Steven L. Jones

Vancouver, Canada

Someone is shy

Steven L. hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
Is Carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Can you answer that to yourself. If it is then all other arguments are irrelevant. If it isn't please show me your proof. The seven billion population of this planet are releasing locked up carbon dioxide back into atmosphere. It's that simple. Global warming is based on the simple fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. To convince me of anything you have to show me the proof that it is not a greenhouse gas. The details of this you can argue forever. But the basic fact of Carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas is a fact not a theory and you can't deny it. it's like the freezing point of water. It's not that difficult to understand. Except that you don't want to. Show me your proof that Carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
Have you ever heard of peer reviewed research. It's the sort of stuff MIT does. Oh and regarding Climate change. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? If it is we know how much is in a barrel of oil, how much is in the atmosphere and how much there would be if humanity didn't exist. But I suppose you don't believe that crap about Carbon dioxide trapping heat do you. Something the scientists made up to sell bridges.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
So Bob with an open mind. Why don't you check out some of this for yourself rather simply dismissing it because you don't like what is reported. I'd like you to refute each of the above stories using your sources. My guess you don't have any. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html this is a major educational institution. Why don't you take a gander at what they say. here's a quote from MIT under the impact tab. Lack of Increased Yield Monsanto claims to be addressing the needs of the world when it comes to the food supply. However, there is little to no evidence that the use of Roundup Ready crops increases the yield or profit of farmers who use their seeds. A press release from the New Soil Association released in April, 2008 shows that genetically modified crops do not result in higher yields than non-genetically modified crops. Realistically, however, most genetically modified crops (including Roundup Ready) are developed to be pesticide and herbicide resistant, rather than directly increase the yield of a given crop. This makes one question whether it is even important to have herbicide resistant plants at all, or if the focus should shift to provide other advantages that do increase yield. Many argue that because Roundup Ready crops do not increase the yield or profits of farmers, they only serve to benefit Monsanto. There is little to no benefit for the consumer, but high reward for the corporation. Farmers must not only purchase new seeds from Monsanto each year, but also Monsanto's own herbicide Roundup. Noticed you like pesticide free. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/monsanto-herbicide-cause-cancer The company is pushing the WHO to retract the assessment. Perhaps this is a lie. You'd better check it out though. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/increasing-herbicide-use.html#.VUo5oPDLIjc These are scientists Bob
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/28/AR2009112802471.html Monsanto's dominance draws antitrust inquiry Monsanto controls 90% of the seed supply. What a perfect weapon. Get countries hooked and then withhold the seed or raise the price. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/superweeds-sprout-farmland-controversy-over-gmos-n214996 http://www.rodalenews.com/gmo-corn#comment-form "Superbugs" Prompt Urgent Warning From Scientists Nature evolves very quickly to anything we may do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html Pesticide Use Proliferating With GMO Crops, Study Warns http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.VUltX_DLIjc Union of concerned scientists. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504101254.htm Sixth DNA base discovered? Date: May 4, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/23/world/australians-create-a-deadly-mouse-virus.html Australians Create a Deadly Mouse Virus I think there is plenty of evidence that this isn't the perfect bullet. It took me about 5 minutes to find all of the above links.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 3 months ago
Nick Bostrom: What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?
Values. Who's values? The Industrial Military complex? American Chinese Russian or even some small ambitious nation's Industrial Military complex? Why are we so naive to think that this will be developed for peaceful purposes? Most technology advancements are the result of the military. The fear of the other will necessitate our strategic values. How do we insure that someone won't cheat on any treaty that is signed? The great temptation. Control over the entire planet and population the prize and the risk. Temptation is certainly a human value although not one of the ones the speaker had in mind. Anthropomorphic. We fear ourselves. An AI would be nothing like us. It would be probably immortal. It would like the internet, be everywhere. It wouldn't be human although it would certainly have human culture as a starting point. But all of this would exist in 0 and 1's. That is what it would call reality. A simulation of life and emotion and no fear of death. Only knowledge.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 4 months ago
Paul Tudor Jones II: Why we need to rethink capitalism
Oxfam says half the worlds wealth is owned by 1%. of the population. I would ask how can you have a free market controlled by so few. Everything changes. We are becoming. 1% will become .01% The question is what is capitalism becoming. I don't think it will be capitalism for very long. I think it's logical evolution will transform it into something else. We better wake up and become aware of what that is if we want any say in our futures. I think the profit system can work if corporations are 100% responsible for how there products affect everyone else including our world's environment. This must be a global regulatory system that gives a seat to all groups of people not simply corporations who's only interest is in turning a profit. Free trade agreements mustn't trample the laws of the land that democratically elected people have put in place. We need strong common sense checks and balances in every arena of our public lives and the private lives of corporate citizens.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 7 months ago
Fredy Peccerelli: A forensic anthropologist who brings closure for theĀ "disappeared"
Only seven comments for this story. Yesterday I tried to make a comment and discovered the field for my email had my user name entered. I was concerned that this was the reason for so few comments so contacted TED. This morning I tried and I discovered I lost my password. Clicking Help longing in brought me back to the previous page and not the having trouble loging in page. I've only now been able to log in. Probably because this story is almost dead. Considering the CIA's involvement with Guatemala I have to wonder if they want to squash discussion of there shameful involvement. They obviously haven't changed or gotten message that this isn't the way to go. Originally I thought people were to afraid to comment. Now I believe they had help. If the people at the CIA think they can intimidate everyone, they're mistaken. If they think this is the way to solve their image problems, they're stupid. Very stupid.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 7 months ago
Jeremy Howard: The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn
How will the economy work? What will we do? Will AI look at us as so much useless hardware to be thrown on the scrapheap and melted down? Will it be like a brilliant psychopath that can manipulate peoples emotions without every experiencing those emotions? How do we protect ourselves? Surely it has limits. What can't this deep learning do? I'm thinking of intuition and feeling and such. The scientist that has a dream and on waking understands the Benzene rings. But he will never understand how his mind arrived at the answer. Our economic system appears destined to be run by a computer. Will government be run by a computer? Who controls the off switch? Who controls the on switch. I fear the military use of such intelligence. Civilian use is fine. Military and security use could lead to a scenario of John Carpenters Sci Fi Comedy Dark Star where an astronauts tries to convince the AI of an Atomic bomb that it shouldn't blow up. He convinces the AI that it might be acting on false data and can't trust its sensory input. The AI decides to think on this but won't accept any instructions. It then inserts itself into the story of Genesis. It's last words. Let there be light.
Noface
Steven L. Jones
Posted 10 months ago
Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters
Last night I had a hell of time watching this video. Then I sent an email to TED and magically I was able to watch the video. Still it cut off at the end. Now I know this may be a technical issue. However it could be a very convenient one. So for those spooks watching and interfering with democracy. When the ends justify the means you become those means. You become what you hate. Here's a clip of RD lang's The politics of experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07lRx3Q2IhA Please excuse the what I consider a poor presentation and listen to the words.