Hello, Chris Anderson here, welcome to the TED Interview, the podcast series where I get to sit down with a TED speaker to dive much deeper into their ideas. Today on the show, none other than Bill Gates, a man who, along with everything else he's accomplished, has graced the TED stage on no less than six occasions, covering topics like the battle against malaria.
(TED Talk) Bill Gates: If you go into a country with the right tools and the right way, and you do it vigorously, you can actually get a local eradication.
CA: Empowering teachers.
(TED Talk) BG: Diagnosing areas where a teacher needs to improve is only half the battle. We also have to give them the tools they need to act on the diagnosis. If you learn that you need to improve the way you teach fractions, you should be able to watch a video of the best person in the world teaching fractions.
CA: And the quest for renewable energy.
(TED Talk) BG: We need solutions, either one or several, that have unbelievable scale and unbelievable reliability. And although there's many directions that people are seeking, I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers.
(Music)
CA: Bill is a knowledge sponge, and is passionate about so many things. We talked about the current state of technology and about a man facing the same kind of scrutiny he was 20 years ago, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. But the biggest single topic of our conversation ended up being around philanthropy. Not just because the Gates Foundation is the single largest foundation out there, but because Bill's influence goes far beyond that, thanks to his conversations with governments and his championing of the Giving Pledge, where he's persuaded nearly 200 billionaires to commit more than half their fortunes to philanthropy.
(TED Talk) BG: The world is a far better place because of the philanthropists of the past and the US tradition here, which is the strongest, is the envy of the world. I do think philanthropy is going to grow and take some of these things governments are just not good at working on and discovering, and shine some light in the right direction.
CA: Of course, there are plenty of questions and controversies swirling in philanthropy in general. And especially when it comes to how billionaires seek to change the world. We had a chance to explore some of those issues, as well as taking note of the astonishing progress that's been achieved, most of which has stayed shockingly under the radar. Bill has a unique vantage point, and it was a treat to see the world through his eyes. So, without further ado, here's Bill Gates.
(Music)
Bill Gates, welcome.
BG: Great to be here.
CA: I'm hugely looking forward to this conversation, I hope it goes better than the very first time I interviewed you, which was possibly one of the more embarrassing moments of my TED time. I don't know if you remember this -- we were onstage, you'd just given this amazing talk where you'd released a jar of mosquitoes into the audience.
(TED Talk) BG: Now, malaria's transmitted by mosquitoes, and I brought some here so you could experience this. We'll let those roam around the auditorium a little bit.
(Laughter)
There. There's no reason only poor people should have the experience.
(Laughter)
(Studio) CA: Great line, got you headlines around the world. But I was interviewing you and I was a couple of earnest questions in, and suddenly, the audience started guffawing.
(TED Talk) CA: I'm not distracted, I'm reading a question.
(Laughter)
(Studio) CA: And I didn't know what had happened. This was at the time, I guess there was still Microsoft-Apple rivalry. I had opened my laptop, and there was this big, glowing Apple logo right in your face. (BG laughs) And that was bad. Not deliberate.
BG: It's funny, it's hard to remember that, but there was a period where Apple users felt maybe they were in opposition or something like that.
CA: Yeah, it was intense, the bad feelings in different sections of the technology world were amazing. I'm excited for this conversation, because you have shape-shifted the world in so many different ways. And there's three in particular I'd love us to cover. There's what you did as a technologist through Microsoft, what you've done as a philanthropist, and then your ideas more generally -- you've influenced so many people with your thinking. So that's what we're going to talk about, and I'd love to just start with that technology vision that you had of, you know, a computer on every desktop and in every home. I mean, in a way, that has come true more than you could have imagined, right?
BG: Yeah, it's pretty phenomenal that what was viewed as a silly dream is now so commonplace. That to say "a computer on every desk and in every pocket," it's like, well, of course, what's the guy talking about? I mean, it's like Edison saying, "Hey, we're going to have electricity everywhere" -- it's like, well, yeah, that's the world we live in. And it's been amazing, because that's unlocked a lot of things. We're in a period now where people are saying, "OK, is everything that it's unlocked for the good of society," in terms of how it's used for political or outraging people, but overall, I'm very proud to have been part of that. You know, people like Steve Jobs and I were born at the right time, we were kind of stubborn and talented in some dimensions, so we built organizations that got to really make that revolution take place.
