Apr 19 2013: Hee hee thank you sincerely. To be honest I WAS in two minds. I think now, upon further reflection, that 'right' must be somewhere in between us. I guess she wanted to steer clear of politics as best she could - when unfortunately that's not possible hehe. Much appreciated! All the best to you too :)
Apr 19 2013: Because, whilst I take the point about the Japanese toilets 'bringing an uncomfortable topic out into the open' what wasn't said was that these toilets are amazingly expensive; they truly are luxury. In this context only an African tyrant king is going to be looking at those. I myself won't even bother dreaming of one. No one had a go at Rose for THAT, and nor should they; the problem can be come at from all sorts of angles and this is one of the most useful - at OUR end. Morton, you're stating the obvious here. We all not just 'feel' but know that full well, and I maintain that you have been unhelpfully glib in this instance. Ben's product is actually pretty basic; perhaps it can be made yet simpler?! Perhaps there are places for it to fit, even if not at the very lowest domestic level perhaps at the public or institutional level? I don't know but I'm absolutely certain you don't either.
Apr 19 2013: And I hear you too. But I don't think we can expect the speaker to digress into a catalogue of global spending frivolity, nor criticise her for not 'sanitising' her argument - not meaning to be clever. The problem she is talking about affects mainly poorer or disadvantaged nations. Most nations, including my own (Australia) are wasting vast amounts of resources - in particular on defence, I agree. And certainly I think most of us can see how the richer, more 'advanced' countries are in large part responsible, or irresponsible if you prefer, for the plight of the poorer countries they have throughout history despoiled by imperialism and economic and other injustice. She does actually make the point that the problem is not exclusively one for poor countries. On the balance, perhaps she could have included just such a statistic as you provide if only to avert this sort of misunderstanding, but I think there has to be a limit on our expectations, just as there is a limit on what one expert can fit into fifteen minutes. Do you not think that your taking issue as you have could also have the effect of reinforcing the division, or clouding the main issue? On the whole, it is difficult for me to take this talk as being somehow intended to diminish or belittle the poorer countries she is doing so much to help. What I see is just someone getting their hands dirty. It's a big picture, surely we can't expect her to colour it in all by herself.
Apr 18 2013: In all fairness, isn't this man and his invention - at the very least - not only on the right track but seriously doing something about the problem? Whilst I've just this day learned all about wiping my arse?! I think he should have a bit more credit than this, and less out-of-hand dismissal.
Apr 18 2013: The USA can afford to, and so does, waste a lot more frivolously than Pakistan, is all. I don't think you need to infer any racial bias or slur. Both statements, hers and yours, sound about right to me. Waste and misuse of resources is a global epidemic and each according to their means. But it's a fact that diarrhoea is - as Rose says - virtually a joke illness in so-called 'developed' - rich - countries but a ruthless killer in poorer countries.
Apr 18 2013: I guess so much of it is a cultural thing and a question of ignorance or misinformation. We (I'm white, a Westerner) (learn) how in India people use one hand exclusively to eat, so that the other is free for hand-washing after going to the toilet - and we wrinkle our noses at what we consider 'unsanitary' or at best quaintly manual. We are content to see toilet paper as an entirely satisfactory intermediary, a 'barrier' not just in the physical but epidemiological sense, when it isn't any such thing. Especially if your finger goes through ha ha. We assume it is 'best practice'. We think of toilet paper as evidence of our having reached a pinnacle of civilisation, as five-star, and a luxury that the poor in 'third world' countries simply cannot afford. It would never occur to us that the (older) foreign system is sounder medically - and sustainable too come to think of it.
I hear what you say as though for the first time. Toilet paper seems suddenly not just wasteful - this I already know - but ridiculous. Now I don't feel at all embarrassed about the times I have run out and washed my arse over the sink, by hand LOL. I clicked up there to register what I think is a great contribution. Now the designer that is me is thinking about the idea of redesigning the toilet along the lines of those 'ergonomic' kneeling-type chairs that came in in the 1980s I think, courtesy of the Swedish was it? I'm thinking, what would a toilet that is modelled on squatting look like - at both the poor and rich end of the scale? How could we make the hands-free washing and other mechanisms that the Japanese pioneered - cheap? The ones described in the talk are actually the Rolls Royce of latrines, and they cost accordingly but it doesn't look like a very difficult engineering problem to me (especially when all the work has already been done to a nicety). Good stuff!
Apr 18 2013: It's been said in all sorts of other ways. One goes a bit like this: 'since the industrial revolution, our technology has progressed phenomenally, presenting us with wonders on a daily basis that only a generation before were simply unimaginable' - I myself am still amazed by the internet. I myself still remember the first digital watches, and Space Invaders, Star Trek's, or James Bond's, video communicator now a reality etc - 'but we have made on the other hand virtually negligible progress socially or ethically'. We've made amazing advances with all our tools and toys, but we aren't yet walking together in colonnaded gardens in robes musing together about the nature of existence. The world is still a very unfair, unkind place, when we do have the means to make it otherwise. We are still basically savages despite our dazzling beads. We are no closer to a utopia that technology ought to have given us by now. That's basically what he was getting at, I think. William Morris before him saw things similarly - he was dismayed to see how machines would replace not just the tedium of labour but all its wonders too - art and craft for example. I tend to think it is appalling, that that was a good choice of word. But I also think that it's quite possible that this is just a 'phase we're going through', despite our all having recently decided to credit the best evidence our best minds can provide us to the effect that we, and our planet, are hurtling ineluctably toward the edge of the environmental precipice. TED, amongst other things, gives me reason to hope when I see how many really clever - and humane - things are being done, whether in the nick of time or not it remains for us, or rather our children, to see.
Apr 10 2013: I am a designer, and one thing I do know is that only geniuses of the first order manage to get things done all by themselves. Even though we designers are thought of, and like to think of ourselves, as 'auteurs' - well we just aren't. In all that we do we rely upon others, directly or indirectly, else we are kidding ourselves. No end to what TED.com adds to my own work, for example! "For no man is an island, alone and entire unto himself ... " Me and whose army ...
TEDCred score: +43.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
A reply on Talk: Rose George: Let's talk crap. Seriously.
I hear what you say as though for the first time. Toilet paper seems suddenly not just wasteful - this I already know - but ridiculous. Now I don't feel at all embarrassed about the times I have run out and washed my arse over the sink, by hand LOL. I clicked up there to register what I think is a great contribution. Now the designer that is me is thinking about the idea of redesigning the toilet along the lines of those 'ergonomic' kneeling-type chairs that came in in the 1980s I think, courtesy of the Swedish was it? I'm thinking, what would a toilet that is modelled on squatting look like - at both the poor and rich end of the scale? How could we make the hands-free washing and other mechanisms that the Japanese pioneered - cheap? The ones described in the talk are actually the Rolls Royce of latrines, and they cost accordingly but it doesn't look like a very difficult engineering problem to me (especially when all the work has already been done to a nicety). Good stuff!
A reply on Talk: Ken Jennings: Watson, Jeopardy and me, the obsolete know-it-all
A comment on Talk: Richard Turere: My invention that made peace with lions
A reply on Talk: Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms