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?

  • Jul 1 2012: Thank you for this lecture Professor David Row.

    The correlation between severe abuse in childhood and outcomes in adulthood are easy to see on death row.

    The rights of the child are human rights. Neglecting to protect a child equates to neglecting to protect society and to the disregard of human rights.

    Early intervention is critical. And the reality is that it will cost society less in the long run ... less fiscally but less also in the cost of human misery.
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2012: No need for any idealism here at all! This idea is called, in smart term, prophylaxis and it should not even be debated as its justification lays in itself already. Get it implemented, Texas, NOW!
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2012: Nice try. Your have an excellent point and expressed it well.
    I suppose if were to agree it would be under the terms that it is and always will be voluntary- I may quit should I desire, which would be the exception to your rule.
  • 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?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 25 2012: yes, and what we deem to be too idealistic, feasible or whatever is also determined by standards today. 100 or 1000 years ago standards varied greatly. In other countries today standards vary greatly. We do have power, as much power as we allow ourselves it seems.
  • Jun 22 2012: Dow makes the comment that one way to solve a problem is to make it bigger. I feel he enlarged the topic, not the problem, in this case. His premise and logic are convincing to a point - but only to the point of identifying an area where the solution is almost certain to lie.The problem is bigger thatn that. More analysis (leading to structure) of the life phase where the potential murderer is forming would have been a fine closing to this talk.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2012: Wow! I've always wanted to meet Da Maker. Hallowed be thy name!
    I think Dow's idea is viable. What I disagree with is his plan for implementation and operation via yet another government bureaucracy. Lets maximize private sector involvement and minimize government involvement. Amen.
    • Jun 26 2012: I agree with you Mr. Long. If Mr. Dow's analysis is correct, his approach will save the public sector a ton of money. There must be a way to get the private sector to compete for a portion of these dollars by intervening and educating these young people and turning them away from crime.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2012: The Idea is too idealistic when an idea is not supported by an act(s) to convert into reality. On a contrary, if an idea is supported with an act(s) to convert it into reality, then the idea is gradually changing to something real and become less idealistic until eventually an idea can be converted fully into reality on the future.