CA: The power of stubbornness. That vision, as I understand it -- that goes right back to the beginning. You and Paul Allen spoke about this even as you were founding Microsoft.
BG: Yeah, I was in high school with Paul, he was two years ahead of me. And he showed me on page 73 of "Electronics" magazine that chips were going to double -- this is Moore's law -- in power every year. And people should just be mind-blown if that's true, because what it means is these big computers that Paul and I would stay up till three in the morning just to get an hour of time on, that people will have it on an individual level, 24 hours a day. You know, 10 years of doubling is 1,000 times improvement, and so I was like, "Oh, God, Paul, the only thing limiting is going to be the software," and to Paul's credit, from that moment forward, he wanted me to drop out so we could get going, and he even moved back to Boston, where I was at Harvard, you know, so he could keep saying to me, "Hey, we've got to get going, and get on the ground floor of doing the software." He was right, he did succeed, and I dropped out, and we started Microsoft.
(CA laughs)
CA: Now, we lost Paul last year. You obviously knew him really well. What should people know about Paul that they don't know?
BG: Well, Paul was a quiet thinker. And you know, in a meeting, I like to add the numbers up and be super [unclear]. Paul would sit and listen, and always come back, often the next day, having really thought through, "Couldn't we do this," or "Couldn't we do that?" And there were some particular ideas -- Well, first of all, he saw the chip. He understood hardware and software. He was a great, curious person, and saw what was possible. He also saw that our combination of talents were really necessary, that I like to get out there and hire people and push things in a way that our partnership would be pretty magical. And so there wouldn't be a Microsoft without Paul and even after he left Microsoft, he funded lots of amazing things, like this Brain Institute that's doing great things, and will continue to. So his legacy will live on. He also, in those later years, got to enjoy owning the Seattle football team, and it was fun to see him enjoying that. But the main thing about Paul is he was so curious about everything.
CA: And that's a trait you share as well, I've noticed. You're one of the world's great knowledge absorbers.
BG: Yeah, thank God for the internet, it helps you keep track of all the amazing things going on. Nobody gets to be totally polymathic nowadays, because there's so many fields, whether it's biology or quantum computing.
CA: So this tech vision happened above and beyond any reasonable dreams. And there was this long period where so many people actually felt this sense of fierce optimism about where technology was taking us, it was connecting the world and empowering people, and that almost wasn't that strong a downside that you could paint. And suddenly, now, at least in many minds, there is a very strong downside. What is your diagnosis, Bill, of what's happened to technology in the last couple of years?
BG: Yeah, the main fear we had as we were putting it together was what was called the digital divide, which was that the better-off schools or better-off people or better-off countries would have it, and you'd actually accentuate that it was such an amazing tool for curiosity and learning that we just needed to make sure it was available to everyone. The idea that in some respects, it could be used in a way -- or the effect in terms of overuse or people isolating off into groups -- that that would come back into the realm of how people think about facts or how they politically wall themselves off and lose understanding of other people -- that was not anticipated. I certainly didn't anticipate it, and it's because it's become so mainstream -- you know, this is the way you get the news, and you can just choose news that's kind of outrageous and maybe not fact-checked. I still feel very strongly that digital connectivity, which is -- people may be losing sight of the fact -- it is enabling very positive things, it's still a very good thing, but the idea of how we take -- OK, it can be used for bullying, or political persuasion that we think is inappropriate. We need some invention here. When I sit and talk with critics, I say, "OK, what is your solution?" In many cases, they're much better at criticizing, saying, "OK, there's a filter bubble," but absent getting rid of human freedom to choose what you read online, the solutions are still too limited.
CA: Do you have solutions? What would be your advice to someone like Mark Zuckerberg at this moment? Because you were, for a while, regarded with as much, I would say, mistrust, by parts of the world. You know, Microsoft was perceived as a super powerful monopoly, and you were facing government action, and certainly in Silicon Valley, you weren't the most popular person there. And yet, here you are, in a very different place today. What advice would you give Mark Zuckerberg? Some steps that he could take that might start to -- A, first of all, most fundamentally, improve, tackle the problem directly. And then perhaps, more indirectly, you know, change how he might be regarded going forward?
