1) On empowering the poor: Since New Zealand operates on the capitalist model, I would say that one route to narrowing the gap between rich and poor may be to empower the poor by creating programs to encourage small scale entrepreneurship. This may entail setting up a micro-loan system (Look up Muhummad Yunus, Grameen, Kiva) , educating people about basic business principles, and community building through social programs that would aim at reducing/eliminating the negative effects of poverty (drugs, crime) that would interfere with the healthy growth of a business community.
2) Thoughts on social cohesion: Poverty carries a stigma. It is a vicious circle: poverty, crime, drugs, health problems, social and psychological problems....stigma (not necessarily in that order...I'm wingin' it!). To achieve greater social cohesion, I would think that this stigma would have to be overcome. One way would be to involve successful business people in the process. Another way would be to have community programs (sports, health, spiritual) such as you may find in a community center (at least here in Canada).
You may also want to look up Gabor Mate. He is famous in Vancouver (at least) for his ideas on the subject.
12 hours ago: Like I said, I condone vegetarianism on emotional grounds, and I understand your feeling of sympathy towards animals in slaughterhouses, the treatment of which I, too, think is abhorrent. Like any human being, I have my emotional limits, and my behavior and habits (in this case, my eating habits) are a good litmus test of where those limits lay. Who knows? Maybe I'm a vegetarian...
Regarding consciousness: what exactly is it and why does it matter in this argument? I mean, if a cow was born without a brain, I am sure you still would not eat it, even though it didn't have consciousness. Why?
And aside from how you may answer those questions, are you so proud of the fact of your consciousness that you will treat as inferior all life that does not possess it, whatever it is? My belief is that we are not superior to anything because we are a part of everything. So, to clarify, the main point of my post was to encourage people to treat everything with reverence, not only things with some semblance of consciousness.
I think it is obvious that the emotional and moral questions need to be more clearly defined here. As far as I can tell, the moral issue centers on how respectfully we treat everything in our world...including strawberries. Maybe you also have reservations about growing and eating strawberries that have been modified with a pork gene? I will hazard a guess and say that you do...again, I ask why? Perhaps tinkering with nature in this way hints at our hubris? What does this say about our respect for the natural order of things? I think slaughterhouses are also a telltale sign.
I think that until we have an unambiguous moral imperative for our natural world, the slaughterhouses you deplore will continue...
Thanks for the reply. All the best...strawberries, that is. lol
Karl
15 hours ago: I have maintained for a long time that if you eat meat, kill it...at least once. That way, you involve yourself in the gravity/sacredness of your food sources. At the very least, you will confront a part of yourself that needs recognition...what you are willing to do for food/survival, even if you are 'vegan.' I would imagine that even the staunchest 'vegan' would resort to eating meat when faced with death by starvation. The same could be said of killing plants for food, but somehow it seems better and more acceptable than killing an animal. Which brings me to another point: Aren't plants also living beings? Don't they also deserve the same kind of reverence that we give to animals? I understand the emotional response of not wanting to eat something that more closely resembles your own species (and condone vegetarianism on that basis), but let's not confuse that with with the larger issue of snuffing out the spark of life, The fact is, we occupy a place on the food chain that necessitates taking life, whether it is vegetable or animal. If there is an ethical question here, it does not concern what eat, as much as it involves the whimsy with which we treat ALL of our food sources.
19 hours ago: Humanity being what it is, concepts like "fair" or "equal" will always be a topic for debate. However, I think the best ethical advice comes from Kant, who says that the principles of our actions should be universalizable. In theory, this should make things as 'fair' as they can possibly be. For example, if a member of society is considered to be disadvantaged in some way, we may tip the scales in their favor. And while this may appear to be unfair to someone who does not have this particular disadvantage, the principle of the action is based on the idea that our good will should extend to everyone equally. I would give a starving man food...even if it were Donald Trump.
19 hours ago: I was an avid reader of myths, fables, and fairy tales when I was young, so I would probably give the prize to some Greek and Roman mythology anthology...I don't know which edition I had.
