BLOG | FEBRUARY, 2009

Can Any Problem Be Solved?

February 6, 2009 at 11:30 am
by Christopher

Bill Gates asks this question (specifically toward the problem of Malaria) in his TED conference talk from this week (see below), but I'm interested in the question in general.

I like his optimism, and wish I shared it in general. He says that as an optimist, he believes any problem can be solved. But I wonder, given what?

...given enough information?
...given enough resources?
...given enough time?
...given enough effort?

What makes my optimism break down is examining those givens. It seems obvious that given enough information about a problem, one might be able to at least devise a solution for it. But that doesn't work when we don't even know what we don't know. After all, the unknown unknowns are the big factor in the quest for the theory of everything, not to mention the known unknowns. Ok, so let's assume we do have enough information to have devised a solution that we'd like to give a shot. The next need would be for the resources needed to enact the solution. This could be materials, people, or money (of course). What if you just can't get them? Well, for the sake of argument, let's say you can. The next need is really effort. This is much harder to quantify, but I think it has a lot to do with will. Do people want the solution enough to work hard for it? Are they willing to work hard, even without a guarantee of success? Are they dedicated to the solution enough? Clearly, this can't always be a given. Especially extrapolated over the next given- time (enough failure over time will cause many to give up). Do you have enough time? Nobody has all the time in the world, and sometimes there is a narrow window for success, whether that is due to competition, resources, schedules, or even lifespan.

It sounds bleak, but I think we go through these considerations often- even if on a small scale. We even do this when determining development project scope. We often ask whether we can or should build something that could be supplied by an application already created by someone else (would you ever try to rebuild gmail?). So, even on a small scale, it seems like not every problem can be solved, at least not in a contained environment.

sarah dooley | February 9, 2009 5:15 PM

i disagree with at least a couple points of this breakdown. i would say that if not enough effort can be mustered to tackle a problem, then it has effectively been declared not a problem. similar thing with the example you cite with third party applications--what you're talking about isn't a problem, because there's already a solution, isn't there? all in all, i would challenge your pessimism about the solubility of problems--if anything, it's what we decide to be problems that's a cause for pessimism.

Chris | February 9, 2009 6:31 PM

Sarah,

In regard to effort, I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you really saying that the absence of effort indicates a lack of a problem? This just seems obviously incorrect to me. For example, take climate change: Clearly this is a problem that requires effort to be solved. Most people seem to realize this by now, but it is still an uphill battle since turning things around requires significant changes in the average American's lifestyle. Now, what if we fail in the time-limited initiatives that have been proposed because not enough people actually follow through with commitments toward eating less meat and processed foods, driving less, using more fuel-efficient modes of transportation, reducing home energy use, etc.? The problem will still exist, even if we fail in our effort. Perhaps what you are saying is that the effort extended is proportionate to the feeling that something is a problem (i.e. a child who extends no effort to clean her room, because she doesn't mind the mess)? If so, then, sure, I agree.

I was really trying to explore what factors must be in place in order to support an any-problem-can-be-solved kind of optimism, which is really only compelling in terms of serious problems that most people agree actually need solutions (poverty, lack of education, diseases, etc.). When it comes to minor things that may debatable as far as whether they are problematic, the question is far less interesting.

As far as my connection to the buy-or-build issue, you're probably right that it's pretty weak.

Chris

sarah dooley | February 11, 2009 5:24 PM

chris:

indeed what i am saying is something like your perhaps. maybe this comes down to a somewhat banal question of definition, but i was not thinking just of minor things--actually i was thinking about malaria, since bill gates was the starting point, but i think climate change works too. i would argue that, in its actions/responses, the west has effectively defined malaria as not a problem. i mean, it's not a problem for the west, right? obviously there is a huge number of people who would beg to differ, but unfortunately they tend not to be the ones with the other resources you mention. i would read bill gates's mosquito-releasing gesture as a way of making malaria his audience's problem--trying to use his resources to wrest control of the definition.

same thing for climate change: it took a while for it to become defined as a problem by the people with the resources. as it has become more widely accepted as a problem, the effort put into dealing with it has increased. of course, maybe the effort will prove inadequate and end up justifying your pessimism, but i ain't willing to go there yet.

-sd