BG: I think it's a huge challenge, because a lot of the ills of this period now are being heaped onto, OK ... Some people don't like certain election results, some people don't like the polarization. Of course there's always been bullying, but now a lot of that's being ascribed as though design decisions and Facebook created those things, which is really unfair. I do think that Mark is a fantastic person who's not sitting there, trying to say, "OK, I want to maximize the profitability of Facebook," or he wants to spread some particular political point of view. He does want to solve these problems. And he's open-minded enough that he is engaging -- not just me, but lots of people -- about, OK, what are the solutions here, where we don't give up digital connectivity, but things like bullying or inappropriate political speech ... You know, some of them, I can see what can be done. The filter-bubble one, I think, is one of the toughest, because as soon as you had lots of radio stations, and I could just listen to right-wing radio, or that cable TV gave you so many channels that you could have partisan news channels. You know, that is not something that he alone is going to be able to solve. So I think that some people are having a healthy dialogue, some people are just piling on. And you're right, I know what it's like when people are piling on. The idea that software was a good thing, though, wasn't what was in question. What was in question was did the market share or our competitive practices at Microsoft, were they appropriate. You know, giving opportunities for other people to compete with us. It wasn't so much that our dream of personal computing was bad for the world.
CA: And part of what seems to have happened today is that it's some mix of the corporate system giving these giant companies that are powered by advertizing incentives that are at odds with the public good. Versus the other explanation for things, which I think is what you indicated as a series of unintended consequences, just because of the massive complexity of the systems that we've built and the things that were never anticipated have arisen, like these filter bubbles, like the unexpected fact that humans have used social-media tools to start to get ever more mad at each other. You know, these sort of outraged cycles have taken off. Do you think that some technologists were just a little bit naive there and actually could have foreseen some of this coming?
BG: The idea that us nerdy guys who work on fast software, that we're supposed to have intuited the social effects of all of our things -- you should not expect that prescience. I remember when I was, like, 18, and going around telling people about the microprocessor, because they were so surprised about some of the things I knew, they thought I understood lots of things I had no idea about. And so yes, the world will need to have regulations about privacy and surveillance, and the companies involved should be part of that dialogue. But no, they alone don't know all the answers, nor would you necessarily want them to be making the final decisions on that. And so, as your home is filled with equipment that's digital, there will have to be rules -- otherwise people stop using this stuff. And remember, the marketplace is still there. If these things aren't able to resolve some of these downsides, the usage will go down.
CA: So your view is that fundamentally, these are fixable problems that we need to invent our way out of them. Is there a case for people in the tech industry, like yourself and others, to sort of offer services, some kind of grand council of elders to spend time and to try to plot the way forward? Because there are days where it seems like a pretty severe crisis of trust for many people. I'm certainly thinking hard about these things, and I think the idea of being able to take all this digital data that should let us see when a drug is having a side effect, or see when it's even more beneficial than we expected, or understand which social programs are working well and which ones are not. Our digital view of the world should be helpful. But unless it can be done in a way that it doesn't violate individual privacy, then people may choose not to look at which schools are doing better and try and learn from that. So we have a great opportunity to keep pushing the digital revolution and get a lot of benefits from it. But we won't be allowed to go forward unless we're clear about how we limit some of these downsides. The extreme view would be to say, "Hey, no more electronic messaging." And I think what we would lose would be far greater than what we get. So at least in the past revolutions, printing press, radio, TV, eventually is said for all of the negative things that came with that, including rousing the masses sometimes in not a fully informed way, we mange to feel like, OK, it is good. Now, do some kids watch TV too much? When I was a kid, people said I read books too much, you know, that I was addicted to reading and I wasn't getting outside enough.
CA: Yeah, so part of the issue may be that the reaction has swung too far that we are in our haste to condemn we're forgetting the narrative of all the other pieces as well.
(Music)
(Music)
CA: I'm curious to understand more and hear more about hits huge, incredible transition you made over the last 20 years, where, initially slowly, but then full-time, you shift away form focusing on Microsoft, focusing on philanthropy. I mean, that was unexpected to a lot of people, and the way and the scale with which you've embraced this is kind of incredible. I'd love your own sort of headlines. The total amount that has been invested by the foundation, and some of the achievements of which you are most proud?
