Mar 17 2012: I'm not sure the question is framed in the best way. I see the point you're trying to get and and the problem you're trying to solve. But making bureaucracy sexier isn't the answer. Last time I checked, crazy/ignorant/ people like sexy too...
Mar 16 2012: Yes, that is an "answer", but it the trivial solution. If you set your answer to be whatever the solution to the question is, you've missed the purpose of the question. Here's an anology. If your math teacher gives you a complex equation and asks "What is x?", your answer would have been "whatever the solution to this equation is". Although it's true, you've both missed the point of the question and not given us any new information or insight.
Mar 16 2012: So I'll play devil's advocate and put a challenge out. His forecasts and predictions are correct IF you assume that consumption of goods/resources will either remain the same or only increase.
I think this is a horrible assumption. It ignores all of the feedback and signalling mechanisms that are essential to the complex system that is an economy. It is a huge case of confirmation bias, negativity bias and framing bias.
There is so much focus on macro level indicators, and I suppose this is perpetuated by our desire to compress information. But anyone who has actually thought about economics should realise that these are, at best, approximations of health (hence why they are called indicators, not proof). These models which are put forward to predict the future ignore so many things (human action for one!) - how many times have these predictions been correct? Has anyone actually checked the validity of someone else's previous predictions? If you have a nice looking economist in a nice looking suit telling you the world will blow up in 30 years time, see his previous predictions - if most of those were incorrect, why ought we believe this most recent one?
Generally speaking, our models of complex systems are awful. The lesson I've learned is how little we know. Thoughts?
Jan 16 2012: I don't want to post something huge, so I'll just provide a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy
Teleonomy looks at emergent purpose - tends to be used in evolutionary biology, but finds relevance in culture, education, philosophy, economics, governments, corporations - you name it. So to answer the question - all who participate play their own role in shaping the purpose. No individual or group of individuals can effectively determine the purpose of something as complex as education, and I'm not sure I would want them to even if they could.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: How do we make Bureaucracy sexy?
A reply on Talk: Questions no one knows the answers to
my 2c
A comment on Talk: Paul Gilding: The Earth is full
I think this is a horrible assumption. It ignores all of the feedback and signalling mechanisms that are essential to the complex system that is an economy. It is a huge case of confirmation bias, negativity bias and framing bias.
There is so much focus on macro level indicators, and I suppose this is perpetuated by our desire to compress information. But anyone who has actually thought about economics should realise that these are, at best, approximations of health (hence why they are called indicators, not proof). These models which are put forward to predict the future ignore so many things (human action for one!) - how many times have these predictions been correct? Has anyone actually checked the validity of someone else's previous predictions? If you have a nice looking economist in a nice looking suit telling you the world will blow up in 30 years time, see his previous predictions - if most of those were incorrect, why ought we believe this most recent one?
Generally speaking, our models of complex systems are awful. The lesson I've learned is how little we know. Thoughts?
A comment on Conversation: Who should decide what the purpose of education is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy
Teleonomy looks at emergent purpose - tends to be used in evolutionary biology, but finds relevance in culture, education, philosophy, economics, governments, corporations - you name it. So to answer the question - all who participate play their own role in shaping the purpose. No individual or group of individuals can effectively determine the purpose of something as complex as education, and I'm not sure I would want them to even if they could.