I truly agree with your statement, and believe that the development of effective courses of action is just as important as their implementation.
the one thing i seem to observe, however, is that good ideas are not something we are in short supply of. everything is opensource, now. people are connected all across the world on a level that we've never seen. the progress of infrastructure in Africa is beginning to advance to the level of continent-wide casual internet access, which will make for a 20-30% increase in size to the global think tank.
the problem that i see is that the decision of what the general effort of the human race will be is in the wrong hands. i think it's important for people to realize that there is something wrong with our governments, and that no matter what political stance you take, or activism you promote, no agenda is going to supersede that of the corporations, banks, etc. that own this planet, and that agenda seems to explicitly demonize individual aptitude, self reliance, peace, and pretty much anything that can fall under the broad definition of "a solution to a global problem."
Feb 18 2013: i think you might be missing something here.
it is important to keep a positive perspective, yes, but it is equally important to seek out and identify anything that might hinder us (the human race) from achieving progress.
the fact of the matter is that we are capable of solving world hunger, equalizing global economy, and reversing environmental damage. however, these endeavors are not profitable to the entities that are capable of setting them into motion. if, by "Big Problems", we are referring to problems on a global scale, than i think the answer is capitalism. the world as a whole is obsessed with ownership, competition, money, profit, etc. and as a result, moralistic goals will always fall short of our need of luxury. we can solve the problems, but only by sacrificing capitalism.
we all want to solve world hunger, but nobody is willing to question how it's possible in America to find braised Eel in countless restaurants that are thousands of miles away from the ocean, yet in Ethiopia it is almost impossible to eat enough to survive.
Feb 18 2013: i agree that human rights and philosophy should be taught to children. the problem that arises is trying to get them into our schools, which happen to be a venue with a purpose we cannot even accurately define.
yes, we all believe that school is a place of education, but the schools here in America seem to have a different purpose altogether. the curriculum at any given public school seems to be designed to pick out the individuals who can be made into semantic drones and data shufflers, and leave the rest to fall into the lower class, with some incredibly apt, prodigious individuals climbing out of all of the white noise and making their own success. on a completely frank note, i didn't retain anything after the 9th grade level other than how to take a test and get a higher score with less studying. having high test scores does not mean you are smart; it means you have concentrated aptitudes, which is a trait we observe in the film "rain man".
with this considered, i can't say it's a good idea to teach human rights and philosophy in public schools. the exposure might have a positive effect on our children, but adversely, human rights might become another dogmatic burden in the minds of our youth. i shudder to think of a day when, all across the world, there is a generally negative reaction to the topic of how to fairly treat other human beings, or how to legitimately think.
Feb 18 2013: i have found that it depends on the brand of "religious" that each person claims, or more specifically, what their intentions are in practicing a religion. take for instance, Christianity. realistically, no two people can have the same motivation to practice a specific denomination of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. however, in a general view, you will find that there are two primary categories that emerge naturally in regards to the individual purpose of christian practice; one being the legitimate curiosity and desire to seek truth about spirituality, god, and purpose of the individual, the other being the sense of requirement (and even guilt) that arises from societal expectations, tradition, or fear of burning in hell for all of eternity as punishment for anything less than perfect adherence to the doctrine of Christianity.
the primary difference between these two purposes is the central motivation. for one, there is truth. for the other, there is the well-being of the self. that, i believe, is the root cause of the volatile, illogical, unforgiving advertisement and pseudo-martyrdom that you see in christian groups (and in many religious groups, for that matter) and their practitioners. they were never interested in contemplating the possibility of "the truth" being separate from their own doctrines, because their doctrines do not allow it. they have been taught that if they question the rules of their religion, they will be made into a social outcast, rejected by their loved ones and piers, and be sentenced to an eternity of unimaginable torture and suffering by their creator. it isn't far-fetched that they react in such a way; it is only self-preservation.
i try to remove myself from my fate in the afterlife. i do not deserve heaven, so i assume that i will go to hell, or whatever alternative you prefer. it is, in fact, what i truly deserve, and i should make peace with it. my concern is not my well-being; it is simply the truth of all things.
TEDCred score: +0.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: "Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?"
I truly agree with your statement, and believe that the development of effective courses of action is just as important as their implementation.
the one thing i seem to observe, however, is that good ideas are not something we are in short supply of. everything is opensource, now. people are connected all across the world on a level that we've never seen. the progress of infrastructure in Africa is beginning to advance to the level of continent-wide casual internet access, which will make for a 20-30% increase in size to the global think tank.
the problem that i see is that the decision of what the general effort of the human race will be is in the wrong hands. i think it's important for people to realize that there is something wrong with our governments, and that no matter what political stance you take, or activism you promote, no agenda is going to supersede that of the corporations, banks, etc. that own this planet, and that agenda seems to explicitly demonize individual aptitude, self reliance, peace, and pretty much anything that can fall under the broad definition of "a solution to a global problem."
A reply on Conversation: "Why Can't We Solve Big Problems?"
it is important to keep a positive perspective, yes, but it is equally important to seek out and identify anything that might hinder us (the human race) from achieving progress.
the fact of the matter is that we are capable of solving world hunger, equalizing global economy, and reversing environmental damage. however, these endeavors are not profitable to the entities that are capable of setting them into motion. if, by "Big Problems", we are referring to problems on a global scale, than i think the answer is capitalism. the world as a whole is obsessed with ownership, competition, money, profit, etc. and as a result, moralistic goals will always fall short of our need of luxury. we can solve the problems, but only by sacrificing capitalism.
we all want to solve world hunger, but nobody is willing to question how it's possible in America to find braised Eel in countless restaurants that are thousands of miles away from the ocean, yet in Ethiopia it is almost impossible to eat enough to survive.
A comment on Conversation: Human rights and philosophy should be taught in school!
yes, we all believe that school is a place of education, but the schools here in America seem to have a different purpose altogether. the curriculum at any given public school seems to be designed to pick out the individuals who can be made into semantic drones and data shufflers, and leave the rest to fall into the lower class, with some incredibly apt, prodigious individuals climbing out of all of the white noise and making their own success. on a completely frank note, i didn't retain anything after the 9th grade level other than how to take a test and get a higher score with less studying. having high test scores does not mean you are smart; it means you have concentrated aptitudes, which is a trait we observe in the film "rain man".
with this considered, i can't say it's a good idea to teach human rights and philosophy in public schools. the exposure might have a positive effect on our children, but adversely, human rights might become another dogmatic burden in the minds of our youth. i shudder to think of a day when, all across the world, there is a generally negative reaction to the topic of how to fairly treat other human beings, or how to legitimately think.
my answer: fix the system first.
A comment on Conversation: Is there any way to prevent religious debates from turning into a big fight?
the primary difference between these two purposes is the central motivation. for one, there is truth. for the other, there is the well-being of the self. that, i believe, is the root cause of the volatile, illogical, unforgiving advertisement and pseudo-martyrdom that you see in christian groups (and in many religious groups, for that matter) and their practitioners. they were never interested in contemplating the possibility of "the truth" being separate from their own doctrines, because their doctrines do not allow it. they have been taught that if they question the rules of their religion, they will be made into a social outcast, rejected by their loved ones and piers, and be sentenced to an eternity of unimaginable torture and suffering by their creator. it isn't far-fetched that they react in such a way; it is only self-preservation.
i try to remove myself from my fate in the afterlife. i do not deserve heaven, so i assume that i will go to hell, or whatever alternative you prefer. it is, in fact, what i truly deserve, and i should make peace with it. my concern is not my well-being; it is simply the truth of all things.