BG: I'm super lucky to have had two of the best careers you can imagine. You know, to be involved in personal computing and the magic of software, and now our philanthropy, which spends most its resources on the health of the poorest in the world, what's called global health, and we've had a lot of success there. The idea that the resources from Microsoft and the resources from Berkshire Hathaway that Warren Buffett created -- that now allows us to spend five billion a year. Which, in philanthropic terms, is very large. In terms of the scale of the problems, we'll have to have some really dramatic innovations so that money is like investing in Google or Apple, where the net effect is way beyond just the raw amount that got it started. We started with the idea that vaccines should get to all the children. The government donors joined in a partnership we created, a new organization called Gavi, to get those vaccines out. And that's now saved over 10 million lives. Of the two areas we focus, the global health and the US education, we've exceeded what we expected in global health, and we see room to do even more. In US education, which we're still very committed to, our actual results, in terms of number of kids finishing college or math scores or any metric -- US education, the whole field, we haven't had a dramatic improvement, you know, versus, say, 15 years ago. So that one, we haven't had the impact that we'd hoped for.
CA: You don't give yourself an A on that one yet, but you're still in it. It's interesting, hearing some of your thinking about vaccines, the methodical way in which you decided how to spend your money, and there's a whole logic to a vaccine -- it's like a one-time treatment, it doesn't cost that much money, but the impact, you know, it's a whole life potentially affected. That is, in one way, sort of so obvious, and yet, the world was not paying enough attention to it.
BG: Yeah, the paradox was that we had two vaccines, one for diarrhea and one for pneumonia, that were getting out to kids in middle-income and upper-income countries. And yet, the risk of dying of that diarrheal disease, which is called rotavirus, or that respiratory disease, which is called pneumococcus, the poor kids were 20 times more likely to die. It was truly a great injustice where it had been invented, and the marginal cost of making it could be brought down to be only a few dollars. And yet, because the poor countries didn't have the money, it wasn't getting to those who it would have been the most beneficial to. So when I came in, I thought, OK, I'm going to fund the creation of new vaccines, but realizing there were a few that existed already that weren't getting out. We had to solve that problem, or else the benefit of any new ones wouldn't be any better than what was already there. And that's where this Gavi, the vaccine initiative, came out of that. Actually got started in 2001, when I was still full-time at Microsoft. But of the things we've done, that one has had the biggest impact. So those diarrheal deaths and pneumonia deaths and overall deaths of kids under five have been cut in half.
CA: I mean, does it drive you crazy that this story about the progress made on, for example, needless, preventable deaths of kids is so undertold -- you know, the news every day is pretty bleak and yet, you know, 100 people die, 200 people die, and we will feel depressed about the world, and yet, literally, I think the numbers are like hundreds of thousands of kids' lives are saved, compared with prior years. The scale of progress on that is pretty breathtaking. Does that drive you crazy?
BG: Well, yes. The general negativity and that these good news stories are such gradual improvement. You know, in 1990, 12 million kids under the age of five died, and now we're well under six million. And so, it's been cut a half million every year, and it never gets through, whereas a plane crash certainly would get through. And I'm not saying you shouldn't write up the plane crash, but we should find a way to step back and look at these things of overall progress. The best book on this, "Factfulness," which is Hans Rosling thing -- I met Hans because he gave the TED Talk, and then you allowed him to be out on the internet, so I got to see what is still to me one of the most inspirational talks about improvements in reducing death and population growth. He was the best spokesman to get this good news out that the world has ever had.
CA: He turned data into entertainment.
BG: Yeah, he had a certain brilliance, including sword-swallowing, to sort of get the audience engaged. And it is a problem, because unless people see that, they'll say, "Gosh, all I hear is that a little bit of the aid money went astray. I don't hear the story about how 95 percent of it had these phenomenally positive impacts." And I do feel lucky that governments who fund a lot of this aren't good at telling that story. The fact that I'm viewed as sort of tough-minded about not wanting to waste money -- you know, I've got a private sector history where only doing the things that are most effective was key to the success of Microsoft, so when I'm saying we're putting billions into the same issues, getting the vaccines out or HIV medicine or malaria bed nets, you know, hopefully, we can break through what is otherwise a fairly inward-looking, fairly negative view of what's going on, and should we continue to engage with these countries, particularly in Africa, where the challenges are the greatest.