The reason I think this was the most influential is because so much of it is referenced in other reading that has influenced me greatly. Namely,
Plato
Montaigne
Nietzsche
Jung
...just a few, but the list is long.
6 days ago: You are quite right...in many cases, there are covers that we like better than the originals. Perhaps my painting analogy was misleading...
Since the issue is downloading, what I had mainly wanted to emphasize were 2 things:
1) People's behaviour changes whenever a new medium is presented to them.
2) This change in behaviour may have economic results (scarcity::value)
My own feeling is to let the changes happen naturally. This may mean coming up with new ways to make money from your music that take the issue of downloading out of the equation, and, until this is done, it may mean that music will become less of a mass-marketing phenomenon and will instead become more localized (geographically) and tribalized (digitally).
Why is this a better way? As I see it, the issue of intellectual property (in music, at least) has too many problems to be sustained in its current state. For example, if we were to be consistent, every bar band that played cover tunes would have to send royalties to the original artists. But they don't, of course. Another example: I believe encryption technology exists that can prevent people from cracking into a 'digital lockbox,' yet people still release their products on media that can easily be cracked and uploaded. Why? Probably because it's so expensive to implement. So, do the artists themselves not value their own creations enough? Of course they do.
These examples illustrate that copyrights can only work within certain boundaries of practicality. The internet has altered things. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not "How can we force our now-archaic ideas about copyright to work?" but "How is the idea of copyright to be re-defined if we are not to dispose of it altogether?"
May 14 2013: "The medium is the message." --Marshall McLuhan
Another interesting viewpoint is to ask how people's behaviour changes depending on the medium that the music (or whatever) is available on. There is only one "Starry Night" but there are machines that can reproduce the painting faithfully enough so that all but connoisseurs cannot tell the difference. Yet people know that the thing in the shop window is not "Starry Night" and walk by it without so much as a glance. Even if it had been reproduced by a person, the same thing would happen. Van Gogh, as a medium of production, represents an idea that people are willing to pay many lifetimes' worth of cash for. So, I would argue that reproductions of any kind devalue the art, whatever it may be, because value increases with scarcity.
So, while the climate of downloading we are living in today certainly may have the effect of reducing the value of your art and ultimately force you not to mass produce it (thereby eliminating the internet as a means of distribution), it will also ultimately increase your value as an artist.
May 1 2013: The best case: global warming is fiction and we don't need to do anything about it.
The worst case: global warming is caused by human beings and beyond the point where we can do anything about it.
The likely case: somewhere in between...
Whatever you think, wouldn't it just be wisest to use the earth responsibly? Keep it clean, moderate one's use of its resources, etc. What is wrong with fostering a healthy symbiosis with our planet? And if you think you are, give some examples of it.
As for the complaints and compliments about Al Gore, what's the point? He makes everyone think, and that's a good thing.,.
Apr 27 2013: As long as there are any differences whatsoever, there will always be differences of opinion. No differences means equilibrium; equilibrium is death.
Apr 17 2013: I think our brains are processors of information, but how we get that information is not always well defined, especially if it lies outside the purview of the 5 senses. I am sure there are electrical and chemical forces at work we are more or less totally unaware of, and which influence how we think.
TEDCred score: +1.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?
1) On empowering the poor: Since New Zealand operates on the capitalist model, I would say that one route to narrowing the gap between rich and poor may be to empower the poor by creating programs to encourage small scale entrepreneurship. This may entail setting up a micro-loan system (Look up Muhummad Yunus, Grameen, Kiva) , educating people about basic business principles, and community building through social programs that would aim at reducing/eliminating the negative effects of poverty (drugs, crime) that would interfere with the healthy growth of a business community.
2) Thoughts on social cohesion: Poverty carries a stigma. It is a vicious circle: poverty, crime, drugs, health problems, social and psychological problems....stigma (not necessarily in that order...I'm wingin' it!). To achieve greater social cohesion, I would think that this stigma would have to be overcome. One way would be to involve successful business people in the process. Another way would be to have community programs (sports, health, spiritual) such as you may find in a community center (at least here in Canada).
You may also want to look up Gabor Mate. He is famous in Vancouver (at least) for his ideas on the subject.
