« Blog | Main | phone business »
April 12, 2008
science & business
Today, I was reading this article about Melinda Gate's entry into her philanthropy work. Melinda Gates had majored in Computer Science and Economics. I wonder who advised her to do so in the 80s when it was most optimal but still futuristic. Then, I wondered what I believed the two good majors would be now for kids today. Touting healthcare is too late since my generation will be the decision makers of this field and likely, we will be passing along a bankrupt and pricey system. I would suggest sciences and accounting.
I think accounting will be necessary no matter what the future holds and financial systems are still not in place for micro and macro transactions.
Sciences is another good major since I hope that we are about to enter another scientific revolutionary period. I know that the Gates Foundation has to be impact-and-application-driven since they are setting new standards for philanthropy work that is much needed. However, I do wish they would also invest more of their money in the core sciences. Their work is still just a band-aid on a situation . Real change occurs through new discoveries. Sometimes, that isn't by looking at the end results but being surprised in the discovery. A good example of this is the discovery of penicillin.
I feel that again, we have solid building blocks for discovery: strong core knowledge, political stability (as much as could possibly be), new technology, and good economic infrastructure. People with potential like Einstein , Newton, or Franklin would have a heyday living in our world.
Who knows how our kids will view the world since infinite possibilities lay before them. I was reading this week about the God particle, a possible impending discovery. When I first heard the news, I snickered to think that kids will have to learn yet another part of the atom.
On another topic, in my brief but trance-like view of the TV today (I don't own a TV), a commentator on Fox News was talking about how businesses should not pull out of the Olympics even in spite of the protests. This comment reminded me of the time when the same topic came up in a classroom discussion over Ben and Jerry's. I had been surprised to hear almost all my classmates fervently agree with this idea that business should be for, first, making profit for the stockholders. I personally believe, as a stockholder, why not trust the overpaid CEO and his team to follow their principles and gut. If they are able to generate profits and make a personal moral choice that I agree with; that's great. If they make a choice that I disagree with, I will simply divest my interests. However, if they choose to simply make a solely profit decision, they lose their humanity and I'm not sure if I want buy into a leadership team who allows their principles and convictions to be swayed by profit decisions.
The issue here isn't Tibet but about stockholders allowing company leadership some flexibility in their roles as community leaders.
Posted by azileretsis at April 12, 2008 07:06 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)