CA: If you're listening to this podcast, take out a calculator and take the number half a million, which is what you said was the reduction in child mortality every year, divide that by 365, look at that number and compare that to the worst story in today's news, and tell me which is more important. It is amazing that the heroic work of so many people just does not go fully reported.
BG: Yeah, Max Roser says the headline could have been, "137,000 people left extreme poverty today," and you could run that every day for 25 years, and yet, when did that story get covered? So there really is this asymmetry of general progress versus disaster.
CA: One of the surprising things you did in your philanthropic journey was persuade many others of your peers to come along with you, and, with Warren and Melinda, created the Giving Pledge, which is a pledge to give away half your wealth during your life or upon death, in your will. Have you ever worried that you could have just left out the last bit, and made it "during your life, you have to give away the half"? Because people are struggling to give away some of the money, right?
BG: Yeah, it's hard, because the numbers are kind of insane. You know, in your personal life, OK, spending 1,000 dollars is a lot or 10,000 is a lot. The idea that if you have a large fortune, you should be giving away tens or hundreds of million dollars a year, and should be willing to take risks and if the outcomes are not quite as measured as buying a stock and seeing what the price is. So, it is something that getting people together to say, "What should I give to?" and "How should I go about it?" and even be willing to say, "OK, how do you make this a fun, engaging part of your life, where it's not just a guilt-driven thing, but rather you feel like you're bringing some of your passion and understanding to it. So in helping philanthropists get together and share what they're seeing, what's going well and not, this Giving Pledge gathering, it is pretty inspirational every year. And I think it is helping people, because how do they really get down that learning curve? It's not like capitalism, where you're getting feedback all the time about which products people like and which ones they don't.
CA: So you've persuaded, like, a couple hundred people to sign this pledge, and as a result, billions of dollars have been given away. But the net worth of those 200 is still continuing to rise. How should we think about this? Is part of it just that it is inherently hard to do philanthropy the right way and people have good intent, but they just struggle to really get going? Is part of it that people should be starting to make commitments at a certain age? What percentage of your net worth should you commit to giving away in a year to have any chance? How does this change where the giving gets more actualized and that number goes up? Because what I'm worried about, and we'll come onto this in a minute, is that the narrative out there is in danger of turning quite negative about the world's ultrarich. I'm sure you're wrestling with this a lot. How are you thinking about it?
BG: Well, certainly, the tax system can be made more progressive. If government's going to support all the things people wanted to do, the tax collection as a percentage of GDP will have to go up and of course, that should be disproportionately the people who've done very well over these last 20 years. And so there's different arguments about how far to go with that and if you go too far, you definitely do discourage innovation, and so it's a good political debate. You know, how we evolve taxes is one issue. The rich will end up paying more. Then, the balance, society has decided that individuals get a choice. And so if we can make the culture such that the expectation is a little bit stronger, that yes, to whom much is given much is expected, then philanthropy can take its role, which is the innovative thing, it's not the day in, day out provision of health or education, which, that's the tax side, but the trying out the new ideas, how do you help teachers teach better, and some diseases like Alzheimer's or anorexia or malaria, that are underfunded unless philanthropists come in and are clever about how they back new scientists, we can do better on philanthropy. Amazingly, the US is the best. It's two percent of the economy, and that includes a lot of small givers, not just the big givers. In some countries, philanthropy, like in continental Europe, is not even a quarter of what it is in the US.
CA: Yeah, it's all the government's responsibility. And that conversation actually is out there, right now, there's a lot of people who are arguing that big philanthropy is almost like a smoke screen that is intended to cement the current system in place, it's down from slightly cynical motives. Or at any rate, has the impact of whitewashing the injustices that allowed those fortunes to be created in the first place. And it's not very effective, it's sort of like, it pales compared with what government should be doing. What is the most effective use of philanthropy, how should we think about it in relation to what is philanthropy's role versus government's role?
BG: Well, government is in charge of taking all the things we think everyone should have access to, health, education, shelter. That responsibility, to deliver equity in our society, that is a governmental responsibility. And we have to raise enough taxes to fund that, day in, day out, you can count on it, those health services, that shelter service, that education service, that is going to be there. And if any philanthropist ever comes in and says, "Hey, don't raise my taxes, because my philanthropy is so good," I think that's a nonsense argument. I've been lobbying for the estate tax to not only be slightly higher, but it almost went away, actually, for a whole year, it did go away, anyway. So government is our vehicle for equity.
