Bernardo Cruz

Student , Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto
Porto, Portugal

About Bernardo

Edit profile

Bio

I'm a medical student at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto.
I've participated in two European Youth Parliament forums in Portugal.

An idea worth spreading

Your head is not just for you to show your hairstyle - use your mind!

I'm passionate about

Reading, debating, playing poker and the Rubik's cube.

Talk to me about

Talk to me if you have something to say I'll be interested in.

Comments & conversations

0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Could TED conversations be improved by adding a country-related filter? And even pave the way to start local TED-inspired actions?
Agree! It would be good if we had the option to discuss national-specific issues in TED.com (of course that doesn´t mean only people from that country should discuss it; all points of view enrich a conversation). Firstly, it would be a great space to discussion of those issues. It's true there are lots of websites for national discussions, but exacly because there are a lot TED.com could be the prime center for that kind of debates (not so disperse debates). In fact, I think this is a great space to discuss, and you find a lot of intelligent points around here. Secondly, it could be a good way to stimulate action, like Bruno Carre referred. It's much easier for people from the same region to make something real together than if they lived far apart. So, I say national discussions open to everybody are a good idea!
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
Hello again I also have deep suspicions about carbon trading results seeing what they were so far. But we have to find a way to promote forest protection, garbage treatment and other actions that require active investment. That was what leaded me to create this discussion after all. And I know that it won't work simply by asking people to be good to old gentle mother Earth. Of course the system will have to ensure that all avoidable "miss uses" are avoided. About companies cleaning their hands with geo-engineering with the tax, I think that , if a company emits X tons of CO2 and it either uses geo-engineering or mantains a forest so that X tons of CO2 is absorbed (or pays some one else to do it), I don't see the big problem. There's a balance in this situation. Of course it's not so simple for water and air pollution, but if we want, we will get to an acceptable market system for those issues... Again discussing about the fate of the penalties collected, millenium goals aren't a bad fate for the money, but i still think this would work better if we use the money of penalties for rewards (it would be like company A that emitted X tons of CO2 paying company B to take those X tons out of the atmosphere. The value of the ton of CO2 would have to be high enough so that the balance would be near zero. About "solving instead of curing", fully agree if we're talking about releasing hazardous chemicals into the wild (you can't revert that). But if we're talking about CO2 emissions, per example, it's something you can compensate, and society can't live with prohibited emissions. But I hope the outcome of this conversation will be better than my original idea. Greetings
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
I thank you, Antoine, for the things you pointed out, this is in deed something difficult and expensive to put into practise, but I think it's the only way to save our future. Firstly, I think you don't really double the difficulty of calculating benefit and loss. See this, if I emit X tons of carbon into the atmosphere, I'd pay Y. If I planted a forest that would take X tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, I'd receive Y. So, it'd be like an equilibrium, a balance. Of course we would have to allow something more to be taken from nature that it is replenished, but avoiding future generations to be harmed because of that (see what I said to Ariel Israel about calculating the price of oil extraction). That's also my point when I say some people should receive and others pay. You believe it should be only a penalty system (not receiving). But if it would be so, how would we benefit the ones you e.g. mantain a forest? We can't apply a bill to everyone who doesn't plant trees... Showing the proportion of the price of each product that will go to paying this nature tax is a very good idea, I believe. It should be done that way. 1. I think that criteria (CO2, water, air pollution) is good for starting. I'd add another: resource usage, to be calculated for at least the major resources. 2. See what I said to Ariel Israel about the price to put on oil extraction. 3. Some global structure should be created for this to work most effectively. Something transgovernmental... Where? Well, I think it should be collected like taxes... Can't say more than this... 4. I'm thinking in the money collected and the money used in rewards as a balance: the profit for the collecting entity would be just enough to pay for all the expenses of the maintainance of such a system. 5. Garbage? It'd also be useful to include it, but perhaps not in a first stage (we should try it first with e.g. carbon and then as it'd work (or not) we would apply it to more environmental areas).
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
This value issue (how much should they pay or receive?) is really the hardest of this system. It'll not be easy to agree on a certain value, but I think it's better for it to work with an 'incorrect' value than to not work at all. I think the value should be enough to ensure future generations will have oil until they have developed an alternative energy source. If it would be like making the use of resources equal to their natural replenishment, the oil we could use annually would be near zero. So, I think we should make a prediction (of course it may fail, but it's better than nothing) on when will mankind have an alternative energy source and so put such a price on oil extraction that it lasts in considerable quantity until the time we have an alternative source. So, if you want, it's like altruism between generations. Hard to apply, that's why I say we need political will to tackle this problems.
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Payment for ecologic services (and penalties for ecologic damages)
I say political will. You make it a reality just like you apply a law or enforce a change in society: the ones with political power have to do the courageous step forward. Of course I don't see those narrow austerity-focused minds that lead us thinking about these issues that are simple but have profound consequences. New open-minded ecologic parties will have to emerge, so that this kind of ideas gets to the media and political pressure can work. We live in a time of history when it's up to all of us to propose the ideas and make them be heard. Petitions and new parties are good ways. But I honestly don't know who will launch them... Maybe one of us.
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
I think a banknote should have an expiration date.
In a certain way, banknotes are eroded as time goes by: it's inflation. Money loses its value overtime, even that slowly, not abbruptly as this idea suggests. However, I don't think this would benefit society. What about if money had an expiration date? It would be basicly the same: when my money was about to expire, I'd invest it in e.g. buildings and I would sell them later and get my money back. Anyway, no doubts it's an interesting idea. It can make people think.
0ba1cadaafaf6f0bc287689673fe8ebe0395c2b3 50x50
Bernardo Cruz
Posted about 2 years ago
Let's start a system in which we have school/college in every city/state/country must adopt this model.
I really don't see the benefit of elders being with students who are forced to be in the same room as them when they would want to be playing PlayStation, watching movies, hanging out with friends or doing something else. Being in the same room is very different from having a true conversation. Loneliness in elders is a greater problem than this idea tries to make believe. Why don't States support initiatives like social activities for elders (social gatherings, dancing classes, gymnastics, ...)?