Jan 24 2012: Similar to you I really got a lot out of the Final Fantasy series. For me it was Final Fantasy III although VII is up there as well. In 3 its a similar game concept but the world was under threat by the Empire and its leader (the Emperor of course!). But about halfway through the game you actually find its the Emperor's right hand man Kefka who is the mastermind behind the evil of the world and your quest turns to working with your friends to defeat him. At the halfway point I mentioned Kefka kills the Emperor himself and causes an apocalyptic disaster that reshapes the face if the world, killing people and scattering your party across the "globe". You spend the last half of the game reuniting your group of characters, solving problems caused by Kekfa's apocalypse and ultimately trying to destroy him.
Out of all this it made me think about the notions of good and evil, and how the root causes of a lot of problem might not be what it initially appears to be (eg Kefka being the true evil behind the Emperor). It also makes you think about the people around you (your "party") and how important it is to appreciate their diverse abilities, styles, personalities, etc. without the combination of different character skills in the game you wouldn't be able to defeat Kefka in the end. Finally it reminds you about perseverance no matter how bad things get. Sounds very profound and clearly "it's just a game" but you're right that there are lessons that people take away from them.
Great topic. Looking forward to reading other people's comments.
Dec 22 2011: This is in response to David's comments above. I don't disagree with sex being a major driver of human behaviour but I have to address a couple of areas where I fundamentally disagree with your argument. The fact that fertility and replacement rates in developing countries is higher than in the Western world has nothing to do with level of access to sex or some sort of "choice culture needs to work on". In developing countries there is significantly lower access to contraception, and even more importantly family sizes *need* to be larger to support a greater dependence on agriculture - more hands to work the fields. Even in developed countries you see larger family sizes in rural areas where agriculture plays a big role in the local economy. And the size of American families is getting smaller, not larger as I think your second last message suggests. It has nothing to do with puritanism, and everything to do with practical needs.
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this and again while I recognise the role that sex and sexuality plays in culture around the world, I don't think the argument here reflects the reality of what is happening in these countries. Maybe I'm completely off here and I've totally misunderstood your posts (which I hope) so interested to know if I'm missing something....
Dec 22 2011: I don't think it's only about ego. Depending on the circumstances someone might take a position on a topic as a straw argument to motivate action or discussion. I do it all the time - sometimes I'll even take a more extreme position on a topic than even I believe in, just to put a stake in the ground and move people along. I'll hold that stake lightly in the hopes that even if I get knocked down a couple of notches we'll land on an agreement that is more within the bounds of what I expect. Also on controversial matters like factors driving poverty, crime, or topics like abortion, we'll tend to view these issues through the lens of our beliefs and world outlook. So no matter how much cold hard data you look at, interpretation plays a huge role. So in this case it's less a matter of "wanting" to be right, and more a case of genuinely believing that one is right.
So yes ego is absolutely there and I'm as guilty as anyone else in falling victim to it every now and again (maybe even in my position on this topic!). So if we strip out the desire to be right, sure perhaps we'd all do less talking and more listening. But we need people to take a position on something in order to motivate discussion...and if people genuinely believe they are right they should defend the position, but then have the humility to give in where appropriate. Might not always happen though, as beliefs that are rooted in how someone sees the world are almost impossible to shake. My two pesos!
Dec 20 2011: Agreed, and perhaps we can find more impetus to make it happen if we could anticipate and create solutions that recognise your vision of a more equitable Guatemala could create short term 'problems' for the elites. So I guess the next question becomes...how to we position poverty eradication as good for everyone??
Dec 20 2011: I wasn't able to respond to Manuel's comment to me so may as well do it here. Since I threw the 5 why's concept out there I guess I should put money where mouth is and take a stab at this. Firstly I think the root causes of poverty are multifactorial and vary by country, but probably not as much as most would expect. For example it's clear why warlords in rural Pakistan or Afghanistan would want to ban the education of girls under the guise of "Islam", but it's not clear who benefits from, say, poverty in Uganda. It could just be I don't know enough about that country.
So I'll take a stab at an example where I think I have some insight, which is poverty among aboriginal communities in Canada. I will ask WHY five times and the numbers indicate each layer down. Note to readers - I anticipate this will cause controversy and no I am not an expert in this subject, nor am I part of those communities. Feel free to correct what you feel is inaccurate.
1. Because unemployment among these communities is very high
2. Because there is a lack of sustainable jobs on reservations and many individuals are unable or unwilling to relocate to urban centres
3. Because (among other factors) they either don't feel they welcome or able to compete among non-aboriginals in the workforce
4. Because of a combination of structural discrimination against aboriginals, low motivation to seek higher education, and don't feel they have a "stake" in the future of the broader country
5. Because of a history of unaddressed historical grievances with non-aboriginals, and significant social issues in the community such as abuse and addiction (potentially linked to not feeling a stake in the future as indicated above)
So that's my stab at it. I'm sure it'll be controversial but let's focus on whether the process is a useful way to identify root causes of poverty (and don't attack me!). Anyone else want to give it a try, perhaps focusing on a different area where poverty exists?
