TED Community » Hipolito Hernanz

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Physics, Philosophy, Human Relations, Classical Music.

An idea worth spreading

"If you have to choose between being right and being kind, choose to be kind." I heard this somewhere, and it stuck as a good general rule.

Talk to me about

Anything, except the weather...

People don't know that I'm good at

...not talking about it.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +4.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Talk: Colin Stokes: How movies teach manhood

  Feb 5 2013: You make an excellent point. I think that part of the problem is that, as women are struggling for equality, men have been experiencing two or three decades of constant male-bashing. Interestingly enough, much of the bashing was and is being doled out not just by women but also by men, who are trying to outdo each other in the sensitivity department out of sheer competitiveness. So, young men are getting it from both sides. While women in general have been finding their road to equality, gaining in confidence and attaining positions of power, the current generation of dads is generally quite confused and lacking in direction. What's a man supposed to be like? Who is replacing the likes of Humphrey Bogart or Spencer Tracy? The changes in social roles and behavioral norms have been phenomenal in the past few decades. Men will need time to get their act together.

• A reply on Talk: Candy Chang: Before I die I want to...

  Sep 11 2012: She probably is already. But there is no need to wait. Something small and thoughtful will do just fine. For example, pick out a flower tomorrow and give it to her with a note that says "Just because..." or draw one for her on a piece of paper.
• +3

  A reply on Talk: Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?

  Aug 29 2012: Jeffrey, regarding your comment that "The power to change it lies in the hands to those that would lose the most power by doing so." You are correct. You are probably referring to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would require a proposal and referral to the States by a two-third vote of both houses of Congress. This appears insurmountable. However, times have changed, and a mass mobilization in the U.S. via social media today has a chance, given that the vast majority of the people were dismayed by the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. It is a long shot, but it may be worth a try. It will take many years of hard work, but this democracy has tools like no other, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. With strong leadership it is possible. We must keep working at it and never lose hope.
  
  I liked your rhetorical question, "who are they fighting for?". It could be the lead banner in a mass struggle to force Congress to eventually take action. A draft constitutional amendment would be very simple: 1) Declare that corporations are not people; 2) Declare that only people can contribute to political candidates; and 3) Establish a modest ceiling on contributions, perhaps tied to some index for inflation. This alone will take care of most corruption, such as the $100 million pledge (read attempted bribe) to Mitt Romney by Sheldon Adelson of Nevada.
• +5

  A comment on Talk: Ivan Krastev: Can democracy exist without trust?

  Aug 21 2012: Mr. Krastev expresses with eloquence the disappointment most of us feel when we can change candidates but cannot change policies. I think he missed an opportunity to explain why this is so.
  
  It is essential to understand that we live in a democracy of special interest groups. By the time the candidates are announced, it is already too late for us, the voters, to make any difference. In rough terms, this is how it works:
  
  Potential candidates are scouted and interviewed by political action committees set up by these groups. They can be the teacher unions, steel workers, bankers associations, or extremely wealthy individuals. They are selected on the basis of promises that the aspiring candidates make to these political action committees. The PAC then makes recommendations to the parent group, which decides which candidate to endorse and initiates the flow of money and professional campaign management. That's how candidates first appear on the scene.
  
  The aspiring candidates make the rounds from interview to interview, gathering endorsements and pledges of money, without which their campaign can not even get started. By the time they can actually start they have already sold their soul to these bosses. Rarely, if ever, does a citizen start the process by himself or herself. They are almost always scouted and selected by the PAC's. Often they come from within their own ranks, such as teachers (democrats), bankers (republicans), or churches (far-right republicans). The one thing they all have in common is access to money and other campaign resources, such as lawyers, research staff, political consultants, and volunteer workers.
  
  The Supreme Court just sanctified this process by allowing corporations and individuals to contribute without limit. Thus, one billionnaire, Sheldon Adelson of Nevada, has pledged up to $100 million to help elect Mr. Romney. One man!
  
  How do we fix this, Mr. Krastev?

• A reply on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Aug 17 2012: Shane, I think you may be on to something here. You are introducing metaphysics into this conversation, which precedes physical science and seems to be making a comeback. The basic question here is whether or not life, and therefore consciousness, is an intrinsic property of matter which manifests itself under appropriate conditions. The problem, of course, is that we don't have enough empirical knowledge to get very far with it. This is a whole new area worthy of a separate talk.
  
