I too enjoyed Dr. Brilliant’s presentation and took pleasure in hearing about Google.org’s approach to identifying and solving problems. By utilizing consulting and analytical strategies normally reserved for the business realm, the Google.org team has developed a progressive strategy for approaching philanthropic endeavors. Building off of the four main criteria, attacking the problem of global warming is an intelligent place to start. As mentioned in his talk, this problem of global warming is not solely an energy problem but also one of great medical importance. The increasing temperatures have also attributed to an increase in zoonotic diseases with 90% of all zoonotic diseases attributed to climate change. With Dr. Brilliant’s optimistic approach to fighting disease this is a lofty goal, but the real question remains whether solving the great energy conundrum is something that is readily achievable.  As discussed, it is probably not without significant assistance and regulation from the government as the cheap price of coal makes pressing forward with widespread use of efficient energies all the more difficult. Only time will tell the success of the Google.org team, but hoping they will find a way to alleviate our energy burden while helping fight world disease in the process.

One of the most remarkable stories from Larry Brilliant's talk was his description of his meeting with Larry Page as Google.org was starting. According to Larry Brilliant, Page said that the only thing Google.org couldn't do is make money for the shareholders. That alone speaks volumes to the importance of entrepreneurs and their somewhat unique ability to positively influence the world through idealism. Brilliant said that public companies essentially couldn't start dot-orgs because of their fiduciary obligation. It seems Google was able to placate investors with its explosive stock. Could you imagine an older company, one with weaker growth than Google, one where idealistic founders control much less of the stock, devoting 1% of profits to philanthropy?

I also really enjoyed Dr. Brilliant’s approach to solving some of the most important world problems. Making the most out of what an organization such as Google allocates to philanthropic ventures is an excellent way to help and, as Dr. Brilliant repeatedly said, Google’s talent and resources are employed in the most efficient way: solving problems with an engineering approach and not trying to help outside the company’s capabilities.

I thought Larry's presentation on Google.org gave some great insights into the new trends in philanthropy. Allocating 1% of Google profits to this foundation is pretty noble and is interesting to note that they do not use tax money to fund the foundation.

Larry mentioned that they started with 10,000 ideas and narrowed it down to 5 core intiatives. One thing I don't understand is why 'accelerate commercialization of plug-in vehicles' is a key core initiative? I would thing there are more important issues in the world than this.

21st century philanthropy
Prior to Dr. Brilliant’s discussion, I was vaguely aware of Google.org. However, I simply understood the organization to be another arm of the Google empire. Dr. Brilliant’s presentation of 21st century philanthropy was one of directed efforts to solve modern and ensuing problems. The concept of strategic philanthropy is vital to the sustainability of our world and the continued success of social entrepreneurs. I appreciated Dr. Brilliant’s differentiation between strategic philanthropy and charity as being, “trying to find something that is wrong in the world that you can fix.” That is the essence of Stanford. We believe we can change the world and solve problems. Dr. Brilliant’s discussion was both inspirational and topical.

Larry Brilliant's talk was a great reminder that of how social change can become a reality.  What was really interesting to me was how, while startups and entrepreneurship are great vehicles for tackling big technology ideas and creating huge innovation, entrepreneurship is also a great model for tackling huge social problems.  To me, Google.org kinda seems like a Venture Capital firm.  They have financial resource and distribute it across different startups/organizations with the goal of creating social change (as opposed to financial returns).  Lets hope that this "social VC" firm can create the kind of value that the traditional venture moel has created.

Google is trying to direct their philanthropy in ways to leverage their engineering prowess rather than donate 1% of income directly to established philanthropic organizations. After looking at the google.org web page I see that many of the philanthropic pursuits use Google's strong IT competences for mapping and tracking health and environmentally related issues. However some of the pursuits seem somewhat counter to the criteria that Mr. Brilliant discussed, that Google adds something unique and that they benefit the most miserable of earth's inhabitants. One example is the push to increase plug-in-hybrid car awareness. How about promoting bicycle or public transit awareness? What if Google donated their old servers to, or dedicated some of their servers once a week, towards grid computing cures for some viruses instead?

It is good that Google devotes its money and time on philanthropic efforts, but it was even more impressive that they outlined this in their pre-IPO letter to shareholders. So, it shows its not just when you become super big you can afford to help others, but also when you modest success.

I had no idea there was even a google.org until listening to Larry Brilliant.  Similar to all the previous replies before I think its pretty cool that google is doing this.  Google seems to have such a youthful culture that its able to pull this off while I doubt the shareholders of more well established corporations would be so eager to see resources used in this manner.  Larry's talk spoke to me more than the previous philanthropic talks mainly because its targeted on improving the technology and leveraging that instead of switching fields entirely and focusing on social aspects.  I think this will allow the projects to be more accessible to engineers and get us excited rather than present the goals from a daunting unfamiliar social aspect.

The Larry Page / Larry Brilliant anecdote was indeed interesting. I had no idea about Google.org before this speech and it was indeed eye opening and perhaps also surprising because being a public company with so many shareholders it is pretty difficult to placate money hungry shareholders to allocate 1% of the profit towards philantrophy. However, it is a good sign that these rich people and institutions other examples include Bill Gates & Warren Buffet are willing to look at and solve the problems of the poor and needy.

I believe Google is doing a great effort in trying to help the world in which we live in. google.org is a great project from a company that is truly involved with today's issues and I think it is great that shareholders actually agreed to give 2% of the company's revenues to fund this project. Let's just hope that we find solutions to the some of problems google.org is trying to address in the near future.

It is amazing how a company with such a broad scope, as does Google, can narrow down to a specific task that is based on 4 main points. Moreover, I believe that when you go beyond the financial incentives of an organization and shift the focus to philanthropy we see the true colors of what a powerhouse like Google is capable of. As Google.org is lead by Larry Brilliant, his expertise and well-rounded knowledge clearly suggests that there are better things yet to come—not only for Google but for the world we live in.