TED Conversations

David Hubbard
Abbotsford
Canada

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do we need the approval of fools to correct the planet?

Intelligence must play a stronger role in world affairs. The non-aggressive few who can see past the delusions and discuss the world as it is, as well as how it might improve.

Sort By:

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
- 0
Mar 5 2013: All people working together can make a better world as long as they don't form a State and transfer their good intent to it.
Nobody remembers the jury. Everyone remembers Socretes.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 5 2013: And the lesson is?
  - Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: We do need the approval of fools to correct the planet in our political systems.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: Yes we do. How do we get it?
    - Colleen Steen 500+
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: Stop seperating people by calling them fools. Draw people INTO the plan, rather than pushing people away.
george lockwood 20+
- 0
Mar 5 2013: David - I wish,but we still have the same dry rot. Listen to Mitt Romney's recent comments - he still doesn't get it how he won defeat from victory, or why the Brits at Hyde Park booed him. There were five good emperors of the Roman empire - The fifth one had a son named W oops I mean Commode Or Commodus or something like that. The first four didn't have surviving sons. The English have an old saying "Rags to Riches to Rags in three generations."
Keegan Pinto
- 0
Mar 5 2013: Everyone is a fool to the most intelligent man. Where can we draw the line then? Sure, it wouldn't be hard to separate the real fools among society, but there's just no way to amass the intelligence needed to make impartial, perfect decisions. We need the fools for their input, however idiotic it may seem to us.
David Grammer
- 0
Mar 4 2013: We are all fools. Perspective is everything. Are macro solutions which ignore the individual better than micro solutions which only treat the symptoms? How would you measure that? Who would measure that? If resources are limited, where should they be applied, by whom, on whose authority? Intelligence is no guarantee of moral authority any more than moral authority is a guarantee of intelligence. I think if we all embrace our own delusions with considerably more humility than seems to be in fashion then we're more likely to enjoy our time here while deciding how we want to spend it.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 4 2013: Possibly we can be free of delusions and rise above foolishnes only through humility. After all the ego is the basic delusion
  - David Grammer
    
    +2
    Mar 4 2013: The ultimate delusion is that we can be objective and that this illusory objectivity gives us a special insight into "truth". We almost always act on the basis of our opinions rather than objective reality. I suggest that we keep this in mind when criticizing those who's opinions differ from our own.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: I define as fools those who consider violence as a soluion to problems. That is because they don't cosider consequences. This term "fool" also applies to those who wantonly distroy the planet for personal gain. No only do they not consider conseqences, they don't care about them.
      
      What is the diffence between an opinion and a fact? An opinion is something we hold to be true. A fact is what actually is true.. '
      
      They are fools of the highest order. In their ignorance they are damaging ther only planet weve got
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: I agree with you David Hubbard....ego is a delusion. Unfortunately, some folks believe their own delusions to be objective truths. I also agree that to experience humility, it may help to "rise above foolishness".
    
    Which I think David Grammer reinforces with his suggestion to "...keep this in mind when criticizing those who's opinions differ from our own".
    
    That being said David Hubbard, are you ever going to stop defining and catagorizing people you perceive to be fools? Is it that important to you to define and catagorize "them" and what "they" do?
    
    If you feel that they are "fools of the highest order" and "In their ignorance they are damaging ther only planet weve got".......what are you going to do about it?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: The US government's war machine very clearly defines and demonizes that enemy of the moment. Who needs demonizing more than those who are destroying the planet? If we survive they will be defined as the greatest criminals of all time. If we do not, they will be.
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: David,
    What do you hope to achieve with this conversation?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: focus on the problem
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: David,
    Your introduction says... "discuss the world as it is, as well as how it might improve".
    
    So far, you're only discussing how many fools there are in our world....in your perception. How about focusing on how "it might improve"?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 6 2013: How it might improve can only be from a giant paradigm shift from ego to Being. I sugget that critical mass is fast being reached, and the sanity in the world will increase exponentially and the intelligence inherent in all people will immerge.
george lockwood 20+
- 0
Mar 3 2013: How/? Even kings or emporors have politics.Eventually dry rot wins. Okay, Francis Fukuyama mentions dry rot in ORIGINS. To me that seems inevitable in any system. This is sad but I don't see an exception. Even though over 50million people died in WWII There are still people who think the league nations and the
UN are bad ideas, and they are very vocal.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 4 2013: We are trapped in worlwide poitical sytem that has made uninformed directional decisions in the past when the wourld was disconnected. We are now connected. We can have a much better management system than we do.
george lockwood 20+
- 0
Mar 3 2013: There have always been bubbles and countries always have times of strange behavior Of course, as Francis Fukuyam wrote Dry Rot developes. How could we really change this?
- David Hubbard
  - +1
  Mar 3 2013: In that bad politics is damaging our planet the necessity for change is increasing.
Robert Winner 50+
- 0
Mar 3 2013: David, What constitutes a fool? If I read this right it would be anyone who holds a oppossing idea or view? Can we really correct the planet? Perhaps we could or even should stop some practices that have negative impacts.

