Category Archives: meaning

Antifragile – Taleb at the RSA

This hour long presentation covers the key points from Taleb’s Antifragile. It doesn’t matter how often I read or listen to this, it still comes across as massive. Interesting that the UK conservatives are taking it up with vigor, hmm….

Big Ideas page: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/antifragile/4501692

RSA page: http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2012/antifragile

Full RSA audio link

Antifragile

Tuesday 12 February 2013 8:05PM

 

In 2006 Nassim Taleb came to prominence with the publication of The Black Swanand the idea that the world is full of highly improbably and unpredictable events. In his latest book Antifragile he explains how to live with, and respond to, these seemingly random and unforeseen black swan events.

The key he says is to create systems that are Antifragile; ones that are not simply robust or resilient but can adapt and improve when subjected to uncertainty, chaos and volatility.

Highlights of Antifragile – RSA (UK) 6th Dec. 2012

Guests

Nassim Taleb
Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University’s Polytechnic Institute.
Author of ‘Antifragile: how to live in a world we don’t understand’ (Allen Lane, 2012).
Rohan Silva
Senior policy adviser to UK Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Fraser Nelson
Editor, The Spectator (UK)

Further Information

The RSA

Credits

Presenter
Paul Barclay
Abridger
Ian Coombe

Healthways…

http://www.healthways.com  || http://www.healthways.com.au

Christian Sellars from MSD put on a terrific dinner in Crows Nest, inviting a group of interesting people to come meet with his team, with no agenda:

  • Dr Paul Nicolarakis, former advisor to the Health Minister
  • Dr Linda Swan, CEO Healthways
  • Ian Corless, Business Development & Program Manager, Wentwest
  • Dr Kevin Cheng, Project Lead Diabetes Care Project
  • Dr Stephen Barnett, GP & University of Wollongong
  •  Warren Brooks, Customer Centricity Lead
  • Brendan Price, Pricing Manager
  • Wayne Sparks, I.T. Director
  • Greg Lyubomirsky, Director, New Commercial Initiatives
  • Christian Sellars, Director, Access 

MSD are doing interesting things in health. In Christian’s words, they are trying to uncouple their future from pills.

After some chair swapping, I managed to sit across from Linda Swan from Healthways. It was terrific. She’s a Stephen Leeder disciple, spent time at MSD, would have been an actuary if she didn’t do medicine, and has been on a search that sounds similar to mine.

Healthways do data-driven, full-body, full-community wellness.

They’re getting $100M multi-years contracts from PHIs.

Amazingly, they’ve incorporated social determinants of health into their framework.

And even more amazingly, they’ve been given Iowa to make healthier.

They terraform communities – the whole lot.

Linda believes their most powerful intervention is a 20min evidence-based phone questionnaire administered to patients on returning home, similar to what Shane Solomon was rolling out at the HKHA. But they also supplant junk food sponsorship of sport and lobby for improvements to footpaths etc.

Just terrific. We’re catching up for coffee in January.

PYMWYMI App

Had this idea yesterday while thinking about TP’s birthday present.

Wouldn’t it be good if we could convert our respects or displeasures for public figures into something virtuous like goats for people in disadvantaged communities? A “put your money where your mouth is” app that could let anyone pledge any amount of money whenever a public figure either impressed or distressed them? On a regular basis, but at least annually, the public figure with the most respects would be recognised in the media, and be given the privilege of deciding where the money was directed. The most disrespected public figure could be sent to Nauru for a couple of weeks.

 

Chronic Disease Fear Factor Ageing Messaging

Governments won’t be able to afford you if you are over 70 and can’t work
You will need to be productive
The current health market can only extend your life, but not your productive life
The new health system will have to do both if we are to preserve our standard of living
Sure, people will need to die sometime, but it’s the when, how and why they die that needs to evolve
This health system aims to deliver on this
Australia is well positioned to lead the world on this
Excitement

How Doctors Die: Showing Others the Way

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/how-doctors-die.html?from=homepage&_r=0

November 19, 2013  By DAN GORENSTEIN

BRAVE. You hear that word a lot when people are sick. It’s all about the fight, the survival instinct, the courage. But when Dr. Elizabeth D. McKinley’s family and friends talk about bravery, it is not so much about the way Dr. McKinley, a 53-year-old internist from Cleveland, battled breast cancer for 17 years. It is about the courage she has shown in doing something so few of us are able to do: stop fighting.

This spring, after Dr. McKinley’s cancer found its way into her liver and lungs and the tissue surrounding her brain, she was told she had two options.

“You can put chemotherapy directly into your brain, or total brain radiation,” she recalled recently from her home in suburban Cleveland. “I’m looking at these drugs head-on and either one would change me significantly. I didn’t want that.” She also did not want to endure the side effects of radiation.

What Dr. McKinley wanted was time with her husband, a radiologist, and their two college-age children, and another summer to soak her feet in the Atlantic Ocean. But most of all, she wanted “a little more time being me and not being somebody else.” So, she turned down more treatment and began hospice care, the point at which the medical fight to extend life gives way to creating the best quality of life for the time that is left.

Dr. Robert Gilkeson, Dr. McKinley’s husband, remembers his mother-in-law, Alice McKinley, being unable to comprehend her daughter’s decision. “ ‘Isn’t there some treatment we could do here?’ she pleaded with me,” he recalled. “I almost had to bite my tongue, so I didn’t say, ‘Do you have any idea how much disease your daughter has?’ ” Dr. McKinley and her husband were looking at her disease as doctors, who know the limits of medicine; her mother was looking at her daughter’s cancer as a mother, clinging to the promise of medicine as limitless.

When it comes to dying, doctors, of course, are ultimately no different from the rest of us. And their emotional and physical struggles are surely every bit as wrenching. But they have a clear advantage over many of us. They have seen death up close. They understand their choices, and they have access to the best that medicine has to offer.

“You have a lot of knowledge, a lot of awareness of what’s likely to come,” said Dr. J. Andrew Billings from his home in Cambridge, Mass.

Dr. Billings, 68 and semi-retired, is an expert in palliative care, which can include managing pain, emotional support and end-of-life planning. He is also a cancer patient with a life-threatening form of lymphoma. Dr. Billings said that knowledge of what may be ahead can give doctors more control over their quality of life before they die — control that eludes many of us.

Research shows that most Americans do not die well, which is to say they do not die the way they say they want to — at home, surrounded by the people who love them.According to data from Medicare, only a third of patients die this way. More than 50 percent spend their final days in hospitals, often in intensive care units, tethered to machines and feeding tubes, or in nursing homes.

There is no statistical proof that doctors enjoy a better quality of life before death than the rest of us. But research indicates they are better planners. An often-cited study, published in 2003, of physicians who had been medical students at Johns Hopkins University found that they were more likely than the general public to have created advance directives, or living wills, which lay out specific plans for care if a patient is unable to make decisions. Of the 765 doctors studied, 64 percent had advance directives, compared with about 47 percent for American adults over 40.

Patients and families often pay a high price for difficult and unscripted deaths, psychologically and economically. The Dartmouth Atlas Project, which gathers and analyzes health care data, found that 17 percent of Medicare’s $550 billion annual budget is spent on patients’ last six months of life.

“We haven’t bent the cost curve on end-of-life care,” said Dr. David C. Goodman, a senior researcher for the project.

The amount spent in the intensive care unit is climbing. Between 2007 and 2010, Medicare spending on patients in the last two years of life jumped 13 percent, to nearly $70,000 per patient.

The evidence is clear, Dr. Goodman said, that things could change if doctors “respect patient preferences and provide fair information about their prognosis and treatment choices.”

Sometimes that can be easier said than done, even for doctors. One day last month, as he sat through the first of several hours of chemotherapy at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Dr. Billings said he had looked at statistical survival curves for his form of lymphoma.

“There are some dots that are very, very soon, and there are some dots that are a long ways off, and I hope I’m one of those distant dots,” he said.

Dr. Billings knows how important it is to have that information. As a palliative care doctor, he has spent a lifetime helping people plan their final days. Also, he is married to a prominent palliative care doctor, Dr. Susan D. Block.

“As a doctor you know how to ask for things,” he said. But as a patient, Dr. Billings said he had learned how difficult it can be to push for all the information needed. “It’s hard to ask those questions,” he said. “It’s hard to get answers.”

There is a reason for that. In his book “Death Foretold,” Nicholas A. Christakis, a Yale sociologist, writes that few physicians even offer patients a prognosis, and when they do, they do not do a great job. Predictions, he argues, are often overly optimistic, with doctors being accurate just 20 percent of the time.

But without some basic understanding of the road ahead, Dr. Anthony L. Back, a University of Washington professor and palliative care specialist, said even sophisticated patients could end up where they least want to be: the I.C.U. “They haven’t realized the implications of saying: ‘Yeah, I’ll have that one more treatment. Yeah, I’ll have that chemotherapy,’ ” Dr. Back said.

