Apr 17 2012: Are you contacting the PR departement and they are just hanging up when you call?
Also, while you probably believe that your idea is a gift to mankind, most people who call "with a free, helpful service" are trying to push some salespitch to solicit money from the company.
Also, when you say "free", are you saying that you or any of your friends/family will never, ever, make a profit from running this organization? And is this regulated by some form of paperwork that assures the corporation that this is a truly free service for them? Otherwise, that's a start.
Apr 4 2012: So you believe that there's one thing that we can currently do that costs $5M that would turn one village into a blooming wonderland of joy, yet somehow noone already does this? And you are not willing to spend more than 0,8% of your lottery winnings on this?
Seen from a charitable point of view, you would do more good per theoretical lottery ticket by just giving the money to a sharity in the first place. So in a very real scenario, you can choose to do more good now, then you could ever do with the money, by not buying the ticket.
Mar 22 2012: Not off topic yet thought, since it's still about an answer to the question "... why Trees were evolved?"
But I find it odd that a theory that seemingly works well and compatible with other scientific theories is waved off first as a belief and then as an equally well-thorised belief as the book you wrote that's supposedly speaks for god.
What would make the old earth part subject to belief, compared to say gravity and how we can send up satellites in orbit around a non-flat earth. Or why don't you say that the earth is flat by the same reason that a round earth theory is just a belief?
I read up on the flood, turns out there is not enough water on this planet, if there was enough vapour, we would die, the flood would not be able to cause the natural phenomenals we see around the world. Then there's some other problems, like why did kangaroos go to australia and not scandinavia and russia?
I also wonder why you are forced to believe?
And these questions still remain; how is your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today? What would qualify it as a valid scientific theory? Where's, for example, the falsifiability or predictability?
Mar 22 2012: If you learn about cellphones and can access them, you can make the decission if you'd like to have long-distance wireless communication or not. It's true that we need very little, food, water and heat, then we can sit in our own shit all life.
The probelm is if you engage in prohibiting people from learning. You are using a position where you can observe them, but they can't observe you. Then you make decisions for them about their life. You are forcing them into a specific life. More to that later.
Happiness is something we adapt to, I think there was a ted-talk a while ago about it. People who become paralyzed or loses a leg or something horrible like that are sad for some time, then they go back to their normal happiness.
That people before 1800 didn't know about quantum mechanics, does this mean we should avoid it to preserve happiness? Of course not. Does it mean that we should hide it from others because we decide that they should be happier without it? Of course not, that would be silly. Yet you want people to play God in a similar fascion when it comes to tribes.
When it comes to medicine, if you fall and land unfortunately, you can break your scaphoideum (or if it's the area of the hand) and that's both bad and dangerous. If you look at the amount of competence required to treat it (secretary, nurse, doctor, x-ray engineer, medical transport personel, etc.), it comes down to quite a lot of knowledge that we need, perhaps to survive. And that's all free from decease. Something that some countries considers rights. You are denying them the knowledge about the help available, such as medical treatment.
I bet kleptomaniacs are happy sometimes, doesn't mean I want to waive it off as "that's just their way of living".
But I guess it still comes down to; are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?
Mar 22 2012: The book provides the real truth thought, you should pick it up.
But this discussion quickly went astray, as most of these discussions do. Now it's about finding a small part of a fairly comprehensive, real theory about the world which randomly educated people can't quickly fit into a 2000 character box and make it completely comprehensible. But even if, would it serve any purpose? Won't your counter-question always be "yes, but that doesnt work without..., you have to do better than that" until there's nothing left to explain, and then you'll choose to discard everything as rubbish because the vague belief of "beginning" and "existance" is not clearly defined, proved and well-argued for?
Could you please argue for your standpoint, instead of immediately going over to argue in a way where your belief can never be criticised?
I can start you off. If you think everything started to exist "a while ago" and always was what it ever will be, what allows the billion-year-earth theroies to seeminly work as a theory of the age of the earth and the universe, etc.?
How would your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today?
Mar 21 2012: Of course it's always easy to poke hole in any theory or idea or opinion if you're allowed to just make up completely false things and use them as facts. Have you actually picked up Apple's 10-K document and read through how they conduct business? It's available at investor.apple.com, I suggest you do, maybe you can stop lying.
Then you can take a look at the ownership structure. Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners, 70%. Apple's interest would not be money? Please! Wasn't steve fired because he didn't run it as the owners wanted?
You also fail to see the marketing strategy in the company? Take one very likeable person, associate him with innovation and design (instead of profits and business), create an opposition (evil microsoft), promote it as a service to mankind, sell for huge profitmargins while everyone praises the non-profit, honorable goal of the company?
Mar 20 2012: Everything has pros and cons, but I think it's a great advantage to be aware of all of them and then make a decision. And are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?
I'm not talking about telling anyone how to live, but to introduce the changes we've made over the years to reach the society we have now. With pros and cons. Then they have the information available and can make an educated decision how they would like to relate to it.
And what's the point in mentioning a bunch of third-worldish countries?
Mar 20 2012: Are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are? I.e. they are aware that 'we' have cures for a lot of diseases that would otherwise kill them?