Part of the problem is that we hear for the extremists on both sides and not as often from people who are willing to discuss and seek solutions.

People who begin a conversation with me stating that I am a killer / fool / idiot / etc ... really tick me off and I will probally go to work against them immediately.

Bob.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 3 2013: Hi Bob; I refer the fools who still think that war and violence solve problems, and the fools that think we can afford to pollute the water and air and the fools that think we can afford to poison the food supply. The non-aggresive few are those who use reason to solve our great plantary problems.
reine des violettes
- 0
Mar 3 2013: "It's a wise man who knows he's a fool"
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 3 2013: or is it fool that thinks he's wise man?
Colleen Steen 500+
- +1
Mar 2 2013: David,
I am curious.....
In another discussion, you told me, in kind of a preachy way, that we (humans) are all one....interconnected. Now you would like to seperate those you perceive to be "fools". How does that work?
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 2 2013: Sorry I came off as preachy. We are all one but we certainly are not the same. It seems that the world is not at all rulled by reason, but by fools. The question I'm looking for input on is ; do we need thier approval to correct things? I have been hoping that we would get some suggestions
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    +1
    Mar 2 2013: Who are "they"? I don't need anyone's approval to do my own thing toward contributing to a change in our world. Why do you need approval? And from whom?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Who are "they?" I guess those that would lose something if the correction was not in their favor. Wouldn't there be a force against any correction? Let's say we considered planetwide iGovernment. It would be opposed by every participant in the Govrnments it would supplant.
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: David,
    You speak of a "force against any correction"? "...opposed by every participant in the Govrnments it would supplant"? That is speculation, is it not?
    
    How about spending time and energy moving forward with plans, and real solutions, rather than spending time speculating about what MIGHT happen? What is the point in labeling those who may not agree with you "fools"?
    
    I agree with Bob...People who begin a conversation labeling and catagorizing certain groups of people "fools", has lost my participation in his/her quest.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Of course it's speculation but in general we defend what we have. And if what we have is control, we would likeley use all the power we have to continue the control. If the people that pollute the world and poison the food and kill for political gain are not fools, then the word needs redefining. My quest is for world peace.
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    +1
    Mar 3 2013: David,
    I suggest that calling people fools, will not facilitate world peace. We draw people into a plan by recognizing qualities they have which may be useful to the plan. We do not facilitate peace by labeling and catagorizing people fools.
    - Fritzie Reisner 100+
      
      +1
      
      Host
      
      Mar 4 2013: I agree, Colleen, that arrogance toward others does not draw them in!
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: No Fritzie, it does not. I suggest that it actually pushes people away.
greg dahlen 20+
- +2
Mar 2 2013: This seems kind of egotistical, david. I'd suppose you're one of the few? I have quite some respect for most people, when I talk to many ordinary people they seem quite intelligent. I do wish more people were proactive, however, a lot of people seem rather passive to me.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 3 2013: It does seem egotistical and that was not intended. The non-aggressive few are those who see past the use of violence as a solution to a problem. The peace makers. The world is getting smaller and smaller and people from all countries are close to each other This damaged planet is in trouble. We need to set aside our differences and address them as one.
Colleen Steen 500+
- +2
Mar 2 2013: Who decides who is the "fool", and who is not? Which "delusions" do we choose to "see past"? Who decides? When you say..."discuss the world as it is".....according to whom?
- Allan Macdougall 30+
  - +1
  Mar 2 2013: Ha! You beat me to it!
  
  ;-)
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 2 2013: LOL...so which one of us is the fool???
    - Allan Macdougall 30+
      
      0
      
      Mar 2 2013: Individually intelligent, collectively fools!
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 2 2013: You'd make a good politician Allan:>) Now don't tell me I'm foolish.....it is my very own delusion:>)
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 2 2013: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
    (Eleanor Roosevelt)
    
    I know you know that Allan:>)
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
- +1
Mar 2 2013: But intelligence is not democratic. A majority decision is not necessarily the wisest. How do you reconcile that?
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 5 2013: Intelligence is in all people.
  
  Do the people have the intelligence to rule them selves and make their own decisions? I suggest they do and they would be far more wise than any individual representative.
  - Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: Why did Socrates die, do you think?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 5 2013: It was decided by a jury. Do you think that all people, working together can make a better world?
- Comment deleted
  - Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
    
    0
    Mar 5 2013: Yes but so long as they don't form something such as a state and transfer their good intent on it.
pat gilbert 50+
- 0
Mar 2 2013: In the current democracy, where one can vote with no skin in the game, yes.

