[A] type
A형에게는 동물성보다 식물성 단백질이 좋으므로 고기 중심의 식사를 하던 사람은 그것을 개선하는 것만으로도 몸무게가 줄어든다. 음식을 참는 것이 별로 힘들지 않으므로 살이 잘 찌지 않는 이상적인 체질로도 언제든 변화가 가능하다.
food coach
소화기관이 민감하기는 하지만 영양소를 제대로 대사시키는 A형은 건강에 좋은 저지방 식품을 폭넓게 섭취하고 야채와 곡물을 균형있게 먹는 것이 다이어트의 지름길이다.
고기를 일절 먹지 않고 일주일에 3~4회는 생선류를, 그 외에는 저칼로리의 야채 중심으로 식사를 하면 좋다. 두류는 A형의 식생활에서 빼놓을 수 없는 식품. 특히 영양소가 풍부한 두부는 다이어트에 아주 좋으므로 가능한 한 식단에 첨가시키도록 하자. 또한 콜레스테롤치를 내려주는 올리브 오일을 매일 샐러드에 뿌려 먹거나 칼로리 연소를 돕는 파인애플이나 체리 등을 적절하게 식단에 넣으면 좋다. A형인 사람은 매일 작은 컵에 미지근한 물과 레몬 1/2개를 짜서 즙을 넣어 마시면 잠자는 사이에 소화기관에 쌓여 있는 점액의 배출을 좋게 해준다. 한 잔 정도의 붉은 와인, 커피나 녹차도 체질에 잘 맞다.
→ Good 생선, 두유, 콩, 국수, 당근, 파슬리, 호박, 파인애플, 요구르트, 순무
attention
A형은 고기를 가능한 한 입에 대지 말고, 그 대신 생선이나 닭고기를 먹는 것이 좋다. 적당한 양의 생선은 괜찮지만 가자미 같은 흰 살 생선은 소화관을 자극하는 랙틴이 함유돼 있어 피하는 것이 좋다. 또 신진대사를 방해하는 유제품은 가능한 한 피하는 것이 좋지만 발효 제품인 요구르트 등은 좋다.
→ Not Good 고기, (요구르트를 제외한) 유제품, 감자, 토마토, 파파야, 오렌지, 바나나
how-to diet
A형은 요가나 명상 등 기분을 안정시킬 수 있는 운동을 하면 스트레스를 없애고 건강한 몸을 유지할 수 있다.
다이어트 중이라면 심한 유산소 운동인 하이킹이나 수영, 스트레칭 같은 운동이 아니라 기력과 체력을 함께 보강할 수 있는 운동을 하는 것이 좋다.
자존심이 강한 성격이므로 공개적으로 다이어트를 하는 것 보다는 홀로 차근차근 열심히 하도록 하자.
3~6개월의 장기 계획에 따른 운동을 중심으로 한 프로그램을 작성하되 너무 완벽하고 타이트하게 잡지 말자.
다이어트의 효과가 확실하게 숫자로 나타나 눈에 보이게 되면 그 어떤 유혹도 상관없이 다이어트를 할 수 있으므로 매일 체중을 재서 결과를 확인하자.
[B] type
B형은 먹는 것을 좋아하는 미식가 타입으로 진하고 깊은 맛과 기름진 음식을 좋아해서 살찌기 쉽다. 때문에 다이어트도 육류와 채식을 아우르는 균형 잡힌 식단이 요구된다. B형은 단기 집중형이라 다이어트의 효과가 빨리 나타나는 것만큼 요요 현상도 쉽게 나타나므로 날씬해진 몸을 유지하는 데 주의를 기울여야 한다.
food coach
생선류도 B형에게는 양질의 단백질로 대구, 고등어 등 지방이 있는 원양어가 좋다. 단, 갑각류는 소화를 잘 못 시키는 체질이므로 피하도록 한다. 소화와 흡수를 돕기 위해 이틀에 한 번 정도 큰 숟가락 하나 정도의 올리브유를 먹으면 몸에 좋다. B형은 적당히 유제품을 섭취하면 신진대사의 균형이 좋아지므로 매일 식탁에 빼놓지 않고 올리도록 한다. 각종 유제품은 마음껏 먹어도 좋다. 신진대사를 활발하게 하기 위해 생강, 카레가루, 고추 등 몸을 따뜻하게 하는 향신료를 식사에 첨가하는 것도 좋다.
→ Good 양고기, 정어리, 치즈, 요구르트, 시금치, 가지, 무, 피망, 바나나
attention
B형이 뚱뚱해지는 원인이 되는 확실한 식품은 옥수수, 국수, 땅콩, 들깨다. 이 식품에 들어 있는 레크틴은 모두 다 B형의 신진대사를 낮추는 것이다. 또한 이 식품을 밀가루와 같이 먹으면 대사의 효율이 더욱 악화되어 제대로 소화가 되지 못한 채 지방으로 축적된다. 살을 빼려고 생각한다면 밀가루로 만든 것은 일절 입에 대지 않는 것이 좋다.
→ Not Good 옥수수, 땅콩, 밀가루 제품, 토마토, 참기름
how-to diet
테니스나 에어로빅 등 적당히 다른 사람과 함께 즐길 수 있는 운동이 이상적이다.
목적보다는 방법을 중시하는 당신은 단기간에 집중하여 이달은 에어로빅을, 다음달에는 요가를, 그 다음달은 조깅 등등 메뉴를 바꿔주도록 한다.
텔레비전을 보면서 체조를 하거나 세탁하면서 자극을 주는 등 일상생활 속에서 할 수 있는 다이어트도 잘 맞다.
[O] type
O형은 소화기관이 튼튼하고 위산도 많이 분비된다. 이런 O형이 정상 체중을 유지하려면 동물성 단백질을 충분히 섭취하는 것이 좋다. 영양을 중시해 배가 고프다거나 최근에 먹는 게 부실하다는 생각으로 많이 먹어서 지방이 쉽게 축적되는 스타일이므로 식사량에 주의를 기울이자.
food coach
다이어트 중에는 신진대사를 높이는 간이나 생선류, 녹색 야채 등을 섭취하면서 동시에 칼로리를 소비하는 운동을 진행하도록 한다. O형은 위산이 많아 고기를 잘 소화시키는 편이다. 단, 위산이 과다하게 나오는 것을 방지하기 위해 소화기관을 알칼리성으로 만드는 매실, 살구, 건포도 같은 과일을 섭취하는 것이 좋다. 비타민 K가 많이 함유되어 있는 브로콜리나 시금치는 O형의 혈액을 깨끗하게 해준다. 유제품을 잘 소화시키지 못하는 체질이라고는 하지만 유제품 속에 많이 포함되어 있는 칼슘은 인체에 중요한 영양소다. 가능하다면 매일 알약을 복용하더라도 부족한 칼슘을 보충하도록 한다. 체질적으로 약한 부분을 보충하기 위해 소화기나 면역계 기능을 정리해주는 페퍼민트를 보충해주어야 하는데 로즈 계열의 허브 티를 마시면 좋다. 파인애플 주스는 부기나 장에 가스가 쌓이는 것을 방지해주므로 다이어트에 최적인 음료.
→ Good 쇠고기, 간, 고등어, 시금치, 브로콜리, 마늘, 무화과 열매
attention
O형의 소화기관은 튼튼하며 강한 면역성을 지녔지만 유제품이나 곡류를 잘 소화하지 못하는 약점을 가지고 있다. 빵이나 파스타 같은 곡류, 두류에 포함되어 있는 레크틴은 O형에게 칼로리를 에너지로 연소시키는 기능을 약하게 하므로 가능한 한 피하는 것이 좋다. 위산을 분비시키는 커피는 줄이도록 한다.
→ Not Good 옥수수, 파스타, 베이컨, 귤, 딸기, 요구르트
how-to diet
다이어트를 하려면 아주 심한 운동으로 근육 조직을 산성화시켜 지방을 효율성 있게 연소시키지 않으면 안 된다. O형은 심장박동수를 적당히 올려주는 유산소 운동이 좋다.
사과 다이어트나 포도 다이어트 같은 원푸드 다이어트나 단식, 절식 같은 무리한 체중 감량은 당신에게 어울리지 않으니 주의할 것.
한 달에 1kg, 2kg 등의 구체적인 목표를 정하고 시도한다. 자기 주장과 과시욕이 강해서 경쟁 상대가 생기면 더욱 열심히 할 수 있으므로 친구나 주변 동료와 함께 집단적으로 다이어트를 하면 효과적이다.
[AB] type
AB형은 맛을 즐기는 미식가이며, 어떤 일이든 꼼꼼하게 무리 없이 잘 해내는 타입. 수면이 부족하고 체질 또한 약해서 쉽게 피로감을 느끼므로 힘든 운동보다는 절식 요법을 택하는 등 체질에 알맞은 다이어트 방법을 찾아야 한다. AB형에게 활력의 공급원이 되는 야채는 매일 빼놓지 않고 먹는 것이 좋다.
food coach
체중을 줄이려면 먹는 고기 양을 제한하고, 대사의 효율을 높이는 야채를 함께 먹도록 한다. 육류에 대해서는 B형처럼 적응력이 뛰어나지만, A형과 마찬가지로 위산이 많지 않아 채소와 두부를 곁들여 소량 섭취하는 게 좋다. A형처럼 몸을 산성으로 만드는 식품과 균형을 맞추기 위해 알칼리성이 강한 과일이나 포도, 매실, 요구르트도 다이어트에 적합하다. 캐머마일, 진저, 로즈 힙 같은 허브 티도 면역력을 높여준다. AB형은 매일 한 잔 정도의 붉은 와인이나 위산 분비를 촉진시키는 커피를 1~2잔 마시는 것이 좋다.