In Raleigh, N.C., Dr. Kenneth D. Zeitler has practiced oncology for 30 years. The son of a doctor and the father of two doctors, he learned 18 years ago that he had a brain tumor, which was removed. When the tumor recurred in 2004, he took the conservative route and decided against an operation — the risk of paralysis was too great. Dr. Zeitler, his wife and their two children mapped out a clear medical path, or so they thought.

Then in June, he woke up with the left half of his body paralyzed, after a low-risk biopsy caused a hemorrhage in his brain. “As a physician myself, when treating patients, I listened to this inner voice,” he said, but now he was mad at himself. “Instead of just saying ‘No, I won’t do this biopsy,’ I didn’t follow my instincts.”

Dr. Zeitler realized after his biopsy that saying no can mean more than turning down a procedure. It can mean dealing with something much harder: his family’s expectations that he will do whatever it takes to live and remain with them.

As transparent as Dr. Zeitler was with his family about his clinical care, he had walled off his deepest fears about losing pleasure in his daily life. He has since regained most physical functions and says he has had another chance to talk to his family. “As much as they’ll cry about me at every bar mitzvah and every wedding, I don’t want to be there if I’m just completely miserable psychologically and physically,” he said. “I’ve seen that. I don’t need that.”

Dr. Joan Teno, an internist and a professor of medicine at Brown University, says that often, even families like the Zeitlers, avoid the difficult conversations they need to have together and with doctors about the emotional side of dying.

“We pay for another day in I.C.U.,” she said. “But we don’t pay for people to understand what their goals and values are. We don’t pay doctors to help patients think about their goals and values and then develop a plan.”

But the end-of-life choices Americans make are slowly shifting. Medicare figures show that fewer people are dying in the hospital — nearly a 10 percent dip in the last decade — and that there has been a modest increase in hospice care. At the same time, palliative care is being embraced on a broad scale, with most large hospitals offering services.

The Affordable Care Act could accelerate those trends. Ezekiel Emanuel, the former White House health policy adviser, has said he believes that new penalties for hospital readmissions under the law could improve end-of-life care, making it more likely “we make the patient’s passage much more comfortable and out of the hospital.”

Culturally there is movement too. For example, deathoverdinner.org, a website to help people hold end-of-life discussions, was started in August. The project’s founder, Michael Hebb, said more than 1,000 dinner parties had been held, including some at nursing homes.

The front door at Dr. McKinley‘s big house was wide open recently. Friends and caregivers came and went. Her hospice bed sat in the living room. Since she stopped treatment, she was spending her time writing, being with her family, gazing at her plants. Dr. McKinley knew she was going to die, and she knew how she wanted it to go.

“It’s not a decision I would change,” Dr. McKinley said. “If you asked me 700 times I wouldn’t change it, because it is the right one for me.”

Dr. McKinley died Nov. 9, at home, where she wanted to be.

On delayed gratification…

It’s all very well to be impressed by the extent to which the capacity of a 5 year old to delay the consumption of a marshmallow so that they receive two marshmallows later can predict their success in life.

What I’m less impressed by is the extent to which the same qualities result in ungratified lives?

I’ve seen many doctor friends successfully delay their gratification indefinitely to the point where they just miss out, on fun, and ultimately on life.

Bill Gates: Here’s My Plan to Improve Our World — And How You Can Help

From: http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/bill-gates-wired-essay/all/

Bill Gates: Here’s My Plan to Improve Our World —
And How You Can Help

  • BY BILL GATES
  • 11.12.13
  • 6:30 AM

I am a little obsessed with fertilizer. I mean I’m fascinated with its role, not with using it. I go to meetings where it’s a serious topic of conversation. I read books about its benefits and the problems with overusing it. It’s the kind of topic I have to remind myself not to talk about too much at cocktail parties, since most people don’t find it as interesting as I do.

But like anyone with a mild obsession, I think mine is entirely justified. Two out of every five people on Earth today owe their lives to the higher crop outputs that fertilizer has made possible. It helped fuel the Green Revolution, an explosion of agricultural productivity that lifted hundreds of millions of people around the world out of poverty.

These days I get to spend a lot of time trying to advance innovation that improves people’s lives in the same way that fertilizer did. Let me reiterate this: A full 40 percent of Earth’s population is alive today because, in 1909, a German chemist named Fritz Haber figured out how to make synthetic ammonia. Another example: Polio cases are down more than 99 percent in the past 25 years, not because the disease is going away on its own but because Albert Sabin and Jonas Salk invented polio vaccines and the world rolled out a massive effort to deliver them.

