TED Community » Nicholas Heins

Comments

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

• A reply on Conversation: Would you prefer sales tax to income tax?

  Apr 24 2013: Pat,
  
  I can't believe you called Warren Buffett (mispelled) a "stupid economist."
  
  Clearly you know little about his economic knowledge, which is undoubtedly far above your own (mine too)

• A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism

  Mar 26 2013: Good points Wai Lam. I shouldn't make assessments about someone else's motives so that was my mistake.
  
  One thing I'd like to touch on, Nathan, is your assertion that you are not religious but are "spiritual." Do you believe in a god or not? And what is its nature? In other words, how would you describe this being?
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism

  Mar 26 2013: Nathan,
  If highly intelligent and honest people being barred from higher office deserves a "wowsers," I'd be interested to learn who these intelligent and honest politicians are. I'd venture that Obama is close, but he does lack honesty in certain areas, such as drone strikes (which he says he wants to be open about, while simultaneously hiding the facts.) Others who demonstrate both honesty and intelligence on a regular basis are few and far between.
  
  Though I realize you're probably just trolling, I thought I'd put my two cents in on that topic.

• A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism

  Mar 26 2013: I feel that Dr. Dawkins began his speech with a reference to his own funeral as a preemptive response to arguments such as this. He has spent a considerable amount of time refuting the idea that "we're all religious on our death beds." This is simply not the case. Anyone who loves life does not want to die. However, those of us who truly want to understand life will go to our deaths knowing that our lives had meaning in and of itself.
  
  In other words, life is good, death is bad, and it is understandable that some of us do not want to accept that life will end. But none of this changes the fact that there is no teapot revolving around Mars.

• A comment on Talk: Paola Antonelli previews "Design and the Elastic Mind"

  Jan 2 2013: Paola gives a very interesting and humorous talk about how design and science will influence each other going forward. Some of the ideas are more useful than others, but this talk is a great primer for people who want to see where science is going in the next few years.
  
  I've asked a lot of people if they have heard of 3d printing because it is intriguing to me, and very few have. Maybe sometimes people who are into this stuff forget that there are millions out there who know all about Honey Boo Boo or Robert Griffin III, but know little or nothing about cutting edge science.
  
  This talk may not be ultra ground breaking, but it does a good job at achieving its goal of increased awareness and influencing peoples' thoughts and attitudes.

• A comment on Conversation: Is solving the world energy problems at $10 per Mwh a moral issue?

  Nov 24 2012: I don't think the problems you described would occur with cheaper energy. Cheap energy would free up more resources for other endeavors, which would make up for any industries that were hurt.
  
  More to the point: It is better to do things responsibly and efficiently. If doing so hurts the viability of a less efficient or responsible method, then so be it..

• A reply on Conversation: "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it… Really?"

  Nov 24 2012: That's a great point about responsibility. One thing I would say about society in the United States (where I live): While the vast majority of people are responsible for their lives and their speech and actions, there will always be a small subset who behaves irresponsibly. It's the job of the rest of us to put irresponsible words and actions in their place (at the margins of society.)
  
  I think that certainly a company should be (legally, though not necessarily morally) allowed to lie. The question is how much. When you see a sign that says, "world's greatest cheeseburger," I don't feel it is a threat to human knowledge, because any rational individual knows that this assertion has no real meaning. However, if a company says, "this cheeseburger will cure the common cold" I feel that should not be allowed. Overall, the question is very complicated and I don't want to go off topic but maybe sometime I'll make a separate conversation about this, as it's something I have much interest in.

• A reply on Conversation: "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it… Really?"

  Nov 22 2012: "What is right and wrong cannot be subjective"
  
  Hello Marlen,
  While this is probably true, there is so much gray area that often times people with different subjective viewpoints will come to very different conclusions even if they have the same core values. For example, is it right to start a war with a country because its leader denies his citizens of basic human rights? Some would say yes, that the death and destruction caused by war is less harmful than the dictator's reign over his people. Others would say that it isn't our place to step in, and that the war itself is worse than having a dictator for a leader. Two people who both want peace and happiness might have very different views on this issue.
  
  Clearly my example is not detailed enough to say one way or another, but you can see how certain situations have so many factors involved that it can be difficult to give an objective answer. And when objectivity is not an option, subjectivity comes into play.
  
  In this discussion, I think a main topic is whether it is important to fight to defend free speech, and if so, how important. The famous example is yelling fire in a crowded room. Society has decided this is not an important freedom to preserve, so we prohibit it. This is a no brainer, but what about deceptive advertising? Should a company be able to bend the truth in order to sell its product, and if so how much? The answer you give will almost certainly have a subjective aspect to it, because the question is not settled. Those who agree with you may say you're being objective, but those who disagree will find subjectivity.

• A reply on Conversation: "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it… Really?"

  Nov 15 2012: Good point, and I would add that the nature of political debates in the United States might need to be rethought. There's really not a conversation going on, it's each person giving their pre-planned answers. Giving a candidate two minutes to explain their policy may be good for those of us who only look at politics once every four years. But for those of us who really pay attention, we hear a few talking points that we already know from each side, and they move on.
  
  It seems to me that there should be a different type of debate, perhaps in a written format, where candidates can flesh out their ideas more fully. This would make for a more informed electorate, hopefully.

• A comment on Conversation: "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it… Really?"

  Nov 15 2012: On the issue of "I will defend to the death your right to say it," I think this is a cornerstone of democracy. Greg Dahlen's post brought up a situation where one person says, "bananas are the best food." Now of course no one is going to die to advance or dispute this theory, it's not worth it.
  
  However, imagine living in a society where the only correct opinion is "apples are the best food." If you happen to like bananas more and say so openly, you get sent to prison for a year. This is a situation where, yes, I would die to defend that crazy banana lover, because it is an unalienable human right to be able to express your opinion. If a government attempts to take away natural rights, the public has to fight back. If not, they will be forced to submit to the will of those in power.
  
  I think in America today, people assume that they have ultimate freedom and power. The reality doesn't bear this out though. We do have many freedoms, but also many limitations on those freedoms. Similarly, each of us has power to affect our democracy, but some have much more power than others. And in a way, it seems that our freedoms are being slowly pulled away at the same time we are being reassured that we are the free-est nation in the history of the world.
  
  It's up to each of us to defend our human rights. This isn't a battle that was won long ago, it's a struggle that continues to this day around the world. History has shown us that if the populous does not defend their rights, the elites will diminish them. And that is just as true today as it was during the French Revolution or in the Roman Empire.
  
  Great question, Marlon!