CA: You were able to lobby that and retain the love of your children.
(CA laughs)
BG: Yeah, it is not a favor to a child to give them gigantic sums of money. It will, if anything, be confusing in terms of what their personal contribution and what their profession is and what they're going to get done. And so it is, in my view, a win-win for society, for those very large fortunes, after they pay their taxes, to go to energetic, philanthropic things, which in terms of innovating, innovating in certain science things, you know, keeping our universities very strong. I don't do a lot of cultural giving, but the museums we have and lots of great cultural things, philanthropists deserve a lot of credit for that, so it's a very diverse field, and that's part of its beauty. Things like the green revolution, where Ford and Rockefeller Foundations came up with these crops, corn, rice and wheat, that basically avoided hundreds of millions starving in Asia. That is still the number one thing where philanthropy can say, "Wow, if philanthropists hadn't backed Norman Borlaug to go and do that, it wouldn't have happened.
CA: Bill, you spend a lot of time talking with high net-worth donors, philanthropists -- what is their motivation? You probably see a spectrum, but I mean, do you see a significant number of people basically giving because they have to? How many people share your passion for trying to do this the right way?
BG: I feel very lucky that I love digging into things like malaria. And meeting the top scientists and being able to back their ideas. and going -- I was just in Africa, and seeing the great results we're having there. Everybody's going to go about things a bit differently in terms of how hands-on they are, whether the person who's the business leader is doing the philanthropy or the spouse of the person who had success in business doing it, or what surprised me is how many cases it's actually the kids who are encouraging their parents or taking the lead on helping, make sure that the giving is very well managed. Warren has shown a lot of trust in Melinda and I, that he wants to keep doing his job as CEO of Berkshire, and so we have this incredible trust, that OK, we're working hard to make sure his money has great returns. So there are many different styles, and that's what people have to get used to. But when people think about giving, it forces them to think about their death. It forces them to think about, "OK, how much money am I going to give to the kids, when am I going to give it to them? What if different kids would use the money wisely and others wouldn't? Do I make that equal?" It forces you to think about that your business career won't last forever. Many things that make it kind of easy to put off. So when I call people up and say, "How are you thinking about philanthropy?" a lot of them are saying, "Well, call me back in five years." Because these are tough things. They force you to think through that your life is finite, and then as soon as you start to pick, there is no formula that tells you what cause to give to. You know, there are lots of people who thought about that, but in the end of the day, it'll be an emotional connection to helping schools or curing a disease or preserving some cultural strength.
CA: There's this fundamental problem, that to do it well takes time. Unless you take a step like Warren Buffet, to just trust someone else. Otherwise, it takes time, and people don't have time. And so it gets put off. Given where the world is at right now, is there a greater urgency that people start to tackle this seriously now, because you can kind of feel a lot of people saying things like, "We shouldn't even have billionaires in the world," or there is anger out there because of growing inequality, there is anger out there, and I'm wondering what your sense is of how long the clock is ticking, whether people really should be concerned and worried that there needs to be a more clear-cut and compelling response?
BG: I'm not sure the existence of philanthropy should affect all that much how we do progressive tax collection. I'm the world's biggest believer in philanthropy, but government's got to be funded to do some very expensive things, including health care and pensions. And so, I would not say that if you're worried that the taxes will get so high that that will reduce the amount of innovation or value creation, that philanthropy is the answer to that. I think you're just going to have to go engage in that argument in the political realm. In the meantime, if you want to have a fulfilling life, and often do something with your kids or your spouse, really, philanthropy is such an amazing, fun thing. And for any amount of your time you want to put into it, there are great organizations out there that you can get involved in. One big trend we see is that a lot of philanthropists are now partnering together. Because of the inequity in the US or health in Africa, that that's complicated enough that having a fellow traveler, and learning along with them, there's three or four efforts, one which you're helping to thrive, where you get philanthropists talking and that idea of, "OK, have we picked something, is this somebody we really want to get behind as a group?" They're being more intelligent than if they were isolated by themselves. So that, to me, is one of the great trends that I think will unlock more of this wealth.
