Mar 9 2013: Sam are you perhaps missing the point of Mr. Savory's talk? It wasnt about the most efficient means of rasing cattle but rather about reversing desertification. Your focus on grazing systems seems to overlook the point entirely.
Perhaps it is simply the conversation thread that you disagree with.
Mar 8 2013: Is there a significant difference in continuous stocking vs. intensive managed grazing? If I condense my cattle into sections of grazing area, thereby increasing the grazing density for a small area for a short period of time, how is that inferior to a lightly stocked larger area for the duration of the grazing season? I listened to the talk and Mr. Savory seemed to be making an argument for using methods that mimic the animals natural behavior. To me this is a low tech solution with multiple benefits and I'm rather pleased with the simplicity of it and its potential for broad implementation.
One more thought, how would continuous light stocking work as a means of restoration in a blighted area? Would that not require continuous feeding of the animals to prevent death by starvation until the landscape could produce a susatainable level of forage? How would continuously grazed and unrested pasture regenerate?
Feb 16 2013: Are you seriously using an entertainer and a tv show as your supporting argument? These men are paid to spout their opinions with no responsibility to be factual in their statements. Does all of your knowledge about America come from entertainers like Bill Mahr? Is it our movies that are the basis of your opinions? The problem in my country isn't law abiding citizens but criminals. Firearms regulations occur in my country at both the state and federal level, machine guns, bazookas, and tanks are as prevalent here as they are in your country.
The laws we have have are not being enforced. Making more laws that would turn current law adibing citizens into criminals is not the solution. Your proposal does nothing to address the crime in this country. It doesn't address our woefully innadaquate mental health system. It doesn't solve anything. It only exposes our citizens to more potential violence with one less means of protecting their homes and families. Did you know that police forces in my country have been drastically reduced due to our weakend economy? You see, without taxes we can't pay for police.
If the individual citizens right to bear arms is eliminated in my country I think the answer is to close our borders via military enforcement, stop all financial aid to foreign countries and use that money to provide for vastly increased police presence to help secure the well being of our citizens, and to impose stiff import duties and taxes on all goods and foreign workers entering my counrty to help cover the cost of the policies the rest of the world thinks we should enact. Thats my solution.
You actually believe that lethal force in defense of attempted sexual assault should be a crime and changing the law in your country was, "a knee jerk reaciton". Thank God you aren't making laws in my country.
Feb 16 2013: Mike I couldn't agree more. The reason the media and politicians are spouting off about banning firearms is because its can be carried out against the legal and law abiding citizens. All the comments from international contributors show a failure to comprehend that laws only work on the law adibing. These laws will have a negative effect on the safety of our citzens as demonstrated in England following the ban.
A governments power doesn't stem from the support of law abiding citizens but from the power to punish law breakers. They continue to pass legislation making more things illegal until everyone is a criminal, all in the name of the greater good.
Feb 15 2013: Yes I did. I was prepared to answer your snarky comment about, "a love of guns" being my motivation with an equally accusatory comment and thought better of it.
The only, "solution" I hear from non US citizens to that of firearm related homicide is to give up firearm ownership entirely because that will fix everything. It didn't happen in England for 8 years following the ban, firerarm homicides and homicide in general declined in Washington D.C. at a slower rate than existed prior to the ban, Australia has a 13 year old ban and still has firearm homicides, the same goes for Canada. Am I wrong that your country was a territory of England for decades and in that time your citizens by and large not permitted the ownership of firearms? Is it any wonder non violent protest proved to be the tool of your eventual freedom. Please understand that we are not the rest of the world. My country was established through the overthrow of an oppresive government by means of war. We have a different culture, a different mind set, and for now, we have the freedom of choice and the right to exercise it. Firearm ownership is not mandatory, nor is military service compulsory. The majority of our citzens carry non-lethal alternatives ever day. Hundreds of thousands of conflicts are resolved without the loss of life or use of a firearm but those events don't make news headlines.Our founding fathers new the risks involved with giving up hard won freedoms for the promise of secuirty. Our second ammendment exists for a reason. No, I do not eneterain the notion of abdicating the defense of my life to the good will of strangers.
What solution do you have for the problems we face? All I've read so far is that we should give up the right to own firearms for a greater sense of community, we should invent secret agent sleeping pill shooters with gps tracking systems or perhaps soothing chamomile tea and the latest Doctor Phil book.
Feb 15 2013: What you are advocating is a legal or technological soultion to a human behavioral issue. Was sexual assault legal in your country prior to the New Dehli incident? Did your laws prevent it? Should penises be banned or technollogically ehanced to prevent such horrible occurences in spite of the millions of non criminal owners?