Hope this helped. Good luck:) KM
A reply on Conversation: Veganism
Regarding consciousness: what exactly is it and why does it matter in this argument? I mean, if a cow was born without a brain, I am sure you still would not eat it, even though it didn't have consciousness. Why?
And aside from how you may answer those questions, are you so proud of the fact of your consciousness that you will treat as inferior all life that does not possess it, whatever it is? My belief is that we are not superior to anything because we are a part of everything. So, to clarify, the main point of my post was to encourage people to treat everything with reverence, not only things with some semblance of consciousness.
I think it is obvious that the emotional and moral questions need to be more clearly defined here. As far as I can tell, the moral issue centers on how respectfully we treat everything in our world...including strawberries. Maybe you also have reservations about growing and eating strawberries that have been modified with a pork gene? I will hazard a guess and say that you do...again, I ask why? Perhaps tinkering with nature in this way hints at our hubris? What does this say about our respect for the natural order of things? I think slaughterhouses are also a telltale sign.
I think that until we have an unambiguous moral imperative for our natural world, the slaughterhouses you deplore will continue...
Thanks for the reply. All the best...strawberries, that is. lol
Karl
A comment on Conversation: Veganism
A comment on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?
A comment on Conversation: What was the book that influenced you the most?
The reason I think this was the most influential is because so much of it is referenced in other reading that has influenced me greatly. Namely,
Plato
Montaigne
Nietzsche
Jung
...just a few, but the list is long.
A reply on Conversation: Should Music be Free?
Since the issue is downloading, what I had mainly wanted to emphasize were 2 things:
1) People's behaviour changes whenever a new medium is presented to them.
2) This change in behaviour may have economic results (scarcity::value)
My own feeling is to let the changes happen naturally. This may mean coming up with new ways to make money from your music that take the issue of downloading out of the equation, and, until this is done, it may mean that music will become less of a mass-marketing phenomenon and will instead become more localized (geographically) and tribalized (digitally).
Why is this a better way? As I see it, the issue of intellectual property (in music, at least) has too many problems to be sustained in its current state. For example, if we were to be consistent, every bar band that played cover tunes would have to send royalties to the original artists. But they don't, of course. Another example: I believe encryption technology exists that can prevent people from cracking into a 'digital lockbox,' yet people still release their products on media that can easily be cracked and uploaded. Why? Probably because it's so expensive to implement. So, do the artists themselves not value their own creations enough? Of course they do.
These examples illustrate that copyrights can only work within certain boundaries of practicality. The internet has altered things. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is not "How can we force our now-archaic ideas about copyright to work?" but "How is the idea of copyright to be re-defined if we are not to dispose of it altogether?"
A comment on Conversation: Should Music be Free?
Another interesting viewpoint is to ask how people's behaviour changes depending on the medium that the music (or whatever) is available on. There is only one "Starry Night" but there are machines that can reproduce the painting faithfully enough so that all but connoisseurs cannot tell the difference. Yet people know that the thing in the shop window is not "Starry Night" and walk by it without so much as a glance. Even if it had been reproduced by a person, the same thing would happen. Van Gogh, as a medium of production, represents an idea that people are willing to pay many lifetimes' worth of cash for. So, I would argue that reproductions of any kind devalue the art, whatever it may be, because value increases with scarcity.
So, while the climate of downloading we are living in today certainly may have the effect of reducing the value of your art and ultimately force you not to mass produce it (thereby eliminating the internet as a means of distribution), it will also ultimately increase your value as an artist.
A comment on Talk: Al Gore warns on latest climate trends
The worst case: global warming is caused by human beings and beyond the point where we can do anything about it.
The likely case: somewhere in between...
Whatever you think, wouldn't it just be wisest to use the earth responsibly? Keep it clean, moderate one's use of its resources, etc. What is wrong with fostering a healthy symbiosis with our planet? And if you think you are, give some examples of it.
As for the complaints and compliments about Al Gore, what's the point? He makes everyone think, and that's a good thing.,.
A comment on Conversation: Do we have an opinion about everything? If not, should we?
A comment on Conversation: Is the heart overlooked when it comes to intelligence?