Aug 19 2012: Agree with the insightful and heart warming comments of Aviva. And just to address Pat Gilbert's for a moment:
I think a distinction should be placed here separating communism and marxism from Karl Marx. The problem is that if we look at the regimes which popped up and vastly harmed the "collective," we can see that nothing which was championed was actually in line with Marx's theories for the development of collective society.
It simply became a good way to control masses of people, to cite "Marx" as an ideological figure, and then to veer ever farther from what he actually said as soon as power was gained. For instance, Marx was not a proponent of coercion or of the rich ruling over the poor. However every marxist/communistic regime has done just that, been forced upon masses of people in order for a few to profit.
It should be noted that Marx detached himself from all those who called themselves "Marxists" during his life and those who followed continued to veer further and further from his theories towards the ideas of violent revolution, a few "educated" controlling the masses, etc.
The reason why Marx's writings though are important is because he actually sought to tie together man with nature through observation. He therefore came to conclusions which weren't founded on the motivations for profit or power, but which sought to take into account this system of nature which we are all a part.
In this way Marx was and still is ahead of his time as a theorist, because he sought to apply an integral approach to social and economic life. It is an approach which is still misunderstood because usually it is viewed from the perspective of those who bastardized his writings and then attributed his name to their cause(s).
As we all know, human beings are social animals. We need each other for survival, to fulfill our desires, to meet our needs. The issue of happiness, and a lack of it, is an issue of connection. Happiness, as any elderly person will tell you, is not achieved in the acquisition of “things.” It is achieved through human relationships.
So here is the answer to the question of, “Is overall happiness declining?” Yes, it is. It is declining, depression globally is rising, etc. as has been well reported because we are becoming more connected but have not valued this rising connection between us.
The good thing is that the framework is there. We’re already connected, economically, etc. in ways that prior generations simply weren’t. And if the framework is there, then all that need now be applied is the proper intention: To begin to value our interconnection and interdependence, and thus solve our happiness dilemma.
I know you speak from experience. But the scientific data does not support what you have said. Overall, people mostly share similar levels of happiness. And yet, a question persists today, “Is overall happiness declining?”
It has been well proven through research that income does not make you any happier than a person who only earns a modest wage. The real difference lies in a person who cannot meet his/her needs and a person who can. This is the severe difference that exists within global society.
But what is happiness? Have we yet to define it, conclusively? Is there an agreed upon definition for what it is? There isn’t. It is this vague term which we each use to describe the overall state which we feel.
Each of us is governed, as psychology is quick to point out, by a pain vs. pleasure principle. We move towards what gives us pleasure, away from what gives us pain, and calculate the acquisition of a future pleasure based off of the effort/energy/pain that we will be required to endure in order to acquire the future pleasure.
But there is something else here, something which we are mostly unfamiliar with, which ties directly into this modern question, “Is overall happiness declining?”
As many a sociologist has pointed out in recent years, we are witnessing a gradual decline in community. But strangely, as those such as cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch PhD report: ““What I would consider the tragedy of our times is that we are more connected than ever, and yet, we don’t realize it and don’t truly live it.”
The idea that others are more happy, getting back to your comment, is common. Each person usually thinks that, “The grass is greener on the other side.” But factually, the problem of humanity becoming more interconnected, but increasingly more isolated (as far as how we treat that growing connection) seems to be key to understanding the question of, “Is overall happiness declining?”
Jul 21 2012: We suffer from a problem of perspective. We do not see competition as something which should help others, ultimately. Mostly, we view it as a very individualistic pursuit. The fact that companies cooperate, within, or with others, is in order to secure the most gain through such endeavors, and the rewards of such cooperation do not favor all of the participants equally.
We also suffer a problem that is a result of being in a paradigm. The comment of Pat Gilbert says it all, "Ain't gunna happen, competition is organic to LIFE."
Yes, competition is organic to life. But seeing it in a way where it is, "Dog eat dog," is not. It is a part of a paradigm, a system of thinking which has been developed and cultivated, and presides over us all. In fact, so ubiquitous is this paradigm, that we mostly don't question it. Instead, we say, "Well that's the way things are," etc.
