Can a Video Game Solve Hunger, Disease and Poverty? 72
destinyland writes "Dr. Jane McGonigal of the RAND Corporation's Institute for the Future has created a game described as 'a crash course in changing the world.' Developed for the World Bank's 'capacity development' branch, EVOKE has already gathered more than 10,000 potential solutions from participants, including executives from Procter & Gamble and Kraft. '[Dr. McGonigal] takes threats to human existence — global food shortage, fuel wars, pandemic, refugee crisis, and upended democracy — and asks the gaming public to collaborate on how to avoid these all too possible futures.' And by completing its 10 missions, you too can become a World Bank Institute certified EVOKE social innovator. (The game designer's web site lays out her ambitious philosophy. 'Reality is broken,' but 'game designers can fix it.')"
Hunger (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"While your character does not have to eat, remember that YOU do. We don't want to lose any dedicated players."
Tool (Score:2)
Re:Tool (Score:4, Funny)
The good news is that yes, a computer game can solve all the world's problems.
The bad news is...that game is Duke Nukem Forever.
health are energy are the keys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we need to start development on red matter right away, it sounds like the perfect solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that sounds a bit naive to me. America is the model for 'enough energy' - it has had an abundance of cheap (to the point of being effectively free) energy for the last 50 years, and has not solved every problem - not even providing the 'universal good health' care to its citizens that you mention.
If you gave cheap energy to the third world, I suspect it would just turn Bangladesh into Baltimore. Sanjeev would take his 5 kids to school in a 2 tonne SUV, they'd dine on drive-through Micky-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Following a train of logic that suggest that a world full of healthy people equates to a world of smart people is entirely false. It only ensures a world where idiots have enough energy to pursue stupid plans longer.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah,uh, it sounds like there are no gun as imagined in a perfect U.N. governed world.
Then theres the goal of becoming a "World Bank Institute certified EVOKE social innovator".
Sounds like a lame attempt at indoctrinating children into Big Brothers Brave New Socialist World.
My solution is for players to arm up with BFGs, attack World Bank, defeat U.N. forces, overthrow sypathetic governments and free the world from the tyranny of socialism. Then everyone would be free to start over again with the current st
The solution is obvious (Score:1)
I can't believe we didn't think of it before. The solution is so obvious!
We just need to leave energy packs at strategic places and have checkpoints where we can save our status.
Oh man. The world is going to be revolutionized by this!
Wait wait! I just thought of another thing that would help. Spawn points. Holleee shit, Batman. We're through the looking glass now!
Re: (Score:2)
We just need to leave energy packs at strategic places ...
We do that already. They're called "UN Aid stations" or "soup kitchens" for those without money. Those with higher levels of credits can use "restaurants", "grocery stores", or even procure player housing with built-in stations.
... and have checkpoints where we can save our status.
There's an autosave but you can't restore.
Wait wait! I just thought of another thing that would help. Spawn points.
It's called a Hospital. That's also where they keep the health kits.
Re: (Score:1)
It's called a Hospital. That's also where they keep the health kits.
Doesn't seem very secure. What happens if you have a camper sniping people at the hospital?
Hackers (Score:1)
Can we model the future well enough to game it? (Score:1, Troll)
Probably a non-gamer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Non-gamer - I've seen the TED talk she did, and she is most definitely a gamer of the 'hardcore' variety. Was actually quite funny to feel her relief when she realised some of the audience were gamers too and were getting some of the references she was making.
Cheers,
Ian
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm my initial impression was wrong. So far its sole purpose appears to be to waste time by engaging in activities a 10 year old might find fun, and to learn about 'how to be a social innovator' - no actual outlets for innovation, just 'post blogs and fill out forms to get spammed'. Hopefully it will actually provide something worthwhile in the future.
LetterRip
Here's a proper link... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wanted to check it out for myself, so I clicked on the link in the summary. Alas, I was sent to a rather luridly written piece by a one "Surfdaddy Orca", which I was certainly not looking for. ... the link to the Evoke game's website itself!
Thus, I have googled it for you, dear reader, and thus present without (much) further ado
http://www.urgentevoke.com/
Video games can fix poverty (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the incentive to grow and sell food if the UN is going to give food away for free to your customers?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the food has to come from somewhere. Whether the food you produce is paid for by the UN, the starving poor people or someone else, you still get paid.
some additional resources (Score:5, Informative)
I sort of research in this area (only sorta, but enough to keep up and know about half the people in it). So I can't help but throw out some additional resources, which you can interpret as "stuff I like".
