TED Community » Arsene Konnov

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Sustainable development, Science, Creativity, Ecology, Environment, Psychology, Society, Sustainable cities, Personal growth

Comments

• TEDCred score: +6.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: Catherine Mohr builds green

  Apr 15 2010: OMG!
  "The cake is a lie"!
  Catherine, what do you think about wasting energy while playing Portal? ;-)

• A reply on Talk: Kevin Bales: How to combat modern slavery

  Apr 4 2010: Yeah, that's funny that Iceland is the only free country. I don't even want to imagine the scale of slavery in my country... As for the underlying economic mechanisms, first of all, classic "demand/supply" curves only describe some ideal situations of absolutely free and transparent market, whereas slave market is neither free nor transparent - first of all, it's illegal, very narrow, and there are very few sellers and buyers and almost no competition in every given place. I think that because of all these specific conditions this market is functioning quite differently. And I don't think there can be any negotiation with slaveholders.
• +2

  A comment on Talk: Hans Rosling: Asia's rise -- how and when

  Dec 2 2009: Really great talk. The only thing that makes me doubtful is the very future of the notion of GDP. Does GDP per capita really reflect the average quality of life in a country? Do all the people NEED to have a high income to live in dignity, and why do we neglect the non-economical aspects of life? And, what is even more important, our planet just won't be able to sustain such a growth, and environmental problems (even if we put aside the extremely doubtful subject of climate change) will only worsen in the next dew decades. If we can't agree globally on 'uneconomic growth' or 'development instead of growth', then we should at least get a new meaning for economic growth, that will put less accent on material production and more on natural and social capital. As Dan Evens pointed out, the developing countries just can't repeat the way of old industrialized ones. Without this change in notions and vision, the world is doomed to more environmental disasters, war and inequality.

• A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

  Nov 23 2009: I don't think it's a correct way to argue. There are good and bad things that money 'do', or whatever else does, but it's not the money that matter, but the people that use them on good or bad purposes (and, in fact, what really matters is different reasons for them to do so). Religion is quite the same, and there is nothing on Earth that we couldn't have used for bad... or for good either.
  Gandhi was Hinduist, and his murderer was also a Hinduist. In modern Christianism, there is Abbe Pierre, and there are christians that vote for capital punishment (like in Russia, where 56% would have voted for capital punishment, and most of them consider themselves Orthodox christians. Thankfully, the decision is made by the Supreme Court, not via referendum.) If we can't tell knowledge from belief, there appears to be a 'no man's land' in human conscience, where different 'memes' compete. RD, unfortunately, doesn't try to distinct the two, he just tries to 'stake it out'.
• +5

  A reply on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

  Nov 20 2009: Hello Peter,
  I just would like to note that I'm a believer, and I was studying evolution in my University and I'm quite convienced that the classical post-Darwin evolution is right and creationists are wrong. Creationism such as it is has NOTHING to do with science. There were (and will never be) no fossil or molecular or whatever else proof for "acts of creation" that would be valid. For me, it's the fact of total autonomy af all processes in nature (and evolution is the brightest, but not the single example of this) that need no "external impact" or "miracle" to go on - is the greatest proof of God's Wisdom and the greatest miracle. I consider creationists as a middle-age-minded folks that search for the proofs and therefore they don't believe enough. God's wisdom is in not leaving us any hint, if you want. Atheists consider it differently, but they do it rightfully, that's their own business, just leave them in peace.
  P.S. Sorry for probable mistakes, I'm not a native speaker.
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

  Nov 20 2009: Quite a nice talk. RD is mentioning here the same "facts" that other non-atheist authors use as a "proof" of their own vision, he's just using the different language.
  I often heard the atheists "explain" human faith (let's leave aside all other "arguments" from both sides, as they finally don't matter at all) as a way to defend oneself against the fear of nonexistence after death; so a believer "fills" this "void" with what he or she calls God. However, "God" and "nonexistence" are just two different assumptions that different people choose; thus, atheists "believe" in the Void whereas believers believe in God. From William of Okham's point of view (yeah, that's the guy that all the atheists so like to refer to), neither assumption is more convincing than another. I'm a believer, though I'm against creationists, but I just can't understand the people spending so much time in these useless discussions... Just let it go at that.