But perhaps we do not see the role of education in changing paradigms, in developing new behavioral traits, new thoughts, new desires. Yes, competition is inherent within our species, but the form has yet to be perfected.
For instance, when competition does not benefit society, the equilibrium that society needs to operate (and which it has ultimately yet to achieve anywhere), becomes impossible to fathom, impossible to realize.
Only when competition has been inverted, where each seeks to benefit society the most they can, and competes in this way, towards the betterment of society, will competition reach maturity as a form. Until then, it is only something which stands in the way of society's evolution.
One thing I'd like to do is address the last overlying question Josh asks above: "Will we ever be able to reach this point and truly copy nature?"
And the question I have for this is, "What is the intention for wanting to do so?"
Because since civilizations beginnings man has built collective stories, throughout all the various cultures of the world, which distance mankind from Nature, pit us above her, or in some eternal struggle against her.
So, it seems that if we are to come to copy Nature then we will have to resolve this outlook. And that's where new education can come into the picture: To wipe away the old myths we have about Nature and each other.
And like E Pines says, "... the next step in this is the joining of Humanity as a whole, a single mind like natural communities in Nature." And that's another fundamental element that can't be separated from the search to copy Nature.
So I think that the first step in this process, of wanting to copy Nature, is proceeding according to how we see Nature operate: As an all inclusive system. And from my perspective, we are the only ones out of balance in this system.
So if we want to copy Nature (and yes please), then we must learn to adapt ourselves to Nature. And, given our collective history as a species, this doesn't come naturally to us. We need new education, devised with the goal of, "adapting us to Nature," to be created and then distributed to everyone (so not just education for children or young adults; but for everyone, since it takes a united humanity to come into balance, or to copy Nature).
Oct 1 2011: Wonderful. It seems the leading thinkers in education are proposing similar models. And they're showing great success! It would be wonderful to see these studio schools popping up around the world and then eventually facing out the older models.
TEDCred score: +4.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: How can we build a better educational system?
I think a distinction should be placed here separating communism and marxism from Karl Marx. The problem is that if we look at the regimes which popped up and vastly harmed the "collective," we can see that nothing which was championed was actually in line with Marx's theories for the development of collective society.
It simply became a good way to control masses of people, to cite "Marx" as an ideological figure, and then to veer ever farther from what he actually said as soon as power was gained. For instance, Marx was not a proponent of coercion or of the rich ruling over the poor. However every marxist/communistic regime has done just that, been forced upon masses of people in order for a few to profit.
It should be noted that Marx detached himself from all those who called themselves "Marxists" during his life and those who followed continued to veer further and further from his theories towards the ideas of violent revolution, a few "educated" controlling the masses, etc.
The reason why Marx's writings though are important is because he actually sought to tie together man with nature through observation. He therefore came to conclusions which weren't founded on the motivations for profit or power, but which sought to take into account this system of nature which we are all a part.
In this way Marx was and still is ahead of his time as a theorist, because he sought to apply an integral approach to social and economic life. It is an approach which is still misunderstood because usually it is viewed from the perspective of those who bastardized his writings and then attributed his name to their cause(s).
A comment on Conversation: Why do people who have many advantages in life struggle with ongoing happiness whilst others with far less to be happy about are happier?
As we all know, human beings are social animals. We need each other for survival, to fulfill our desires, to meet our needs. The issue of happiness, and a lack of it, is an issue of connection. Happiness, as any elderly person will tell you, is not achieved in the acquisition of “things.” It is achieved through human relationships.
So here is the answer to the question of, “Is overall happiness declining?” Yes, it is. It is declining, depression globally is rising, etc. as has been well reported because we are becoming more connected but have not valued this rising connection between us.
The good thing is that the framework is there. We’re already connected, economically, etc. in ways that prior generations simply weren’t. And if the framework is there, then all that need now be applied is the proper intention: To begin to value our interconnection and interdependence, and thus solve our happiness dilemma.
