 0
    Mar 12 2013: One word:

    Communication.

    It's the main driver! I'm surprised the people from your article aren't aware of the innovations transforming the world, from third-world to developed nations.

    Here is just one:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

    Skip to 2:15 in the video, then skip again to 14:20.

    Ideas travel by communication. Whoever said the internet is not a big net plus won't be surprised by "breakthrough" advances in the next five to ten years, they'll be profoundly astonished!: "Where'd all THIS come from?"

    Marino Hernandez
    just a founder of Marketply
  • thumb

    Andrew Magdy Kamal

    • 0
    Mar 11 2013: We can solve big probems, however it takes much human understanding and much patience in order to suceed the right way.
  • thumb

    Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

    • 0
    Mar 10 2013: George Bray has famously twitted, "Your mobile phone has more computing power than all of NASA in 1969. NASA launched a man to the moon. We launch a bird into pigs." https://twitter.com/GeorgeBray/status/50318850218131456

    Apollo program was about national prestige. It was about competition between ideologies and economic systems. This was also the reason why Russians launched Sputnik and a man into the orbit. These things weren't about money. For better or for worse, the Cold War and the arms race seem to have been huge drivers of technological progress. Today's technological progress seems to be driven, mostly, by profit. I think, this is one of the reasons why we "launch birds into pigs" these days.

    Perhaps, humanity needs a shift in values. Edith Widder in her talk "How we found a giant squid" http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_how_we_found_the_giant_squid.html) urged to explore oceans, because "Exploration is the engine that drives innovation. Innovation drives economic growth." This phrase caused multiple concerns in comments from different people. Perhaps, we need a better purpose for innovation than economic growth.
  • thumb

    Bushy Van Eck

    • +1
    Mar 10 2013: I believe when we talk of Big Problems many of us think society rather than technology. Oprah comments to many of her guests " if everything is so good why doesn't it look like it"? It is becoming more evident there is a movement by capable people to make a difference on the Micro level. So although we may not feel we are solving the big problems we are a movement taking place in the world. Remember without differences we would mean nothing. We all have the gift of Freewill to make a difference and leave our fingerprint. Solving the Big Problem may not be as important as what choices we make as individuals to help make the world a better place. The true gift is that we can all make a difference at any given moment by respecting each other and our differences.

  • Paul Proffitt

    • +2
    Mar 10 2013: We have solved big problems. Better tests that detect cancer earlier, advanced materials that make things lighter, stronger, and use less resources, drugs that fight HIV and extend the lives of people, communications technology that connects us to other parts of the world almost instantly, mapping of the human genome, and the list goes on and on. Each time there is a new innovation, we get closer and closer to solving the really big, complex problems. If we have people focusing on these problems, we will get there.
  • thumb

    Bushy Van Eck

    • 0
    Mar 10 2013: The problem lies not with technology but rather the implementation thereof only constrained by attitude due to a lack of integrity from the majority of today’s leaders.

    For most part of the rest of us we are egocentric individualistic entities thinking that we are the pivotal point of creation. By responding to the cries of humanity would be shifting the focus of attention making you realize that you are not nearly as important as you thought yourself to be and of course being in the face of society who can afford that.
  • thumb

    Wayne Coady

    • 0
    Mar 10 2013: Your Question:"Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?".

    Could it be that political party's have hijacked your system of governing for there own personal gain ? Could it be that "political party's" are standing in the way of a true democratic process? Maybe it is time to hold a discussion on why do we need "party" involvement .

    Why not have representation by only independent candidates, and that they sign a contract with the constituency they were elected by ? Maybe a little more governing from the bottom up , instead of from the top down would work to the peoples advantage. And how about cutting of lobbyest .

    • Raimund Havelka

      • 0
      Mar 10 2013: Hello Wayne,
      yes to your first two questions. For example, Slovak and Czech politicians and the mighty ones behind them rob our countries and do not solve problems (they also replace experts with political dummies).
      From the problems named by Jason, now Slovakia has problematic traffic, education, and health care. These are not broken yet and they can be improved in a better organized country.

      I cannot address global problems as climate change and water shortage very well.
      But, for example, I have understood that China's occupation of Tibet also means control of Asia's water springs.
      Imagine Netherlands flooded (due to melting icebergs) and people moving freely in less occupied areas, for example in Finland, Russia or Canada (if the melting cannot be stopped by any technology).
      Actually, I am saying yes to your questions again = there could be a political solution.
      Hm, I am surprised now.

  • Jonathan Locke

    • +1
    Mar 9 2013: We fail to solve big problems by misapprehending them. To solve any problem is to see how it is simple.

