TED Community » George Kong

More About Me

I'm passionate about

thinking without boundaries.

An idea worth spreading

Irrespective of how well something can be done now, it can probably be done better. Nothing should be so sacrosanct that it is immune to criticsm, analysis and reinvention.

Talk to me about

how ideas in the future play off each other, that defy traditional ideas of the future which are usually played out in a vacuum.

People don't know that I'm good at

changing the world. Yet.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +46.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Rather presumptious to believe that I'm not acting upon the problems I see. My beliefs and ideas simply don't align with your ideas of what should be done.
  
  I've already described what I think the solution is - an escape from the cycle of suffering through technological means.
  
  You may chide me for 'been a lemming' - but I realize more keenly than most that the suggestion of asceticism while attractive to the 'spiritually' oriented... is fundamentally unworkable and unsustainable as long as we remain human - in all our greatness and foibles and variability.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Haven't read the book, but reading the wikipedia entry... as much as I wish humanity had it within itself to seek such a wise and sustainable path... the reality is it does not.
  
  We are cognitively limited - unable to fully comprehend the consequences of our actions past a certain point (we cannot fully appreciate the extent of the ripples we create). While it isn't outside the bounds of reality for any individual to be wise enough to grasp the full range of consequences of actions... it is improbable for all people to be so magnaminous - lest those without the sufficient cognitive capacity perish. This... is not a desirable outcome.
  
  And as a strategic reality - those with resources and power will triumph over those with no desires for such a thing, if conflct occurs. And conflict inevitably occurs.
  
  The only escape from this trap is through the top - where technology can cope with the wanton desires of all men. It is not impossible. It is within the realm of possibility for us to achieve a post-scarcity society within the century. If we collectively play our cards right anyway.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: I think such a world has already occurred. We don't even have to go as far as Google glasses to be able to say that yes, there are technological requirements for any degree of successful integration with society.
  
  I mean... language a form of technology is by far the most fundamental requirement for that societal interaction, but no one questions life without it. We are nearly at the same level for utilities like electricity and water and even internet.
  
  And if as a society we determine that such a device is necessary - it'll only because the economic cost is so low and so available that there's little excuse for not having one, and that in the worst circumstances can be easily subsidized in general.
  
  I mean... institutions that require the use of technology typically invest in it - like books and desktop PCs and laptops. I don't see why this would change with these glasses.
  
  As for privacy and security issues... further reliance on personal computing technology (so it's an issue that impacts all our computing devices, not just the ones we wear) will no doubt deepen the potential negative impact that hacking and other security breaches will have on us... but this is the transaction cost of this level of technology. The efficiencies and functionalities it provides outweigh the potential cost of inconveniences that it leverages. If it didn't, it would fail.
  
  Just like the potential ability of a vehicle to cause death and maim its occupants and others is outweighed by the positives of a reliable and fast transportation network.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: As romantic as that ideal is for some, I can say without equivocation that, such a thing is not an ideal state for anyone.
  
  We evolved from creatures without technology. Such a life is harsh, brutal and full of environmental insults.
  
  Doesn't lessen the triumphs and joys of just been alive in any form... but such an idea is only ideal for those that haven't fully contemplated our necessary dichotomy with technology.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Every man woman and child can achieve happiness, contentment and enlightenment...
  
  If only they'd just abandon materialism and live in the moment!
  
  - said a person without full understanding of human nature.
  
  Point been, yes, you can live a good life without this kind of tech. But that doesn't invalidate its power to improve lives.

• A comment on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: I think my favourite application of what they've shown so far is the - real time POV video to Hangout or some other social network.
  
  "Hey, what are you upto" will acquire a whole new meaning... and it has the potential to help us to enhance the feeling of been in touch and closer together even when apart.
  
  Now if only the reality of modern day mobile connections and data caps would catch up to this idealized notion of sharing our worlds around us with everyone we love.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Funnily enough... this *will* aid your vision.
  
  Because you'll be looking up instead of looking down, you'll actually be able to see more of the world around you!
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Sergey Brin isn't quite as good a salesman as Steve Jobs. I'd say there's probably none better.
  
  But with regards to the technology itself...
  
  Creating a small, light form factor that enhances the humanistic usability of technology is a sure fire way of improving the lives of those in bad situations. Unlike money, some forms of technologies DO trickle down... especially small light consumer devices that are frequently upgraded and discarded by affluent societies.
  
  Second hand and low-spec (relative to the current year) mobile and smartphones have made its way into the hands of millions upon millions of africans, indians, chinese, etc. These technologies allowed these people to bypass the desktop computing revolution, and shore up the failing infrastructure services that we take for granted in our affluent western nations.
  
  While this iteration of Google glasses is something of a supplementary technology to current mobile phone devices, as a direction for human computing interaction, its promises are unbounded.

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: We are only traveling in a direction that causes us to be more dependent in technology.
  
  To go back would be literally, the death of billions.
  
  The fertilizer is a technology that has enabled the agricultural revolution, which in turn has helped to support the billions of people on Earth now.
  
  Language is a technology - a tool of the mind in the most literal sense allowing us to communicate with each other.
  
  We have a tendency to view new technologies with suspicion, especially when they introduce startling changes that question our underlying assumptions. But soon enough we weave that technology into our lives and it 'disappears' in a social sense.
  
  We think nothing of the clothing we wear, the roads on which we walk, the light switches we turn on and the mobile phones we hold in our hands.
  
  As for Google Glasses... it's the technological solution to help remedy some of the problematic symptoms created by smart phones. No doubt, it'll have its own problematic symptoms that new technology will come along to solve.

• A comment on Conversation: Is it feasible or desirable to ever completely understand the human brain?

  Sep 23 2012: Yes and sure.
  
  But the brain is a subject of immense complexity. Its full function may never enter the realm of common knowledge, but with the fullness of understanding, we may finally come to end debates* on the nature of consciousness, mind-body dualism, etc.
  
  *even though those things can already be readily inferred with a good deal of evidence and keen reasoning by those well studied in its function and composition.
  
  But I suspect it'll be a while before that knowledge is as readily accepted as the spherical nature of this planet, or its rotation around the sun... just like evolution, despite its age and considerably massive weight of evidence, is been rejected by many across the world not for its veracity but for its implications.