A comment on Conversation: Why do people who have many advantages in life struggle with ongoing happiness whilst others with far less to be happy about are happier?
Part 1:
I know you speak from experience. But the scientific data does not support what you have said. Overall, people mostly share similar levels of happiness. And yet, a question persists today, “Is overall happiness declining?”
It has been well proven through research that income does not make you any happier than a person who only earns a modest wage. The real difference lies in a person who cannot meet his/her needs and a person who can. This is the severe difference that exists within global society.
But what is happiness? Have we yet to define it, conclusively? Is there an agreed upon definition for what it is? There isn’t. It is this vague term which we each use to describe the overall state which we feel.
Each of us is governed, as psychology is quick to point out, by a pain vs. pleasure principle. We move towards what gives us pleasure, away from what gives us pain, and calculate the acquisition of a future pleasure based off of the effort/energy/pain that we will be required to endure in order to acquire the future pleasure.
But there is something else here, something which we are mostly unfamiliar with, which ties directly into this modern question, “Is overall happiness declining?”
As many a sociologist has pointed out in recent years, we are witnessing a gradual decline in community. But strangely, as those such as cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch PhD report: ““What I would consider the tragedy of our times is that we are more connected than ever, and yet, we don’t realize it and don’t truly live it.”
The idea that others are more happy, getting back to your comment, is common. Each person usually thinks that, “The grass is greener on the other side.” But factually, the problem of humanity becoming more interconnected, but increasingly more isolated (as far as how we treat that growing connection) seems to be key to understanding the question of, “Is overall happiness declining?”
A comment on Conversation: We need more cooperation than competition.
We also suffer a problem that is a result of being in a paradigm. The comment of Pat Gilbert says it all, "Ain't gunna happen, competition is organic to LIFE."
Yes, competition is organic to life. But seeing it in a way where it is, "Dog eat dog," is not. It is a part of a paradigm, a system of thinking which has been developed and cultivated, and presides over us all. In fact, so ubiquitous is this paradigm, that we mostly don't question it. Instead, we say, "Well that's the way things are," etc.
But perhaps we do not see the role of education in changing paradigms, in developing new behavioral traits, new thoughts, new desires. Yes, competition is inherent within our species, but the form has yet to be perfected.
For instance, when competition does not benefit society, the equilibrium that society needs to operate (and which it has ultimately yet to achieve anywhere), becomes impossible to fathom, impossible to realize.
Only when competition has been inverted, where each seeks to benefit society the most they can, and competes in this way, towards the betterment of society, will competition reach maturity as a form. Until then, it is only something which stands in the way of society's evolution.
A reply on Conversation: Will we ever truly be able to model nature?
One thing I'd like to do is address the last overlying question Josh asks above: "Will we ever be able to reach this point and truly copy nature?"
And the question I have for this is, "What is the intention for wanting to do so?"
Because since civilizations beginnings man has built collective stories, throughout all the various cultures of the world, which distance mankind from Nature, pit us above her, or in some eternal struggle against her.
So, it seems that if we are to come to copy Nature then we will have to resolve this outlook. And that's where new education can come into the picture: To wipe away the old myths we have about Nature and each other.
And like E Pines says, "... the next step in this is the joining of Humanity as a whole, a single mind like natural communities in Nature." And that's another fundamental element that can't be separated from the search to copy Nature.
So I think that the first step in this process, of wanting to copy Nature, is proceeding according to how we see Nature operate: As an all inclusive system. And from my perspective, we are the only ones out of balance in this system.
So if we want to copy Nature (and yes please), then we must learn to adapt ourselves to Nature. And, given our collective history as a species, this doesn't come naturally to us. We need new education, devised with the goal of, "adapting us to Nature," to be created and then distributed to everyone (so not just education for children or young adults; but for everyone, since it takes a united humanity to come into balance, or to copy Nature).
A reply on Talk: Clay Shirky: Why SOPA is a bad idea
A comment on Talk: Geoff Mulgan: A short intro to the Studio School