But if you brainwash someone do you really have their approval, are they even sentient on the subject?
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 2 2013: If you brainwash them then they are only a mirror and benign.
  
  I think you agree with me that a one world iGovernment is the only solution.
  - pat gilbert 50+
    
    +1
    Mar 2 2013: Benign to anyone who would treat people with such little regard and antipathetic to themselves.
    
    A one world government would be fantastic to create a dystopian future and toxic to anything remotely resembling life.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 2 2013: why would it be toxic?
  - pat gilbert 50+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: This is best explained by Ayn Rand in that the individual is what furthers the survival of mankind though individual actions and inventions. This is true of every great contribution in history. What does not contribute but rather fetters these great individuals is the collective. The collective prospers in a centralized government as depicted in all of the dystopian novels. The individual prospers in the small group and is crushed in a centralized government. I'm not opining here it just is.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: There is another viewpoint. A well run, uncorruptable planetary management system would free all people from the burden of government and allow the individual actions and inventions to flourish. The individual is not always crushed by government and many of the greatest contributors were not especially great, but simple people.
  - pat gilbert 50+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: I will agree to disagree.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: peace
Gail . 50+
- 0
Mar 2 2013: The problem with that is that those who see past the delusions see past the delusions of money and the efficacy of power hierarchies. Given that these are only a few, and that foolishness is equated by conventional wisdom with being one of the few who can see past the delusions, I see that the best way to correct the planet in the shortest amount of time is to find a way to get the real fools to educate themselves. So how does one do that?
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 2 2013: How. indeed? the biggest fools already know everything. In adverising they slip it to us one spoonfull at a time, but that could take too long. I suggest that the real fools can be supplanted with technology.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
- +1
TED Translator

Mar 2 2013: no, as long as you don't need the money of fools.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 2 2013: But if they have money they are not fools
  - Krisztián Pintér 200+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Mar 2 2013: that is the less thoughtful reply i can imagine
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 2 2013: You're right. I am from the advertising business. It teaches us to respect money over people and we are discussing people. I think that our governing people should be replaced with a better management system.
  - Krisztián Pintér 200+
    
    +1
    TED Translator
    
    Mar 2 2013: that is not what you said in the opening question. it was about approval of fools. my question was: do you plan to make fools comply, yet don't ask them? or you plan to fix the planet on your own, using your own resources? i certainly agree to that latter. if you can, go ahead. but i strongly disagree to the former. it does not matter if you are smart or a fool. it is immoral to force people to follow your way.
    
    it is just another excuse. we can stomp on people because they are just blacks, they don't know. because they are just women. because they are fools. because they are godless. we always invent something to validate why it is okay to commit aggression against other people.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 2 2013: when I write fools I am refering to the vocal miniority that looks to violence as a solution to international relationship problems. Do we need their approval, or is it possible for the world paradigm to be improved without them
      "Stomping" on people who differ from us would be no improvement. We already have that and it does not work.
  - Krisztián Pintér 200+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Mar 3 2013: if those fools are a small minority, why do you care? we live in democracies. minority opinion is easy to disregard.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Sadly, they are in power
  - Krisztián Pintér 200+
    
    0
    TED Translator
    
    Mar 3 2013: you continue to not making sense. how could we correct the planet without the approval of those that are in power? in secret?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Not making sense is my specialty. The answers is; not in secret, but openly. Their old power paradgm is financial. "He who has the gold makes the rules." The new paradigm is numbers. The voice of millions is more than the covert plans a few greedly people.
      
      We are connected. It's time we let our will be known and directed ourselves to a better world. We get what we plan for. Lets plan on something far better, like real sustaining peace and a healthy planet.
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: David,
    You say..."Their old power paradgm is financial". "He who has the gold makes the rules". So, are you saying that "they" (the fools) are people who have money? Those who are "greedy"?
    Are these the people from whom you seek approval to change the world?
    
    Many of us KNOW we are connected and have been directing efforts toward a better world for a long time. Is this a new idea for you? I agree with Krisztián....your posts are confusing. What are you trying to achieve with this discussion? It kind of sounds like you think you have all the answers? If so, how about articulating them clearly?
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 11 2013: The purpose of this conversation,oher than finding fault with one another's choice of words is to discuss how we might make a better world. The reason we need one is that shortsighted, uncaring people are putting money ahead of the future of planet earth and our grandchildren?
  - Colleen Steen 500+
    
    0
    Mar 16 2013: David,
    "BE" what you want to "SEE"
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
- 0
Mar 2 2013: Foolishness is the easy path; the path of greatness, the path of wisdom, is not an easy path. That is why only few are found on it.
But we also have to be careful so as not to be hasty in putting the label of "foolish" on those who do not agree with our views or with what we stand for.
The world does not need the approval of fools to make progress: the world needs the courage and leadership of the wise. The wise few.
- David Hubbard
  - +1
  Mar 2 2013: Beautifully written. The path of greatness is the only path that works. Wisdom and power come together, as they are from the same eternel force that is the life in all things. There is one life. We come and go, but it remains.
  
