TED Conversations

Adon Hsu

engineer in networks and telecoms , State Government

This conversation is closed.

How can we get the facts on what really makes humans tick?

The Venus project, Zeitgeist Movement, living in a cave all have one thing in common; they made the assumption that humans can change their minds through re-education, pain and suffering (from a crashing existing system). But can they? Seriously, is it biologically possible for the majority of the human race (average Joes) to embrace logic and reason over their baser instincts and emotions?

Genetic research (especially behavioural genetics and epigenetic) is in its infancy, we dont have enough facts to confirm or reject the hypothesis that humans act-react the way they do because of how genes structured their psyche. Human psyche development and research, due to nature and-or nurture, is the key to solving ALL of our problems.

I propose we go further than the human genome project, further than general anthropology, I propose we really look deep into the biological variables of our mind and body and confirm or reject once and for all this nature and/or nurture circus show and find out what we really want, need, desire as homo sapiens.

Once we do, we can proceed with the second phase of human development, change the way we think (through science and/or re-education) OR shape our future society around how we naturally are. There is no right or wrong, only facts and science to help us move along and cease the pseudo-science guessing game of what we want and what we should do for the future.

How can we plan for the future if we dont even know what we are-arent?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 9 2013: "Genetic research (especially behavioural genetics and epigenetic) is in its infancy, we dont have enough facts to confirm or reject the hypothesis that humans act-react the way they do because of how genes structured their psyche."

    Can it possible be true that your whole idea is based on you considering genetic research to be in its infancy?? It is not very rational to dismiss something just because it is new, as it is not reasonable to dismiss something only because it is old. But, I believe it is very interesting that you claim this to be an controversial in contemporary scientific community; I talked recently with a neuro-biologist and he told me that scientist have already passed on to deeper questions, i.e the community is in consensus. I can only refer to him and I do realise it is not enough for an argument but I still find it enough to doubt your proposition.

    Can it be the simple matter of inadequate information regarding genetic research?

    "Up to now, humans simply do whatever they do whenever they want to or feel like it, mostly for personal, emotional or instinctual gains, without knowing why, how or where it will lead them. Progress is but a side effect to our everyday lives, instead of the primary driving force, which is absolutely absurd."

    Well.... that was kinda like putting everyone over the same edge? I hate to be fastidious, but just dont use generalizations - next time just add a "many" and you'll avoid writing this kind of unscientific and erroneous statement.

    My view is that we should educate - many philosophers in history have talked about the perfect education but it is yet due to come. The school of philosphers - lovers of wisdom - scientists.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.