Thanks to inventions like these, life has steadily gotten better. It can be easy to conclude otherwise—as I write this essay, more than 100,000 people have died in a civil war in Syria, and big problems like climate change are bearing down on us with no simple solution in sight. But if you take the long view, by almost any measure of progress we are living in history’s greatest era. Wars are becoming less frequent. Life expectancy has more than doubled in the past century. More children than ever are going to primary school. The world is better than it has ever been.

But it is still not as good as we wish. If we want to accelerate progress, we need to actively pursue the same kind of breakthroughs achieved by Haber, Sabin, and Salk. It’s a simple fact: Innovation makes the world better—and more innovation equals faster progress. That belief drives the work my wife, Melinda, and I are doing through our foundation.

WE WENT ON A SAFARI TO SEE WILD ANIMALS BUT ENDED UP GETTING OUR FIRST SUSTAINED LOOK AT EXTREME POVERTY. WE WERE SHOCKED.

Of course, not all innovation is the same. We want to give our wealth back to society in a way that has the most impact, and so we look for opportunities to invest for the largest returns. That means tackling the world’s biggest problems and funding the most likely solutions. That’s an even greater challenge than it sounds. I don’t have a magic formula for prioritizing the world’s problems. You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women. Melinda and I have focused on poverty and disease globally, and on education in the US. We picked those issues by starting with an idea we learned from our parents: Everyone’s life has equal value. If you begin with that premise, you quickly see where the world acts as though some lives aren’t worth as much as others. That’s where you can make the greatest difference, where every dollar you spend is liable to have the greatest impact.

I have known since my early thirties that I was going to give my wealth back to society. The success of Microsoft provided me with an enormous fortune, and I felt responsible for using it in a thoughtful way. I had read a lot about how governments underinvest in basic scientific research. I thought, that’s a big mistake. If we don’t give scientists the room to deepen our fundamental understanding of the world, we won’t provide a basis for the next generation of innovations. I figured, therefore, that I could help the most by creating an institute where the best minds would come to do research.

There’s no single lightbulb moment when I changed my mind about that, but I tend to trace it back to a trip Melinda and I took to Africa in 1993. We went on a safari to see wild animals but ended up getting our first sustained look at extreme poverty. I remember peering out a car window at a long line of women walking down the road with big jerricans of water on their heads. How far away do these women live? we wondered. Who’s watching their children while they’re away?

That was the beginning of our education in the problems of the world’s poorest people. In 1996 my father sent us a New York Times article about the million children who were dying every year from rotavirus, a disease that doesn’t kill kids in rich countries. A friend gave me a copy of a World Development Report from the World Bank that spelled out in detail the problems with childhood diseases.

Melinda and I were shocked that more wasn’t being done. Although rich-world governments were quietly giving aid, few foundations were doing much. Corporations weren’t working on vaccines or drugs for diseases that affected primarily the poor. Newspapers didn’t write a lot about these children’s deaths.

This realization led me to rethink some of my assumptions about how the world improves. I am a devout fan of capitalism. It is the best system ever devised for making self-interest serve the wider interest. This system is responsible for many of the great advances that have improved the lives of billions—from airplanes to air-conditioning to computers.

But capitalism alone can’t address the needs of the very poor. This means market-driven innovation can actually widen the gap between rich and poor. I saw firsthand just how wide that gap was when I visited a slum in Durban, South Africa, in 2009. Seeing the open-pit latrine there was a humbling reminder of just how much I take modern plumbing for granted. Meanwhile, 2.5 billion people worldwide don’t have access to proper sanitation, a problem that contributes to the deaths of 1.5 million children a year.

Governments don’t do enough to drive innovation either. Although aid from the rich world saves a lot of lives, governments habitually underinvest in research and development, especially for the poor. For one thing, they’re averse to risk, given the eagerness of political opponents to exploit failures, so they have a hard time giving money to a bunch of innovators with the knowledge that many of them will fail.

By the late 1990s, I had dropped the idea of starting an institute for basic research. Instead I began seeking out other areas where business and government underinvest. Together Melinda and I found a few areas that cried out for philanthropy—in particular for what I have called catalytic philanthropy.

I have been sharing my idea of catalytic philanthropy for a while now. It works a lot like the private markets: You invest for big returns. But there’s a big difference. In philanthropy, the investor doesn’t need to get any of the benefit. We take a double-pronged approach: (1) Narrow the gap so that advances for the rich world reach the poor world faster, and (2) turn more of the world’s IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face. Of course, this comes with its own challenges. You’re working in a global economy worth tens of trillions of dollars, so any philanthropic effort is relatively small. If you want to have a big impact, you need a leverage point—a way to put in a dollar of funding or an hour of effort and benefit society by a hundred or a thousand times as much.

One way you can find that leverage point is to look for a problem that markets and governments aren’t paying much attention to. That’s what Melinda and I did when we saw how little notice global health got in the mid-1990s. Children were dying of measles for lack of a vaccine that cost less than 25 cents, which meant there was a big opportunity to save a lot of lives relatively cheaply. The same was true of malaria. When we made our first big grant for malaria research, it nearly doubled the amount of money spent on the disease worldwide—not because our grant was so big, but because malaria research was so underfunded.

But you don’t necessarily need to find a problem that’s been missed. You can also discover a strategy that has been overlooked. Take our foundation’s work in education. Government spends huge sums on schools. The state of California alone budgets roughly $68 billion annually for K-12, more than 100 times what our foundation spends in the entire United States. How could we have an impact on an area where the government spends so much?

We looked for a new approach. To me one of the great tragedies of our education system is that teachers get so little help identifying and learning from those who are most effective. As we talked with instructors about what they needed, it became clear that a smart application of technology could make a big difference. Teachers should be able to watch videos of the best educators in action. And if they want, they should be able to record themselves in the classroom and then review the video with a coach. This was an approach that others had missed. So now we’re working with teachers and several school districts around the country to set up systems that give teachers the feedback and support they deserve.

The goal in much of what we do is to provide seed funding for various ideas. Some will fail. We fill a function that government cannot—making a lot of risky bets with the expectation that at least a few of them will succeed. At that point, governments and other backers can help scale up the successful ones, a much more comfortable role for them.

We work to draw in not just governments but also businesses, because that’s where most innovation comes from. I’ve heard some people describe the economy of the future as “post-corporatist and post-capitalist”—one in which large corporations crumble and all innovation happens from the bottom up. What nonsense. People who say things like that never have a convincing explanation for who will make drugs or low-cost carbon-free energy. Catalytic philanthropy doesn’t replace businesses. It helps more of their innovations benefit the poor.

Look at what happened to agriculture in the 20th century. For decades, scientists worked to develop hardier crops. But those advances mostly benefited the rich world, leaving the poor behind. Then in the middle of the century, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations stepped in. They funded Norman Borlaug’s research on new strains of high-yielding wheat, which sparked the Green Revolution. (As Borlaug said, fertilizer was the fuel that powered the forward thrust of the Green Revolution, but these new crops were the catalysts that sparked it.) No private company had any interest in funding Borlaug. There was no profit in it. But today all the people who have escaped poverty represent a huge market opportunity—and now companies are flocking to serve them.

Or take a more recent example: the advent of Big Data. It’s indisputable that the availability of massive amounts of information will revolutionize US health care, manufac­turing, retail, and more. But it can also benefit the poorest 2 billion. Right now researchers are using satellite images to study soil health and help poor farmers plan their harvests more efficiently. We need a lot more of this kind of innovation. Otherwise, Big Data will be a big wasted opportunity to reduce inequity.

People often ask me, “What can I do? How can I help?”

Rich-world governments need to maintain or even increase foreign aid, which has saved millions of lives and helped many more people lift themselves out of poverty. It helps when policymakers hear from voters, especially in tough economic times, when they’re looking for ways to cut budgets. I hope people let their representatives know that aid works and that they care about saving lives. Bono’s group ONE.org is a great channel for getting your voice heard.

Companies—especially those in the technology sector—can dedicate a percentage of their top innovators’ time to issues that could help people who’ve been left out of the global economy or deprived of opportunity here in the US. If you write great code or are an expert in genomics or know how to develop new seeds, I’d encourage you to learn more about the problems of the poorest and see how you can help.

At heart I’m an optimist. Technology is helping us overcome our biggest challenges. Just as important, it’s also bringing the world closer together. Today we can sit at our desks and see people thousands of miles away in real time. I think this helps explain the growing interest young people today have in global health and poverty. It’s getting harder and harder for those of us in the rich world to ignore poverty and suffering, even if it’s happening half a planet away.

Technology is unlocking the innate compassion we have for our fellow human beings. In the end, that combination—the advances of science together with our emerging global conscience—may be the most powerful tool we have for improving the world.