FWIW, the general idea is usually referred to as "serious games" [wikipedia.org], with a bunch of terms like "persuasive games", "games for change", "games with a purpose", "political games", "news games", etc. having more specific meanings.
I personally rather like Ian Bogost's [bogost.com] book [amazon.com] on the subject, which, contrary to a lot of stuff in this space, is more measured in talking about both the possible benefits and likely pitfalls. Although I love the idea and think it has a lot of promise, I've got to admit most attempts to make "serious" or "political" or "world-changing" games fall flat. Anyone played McCain's 2004 campaign game, "John Kerry Tax Invaders"? It's exactly what you think it is: a space-invaders clone with John Kerry tax bills coming down at you, in place of aliens. Hilarious, but kind of stupid. So I think it's important to not be fan-boyish about it, and figure out what would make the medium actually flourish for these sorts of purposes. (FWIW, Bogost also has a former blog [bogost.com] on "games with an agenda", and a interesting Colbert appearance [colbertnation.com]).
An interesting precursor is Chris Crawford's [wikipedia.org] 1980s games, which tackled subjects like the Cold War and the environment in interesting ways. He's now giving away a .txt of a book [erasmatazz.com] describing the design behind Balance of Power (1986), still something of a high-water mark in combining the simulation genre with attempts to really make people think about the real world.
For more recent games, specifically in response to news events, some of which have activist content and some of which are just commentary, there's also a newsgame index [gatech.edu]. In addition, there's a recent paper [digra.org] discussing whether and how newsgames might become the 21st century's equivalent of political cartoons.
I think I covered that with "brainwashing" (Score:2)
I'm super-serial [wikipedia.org] here. The purpose of these games isn't to teach people to think up original solutions, it's to indoctrinate them into the groupthink of the person that commissioned the game, and decided the rules and the criteria for winning.
Maybe that makes players think about the issue, but that's incidental. Rewarding Goodthink does not make for radical "solutions" like (for example) Lovelock's answer to the alleged climate change problem: build walls round the big cities and "enjoy life while you c [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
Nnnnnnno. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Nnnnnnno.
A video game can't. People can.
Um... I don't even need a game. Let's take a look at... Oh, Africa.
Problem: Little economy, disease, etc. (Ignoring the issue of "poverty"--just because they don't live like us doesn't mean it's a problem. Also education: exactly why do you need Western education to farm?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ignoring the issue of "poverty"--just because they don't live like us doesn't mean it's a problem.
Poverty in this case means starvation and death rather than not having a Wii.
Also education: exactly why do you need Western education to farm? But I digress.
Because farming requires education. Otherwise the farmers use slash and burn tactic which cause irreparable long term damage to their own land. It also allows for an infrastructure to be maintained, a proper government to exist, provided basic knowledge of medicine (ie: condoms bloody work), a working democratic process and so on.
Trying to fix the "problems" without going for the true underlying causes is how you end up with the sh
Re: (Score:1)
I'm inclined to disagree here... while these 'uneducated' people may not be able to solve the issue in it's entirety, they have one significant advantage; perspective. Some of the greatest technologies we have today were made not by the 'educated' people who were busy looking at the problem, but by someone having an unusual perspective on the issue which all the rest wrote off before even thinking about it.
This 'game' gives the opportunity for all those -other- perspectives to get a little light, and maybe,
Can a board game solve hunger, disease, and povert (Score:1)
100% agree (Score:2)
I think "activist games" aren't really the future, but games that make people think about interrelationships are. Even Sim City has a lot of subtle elements to it, and it wasn't even intended as a "serious" game.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the world bank aren't really "activists".
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind. I'm an idiot. I thought you were replying to the summary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the part where the game designer gets to choose how the "subtle issues" are connected in a "complex interconnected system", I am sure you are right.
Take that stupid "kill the terrorist and make more terrorists" game. The group that made said game had an agenda and the rules of their game did not conform to reality but rather to their agenda. Their game ignored the fact that terrorists kill people, so the terrorists in the game never formed their own group of enemies.
Your post should be:
Hey, kids, brainwashing is fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is Subtle Progress Here, However... (Score:2)
A year ago "Global Warming" would have been on their "Sim Apocalypse" list. Now, notable only through its omission...
Re: (Score:1)
Also, chocolate rations are cut this week.
Or was it: All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Hmm, now I'm all mixed up.
No. (Score:1)
Sorry, you're too late! (Score:2)
Dr. Jane McGonigal's TED Talk (Score:3, Informative)
Here's her TED Talk [ted.com] on the subject.
Solve them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe that's why the game looks a lot more like a comic book with a bulletin board system...
