Mihir Joshi

Account Manager, Tetra Pak
Gurgaon, Haryana, India

About Mihir

Languages

English, French, Hindi, Marathi

I'm passionate about

Our Planet and Humanity

Talk to me about

Science , Philosophy, History, Social Issue, Environmental Issues

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted 6 months ago
Chrystia Freeland: The rise of the new global super-rich
I agree, the factors are not so forth coming in the talk. Here are a few I have identified over the years: 1. Social Network access: Eg. I know that the rules of the game are changing, i can adept better eg. Investments 2. Equal and absolute cost of social goods for everyone eg. water, electricity,air etc cost the same ..even traffic fines for that matter, whether driving BMW or Tata Nano. So a billionaire pays less fixed cost compared to the poor (Government can charge more by providing a better service by differentiating on quality. 3. Nutrition: Early years are extremely important for development which the poor lose out on often. 4. Exposure : A poor person is likely to live his entire life in a limited geography/ social circle reducing both Knowledge gathering/ input signals and influence capabilities. A Rich person will be exposed to many more opportunities. The best bet is move the scoial aspirational 'status bar' from billionaire in money to a billionaire in lives transformed.
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted 7 months ago
Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability
Dear Chris, It was a logical and inspring talk to build a better world. I believe two things might aid/ hasten the process of moving business towards sutainability: 1. The role of the Government is to protect citizen and generate model behaviour from businesses. In this context I believe minimial taxes (~1%) or permits on businesses on CO2 emissions would aid the process. They would create good/poor management marker for investors. It would also generate data to gauge progress (you can't improve what don't measure) 2. When the CNBC and other business channels report on companies as good stock, they replace the blue chip stocks with green stocks
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted 7 months ago
Harish Manwani: Profit’s not always the point
Hi Kunal, I am from India and I understand your point about Project Shakti benefitting Unilever. It reminds me of what my pragmatic professor who consulted in the real world advised us in one of our lectures. He said a company's objectives would require you to do x, but you want to do good in this world. The real art of management is in doing as much good as you can while focusing on the company's requirement /expectation. And in reality I have found, that if you keep this context, you make a significant impact , the kind that Harsh was mentioning. There is also the concept of 'Shared Value' which Michael Porter talks about. I would encourage you to explore it, if haven't already. I believe Unilever is just one step away from that in terms of value sharing and this is going to be the future of businesses in societies as 'externalising costs' (another malaise like agent problem) becomes lesser &lesser an alternative Having being exposed to Unilever on a variety of levels, I am aware of the pressure they exert on their business partners on the issue of sustainability these days and would say that are truly making a difference.
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted about 3 years ago
Do you believe we have true freewill?
I presume then,that there are no takers to solve the thought experiment.Since the action of "free will" seems indsitinguishable from "forced/ predetermined response", therefore both are infact one and the same.
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted over 3 years ago
Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
Dear Matt, If we re-enacted the big bang with 100% precision (having over come all the difficult), there would be still one catch. One Intial condition would be different..it would not be at the same time t=0 as the orignal and would have an associated history (of an observer recreating the big bang) change the equations. Hence recreating the big bang with the exact initial conditions would not be possible ( even if travelled back in time t=0 to recreate it in a different but identical dimensions). Since creation of initial condition it seems would not be possible, hence replicating the exact same result would elude us. the difference I think between this and the repeatability of the regular experiment we do lies in the R factor.. A 95% factor is good enough to prove say two falling objectsfrom same height falling together. Rest being attributed to shape, wind etc.But to bring out the exact samehigh entrphy state of the universe, from thel ow entrophy state would require an R of 100% and nothing less. and the t>0 would put a varience factor ( however infinitesimally small) which progress geometrically with time. Therefore primarily, the cause and effect law stays intact but the effort to recreate an event does not. extending this case beyond t=0, to now. I propose if you could create an R=100% for every thing that happens, it should at first flow follow that the universe must become deterministic and future predictable. However the prediction must take into ints calculation ..pre-knowledge of the first iterative future generated by the model. Thus the calculation for the second iteration would be influenced by the first (which would in most cases now be incorrect). If the second iteration should throw up a future x, it would still risk a variance (caused by the pre-knowledge consideration at every second by every sentient being possessing the model)
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted over 3 years ago
Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
pre-knowledge would change the initial conditions, making the initial future determination incorrect.. however if the predictions were made based on pre-knowledge, then the future should as you said be determinable.
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted over 3 years ago
Do you believe we have true freewill?
I put forth a small thought experiment for consideration. Consider that we decide to test Free Will. So we bring two identical twins to the Lab, Maxime & Chad. They are so alike in every way that their parents cant tell them apart. There is only one difference .. One has no Free Will, but the other does. Now I offer them both a choice in ice-cream: Choclate or Vanilla. Maxime picks Chocolate and Chad picks Vanilla. Now we have to identify which one has free will and which one does not. Since I am unable to make out the difference, I invite all of you to questions aloud (by the way comments) to catch the person with Free Will. Anyone?
Noface
Mihir Joshi
Posted over 3 years ago
Do you have a suggestion for TED? Something we could do better?
I missing element in our scientific development work as humanity is any unifying consious strategy to priortize talent and resources towards key goals. there has never been infact ever a conversation around which problems across the plethora of sciences would give humanity a leap forward. It need not be "the grand theory" but maybe a better measuring principle which would help verify/ falsify some of the existing theories like strings. Frankly, being an Engineer biases me towards backend of science then front end. But it is my hypothesis that more accurate & sensitive clocks and such have led to subsequent theories or atest their proofs. Its tough one but wonder if TED could create a conversation around what problems should Humanity prioritze to take leap.