TED Community » Erik Danziger

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Logic, Philosophy, History, Politics, Psychology

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: can science be linked with god?

  Feb 10 2012: To answer your question one must first define "God". I'm going to propose a little thought experiment: What if God was not a single entity? What if God was a huge mosaic formed from all human conciousness? Humans, throughout their existance have always felt the primary need to associate in groups, to be a part of something bigger than themselves. What if humans also need to feel there is something bigger than themselves in a spiritual way so they can feel more secure about what surrounds them phisically?
  
  What if "God" is the natural response humans have come up with to answer that need?
  
  To many it's very frightening (if I can say so) that we are just the result of 14 billion years of RANDOM events. For them it's unimaginable the fact that there is no higher force governing the universe.
  
  What if our minds are "set" to admit the existance of such a higher force, be it God or a universal mathematical equation?
  
  Science and "God" can be linked together by being different answers to the same questions, in my humble opinion.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Negative campaigning hurts Humanity: No one disagrees? Then why are people voting?

  Feb 10 2012: "Wow, let's teach our children how to be mean to each other, step on others, spin their words, find out how to bring others down, oppress people, suppress others, be narcissistic, egotistical,
  and flat out lie. Heck, let's all fight for power and control. "
  
  Well, isn't that the definition of modern politics?
  
  You know why mudslinging and dirty tactics work? Because they're efficent, because they intrigue the people more than a "fair fight" could ever do.
  
  Paradoxally, a politician who built his image upon criticizing and attacking other politicians (deserving or not) is granted the status of "clean, uncorrupted, a man of morals". People don't want reasonable persuasion from politicians, people want to see radical thinking and immediate action. People don't need to be shown a true leader, people need to be shown their "common enemy", thus rallying themselves under the one who points the "enemy" out as opposed to rationally evaluating every candidate and making a choice based on that analysis.

• A comment on Conversation: Are there any merits to the idea that Communism is "feminine"?

  Feb 9 2012: Communism originates in the XIXth century, a century where societies were still patriarchal and elitist therefore, personally, I don't see any feminine influence to it.
  
  Communism started as the struggle of lower classes...Communism called upon those people to rise and overthrow the status quo, the nobles, the aristocracy and so on. Communism did not mean "let's share what we, the adepts, have" but instead meant "let's overthrow the upper classes, share their wealth and make everyone equal".
  
  I'm not talking the about the way it was implemented here, I'm talking about the way it was thought. The idea itself was radical...I don't think it gets manlier than that.
  
  Oh and by the way, in communism YOU don't own anything, the STATE does, so there's really nothing to share...
  
  Also communism starts from the false presumption that we are all equal. We are born anatomically different therefore we have different needs, different needs require different treatments, different treatments generate different outcomes and so on...

• A comment on Conversation: Were China and Russia justified in vetoing the UN resolution for Syria?

  Feb 9 2012: 1. As I am sure you have noticed, China and Russia are playing a constant game of "ballancing" the decisions the U.S. makes. And by "ballancing" I mean in fact opposing without any other reason than maybe to assert their position as great powers whose decision weighs heavy. It's a game of image and international prestige.
  
  2. The West is not bound to intervene anywhere, unless there's interest of any sorts in the region, be it economical or military. The pretext to intervention is already at hand: "to avoid further bloodshed, maintain peace in the region and ensure a democratic system". It is only a matter of what will bring more benefits: intervening or not intervening?
  
  3. Intervention might generate the exact opposite and provide legitimacy to Syrian Government, and the blame will fall again on the U.S. for playing their imperialistic games.
  
  4. Syria is not the only strategic location in the region the U.S. could use for an eventual attack on Iran.
  
  5. The resolution was not intended to solve conflicts, the resolution was intended strictly to be ignored by the Bashar-al Assad's regime thus justifying intervention.
  
  6. I am not even going to answer that. History speaks for itself.
  
  7. I suppose one could draw a line between the two, though I am aware there are a lot of differences in the background of libyan and syrian uprisings.

• A comment on Conversation: That INTENT of a LAW must become reason to enlarge its interpretation if it the INTENT is not delivering the intended benefit

  Feb 9 2012: The 250 year-old laws, how you call them mr. Udai, provide legal solutions to old problems that are present in today's society as well. Of course, a lot of things has changed ever since, that's why the laws have been adapted or amended to fit the present circumstances. Other new laws have been created as well in order to answer to new challenges that present themselves along with the technological, social, cultural and economical progress.
  
  In my opinon, laws shouldn't be INTERPRETED because some might exploit that and distort the intent of that law as they see fit for themselves. It's not the interpretation that needs to be enlarged. A law must simply be "updated" from time to time, and that is already happening in democratic societies.
  
  As for the person who comes from a society with no democratic background into a democratic society, I believe it's that person's DUTY to inform themselves over the laws that are there. If that person does not understand what it means, again, it's that person's duty to seek advice on the matter. There are plenty of services and law firms that do such counseling nowadays.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Why do we need violence to transfer power?

  Feb 9 2012: "Wrong" is a relative term. What some percieve as right, others percieve as wrong due to cultural differences or different moral systems to which they are used.
  
  To answer your question, the people who still hold on to their positions or ideas or even habits DON'T actually know they are wrong either because they don't know the negative implications of their actions or because they choose to close their eyes and be ignorant of them.
  
  As to the matter of "revolutions", in my humble opinion no revolution happens without being allowed to happen. In this century, nothing is spontaneous anymore.

• A comment on Conversation: The Culture of Want; the Now generation

  Feb 8 2012: I'm sorry to say this, but your friend's case is not singluar...He's just one of the many who contribute to the Western capitalist waste trend. It's not your generation's fault it is that way, you are not the trendsetters, you are merely the ones who follow it, most of your lives unknowingly. You have been raised that way, accustomed to having everything you need and then some.
  
  As I said, the game was set long before your generation was born, the Western economies were already consumption-oriented and you are now realising this led to changes in society as well. Your generation's behavoiur is just the result of the society you have been educated in. Things will not change soon enough because old habits die hard.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Can corporations really interfere with the health or our world communites? If so how and what should we do about it?

  Feb 8 2012: As you have pointed out, mr. Ruiz, the actions of the corporations speak for themselves. The only thing that matters is profit, even if it is at the expense of other people, communities, countries or the environment. The main advantage a corporation has is that it works at an international level, meaning still unregulated space. Naturally, these corporations will exploit the lack of regulations, the different law systems in different countries, the corruption of foreign governments, the poverty of other states and so on, with the single purpose of achieving their goals.
  
  What can be done to stop this kind of corporate behaviour? The answer might be stronger international regulations to avoid such exploitation, BUT the problem here is not only a legal one, it's an ethical one. And besides, corporations have influence over hundreds, if not thousands of politicians around the world who will help to ensure a favourable outcome of those on whose payroll they are.
  
  I sincerely doubt there is any VIABLE solution to this matter. I think we must wait until this system fails and collapses from inside, because only then MAYBE they will have learnt the lesson.