Re: (Score:1)
Video game designers have a hard enough time creating hunger, disease, and poverty.
I dunno, whenever I play WoW for days at a time, I tend to end up hungry, filthy and (at least intellectually and emotionally) broke.
No chance (Score:2)
These are global and complexly interwoven problems. Any solution coming out from the game is going to be a locally optimized solution and if these were good, we would not be in the current fix.
Then there is the problem of implementation. The fix to global warming is easy: Stop burning all that fossil fuel. Unfortunately, we would needed to have implemented 10 years ago, what we did know 20 years ago. Now we will get global warming with hunger, war and death coming along and it is essentially too late to do
More totalitarian nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone that looks upon humanity and calls it broken is a dictator wanting to be born. They want to meddle in people's lives, arrange them like so many dominos, and then proclaim the carnage they have created as fixed. I wish these madmen and madwomen for once would have the self honesty to admit that they are the ones that are broken, because they hate a free people.
And More (Score:2)
Our leaders have failed to confront the fact that technology is eliminating jobs ever more quickly. We are
fast reaching the point where pay checks will come from the government, machines will do the work, corporations will compete with ever more robotic produced goods.
The social pecking order must be preserved. Requiring that a portion of one's government check be wagered on game success would maintain our social structure. Play would be mandat
Obvious Gauntlet Reference (Score:1)
Thinking Outside The Box (Score:2)
I've been trying to stare down, Chuck Norris style, this conundrum for the better part of a decade. Ultimately I end up back at Otto Jespersen's dictum that a problem is best canvassed from all sides, but, perhaps it's best to first know if the side you pick is from inside or outside the box. If you're inside the box, maybe it's your home in some back alley, and you're profoundly constrained by the conditions of the box, then, any possible side you choose in order to implement your solution, is still going
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most of the world's problems are social problem (Score:2)
It's social problems like corruption, over-bearing governments, aristocrats with no sense of noblesse oblige to the common man, inefficient and ineffective legal systems and other things which make the development of those societies to western standards exceedingly difficult.
Many of these elements are measured in indexes of Economic Freedom, such as the Heritage / WSJ [heritage.org] index or the Fraser Institute [freetheworld.com] Economic Freedom of the World project.
Where you have poverty, disease, and low economic growth, you tend to hav
Re: (Score:2)
Those indexes are biased since they neglect key aspects of human happiness like community; health; external costs like pollution, systemic risk, and defense that businesses often pass on to society; and the corrupting effects of the concentraation of wealth in a few hands as the rich get richer -- things implicit in the original poster's comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org]
From:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/ [amconmag.com]
"""
The most fundamental problem with li
No (Score:1)
"No".
Next question, please.
.
Give me a break. (Score:4, Insightful)
To me this is more simplistic, idealistic tripe. This is a more sophisticated variation of the stupid notion that love can save the world and we all just need to get along; something routinely conveyed in popular music. It's feel-good nonsense that provides no real solutions.
I'll grant you, the world does need these kind of idealists. This world would be a worse place without them. That said, all these problems have already been solved. Religion at it's core teaches humanity almost everything it needs know to solve these problems. Countless researchers and scientists have also devised innumerable practical solutions.
The problem, when it comes down to it, is human nature. These problems haven't been resolved and will never be resolved because of human nature. It doesn't matter what system of government or any other social system you impose on the people. People will find a way to exploit it. And far too often one group ends up being oppressed, financially, politically or socially, for the sake of another. Everything inevitably gets corrupted, including the aforementioned religion.
If people were totally selfless and honest we wouldn't even need a sociopolitical because all problems would solve themselves. But people aren't like that, so the most effective system is the one that accounts for human nature but is able to channel that energy in altruistic ways. Easier said than done. And of course this does nothing for disease which is something we'll be dealing with no matter how good people are to each other. It isn't a matter of saying fix it and it's done.
Some simple answers: basic income, vitamin D, etc. (Score:2)
A basic income would eliminate poverty (and was endorsed by Nobel Prize winners):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income [wikipedia.org]
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [basicincome.org]
http://www.usbig.net/ [usbig.net]
http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html [pdfernhout.net]
The right amount of vitamin D would reduce sick care costs by maybe a third in industrialized countries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html [lewrockwell.com]
h [vitamindcouncil.org]
Can't Help A Nation That Can't Help Itself (Score:1)
Pfff. The Rand Corporation. (Score:2)
Aren't they working in conjunction with the saucer people in a plot to eliminate dinner?
Watch her video on TED (Score:2)
She's a nummy treat.