TED Community » Pedro Maschio

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Open Source. Forestry. Automobiles.

An idea worth spreading

We can change the world with attitude, conscious use of resources, friendship and collaboration.

Talk to me about

Eliminating poverty. Sustainable forest management. Use of IT to improve quality of live. Charity fundraising

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: Luis von Ahn: Massive-scale online collaboration

  Apr 11 2012: I'd like to hear from someone that actually learned a language at Duolingo. How to find them?
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What is the source for the force of gravity?

  Mar 25 2012: sorry, I did not mean to offend or be sarcastic, I really do not understand what you mean by scientific test in the context of your comment. I agree we should not say God to all questions. I meant that gravity is one question we do not have an answer to, like we do not have an answer to "does God exist". God is the answer when we have no other answer.

• A reply on Conversation: What is the source for the force of gravity?

  Mar 25 2012: James, replace "God" with "Elementary rules of the universe". Gravity is what keeps the balance of the universe, prevents planets and stars from shocking to each other, and keep galaxies "running". It is the base, the start, the energy, the everything. We are limited by space, time, light and gravity - that defines the boundaries of our universe. We cannot explain gravity as much as we cannot explain how the other 3 started in the universe. Maybe the explanation of God is: the space, time, light and gravity in which we live. A science test... what does that mean?

• A comment on Conversation: Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?

  Mar 25 2012: Give primitive tribes access to health and education is humanist.
  Forcing them to adapt to our culture is colonialism, dictatorship, or something like that.
  
  "Our Culture" is what after all? You mean US culture, China culture, Muslim, Catholicism, Buddhism... what would be the right culture to teach? I mean, the starting point to destroy the original question is how to judge what the correct reference is for "culture". Said that, I like the question, I like the controversy that it can generate.
  
  I think it is wrong to keep tribes isolated from the world. I think they should have access to medication and all the knowledge we have to improve health and to extend life. In some reserves in US and south Brazil, tribes live in reserves but have access to cities, doctors and so forth, and have the chance to choose where to live. In other places, like north Brazil and Africa, tribes are isolated inside forest reserves, which makes access to doctors and goods very difficult. North Africa, Middle East and Asia have tribes living in mixed environments. A lot of TV news showing starvation and poverty are about tribes living in poverty.
  
  Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist? (1) Because we are not smart enough to eliminate poverty (assuming primitive means poverty); (2) Because nobody holds the right to impose others to change (assuming primitive means "thinking different"); and (3) There is no such thing as "primitive" as of todays' interpretation of culture (assuming there is no "good culture" or "bad culture").

• A reply on Conversation: Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?

  Mar 25 2012: Orlando, Europe was made of tribes, violent and in war for centuries. Meddle east still have tribes on war. Same for Africa. The tribes in Brazil were cannibal and in constant war before the Europeans arrival. Today tribes in Brazil are most often in the Amazon, though some indian reserves still exist in the south. In the Amazon, tribes use alcohol and marijuana way before the Europeans, so, drugs are a native problem. Children born without good health are killed in the first day. Average life expectation is under 40. Children die from diarrhea and easy to cure infections. You may believe Howard Zinn, Murray Bookchin and Peter Kroptkin but the world that I know is quite different.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: What are 5 values you try to live by and appreciate finding in others?

  Mar 25 2012: I think of 7 classic human virtues:
  - temperance (self control, self minded, can control his/her emotions)
  - courage (can face problems, look for alternatives, persistence, resilience)
  - prudence (calm, patience, think before act, listen to other people)
  - justice (fair, equal, balanced, honest)
  - love (friendship, kindness, charity, mercy, compassion)
  - hope (optimistic, creative, thinker, faith, believer)
  - humility (altruist, not arrogant, not rude, "open minded", able to self change and grow)
  
  these are cross-culture, cross-religion, world applicable just by adapting to local language. You've asked only 5, but I have a hard time cutting 2 of the above list, sorry!
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Peter Diamandis: Abundance is our future VS Paul Gilding: The Earth is full. There cannot be a future of abundance.