Dec 19 2011: This is a good question to ask as it questions whether the solution to "eradicating poverty" is to simply give more money. I work in the private sector, in an industry facing immense change in the current economic climate. One of the things we're doing about it is to ensure the activities we undertake are aligned with a proper diagnosis and root cause analysis of what the problem really is. A simplistic way to do this is to identify a problem and ask "why" five times....and this usually leads to the root cause. Simply increasing income is probably a solution that is the result of asking "why" only once (why are people poor? because they don't have money.). Ask why people don't have money, and repeat the exercise a few more time and you'll layer down to the root causes of poverty. This is why I made the argument I did. Hope it helps!
Dec 19 2011: On this my answer still stands - unless people are empowered with education and eccess to information in order to make decisions on how to spend the money they have, any increases above the poverty threshold are at risk of predatory government or criminal behaviour that siphons off that increased income and concentrates it among an elite few. We see this in many countries that experience sudden increases in national wealth, especially ones that are highly dependent on income from natural resources like oil or diamonds. To a lesser extent we see it in China as well.
To that end I think rather than assuming increased income necessarily leads to an increased ability to acquire goods, services and basic needs, I would argue that the factors I described in my message need to be in place first.
Hope this answers your question if I understood it correctly.
Dec 19 2011: I agree with the users here that say simply increasing income in isolation would actually make the problem worse. Pouring money into systems/infrastructures that have failed the public mean that it will simply increase the wage gap and remain concentrated among a small group of elites.
Instead, I'll argue that poverty eradication needs to focus on three things: education, accessibility of information to the public, and ensuring that basic necessities like food and water are available across the country/region/area in question. Once these factors are in place, incomes can increase and an empowered, educated public will be able to decide how best to allocate those funds to eliminate poverty. Easier said than done but I think we've seen enough examples of successful newly-developed or "emerged" markets that suggest this formula works.
TEDCred score: +0.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Which video game has challenged your perspective on the way you live your life and how?
Out of all this it made me think about the notions of good and evil, and how the root causes of a lot of problem might not be what it initially appears to be (eg Kefka being the true evil behind the Emperor). It also makes you think about the people around you (your "party") and how important it is to appreciate their diverse abilities, styles, personalities, etc. without the combination of different character skills in the game you wouldn't be able to defeat Kefka in the end. Finally it reminds you about perseverance no matter how bad things get. Sounds very profound and clearly "it's just a game" but you're right that there are lessons that people take away from them.
Great topic. Looking forward to reading other people's comments.
A reply on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this and again while I recognise the role that sex and sexuality plays in culture around the world, I don't think the argument here reflects the reality of what is happening in these countries. Maybe I'm completely off here and I've totally misunderstood your posts (which I hope) so interested to know if I'm missing something....
A comment on Conversation: How would we treat each other if we were not controlled by a need to be right?
So yes ego is absolutely there and I'm as guilty as anyone else in falling victim to it every now and again (maybe even in my position on this topic!). So if we strip out the desire to be right, sure perhaps we'd all do less talking and more listening. But we need people to take a position on something in order to motivate discussion...and if people genuinely believe they are right they should defend the position, but then have the humility to give in where appropriate. Might not always happen though, as beliefs that are rooted in how someone sees the world are almost impossible to shake. My two pesos!
A reply on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
A reply on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
So I'll take a stab at an example where I think I have some insight, which is poverty among aboriginal communities in Canada. I will ask WHY five times and the numbers indicate each layer down. Note to readers - I anticipate this will cause controversy and no I am not an expert in this subject, nor am I part of those communities. Feel free to correct what you feel is inaccurate.
1. Because unemployment among these communities is very high
2. Because there is a lack of sustainable jobs on reservations and many individuals are unable or unwilling to relocate to urban centres
3. Because (among other factors) they either don't feel they welcome or able to compete among non-aboriginals in the workforce
4. Because of a combination of structural discrimination against aboriginals, low motivation to seek higher education, and don't feel they have a "stake" in the future of the broader country
5. Because of a history of unaddressed historical grievances with non-aboriginals, and significant social issues in the community such as abuse and addiction (potentially linked to not feeling a stake in the future as indicated above)
So that's my stab at it. I'm sure it'll be controversial but let's focus on whether the process is a useful way to identify root causes of poverty (and don't attack me!). Anyone else want to give it a try, perhaps focusing on a different area where poverty exists?
A reply on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
A reply on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
To that end I think rather than assuming increased income necessarily leads to an increased ability to acquire goods, services and basic needs, I would argue that the factors I described in my message need to be in place first.
Hope this answers your question if I understood it correctly.
A comment on Conversation: In addition to increasing income, what else should poverty eradication include?
Instead, I'll argue that poverty eradication needs to focus on three things: education, accessibility of information to the public, and ensuring that basic necessities like food and water are available across the country/region/area in question. Once these factors are in place, incomes can increase and an empowered, educated public will be able to decide how best to allocate those funds to eliminate poverty. Easier said than done but I think we've seen enough examples of successful newly-developed or "emerged" markets that suggest this formula works.