TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is this Idea too Idealistic?

As I watch his talk I find it inspiring. Some seem to find it to inspiring to be realistic. What do you think?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 24 2012: Dow's case for intervention into the lives of individuals who are minors still within the care of the legal guardians seems not only idealistic but short sighted and obtrusive to idea of personal liberty. I feel his points are well supported and his line of thinking correct, however in my observations he is dealing with symptoms and not causes. In my opinion when reduced to its lowest common denominator persons within a society which incorporates laws and consequences for breaking those laws is responsible for their actions. It would seem society's responsibility is to educate people as to why those laws are necessary and proper and not to intervene into the lives of persons to correct behaviors in manners other than those that are based on consequence for law breaking.
    It is my opinion a flawed manner of thinking and in opposition to the very nature of the human experience but then is this not the foundation for Utopian plans, to control human nature and therefore control behavior.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2012: A part of me agrees with you, Chris, but then a part disagrees.
      the idea of human nature, as it seems to me, seems to be quite ambiguous. As a product of evolution, we come equipped with the same ability and urge to adapt to different situations. From the Genes that help define our nature, to the circumstances around us (whether created by us or not), all of this is an extension of adapting to our circumstances. People *act different and reflect their surroundings as they change. My point is that human nature is not so easily defined by us humans and also shaped by us, yes, but largely out of our control. A great example is Dow himself: he wants to implement a plan of action, but he is dictated by the world around him- it will have a chance if, and only if, those around him allow it.
      One other point is personal liberty. As much as i love the idea, at times i think it's an ideal stopping certain means of progress. Take a group of individuals, for example. They share information with each other as it is how they function. When there is miscommunication or secrecy, the whole group suffers. Like TED: we all have our individual accounts and secrecy in our passwords, but there IS interconnectedness such as "forgot your password" in which case you can be helped... so in a sense the secrecy is only partly alive, not fully. If we keep personal liberty as an ideal, it could keep up from finding a possible solution. I'm not fully convinced this is the case, but it's possible. I just think: if we keep trying to solve problems like these and run into the axiom of, say, personal liberty needing to be respected then we may need to reconsider our axiom, at least for the sake of reconsidering it.
      As in math, we go back and check what we "know" by initial work (axioms) to make sure answers that follow are correct.
      • Jun 26 2012: Hello Alec and thank you for taking time to respond. Is the the nature of man subjective to the reasoning ability of man?
        Would you mind if before we discuss personal liberty we could establish one rule? What is the rule you might inquire. Not to worry, it is a very simple and very easy to follow. The rule shall be that you do nothing other than what I tell you. That includes thought and deed. Can we agree?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.