  A good effort in this regard is "The Quantum Self", a book by Danah Zohar, a physicist and philosopher who collaborated with her husband, a psychiatrist. She explores the subatomic world in terms that are accessible to the layman, and proposes a model for human consciousness. I found it to be a great read and I think you'll enjoy it.
• +7

  A reply on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Aug 14 2012: Well, Chung, we are being very sociable here. What a party pooper you are!
  
  I looked into the site you recommended, and it is for the *very* serious scientist. We are having more fun here, sort of like a fireside chat after dinner with friends, talking about a fascinating subject without needing a PhD in the stuff. That, of course, until you showed up with instructions for us to pick up our marbles and go to bed. Maybe you should let us decide what is appropriate where, OK?

• A reply on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Aug 12 2012: The current consensus among cosmologists, as I understand it, is that the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other because the *space between them* is expanding. You can visualize this if you think of a balloon being inflated with the galaxies sitting on its surface This explains why the more distant galaxies are moving faster. In fact, the cumulative speed of this "inflation" is such that the more distant galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us. Thus, the end of the visible Universe. Keep in mind that the speed of light limitation does not apply to the expansion of space, only to moving objects.

• A comment on Conversation: If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

  Aug 11 2012: As much as I respect scientific analysis, I think that a bit of philosophical logic may help, so I am throwing my two cents into this pool:
  
  If indeed there was a big bang, as it is generally believed, it clearly was a *change* from one state to another. Since a change from one state to another implies the presence of time, time had to exist for the big bang to occur. A change can only happen in time.
  
  As a corollary, and accepting the theory that time and space are one and the same thing, there also had to exist space.
  
  Thus, it seems to me almost obvious that we are in the midst of an expansion or an explosion that happened within the same medium that existed before the big bang.
  
  I'm going to tighten my bandana now, before I get a mental hernia...
• +3

  A reply on Talk: Ivan Oransky: Are we over-medicalized?

  Jun 24 2012: You are absolutely correct. The problem, at least here in the USA, is a greedy and irresponsible pharmaceutical industry that's completely out of control. They invent conditions and then convince people, through massive and incessant advertising, to buy products to fight those conditions.
  
  I mentioned Bayer aspirin in another post. Another example is Nexium. They advertise a daily pill to prevent hyperacidity (that is, take one pill a day whether you need it or not) and then you can eat all the pizza you want! Of course, the responsible advice would be not to eat so much pizza. Cialis also advertises a daily pill, which you should also take every day whether you need it or not.
  
  The result of this marketing is massive over-medication with no medical benefits, just massive profits for the pharmaceutical companies. There is no question that advertising works, that it induces a great number of people to medicate themselves unnecessarily. A rule of thumb is that you make $4 for every $1 spent advertising. Considering that they spend about $10 billion a year in TV ads alone, this gives you an idea of the magnitude of this problem.
  
  That's why regulations are needed to prohibit advertising of prescription drugs, if not of all drugs.
• +7

  A comment on Talk: Ivan Oransky: Are we over-medicalized?

  Jun 23 2012: There is an immoral collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the federal government, whereby the pharmaceuticals are allowed to advertise prescription medications, in addition to over-the-counter stuff like aspirin. They spend about $10 billion a year in TV commercials alone, and these costs are of course added to the price. This means that, in fact, the insurance companies and Medicare pay for these commercials, and consequently we pay for them either through taxes or through excessive premiums.
  
  Advertising of prescription medications should not allowed, as it is not in virtually all countries of the world.
  
  They advertise for one simple reason: it works! They peddle medications as if they were candy, we buy them, and they get rich.
  
  United Healthcare CEO Bill McGuire retired in 2006 with a total compensation of $1.6 billion. This alone makes one wonder how much we have been overpaying in health insurance premiums, or how many lives were lost as a result of denial of benefits so that Mr. McGuire and many other executives could become billionaires and millionaires.
  
  With respect to over-the-counter, think Bayer aspirin. Many people may be dying as a result of aspirin "regimens". Aspirin is a blood thinner that can cause fatal internal bleeding if abused or if used by people with health issues such as ulcers. Many people may not even know that they are at risk because they can't get medical care without insurance. Bayer peddles aspirin with what I consider a criminal disregard for its potential consequences.
  
  What Dr. Oransky refers to as "pre-conditions" is actually part of pharma's marketing plan. With few exceptions, the marketing of medications under the guise of "prevention" is a giant commercial hoax. Just imagine the business logic: "Take this pill and you will not get sick." Then, when you don't, it "proves" that the pill works! That's the hoax.
  
  We need to regulate big pharma and big insurance companies, and fight corruption in government.