Becuase I find the thought that 'we' decide that 'they just shouldn't be interfered with because the tribe is so cultural and amazing' repulsing. As if they're some different breed that just couldn't cut it with todays world. Yet you talk about a cage, what do you mean that they are in now?
TEDCred score: +2.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: How do I get organizations to respond to me?
Also, while you probably believe that your idea is a gift to mankind, most people who call "with a free, helpful service" are trying to push some salespitch to solicit money from the company.
Also, when you say "free", are you saying that you or any of your friends/family will never, ever, make a profit from running this organization? And is this regulated by some form of paperwork that assures the corporation that this is a truly free service for them? Otherwise, that's a start.
A comment on Conversation: Focus the lessons learned by The Gates Foundation to one village: health & wellness; financial services, agriculture or industry, education
Seen from a charitable point of view, you would do more good per theoretical lottery ticket by just giving the money to a sharity in the first place. So in a very real scenario, you can choose to do more good now, then you could ever do with the money, by not buying the ticket.
A reply on Conversation: My question is how and why Trees were evolved? what were the circumstances that immovable trees evolved from a moving single cell.
But I find it odd that a theory that seemingly works well and compatible with other scientific theories is waved off first as a belief and then as an equally well-thorised belief as the book you wrote that's supposedly speaks for god.
What would make the old earth part subject to belief, compared to say gravity and how we can send up satellites in orbit around a non-flat earth. Or why don't you say that the earth is flat by the same reason that a round earth theory is just a belief?
I read up on the flood, turns out there is not enough water on this planet, if there was enough vapour, we would die, the flood would not be able to cause the natural phenomenals we see around the world. Then there's some other problems, like why did kangaroos go to australia and not scandinavia and russia?
I also wonder why you are forced to believe?
And these questions still remain; how is your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today? What would qualify it as a valid scientific theory? Where's, for example, the falsifiability or predictability?
A reply on Conversation: Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?
The probelm is if you engage in prohibiting people from learning. You are using a position where you can observe them, but they can't observe you. Then you make decisions for them about their life. You are forcing them into a specific life. More to that later.
Happiness is something we adapt to, I think there was a ted-talk a while ago about it. People who become paralyzed or loses a leg or something horrible like that are sad for some time, then they go back to their normal happiness.
That people before 1800 didn't know about quantum mechanics, does this mean we should avoid it to preserve happiness? Of course not. Does it mean that we should hide it from others because we decide that they should be happier without it? Of course not, that would be silly. Yet you want people to play God in a similar fascion when it comes to tribes.
When it comes to medicine, if you fall and land unfortunately, you can break your scaphoideum (or if it's the area of the hand) and that's both bad and dangerous. If you look at the amount of competence required to treat it (secretary, nurse, doctor, x-ray engineer, medical transport personel, etc.), it comes down to quite a lot of knowledge that we need, perhaps to survive. And that's all free from decease. Something that some countries considers rights. You are denying them the knowledge about the help available, such as medical treatment.
I bet kleptomaniacs are happy sometimes, doesn't mean I want to waive it off as "that's just their way of living".
But I guess it still comes down to; are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?
A reply on Conversation: My question is how and why Trees were evolved? what were the circumstances that immovable trees evolved from a moving single cell.
But this discussion quickly went astray, as most of these discussions do. Now it's about finding a small part of a fairly comprehensive, real theory about the world which randomly educated people can't quickly fit into a 2000 character box and make it completely comprehensible. But even if, would it serve any purpose? Won't your counter-question always be "yes, but that doesnt work without..., you have to do better than that" until there's nothing left to explain, and then you'll choose to discard everything as rubbish because the vague belief of "beginning" and "existance" is not clearly defined, proved and well-argued for?
Could you please argue for your standpoint, instead of immediately going over to argue in a way where your belief can never be criticised?
I can start you off. If you think everything started to exist "a while ago" and always was what it ever will be, what allows the billion-year-earth theroies to seeminly work as a theory of the age of the earth and the universe, etc.?
How would your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today?
A reply on Conversation: What is next? The future of capitalism.
Then you can take a look at the ownership structure. Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners, 70%. Apple's interest would not be money? Please! Wasn't steve fired because he didn't run it as the owners wanted?
You also fail to see the marketing strategy in the company? Take one very likeable person, associate him with innovation and design (instead of profits and business), create an opposition (evil microsoft), promote it as a service to mankind, sell for huge profitmargins while everyone praises the non-profit, honorable goal of the company?
A reply on Conversation: Google. Do you like or hate it?
A reply on Conversation: My question is how and why Trees were evolved? what were the circumstances that immovable trees evolved from a moving single cell.
A reply on Conversation: Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?
I'm not talking about telling anyone how to live, but to introduce the changes we've made over the years to reach the society we have now. With pros and cons. Then they have the information available and can make an educated decision how they would like to relate to it.
And what's the point in mentioning a bunch of third-worldish countries?
A reply on Conversation: Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?
Becuase I find the thought that 'we' decide that 'they just shouldn't be interfered with because the tribe is so cultural and amazing' repulsing. As if they're some different breed that just couldn't cut it with todays world. Yet you talk about a cage, what do you mean that they are in now?