  • Michael Sliwa

    • +1
    Mar 9 2013: Personally I'm trying to listen, lead less, and learn more. My industrial model skill set is typical...short term gain with long term consequences. We don't need more innovation. We need to play our role as a species...like all other species have done. So unless you and I were raised outside of the industrial model I certainly wouldn't look to us to solve the problems our ilk created in the first place.

  • Iasmina Hancu

    • 0
    Mar 9 2013: Because we are not brave enough. In my country a girl was killed in front of a crowd because no one had the courage to stand up for her. We are too scared of the consequences.
  • thumb

    Rajko Orman

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Mar 9 2013: Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?
    Actually, I think that people should not think so much about solving "big problems". There is a problem all over the world. People want to do great things, but no one thinks about small things, if you start thinking about them you'll find yourself at a great start for solving big problems. And very often that is part of larger problem.
    • thumb

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • +1
      Mar 9 2013: That what we are doing now and it doesn't work to many people working on little problems ....however if we fix the big problems the little one we'll most likely get fixed at the same time

  • abderrahmane thabet

    • 0
    Mar 9 2013: problems are made to be solved........if you mean poverty and socieconomic problems must be solved by governors and if you need to solve health problems is for medical specialists to solve
    • thumb

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • 0
      Mar 9 2013: Sorry that the problem with todays society ....someone else will fix the problem ....how ever one man can solve the worlds problems ...look at ghandi
  • thumb

    Matt Nelder

    • 0
    Mar 9 2013: If the "big problems" you refer to are of the socioeconomic and stability variety, I feel we are unable to solve them because the people we look to, to solve them and allow others to enforce the means to solve them are politicians. The thing with politics is, simply put, there are too many politicians. I know that sounds odd, but what i`m saying is, these people are masters or rhetoric and running elaborate pep rallies. For the most part, they are not economist, scientist, or health care providers which are people who are most qualified to solve our big problems.

  • Michael Sliwa

    • 0
    Mar 9 2013: We keep trying to "solve" big problems with the tools or innovations that created them in the first place. When you say "we" I'm assuming you're talking about those of us that live under and adhere to the industrial model? If so, then why are we looking to those who have created the problem(s) instead of looking to those who have avoided these problems all along? Our society is built upon complex systems and we continue to add complexity with many of our solutions. Why aren't we looking at durable societies and simple living solutions? My guess is a sense of supremacy and arrogance. So we continue to ignore indigenous populations and refer to their way of life as primitive. Ignoring a way of life that humans successfully negotiated for the better part of two million years is something we simply can't comprehend....and for that we'll continue down the path of frustration and eventually devastation.
  • thumb

    Mike Colera 10+

    • 0
    Mar 8 2013: It seems that there is a consensus in this conversation that technology is a great tool capable of finding solutions to the greatest of problems but the best tool is no better then the person using it. As Pogo is oft quoted " I have met the enemy and he is us"
    So, What is it about "us". Not enough education? Evolution hasn't keep up with technology? These and dozens of other rationalizations can be debated.
    I think that we are overlooking the obvious. Maybe we should be looking at basic human nature. I would say that most of us are not concerned about these "big" problems. They don't really effect us all that much. We hear of people struggling with big storms, we are touched and we send money to the Red Cross by cell phone. We hear of peoples in other parts of the world that are being brutalized by aggressive forces and our government sends our military to help them. We know soldiers who have made service their lifes and we admired them for their sacrifices, but there is no real sacrifice on our part. There are family stories about great grandpa went to war and everybody had to collect metal and grow victory gardens. Not now, war is a feature on the 6 o'clock news. We hear all kinds of wailing about the ice caps melting and the seas raising. We live hundreds of miles from the ocean and hundreds of feet about the sea level. Will it mean we won't have to drive so far to our beach vacation?
    We mostly all live in our own little universe. Sometimes lightning strikes in our little worlds causes pain and suffering but usually we recover and go on with our lives.
    There is hunger in the world? If we go to a church on Sunday, there will be a collection to send help to missionaries (our moral representatives) to deal with those issues.
    So what are the big problems to solve? Higher school taxes and the kid at store can't make change. The next town over has a speed trap. Can I get my mother-in-law in a nursing home? Now those are "big " problems.
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • 0
    Mar 8 2013: Well , initially before reading the conversation's topic I thought that by 'big problems' you mean something like this : ' why the evil exists?' , 'why are we what we are?' ........... . Everything (cancer , climate change, malaria....) has an answer if we can answer that big problems ; since we can't answer them satisfactory enough ...... here we are . Faith may be an answer in fact I think it is the single answer .

  • Luke Luther

    • +1
    Mar 8 2013: I think that our technology exceeds our humanity and spirituality. We have not leapfrogged into the technology that we have developed. We have become the children of our technology rather than the spiritual/emotional equals of it.

  • Raimund Havelka

    • 0
    Mar 8 2013: Answer: Since we are greedy.
    (
    The story on the MIT page ends with: ... we examine these problems (electricity, clean water, the climate change, inefficient manufacturing, traffic, education, dementia or cancer) and introduce you to the indefatigable technologists who refuse to give up trying to solve them.
    I guess that even with the best technologies, which are getting better and better anyway, there would be millions of people living poorly in the world, where the rich get richer.
    Now, you could think of Karl Marx or the Bible:
    For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath
    Do we need technologists or philosophers or humanity?
    What are the roots of our big problems? Are they us?
    )

  • Teo Teo

    • 0
    Mar 7 2013: It sometimes takes a long time to solve a problem. The capacity of knowledge, very realistic affects the speed and accuracy to the solution. However, the earliest is believed that it can be solved. Although developing skills takes time, patience, diligence, economic and financial conditions, and proper mental. Because all of it is related, to one another in a linear fashion. If you are pleased to be able to visit this page -> http://www.downloadprogramkasir.com/?p=2 , Maybe there is inspiration from there.
  • thumb

    Edward Rockower

    • 0
    Mar 7 2013: Alexander The Great conquered the known world because his brilliance, vision, and passion enabled him to "cut the Gordian knot" rather than allowing an insoluble problem to foil his will. In my Feb. 23 comment I discussed the need for vision and "leadership", here I'd like to suggest that "big problems" don't always need to be "solved"... They just need to be broken through.
    • thumb

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • +1
      Mar 7 2013: I think the problem is is most things are already broken or fragmented ...maybe that Alexanders fault
    • thumb

      Juliette Zahn 50+

      • 0
      Mar 8 2013: ** I think our difficulties come from a lack of good relationships amongst people.
  • thumb

    Genevieve Tran 50+

    • +2
    Mar 6 2013: Years ago, the first TED talk I ever watched was by Liz Coleman:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/liz_coleman_s_call_to_reinvent_liberal_arts_education.html

    She made a great point that higher education corrals us into specialization, often at the expense of having the skill of integrative thinking with other fields. So, when specialists are called on to solve the world's multi-faceted problems, they tend to work isolated in their own heads, unable to truly understand how something from another field can provide synergy with what they can offer. This is why we can't solve big problems.

    For me personally, I think the root of the problem is two things: we don't philosophize anymore and we are hopelessly classist and protectionist. First, it's rare that we step back and look at entire systems to understand them. For example, we'll recycle our cans like good citizens, but not invest the time to understand if cans and what's contained in them are worth the health, public money and environmental issues they create.

    And we are classist and protectionist. MIT itself may have publishing biases toward high profiled projects, engineers, or ideas that will attract more attention / philanthropic funds (I'm making this up!). We don't poke around developing countries enough to see if there are better ideas there. "Innovation" is disproportionately a Western, male, moneyed thing. Clinical trials showing old medicine that cures new ailments have no potential for patent-protection (and therefore riches for pharmaceutical companies) and are ignored. This is probably true of dichloroacetate on cancer cells: http://bit.ly/Tq0Uo5

    This is why we slog along, IMHO.

  • Michael Blake

    • +1
    Mar 6 2013: Yes. That means scientists should pursue science. People with money should donate money. People with other skills should donate their skills accordingly. Everybody can contribute. Even by just spreading the message.
  • thumb

    Mike Colera 10+

    • 0
    Mar 5 2013: Dave,, and that is why you are you and I am a curmudgeon.

  • Dave Smith

    • +1
    Mar 5 2013: Colleen,

    I agree with that wholeheartedly, and I am so glad you made that point. There is a balance we need to achieve to evolve as individuals but also contribute to the global community. I believe it starts on a small scale and over time can snowball into and have a much bigger effect on the world. That is exactly why I started the Repay Someday project. The catalyst came from a sequence of events resulting from Hurricane Sandy but the overall much bigger goal is to accomplish what you mentioned, "evolve in ourselves as individuals, AND contribute to the global community AT THE SAME TIME"

    Thank you very much for your feedback and thoughts. I really appreciate hearing others thoughts and insight on this subject.
    Dave
    www.RepaySomeday.com
    • thumb

      Colleen Steen 500+

      • 0
      Mar 5 2013: Dave,
      It looks like you are relatively new to the TED community? Welcome:>)

      To keep comments in sequence, you can respond directly to a comment, rather than going back to the top. You see the "reply" options in the upper right corner of the comment? Try it....you'll like it:>)

      I agree that any effort toward balance in our individual lives AND the global community may start on a small scale, and we can build from there. I appreciate you and your contribution as well Dave:>)

      • Dave Smith

        • 0
        Mar 5 2013: Thank you for the welcome and the tip :) I look forward to hearing and reading much more on here and learning from everyone.
        • thumb

          Colleen Steen 500+

          • 0
          Mar 5 2013: Looks like you found the "reply" option. Now you'll notice that this comment is third level...see the little arrows on the upper left? So, it does not have a "reply" option. If you wanted to reply to this comment, you'd go to the next possibility above:>)

  • Dave Smith

    • +2
    Mar 5 2013: Technology will be part of solving big problems but it is only a tool for it. People will always look after their own self interest which is the main reason most big problems have not been solved or even why more problems have been created. The internet itself is an amazing tool to share information and ideas but it eventually evolved into a mechanism for people and businesses to make money. Sure their are a lot of people who use technology to do good things and work to solve problems but the underlying theme has always and will always be human nature to advance for its own self interest. If that wasn't the case their would not be such a huge inequality which creates many of the world's big problems.

    It does feel like society is changing course a bit and it becoming more focused on the greater good for all which in turn will help the individual (self interest). Technology is helping this movement a huge way mainly because it helps spread the message about different causes and reasons to help make things better. Generally people tend to have a "herd" mentality and as the direction of the "herd" is changed by influential people it will, over time, generally will start to move in that direction. It seems like the overall direction is starting to set a new course but it takes generations for that to happen. Technology is making that change quicker and more efficient but overall it is still the people who control which direction that is taken.

    We are using a simple concept along with technology to help move things in that direction. We use technology to allow people to Do Well by Doing Good which will give people some sense of future security by doing good deeds. Incentivizing people has always worked for our economy as a whole advance with incredible strides but hasn't really been used for the advancement of good causes (causes for some reason stigmatize using incentives) . We think it is time to change that, www.RepaySomeday.com Thanks for reading!
    • thumb

      Colleen Steen 500+

      • 0
      Mar 5 2013: Dave,
      I agree with most of what you write....technology is a tool, which helps us find solutions...inequality creates many of the world's challenges.....it feels like society is changing course....people have a "herd" mentality, and as the direction of the herd is changed over time, it will move people in that direction...technology is making that change quicker and more efficient.....all good ideas!

      I think/feel that some folks have thoughts, feelings, ideas, actions, reactions which serve personal interests and personal financial gain, and some folks strive to create actions that manifest into gain for the global communuity. Do you think that with the changes you mention, we (humans) are beginning to understand and embrace the idea that we can evolve in ourselves as individuals, AND contribute to the global community AT THE SAME TIME? It feels like this is the balance we are seeking?
    • thumb

      Mike Colera 10+

      • 0
      Mar 5 2013: Dave, There is some wisdom in your views on the positive focus of doing well by doing good.
      What concerns me is historically, this is not a new idea and has not always been successful.
      Consider; Christians will tell you that Jesus embodies this message. Muslins will say it is Mohammed, then there is Buddha, the list goes on. In many cases, individuals came to promote these philosophies with literally fire and brimstone proclaiming "do my good or dying not so well". We see this happening today.

      Is there a biological thing of the Alpha-alpha gene? Does the human species have to evolve into another species where we can come together as a global society, because it's unlikely to happen any time soon. Or do we use all this new great technology to just eradicate the species?

      One wag has said that in the event all the global disaster prophets are correct, maybe there will be enough human survivors with knowledge to do it right the next time. But, probably not.

      • Dave Smith

        • 0
        Mar 5 2013: Mike, I understand what you are saying about the tag line I use "Do Well by Doing Good" but it is not aimed at saving all of society and the problems it has. I have always said my idea is simple but it could generate some changes if a large enough amount of people join in. And really the idea is more geared toward trying to make things a little more fair. It is kind of a longer read but if you take a look at the website www.RepaySomeday.com and read the page titled "The Reason" you will understand where I'm coming from.

        And very briefly, my thoughts are that most people want to do good deeds and/or help other people. But doing so, more than just doing minimal amounts, conflicts with a person's efforts to make sure they and their family are secure in the future. Besides those who live lavishly, most people concentrate on working to buy life insurance, save for retirement, kids education, etc and the basics to make sure they feel "comfortable" for the future. The idea is just as companies incentivize people to work harder and longer so those people can provide for their families, I think the concept of doing good should have the same type of incentive. My idea is in a basic form now but if you could concentrate more on doing good deeds knowing those good deeds can result in you and your family being secure in the future, than you can concentrate more on doing those good deeds. Hopefully the page on the website explains the idea and the reasoning behind it.

        So overall, I think if people can concentrate more on doing good things for others, the people receiving the good deeds will be better and the people offering the deeds will be able to continue to do more. Hopefully resulting in a snowball affect of more people helping each other.
        Thanks for your comments and insight.
        Dave
        www.RepaySomeday.com
Load more comments…