→ Good 양고기, 고등어, 치즈, 요구르트, 백미, 현미, 셀러리, 오이, 레몬, 키위
attention
AB형은 위산이 적어 고기를 대사시키지 못해 지방으로 쌓이게 되므로 고기 양을 제한하는 것이 좋다. 또한 근육 조직이 다소 알칼리성일 때 가장 효율 좋게 칼로리를 연소시키기 때문에 근육을 산성으로 만드는 밀가루는 피하는 것이 좋다.
→ Not Good 국수, 버터, 쇠고기, 밀가루 제품, 후추, 바나나, 오렌지
how-to diet
AB형은 운동에 관해서는 A형 체질을 그대로 이어받고 있어 심신을 안정시키는 운동이 좋다. 천천히 몸을 움직이는 태극권이나 요가 등 심하지 않은 유산소 운동도 좋다.
뛰어난 분석력과 미식가인 점을 살려 정확한 칼로리 계산과 입에 맞는 다이어트 음식을 정해 중기 계획을 세워 다이어트를 한다.
지구력이나 끈기가 없으므로 2~3주 실시하고 잠깐씩 정지하는 방법도 좋다.
May 14, 2008
May 4, 2008
하버드 졸업식 연설 원문 - 빌 게이츠
President Bok, former President Rudenstine, incoming President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, parents, and especially, the graduates:
I’ve been waiting more than 30 years to say this: “Dad, I always told you I’d come back and get my degree.”
I want to thank Harvard for this timely honor. I’ll be changing my job next year … and it will be nice to finally have a college degree on my resume.
I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your degrees. For my part, I’m just happy that the Crimson has called me “Harvard’s most successful dropout.” I guess that makes me valedictorian of my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.
But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop out of business school. I’m a bad influence. That’s why I was invited to speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you might be here today.
Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn’t even signed up for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House. There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing things, because everyone knew I didn’t worry about getting up in the morning. That’s how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social people.
Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson that improving your odds doesn’t guarantee success.
One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making the world’s first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.
I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up on me. Instead they said: “We’re not quite ready, come see us in a month,” which was a good thing, because we hadn’t written the software yet. From that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable journey with Microsoft.
What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege – and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.
But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.
I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.
I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.
But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.
It took me decades to find out.
You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the world’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I hope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.
Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. Where would you spend it?
For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.
During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.
We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.
If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: “This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.”
So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”
The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.
But you and I have both.
We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.
If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.
I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: “Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care.” I completely disagree.
I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.
All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.
The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.
To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.
Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.
But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: “Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent.”
The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.
We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away.
If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.
Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks “How can I help?,” then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.
Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.
The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.
Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.
You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.
But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.
Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: “I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation.”
Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.
The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.
We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.
Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.
What for?
There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?
Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:
Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?
Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.
My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.
Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.
You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
Knowing what you know, how could you not?
And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.
Good luck.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/06.14/99-gates.html
동영상 Real Media http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/pluto/Commencement2007PMArchive.rm
원문 More? http://www.commencement.harvard.edu/
I’ve been waiting more than 30 years to say this: “Dad, I always told you I’d come back and get my degree.”
I want to thank Harvard for this timely honor. I’ll be changing my job next year … and it will be nice to finally have a college degree on my resume.
I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your degrees. For my part, I’m just happy that the Crimson has called me “Harvard’s most successful dropout.” I guess that makes me valedictorian of my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.
But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop out of business school. I’m a bad influence. That’s why I was invited to speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you might be here today.
Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn’t even signed up for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House. There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing things, because everyone knew I didn’t worry about getting up in the morning. That’s how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social people.
Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson that improving your odds doesn’t guarantee success.
One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making the world’s first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.
I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up on me. Instead they said: “We’re not quite ready, come see us in a month,” which was a good thing, because we hadn’t written the software yet. From that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable journey with Microsoft.
What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege – and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.
But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.
I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.
I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.
But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.
It took me decades to find out.
You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the world’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I hope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.
Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. Where would you spend it?
For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.
During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.
We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.
If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: “This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.”
So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”
The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.
But you and I have both.
We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.
If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.
I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: “Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care.” I completely disagree.
I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.
All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.
The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.
To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.
Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.
But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: “Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent.”
The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.
We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away.
If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.
Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks “How can I help?,” then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.
Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.
The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.
Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.
You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.
But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.
Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: “I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation.”
Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.
The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.
We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.
Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.
What for?
There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?
Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:
Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?
Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.
My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.
Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.
You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
Knowing what you know, how could you not?
And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.
Good luck.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/06.14/99-gates.html
동영상 Real Media http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/pluto/Commencement2007PMArchive.rm
원문 More? http://www.commencement.harvard.edu/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