  "Fools" descrbes all humanity, especially men. We think our limited brains can unterstand the eternal. At best we connect to it. At worst we are a temporary blip on the radar. Are you one of the wise few? What is your definition of wisdom?
  - Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
    
    0
    Mar 2 2013: Wisdom is the right application of knowledge which reveals itself by its result or its fruitfulness. Wisdom, in my view, should be viewed holistically. Because the slightest appearance of foolishness works like a bomb, bringing down the labour of years of wisdom.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 2 2013: My definition of wisdom is the knowingness of the timeless power that holds the universe together. To bring that power into the world of man is the challange. There will be peace on earth and there will be one world order. It is inevitable.
george lockwood 20+
- 0
Mar 2 2013: Okay Barry has stated something that may be disturbingly true. Also, people have very different goals and ideas of time. To solve certain problems we may have to think on levels differently than the average Bif or Bubba. In Democracy everyone's vote is the same, but influence and the ability to manipulate very widely,too.
- David Hubbard
  - 0
  Mar 2 2013: Perhaps we have grown past the stage where we need representaives and all the animal based fertilizer that goes with it. I think one world iGovernment is the answer.
  - Gordon Barker 10+
    
    +1
    Mar 2 2013: Be careful of what you wish for.
    I don't think it's debatable as to where the fools are because we all elect them. We know exactly where they are.
    If they have money they are not fools, but they have an agenda. Don't turn your back on them.
    I have laws protecting individuals in society regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or disabilities because without them, we will reduce ourselves to mob rule.
    I think what the conversation here is circling is that we need the general public to be more interested in believing in evidence and not advertising, to be able to read people when they are lying and to proactively call bullshit when people are trying to manipulate the evidence to suit their own ends.
    I'm not sure we have evolved enough for this yet. Come back later.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: I don't think we have enough time. We must evolve or perish and necessity is the mother of invention. It is certainly possible for the combined intelligence of humanity to develope a better world management system. One that does not include conflict of any kind. One world management system. I have confidence in the intelligence of human beings. This can be done.
  - Gordon Barker 10+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: You are not taking into account human nature. We have evolved into what we are because it served us very well on the African veld. When transported virtually instantaneously as far as evolution is concerned into a high tech, crammed city dwelling, over populated world where we have to share resources and (yeech) be nice to each other, we immediately see areas where this no longer serves us well.
    The world management system you propose would have to be uncorruptible by those in power and unhackable by those not in power.
    Also, those who can use technology but not truly understand how it is built and how it runs would be at a disadvantage compared to those of us who do.
    As a software engineer, I would like to testify that ...we ain't there yet baby..
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Would it not be possible to track the individual government actions of a small town and duplicate them, in essence, replace the whole of city hall? the rest is extrapolation
  - Gordon Barker 10+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: Even a small town exceeds our ability to program Artificial Intelligence.
    Any management system would have to have rules under which it operated and made decisions. The decisions would have to be clear and demonstrative to the public unless you are looking for an angry mob with pitchforks.
    The system would have to learn, adapt to changing finances, environments, population pressures, needs to balance life style with corporate requirements and many other things.
    Hells bells...in Edmonton here we can't even coordinate the fricking traffic lights.
    - David Hubbard
      
      0
      
      Mar 3 2013: Thank you for straightening me out. Maybe later Would password secured internet voting be possible?
  - Gordon Barker 10+
    
    0
    Mar 3 2013: We almost tried internet voting in Edmonton for the next Municipal election, but chickened out at the last second. There are still fears of hacking and identity theft.
    The problem with something like voting is that the system and you must share a secret that no one else is likely to know or discover.
    That can be something like a SIN number (but we have real problems with that number getting away from tax databases only) or perhaps a pin number that the system snail-mails to your legal address or even requires you to sign for using registered mail. You can then use the pin to go through a one-time-only signup procedure to pick a password and provide other profile information like multiple questions to be answered in the event you forget your password.
    The above is actually the process used by the Alberta Government to provide a level 2 security login userid.
    As you can imagine. This is beginning to exceed the frustration level of a lot of the populace (who would be happy just waving a mastercard at a reader) and the idea of greater participation beings to go the other way (with exclusion of underprivileged, homeless, or elderly)
Barry Palmer 50+
- +1
Mar 2 2013: Of course. Fools are the majority.
W. Ying 10+
- +1
Mar 2 2013: .
.
Yes!
“Intelligence must play a stronger role in world affairs”!

Quickly let it do and quit invalid happiness to save our planet!
.

(For invalid happiness, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 14, at
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents)

Showing all 92 comments

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: