TED Community » Mathieu Guerin

More About Me

I'm passionate about

the phenomenon of life and the state of humankind.

An idea worth spreading

Humans can separate reality from anthropomorphism, but anthropomorphism cannot separate from humans.

Talk to me about

If you are reading my profile, chances are that you have something to say to me...

People don't know that I'm good at

Open-eyed meditation.

My TED Story

A very good friend of mine led me to this website and I was surprised by the valuable content of TED conventions and the network of speakers involved. As an intellectually awake tradesperson (when I originally landed on the site) I considered this place as my link into the scientific world. Now as a university student I consider it to be a source of inspiration and a break from my own subject matter.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: Are we over-socialized or under-socialized? Is it possible that we could be both?

  Aug 25 2011: I am from what's now being called the "Me" generation. The intent behind product innovation/marketing always seems to be personalization, which is an exasperating patronization to me. Stop telling me what I want. You denigrate my authenticity.
  
  I was the last of my friends to own a cellphone, and the last to use facebook by about a year. However, I have grown to embrace that I live in a time where forums like TED facilitate the exchange of ideas amongst laymen. Affirming otherwise would make a hypocrite of me.
  
  This expressed, I admit that nothing makes me cringe more than witnessing a group of young adults sitting together, texting other people or even each other from across the table. One of my own friends has developed the Blackberry phenotype. He will continuously text absent people when I am right across the table. When this happens I feel an inexorable urge to grab him by the collar, slap him and exclaim; "You are really here! This is really happening!" Sadly I've grown apart from this friend, given that he has lost the ability to communicate the contents of his imagination.
  
  My experience is that people my age have a terrible time expressing themselves via vocabulary. The use of grammar is defaced beyond recognition, likely due to neglect in the faction of reading/writing.
  
  People are increasingly impatient. Why read a book if I can watch a movie? Why walk when I can drive? Why cook when I can order? Why take the time to say something when I can text? There is a severe under-appreciation for the low-strata quality. The convention is; "If my senses aren't saturated, then it's a second-rate experience."
  
  How then can a human relish in his/her genuine existence?
  
  Should I hold-fast in the face of these ambiguous cultural winds? Will I be left behind? Are my love of fine lecture, crafted beer and genuine self-reflection doomed to be conquered by this machine of exponential growth, intense sensations and augmented reality?

• A reply on Conversation: Are we over-socialized or under-socialized? Is it possible that we could be both?

  Aug 25 2011: If I were you, I would make that into a t-shirt before someone else does!
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Are we over-socialized or under-socialized? Is it possible that we could be both?

  Aug 25 2011: Agreed. However my intent was not to inform but to socialize...

• A reply on Conversation: What kind of future sate (after capitalism or next 200-500 years) would you like to see happen?

  Aug 25 2011: I think you and I agree that technology should serve science, not us! We should evolve despite technology, not because of it.
  
  Speaking of space programs; have you heard of the Kepler mission?

• A reply on Conversation: What kind of future sate (after capitalism or next 200-500 years) would you like to see happen?

  Aug 25 2011: Hey Daniel. You're right, I took what you said far out of proportion because this type of question (about society and the future) always has answers involving how people could be less miserable and more happy and work together in a big wonderful group. This kind of answer is optimistic beyond the bounds of reality!
  
  You and I will agree that as the population of the world expands, the world we live in changes drastically. I would also go as far as saying that the more aggressive the growth of the human race, the more aggressive the changes in the world (I'm talking about society as well as environment).
  
  The pattern that I observe if I look at the last thousand years, is that things change but the world doesn't change. If its not this disease than its that one. If its not that group who is oppressed then its this group. If its not this half of the world who is starving then its the other half! We can't make everyone happy. It will never happen and it shouldn't be something that we work towards.
  
  If we are going to talk about realistic approaches to the future (which I presume is the goal of this conversation), then we can't say things like "everyone will be happy and educated." However, we can say "Solar energy is the next petroleum" and talk about why we speculate thus. Mr. Blackburn articulated my point very succinctly; 500 years from now the Earth will still be the way it is today, but humans will face new problems.
  
  If we went into the future and figured out what those were to find immediate solutions, would not a new set of problems arise come 500 years?

• A comment on Conversation: What kind of future sate (after capitalism or next 200-500 years) would you like to see happen?

  Aug 23 2011: As far as technology, I expect it to evolve into something drastically more sustainable. The purpose of technology today is to make everything easy. That does not give us a very good chance to survive 500 years.
  
  As far as politics, I think that democracy and capitalism work very well on a small scale of say, one million humans at a time. Otherwise the gaps between rich and poor become very very wide which creates perpetual poverty and eliminates the opportunities of minorities... just like today.
  
  All these "tribes" of one million people could have an urban centre and a rural expanse, and thus be completely autonomous. Of course, new hubs of this network of one-millions would pop up often until some kind of catastrophe or pandemic neutralizes a few hubs. Each hub would be geographically and virtually connected to the other hubs and the network of these hubs would be directed in a very broad dictatorship style. The world's resources would be better distributed by the computations of a machine than the judgement of a human. Capitalism encapsulated in feudalism, essentially. Democratic particles in a communist atom.
  
  On the social side, it is much easier to eliminate corruption in a small business environment than a corporate setting. Also it is easier to educate and allocate people within a working system if there are fewer of them. (For example, a small classroom is better than a big classroom.) I think that there is a higher probability of people being educated and jovial if they are able to develop and connect with each other in a smaller, structured populace than in a vast societal abyss.
  
  So in short, we would all be individualistic-peasant-entrepreneurs within self-governed tribes, in-turn governed by a machine that keeps humanity's input/output balanced regarding our resources. Technology would serve science, not survival which would make it much less destructive to the planet's ecosystems.

• A comment on Conversation: What kind of future sate (after capitalism or next 200-500 years) would you like to see happen?

  Aug 23 2011: This is a difficult question! It is very important, amongst the wild imaginings, to remain secular about this subject. Keep human nature in mind, you know?
  
  For example there will always be greed, so solving poverty and hunger is out of the question unless you exterminate people. Everyone being educated and happy and understanding the world they live in means exterminating disabled people, manic depressives and bipolar people (to name a few) in order to eradicate their genetic code from our pool (not that it would even work).
  
  This is starting to sound a lot like Hitler won the war! Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to be happy, but it's amazing how little free will humans have regarding happiness, intelligence and behavior. As a biomedical scientist, I'm assuming that you've heard of epigenetic rules? People will always be born depressed or stupid or homosexual and the only way to "solve those questions" is the holocaust. In the future it might be less physically brutal because we might have the technology to build genetic code ourselves, but it is nevertheless killing the way people were naturally meant to be. I like your question but I think you've got a lot of explaining to do as far as the social concepts of your dream world! You say you want a cleaner society... I am very scared of you. Some people love to hang around in filth and hoard garbage. They are not less human than you, and be assured that they are not less in your future than in your present.
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: Are we over-socialized or under-socialized? Is it possible that we could be both?

  Aug 23 2011: As a musician I want to let you know, Jim, that it is impossible to create music alongside someone else without learning to gauge them by the things that are most organic and least virtual about socialization;
  
  Body language, tone of voice, attitude in general... everything that is read between the lines of mere vocabulary. All the ways in which someone expresses themselves apart from their choice of words. All those things that are incommunicable via keyboard.
  
  Up to this point in the conversation I thought that two people creating music together embodied exactly the characteristics of "non-virtual" socialization that you seem to value. I think Birdia's idea lends a lot of credit to the reasons you have for guarding yourself from cyber-socialization. No one wants to miss out on those organic interactions!

• A comment on Conversation: Are we over-socialized or under-socialized? Is it possible that we could be both?

  Aug 23 2011: I think that socializing is a personal experience. Some people are shy and some people are outgoing. It is logical that shy people will have a different standard for socialization than outgoing people will. The internet is splitting these two groups into four;
  
  real-shy / virtually-shy
  real-shy / virtually-outgoing
  real-outgoing/virtually-shy
  really-outgoing / virtually-outgoing
  
  I know enough people that I could categorize in each of these groups and you might too. All of these people will use resources differently and develop different definitions for socializing. It's natural diversity.
  
  An interesting point is that if I met someone in person I would probably be able to categorize them sooner or later. However, if I only interacted with them "virtually", I would be missing a lot of data as far as the "real" side of things goes; having never witnessed the way they carry themselves, their tone of voice, the way they dress... There is no question that you get a lot more out of being with people physically.
  
  Furthermore I don't think that it can be said that virtual versus real communication is good or bad. Virtual communication is but a phenotype of the culture of this age. Some will take advantage and some won't. It's natural selection.
  
  I conclude that we are not over or under socialized, but the means for socialization has been expanding in the last few decades because of the idea of globalization and the advent of networking. The world is changing.
  
  I think it's all a result of human nature... like the stock market, or toothpaste, or recycling! My words to you Jim; Just go with it!

• A reply on Conversation: Languages evolve. What is the significance of language death facing the human race?

  Aug 17 2011: Good points. I think that technology IS the monoculture. From the perspective of "duality", the more it encroaches on our behavior the more it takes over our perception of reality. The more we need it and the less it needs us. Which is frightening and beautiful.