The argument I make isn't based on a love of guns but a love of logic and common sense that denies the acceptance of, "solutions" that can not work and pose an undue burden on law abiding citizens. As I have said before, firearm related homicide has been on a general decline in this coutry for decades.
These recent horrific incidents indicate a problem that needs to be addressed but I believe it is far more behavioral than it is technical. Find a way to address all violent crime and I believe the solution will involve far modification of more human behavior than technology.
Feb 15 2013: Hello Pabrita, I confess to a sense of extreme dismay to read you equating sexual assault in my country where the victim did not posses a firearm with proof that firearms don't stop crime. In fact no statisitcs have ever been cited about the crimes prevented by the firearms and yet they are a principal tool of the police.
The persons who have perpetrated mass murder in my country are also either incarcerated or dead. It does nothing to mitigate the damage they have done. We are still back to the argument that the use of a thing is at the discretion of the individual, for good or for ill. Perhaps we can both agree that banning busses in your country makes no sense because the vast majority are not used in the commision of crimes. The same thing can be said of firearms in my country.
As for the talk of non lethal defense means, we have them. Pepper spray, stun guns, hand cuffs and cell phones can do everything Chad describes with the exception of stopping a gun wielding assailant.
Feb 15 2013: If I may offer another point of view, some of your countrymen, approximately 27 of them according to our news sources, gang raped a woman on a bus and left her to die.
While we may all hope for the best it is prudent to prepare for the worst rather than rely upon the benevolence of strangers.
I can't help but think the women of your country might feel safer with a more definite means of detering aggressive advances than saying no.
Feb 15 2013: This topic involves far more than technology.
I dont believe there is a viable technological solution to human nature. All personal opinions aside, it has been stated repeatedly that the use of an object is entirely dependent upon the user.We have many technological means of rendering firearms innoperable by the owner. Trigger locks, cable locks and/or gun safes are mandated throughout much of the country.The idea of biometric locks is interesting but it wouldn't stop a legal firearm purchaser from using the weapon. Sony spent millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent copying of its music cd's onto computers and it was defeated with .79 cent a magic marker. There is no technological security system that can't be overcome. According to the CIA and the president the government needs access to all corporate computer systems in order to identify and counter attempted cyber crimes. How reliable would a "kill switch" system be?
How do you go about creating a system of technologial governance of human behavior and where does the use of that technology end? How long before your car is prohibited from starting because an environmental arm of government decides your carbon foot print is too large. Legislation is already being drafted in California that will tax drivers based on the miles they drive.
Laws are being implemented in the name of the public good that deny individuals the freedom of choice and the ability to say NO. Every year we are more regulated, legislated, taxed and penalized. How much government intrusion and regulation will you tolerate in the name of the greater good? National healthcare, the patriot act, neither of those were put to a public vote. What's next, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Please bear in mind, the lion doesn't loose sleep over the opinions of the lamb. What use is a vote without the means to enforce it.
Rob, perhaps the exclusive answer you seek can be found in an enigeneering forum.
Feb 14 2013: In spite of your sarcasm you pointed out the fact that the use to which a thing is put depends entirely upon the user.
Since the founding of America the United States government said give up your guns and we will take care of you to a great number of native people, giving up their guns in exchange for security didn't work out for them and it won't work for the rest of us.
TEDCred score: +1.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Campaign to get the UN to offer training to livestock owners and landowners in Allan Savory's Holistic Management techniques.
Perhaps it is simply the conversation thread that you disagree with.
A comment on Conversation: Campaign to get the UN to offer training to livestock owners and landowners in Allan Savory's Holistic Management techniques.
One more thought, how would continuous light stocking work as a means of restoration in a blighted area? Would that not require continuous feeding of the animals to prevent death by starvation until the landscape could produce a susatainable level of forage? How would continuously grazed and unrested pasture regenerate?
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The laws we have have are not being enforced. Making more laws that would turn current law adibing citizens into criminals is not the solution. Your proposal does nothing to address the crime in this country. It doesn't address our woefully innadaquate mental health system. It doesn't solve anything. It only exposes our citizens to more potential violence with one less means of protecting their homes and families. Did you know that police forces in my country have been drastically reduced due to our weakend economy? You see, without taxes we can't pay for police.
If the individual citizens right to bear arms is eliminated in my country I think the answer is to close our borders via military enforcement, stop all financial aid to foreign countries and use that money to provide for vastly increased police presence to help secure the well being of our citizens, and to impose stiff import duties and taxes on all goods and foreign workers entering my counrty to help cover the cost of the policies the rest of the world thinks we should enact. Thats my solution.
