Feb 17 2011: I am in some agreement with you on your last sentence, since I think that would be an interesting and beneficial field of study. But, I'm not sure I agree with your description of computer science as missing the point of a computer.
You have defined a computer as a creative tool, and its true that there is a lot of benefit for artists and other creative individuals to using a computer. It can also be a communication tool. It can be a computational tool for scientists, engineers, or mathematicians. Or a tool for tracking and managing processes, organizations, money, etc. It can be a tool for controlling machinery. Or a tool for engineers to design systems and components. Or it can just be used to store very large amounts of information.
But in almost all of these cases, there is almost nothing that a computer does that wouldn't be theoretically possible without it. Now, with the computing power and software of today's computers, at first, this statement sounds completely absurd. But, the basic benefit that the computer is providing is that it does all of these things faster than the alternative. So much faster, in fact, that the alternative may be so impractical that it is actually impossible.
So, when you say that computer science is missing the point of a computer when it focuses on efficiency of computations, I disagree completely. Efficiency is the main point of a computer. So if you want to spend some time being creative about all of the things you can do with a computer, great. But, when it comes time to make it happen, making it happen quickly and efficiently is the very reason you are using a computer to do it.
Feb 17 2011: I don't believe that a group necessarily needs leadership itself to function, but it does need a set of rules under which it operates. Otherwise, it doesn't take very much selfishness or desire for control to either destroy the cohesion of the group, or to violate the rights of members of the group. And any group that begins without any rules at all will generally force individuals into creating agreements between each other in order to be able to fend off those who would take advantage of them. So any group will always eventually develop some type of mechanism by which the rules that govern our relationships with one another are created, changed, and enforced.
Following a leader is our most basic instinctive mechanism for establishing a governed society, so it is no surprise that many times groups place too much power in the hands of a single individual or a small group of individuals. Then, these individuals become corrupt and authoritarian because they also have the human traits of selfishness and desire for control. When the group removes such leaders, it is a positive step. So if the group as a whole leans toward always relying on looking to leaders to create structure for their society, they will tend to end up in what you might see as a healthy cycle of periodic revolution.
But, this isn't the only way a group can establish its rules. If the group sees the rules that define its governance as being critical to its existence and larger than a single individual or a single problem, they will work to enforce this framework even when the outcome doesn't seem beneficial. In the long run, though, this keeps the society operating within the context of an agreement between its members. And this is a healthier form of government. So, I would say the test for whether the governance is beneficial is to ask, "Is the government acting to enforce a natural, desirable agreement between people?"
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Has computer science completely missed the point of a computer -- namely, that it is a creative tool?
You have defined a computer as a creative tool, and its true that there is a lot of benefit for artists and other creative individuals to using a computer. It can also be a communication tool. It can be a computational tool for scientists, engineers, or mathematicians. Or a tool for tracking and managing processes, organizations, money, etc. It can be a tool for controlling machinery. Or a tool for engineers to design systems and components. Or it can just be used to store very large amounts of information.
But in almost all of these cases, there is almost nothing that a computer does that wouldn't be theoretically possible without it. Now, with the computing power and software of today's computers, at first, this statement sounds completely absurd. But, the basic benefit that the computer is providing is that it does all of these things faster than the alternative. So much faster, in fact, that the alternative may be so impractical that it is actually impossible.
So, when you say that computer science is missing the point of a computer when it focuses on efficiency of computations, I disagree completely. Efficiency is the main point of a computer. So if you want to spend some time being creative about all of the things you can do with a computer, great. But, when it comes time to make it happen, making it happen quickly and efficiently is the very reason you are using a computer to do it.
A comment on Conversation: To what extent does a group (read: community, non-profit organization, country's population) need leadership/governance to function?
Following a leader is our most basic instinctive mechanism for establishing a governed society, so it is no surprise that many times groups place too much power in the hands of a single individual or a small group of individuals. Then, these individuals become corrupt and authoritarian because they also have the human traits of selfishness and desire for control. When the group removes such leaders, it is a positive step. So if the group as a whole leans toward always relying on looking to leaders to create structure for their society, they will tend to end up in what you might see as a healthy cycle of periodic revolution.
But, this isn't the only way a group can establish its rules. If the group sees the rules that define its governance as being critical to its existence and larger than a single individual or a single problem, they will work to enforce this framework even when the outcome doesn't seem beneficial. In the long run, though, this keeps the society operating within the context of an agreement between its members. And this is a healthier form of government. So, I would say the test for whether the governance is beneficial is to ask, "Is the government acting to enforce a natural, desirable agreement between people?"