CA: Well, certainly you're evangelizing this idea that philanthropy can be a joyful thing, for you and the whole family. That's a powerful idea, it's not how people often think about it. They think about it as a guilt trip, "Oh, God, I've got to do that," and it can be hard and earnest and difficult. But I think that right there counts as an idea worth spreading. Let's talk about this part of your life, because you have been very influential in lots of ways. Ideas about public health, about philanthropy, about climate change, you've got, I think, six TED talks in total, something like that.
(CA laughs)
For which, thank you. What ideas are top of mind for you right now that you would love, either other people or governments, to notice and take seriously?
BG: My general theme is that if you really are numerate and you really think how to spur innovation, that even problems that look impossible, like climate change, like making the US education system work well, even for lower-income families, I still have this belief that of course my experience at Microsoft reinforced, that we can be innovative. Now, to solve climate change, the amount of innovation we need is very large, and we need it, essentially, with a deadline. Most innovation, you know, OK, cancer will be cured some days, OK, some people have a deadline, but in general, there isn't an apocalypse coming if that gets delayed. Climate change, you will have some permanent effects, and many people think it's just clean electricity, whereas it's actually clean cement and clean meat and clean steel. And so, this is a daunting problem, but my view is that with innovation, we can make the premium cost of all those things, doing them in a clean way, zero, over the current way that we make those things. Unless you have that innovation, if it's way more expensive, yes, the US could afford to pay a lot more for those things, but when you turn to India, where you're just getting basic air-conditioning and lighting out to the masses, the idea that they should slow down, when they aren't responsible for the current emissions, and their energy use per person is a 20th of what ours is -- you know, that wouldn't make sense. So it's a very tough problem, but my view is that there's a lot of smart people in the world -- if we back them to innovate, climate change ... we can solve it.
CA: TED's whole mission is to spread ideas. If you could plant one idea into the minds of millions of people around the world, what would you inject?
BG: I'd like people to see that there really is progress on certain issues, and that we don't need to go to extreme political systems, like shut down capitalism or democracy; that we are improving lives. If we stay generous, if we stay innovative, if countries work together, instead of splintering and being selfish and short-term. That a lot of the things that were done post World War II are pretty fantastic. Yes, they need updating in terms of how countries work together, but they can be great. So my message is a very positive one. Even things like AI that looks daunting, kind of like social media, there are a lot of good things there and I do think we can make it net very, very positive. The idea that TED has gotten innovative thinking out there, I think it's a great example, like, "Hey, you think digital is negative?" Think of me seeing that Hans Rosling talk, that was a great influence on what our foundation is going out to do. So the, kind of, creativity, of different way of thinking of things, it's easier to access that brilliant thinking now than ever before. And I think the next generation will take the access and will surprise us with new things that, even though they'll come with some side effects, overall will cure cancer and cure obesity and not only polio, which we're about to eradicate, but dozens of other diseases. So my voice is one of hope and excitement about where the future is taking us.
CA: It's a powerful voice. There is so much drama out there, the sense the apocalypse is coming, and many different apocalypses that, apparently, are coming. And what I hear you saying so powerfully is you know, there are huge problems, and by people spending their time on them, reasonably continuing to believe that a solution is there, we actually can make incredible progress. Well, thank you for all you've done for this. It's really a remarkable life you've lived and it's incredible what you've achieved, and I suspect the ripple effects from your life may still be at their early stages. Bill Gates, what a delight to speak with you, thank you.
BG: Thanks. Hopefully, more to come.
(BG laughs)
CA: Take care.
(Music)
You can track Bill Gates' torrent of thinking about so many topics by following him on Twitter, @billgates, or by visiting his personal website, gatesnotes.com. Bill has graced the TED stage on six different occasions. To hear any of those talks, visit TED.com.
(Music)
This week's show was produced by Megan Tan. Our production manager is Roxanne Hai Lash. Our mix engineer David Herman, our theme music is by Allison Layton-Brown. Special thanks to my colleague Michelle Quint. If you like this show, please share it with someone else who is curious, and consider rating and reviewing us on iTunes or wherever you listen to your podcasts. I'm Chris Anderson -- thanks so much for listening.
(Music)
On the next episode, singer, songwriter, artist
Amanda Palmer. We discuss what she predicts for the future generation of artists, and the intention behind her radical openness.
Amanda Palmer: If you're a good artist, you use yourself as a vessel to get someone's attention about something larger than just your own ego.
(Music)