You actually believe that lethal force in defense of attempted sexual assault should be a crime and changing the law in your country was, "a knee jerk reaciton". Thank God you aren't making laws in my country.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
A governments power doesn't stem from the support of law abiding citizens but from the power to punish law breakers. They continue to pass legislation making more things illegal until everyone is a criminal, all in the name of the greater good.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The only, "solution" I hear from non US citizens to that of firearm related homicide is to give up firearm ownership entirely because that will fix everything. It didn't happen in England for 8 years following the ban, firerarm homicides and homicide in general declined in Washington D.C. at a slower rate than existed prior to the ban, Australia has a 13 year old ban and still has firearm homicides, the same goes for Canada. Am I wrong that your country was a territory of England for decades and in that time your citizens by and large not permitted the ownership of firearms? Is it any wonder non violent protest proved to be the tool of your eventual freedom. Please understand that we are not the rest of the world. My country was established through the overthrow of an oppresive government by means of war. We have a different culture, a different mind set, and for now, we have the freedom of choice and the right to exercise it. Firearm ownership is not mandatory, nor is military service compulsory. The majority of our citzens carry non-lethal alternatives ever day. Hundreds of thousands of conflicts are resolved without the loss of life or use of a firearm but those events don't make news headlines.Our founding fathers new the risks involved with giving up hard won freedoms for the promise of secuirty. Our second ammendment exists for a reason. No, I do not eneterain the notion of abdicating the defense of my life to the good will of strangers.
What solution do you have for the problems we face? All I've read so far is that we should give up the right to own firearms for a greater sense of community, we should invent secret agent sleeping pill shooters with gps tracking systems or perhaps soothing chamomile tea and the latest Doctor Phil book.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The argument I make isn't based on a love of guns but a love of logic and common sense that denies the acceptance of, "solutions" that can not work and pose an undue burden on law abiding citizens. As I have said before, firearm related homicide has been on a general decline in this coutry for decades.
These recent horrific incidents indicate a problem that needs to be addressed but I believe it is far more behavioral than it is technical. Find a way to address all violent crime and I believe the solution will involve far modification of more human behavior than technology.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
The persons who have perpetrated mass murder in my country are also either incarcerated or dead. It does nothing to mitigate the damage they have done. We are still back to the argument that the use of a thing is at the discretion of the individual, for good or for ill. Perhaps we can both agree that banning busses in your country makes no sense because the vast majority are not used in the commision of crimes. The same thing can be said of firearms in my country.
As for the talk of non lethal defense means, we have them. Pepper spray, stun guns, hand cuffs and cell phones can do everything Chad describes with the exception of stopping a gun wielding assailant.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
While we may all hope for the best it is prudent to prepare for the worst rather than rely upon the benevolence of strangers.
I can't help but think the women of your country might feel safer with a more definite means of detering aggressive advances than saying no.
A comment on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
I dont believe there is a viable technological solution to human nature. All personal opinions aside, it has been stated repeatedly that the use of an object is entirely dependent upon the user.We have many technological means of rendering firearms innoperable by the owner. Trigger locks, cable locks and/or gun safes are mandated throughout much of the country.The idea of biometric locks is interesting but it wouldn't stop a legal firearm purchaser from using the weapon. Sony spent millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent copying of its music cd's onto computers and it was defeated with .79 cent a magic marker. There is no technological security system that can't be overcome. According to the CIA and the president the government needs access to all corporate computer systems in order to identify and counter attempted cyber crimes. How reliable would a "kill switch" system be?
How do you go about creating a system of technologial governance of human behavior and where does the use of that technology end? How long before your car is prohibited from starting because an environmental arm of government decides your carbon foot print is too large. Legislation is already being drafted in California that will tax drivers based on the miles they drive.
Laws are being implemented in the name of the public good that deny individuals the freedom of choice and the ability to say NO. Every year we are more regulated, legislated, taxed and penalized. How much government intrusion and regulation will you tolerate in the name of the greater good? National healthcare, the patriot act, neither of those were put to a public vote. What's next, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Please bear in mind, the lion doesn't loose sleep over the opinions of the lamb. What use is a vote without the means to enforce it.
Rob, perhaps the exclusive answer you seek can be found in an enigeneering forum.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Since the founding of America the United States government said give up your guns and we will take care of you to a great number of native people, giving up their guns in exchange for security didn't work out for them and it won't work for the rest of us.