  Mar 25 2012: Mike, the sum of poor+middle+rich will always be 100% so, the percentage of middle does not matter, except for the fact that it measures distribution of resources, but not the consumption of resources. If we imagine that all the world will consume like Americans, then we do not have abundance today. But if we take the total world GDP, or world production of food, and divide by total population, we already have abundance in the sense that we can feed and educate all the world population. The real problem is distribution.
  I live in Brazil, middle class, and lived in US, middle class, it is different indeed. In US it is waste waste waste, while in Brazil I consume much less and live better. I also have worked with several of the "emerging" economies, whatever the term mean ("emerging" is an empty concept in my opinion), and "poor" in these economies differs from "poor" in the US, but this does not mean that the entire world population is willing to live like Americans. The future of abundance means that US must become "poorer" compared to other economies (which is happening since 2008), and on the other end, India and China must become richer (btw, is already happening). To understand the term "abundance" we should define what is "necessary" for living. It is clear that my understanding of abundance differs from yours.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Peter Diamandis: Abundance is our future VS Paul Gilding: The Earth is full. There cannot be a future of abundance.

  Mar 24 2012: Resources are finite but not decreasing, just transforming from one state to another. Iron from mines going to junk yards, but still iron. Ice melting to ocean then evaporating to clouds... everything is in a cycle. With technology we will find new ways of re-obtaining the finite resources that we changed from one state to another. Nothing vanishes, just move. That is explained in physics and chemistry although most people forget that basic, universal, principle.
  
  The world is already in abundance: we produce more food than we need (look at the obesity statistics). We have more cars than we need. More information than we can consume. Energy is already abundant but we waste it with unnecessary heating, cooling, and traveling. The world production (GDP) is growing by 3% per year, on average
  
  The population is already stabilizing. Growth rate peaked 2.2% in the 1963, and it was 1.1% in 2011. Simply put: the economy grows by 3% per year and the population grows by 1% per year. We have increasing abundance today. Projections are that the population will stop growing in the next 30 to 40 years.
  
  Should we refute the above numbers? Abundance distribution is a big issue, that may lead to new wars over today's uneven distribution. Global warming is a big issue: how fast new technologies will enable us to stop consuming oil? It will happen eventually (i.e.: solar power, biofuels, wind, etc) but is the warming reversible?
  
  The pessimist says we are approaching the end of mankind on earth. The optimistic says there are workarounds via technology. But most time both, the pessimist and the optimist, use the wrong arguments. Real threads are how fast and fair we can develop and distribute technology and abundance. In that matter, intellectual property (patents!) is the big stone blocking our future.
• +2

  A reply on Talk: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change

  Mar 10 2012: Theodore, I want to contribute to stop warming and strong arguments are needed to make the humanity take action. Mr.Hansen has done a good job on exposing the fact, science facts, but his speech is weak in terms of arguments to change people behavior. He is good in science matters, but not as good on negotiating to obtain the desired result: reduce CO2 in the air. He may be convincing scientists but not people in general. The statistics on warming and CO2 measures are very good arguments, solid! But saying that Antarctica is melting is weak (average temperature in Antarctica is -40 Celsius, never melts!). Saying the ocean level will go up by a foot or a yard is irrelevant, because it will take 100 years. Tax in the US is not a solution (I live in Brazil, that would not change me!). We need compelling arguments. An old sales strategy is FUD (force a decision with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), Mr. Hansen and many other scientists created the Uncertainty, a good move to sell the idea of reducing CO2 but the arguments do not make me feel Fear or Doubt the future. Stronger arguments need to address WITFM (what is in there for me), another negotiation technic: show me how global warming is costing me (or hurting me), and show me what I benefit from reducing my CO2 consumption. Pain and Benefit. Read all the responses above and you'll not find pain and benefits, that is why nobody is willing to change. Tell me how I will be happy by reducing CO2... I support the cause but I mean that we need more then scientific facts, we need a variety of "intelligences", not just the rationale behind ocean levels. I read your profile, I think you can help the cultural move.
  BTW: more people think the same, see after 13 min of http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_bliss_comedy_is_translation.html

• A reply on Talk: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change

  Mar 10 2012: Agree w/Clinton, how could tax solve the problem? It does not make sense. Would taxes apply to China and US, who burn more oil and coal, and distribute the $ around the world for those that are struggling to pay $100/barrel? How could that solve the problem? Silly at best. To reduce consumption all of us should stop driving cars and heating homes, and reduce energy consumption...can we do that? It's more than 2 decades that we hear about planet warming but not about solutions. The debate should not be about the evidence of warming, instead, we should debate the solution, real ones, like technology to capture CO2, to replace coal and oil... is it really impossible?