I'm an engineering student at a Canadian University studying renewable energy. I have worked as a roughneck, a teacher and a masseuse. I have many interests and enjoy learning.
Jan 19 2013: Though that's an interesting theory, I don't think it's actually the case. In my own experience, I would say it is much more due to the fact that young women are just as immature as young men. I think by the time someone has lived independently, had her heart broken a few times, maybe had a child, she will be a lot less fearful of not being in control, and probably more realistic about what will come of a new relationship. Being respectful ultimately means being unselfish, and that takes more maturity than most people have at twenty one.
An interesting tangential note (I'm not sure what to make of it but it seems significant) - I've found that communities where young women were the most - I suppose abrasive is the best word - were also those where I would expect sexual violence to be the worst (IE Oil towns). On the other hand, in rural Canadian communities where everyone knows their neighbors, interaction between genders seemed much more open and mutually respectful. However, young women in the latter communities seem to spend much less time and effort appearing sexually attractive, which I find completely counterintuitive.
Mar 14 2012: when he talks about Easter Island, he's referring to the civilization that made the stone heads, even though people kept living there until foreign contact, the population density was much lower than it was estimated to be at one point.
Feb 7 2012: I have an answer to your second question. I would say that creating a positive effect using drugs would decrease independence instead of increase it. A major plus of 'training' intrinsic happiness is that we can choose to be happy even when circumstances are less than ideal. But if circumstances ever involve an interruption in the Soma/prozac/ritalin/ gleemomax/allswell supply, you'd be worse off than someone who had never taken it. Also, I think some part of us wants to believe that "being happy takes work" or at least the application of a skill. The idea that someone is happy because they trained themselves to react differently to circumstance is inspiring and motivates us to train ourselves also. Whereas if someone is happy because of something external to themselves, we may want to have the same thing, but we won't see these people as worthy of emulation. That's my opinion anyway.
Dec 2 2011: It didn't exist yet at the time, but 3D printing. Here's a technology that might revolutionize how our industry works, decentralize and scale down production and give thousands of inventors with a good idea a fast way to make a prototype. Imagine a million schoolchildren every year, challenged to come up with the best idea for a small invention or 3D artwork. That would be so amazing.
Dec 2 2011: Actually, peak oil having already happened is a fairly accepted theory. M.K. Hubbert predicted peak oil extraction in the US for 1965-1970, it peaked in 1971. He predicted peak oil extraction globally for 2000-2010. He was most likely pessimistic by a year again, though reliable data from some of the major producers is hard to come by. So while it can't be proven or disproven, it's a model that worked before and fits with the observations we can make today.
The peak oil model doesn't actually talk about consumption but production. It predicts that a finite resource will be harvested very quickly, then hit a 'maximum' rate of production, and that production will decrease after this period. Presumably, prices would continue to go up and up as less and less oil is produced.
Dec 2 2011: What kind of efficiency are you figuring for electricity generation? I seem to recall hearing that current nuclear plants are only about 40% efficient anyway.
Nov 23 2011: An excellent hypothesis concerning future human evolution, but I don't fully understand your point about outnumbering other animals being a handicap to humans. I would think that nearly all human evolution has been an arms race against either germs or other humans, with other races playing an increasingly less competitive role. I don't think you are wrong, the current trend towards smaller families is an excellent indication that your idea has merit, but I don't understand your logic. Would you be willing to elaborate on this idea?
On another note, I think a distinction must be made between memetic and genetic evolution. Though memetic evolution is becoming more and more fashionable as an area of study, there is far less history to study- the oldest known surviving texts are only a few thousand years old, and oral traditions mutate so quickly that it's difficult to study their history at all. Genetic history however is millions of years old with excellently preserved examples, and still seems to have many mysteries. I wouldn't sell it short !-)
Nov 22 2011: The best explanation I ever saw for this question was mostly mathematical. I'll try to summarize it here, but I may mangle it a bit.
The thing is, human population has been expanding for as long as anyone can remember, but established species always have stable populations. In an expanding population, having more children indefinitely would be beneficial, but in a steady one, each mating pair can only have a finite number of offspring. If a species grows for too long, it presumably destroys its niche, so there needs to be an upper limit on how many offspring a species can typically have, depending on how many die before mating age. This is a question not of individual fitness but of species wide fitness
If we accept this premise, it's fairly easy to see why death is beneficial to the individual. Imagine a species where the typical mating pair can produce 3 children on average, can reproduce for three generations, and reaches sexual maturity in one. A pair that has 3 children in its first generation will have nine times as many descendants by the third generation as one that has 3 children in the third generation. Evolutionarily, it's better to reproduce early rather than late (unless the population is shrinking, but never mind that now). 'Natural Causes' encourage early reproduction.
I don't remember the math, but the paper I read explained to my satisfaction at the time that given the above conditions (which admittedly don't apply to humans since we don't have a stable population yet) there would always be an optimum age for an individual of a species. the exact age would depend on various factors, but it would always be finite.
I really haven't done the theory justice and unfortunately don't remember the name of the paper, but I thought it was interesting enough to share anyway. Hope someone enjoyed the read!
Nov 8 2011: Interesting issues brought up here. I want to respond to two things I saw brought up here...
First, regarding a free market approach to solving the economic problem: isn't the current system of affairs the outcome of free markets? It would seem to me that votes are simply a service people exchange for some perceived benefit. Or, if you're like many youths today, a service withheld because the perceived benefit is too low.
But regarding universal education, I do have an idea that I think would work, and I'm interested to hear what you think of it. The fact is, education is expensive. It may be overvalued, but it will always be valuable. And having worked as a teacher, I know it's not something like water that can be easily provided for many people. But information, unlike education, is even easier to provide than clean water. It's already universally available in the developed world, even rural areas have computer access centers, and anyone who walks to one, or to their public library, can learn all they want at khan academy or MIT. So learning isn't actually expensive. What is expensive is getting a degree.
So rather than subsidize everyone's education, why don't governments simply require that final exams and qualifying examinations be open to all who wish to register? Universities would still be able to attract students who want to interact with experts and their peers, but anyone who gained their knowledge otherwise could have it recognized officially.
This would give skilled people who trained in other countries a chance to practice their professions here, and anyone who wished to get a degree could earn one without taking on debt, if they were dedicated or talented enough. I think this would be a good compromise to the problem of expensive education.
TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Wade Davis: Gorgeous photos of a backyard wilderness worth saving
A reply on Talk: Philip Zimbardo: The demise of guys?
An interesting tangential note (I'm not sure what to make of it but it seems significant) - I've found that communities where young women were the most - I suppose abrasive is the best word - were also those where I would expect sexual violence to be the worst (IE Oil towns). On the other hand, in rural Canadian communities where everyone knows their neighbors, interaction between genders seemed much more open and mutually respectful. However, young women in the latter communities seem to spend much less time and effort appearing sexually attractive, which I find completely counterintuitive.
A reply on Talk: Jared Diamond on why societies collapse
A reply on Talk: Shawn Achor: The happy secret to better work
A comment on Conversation: What's one thing you wish you had learned in school?
A reply on Talk: Richard Sears: Planning for the end of oil
The peak oil model doesn't actually talk about consumption but production. It predicts that a finite resource will be harvested very quickly, then hit a 'maximum' rate of production, and that production will decrease after this period. Presumably, prices would continue to go up and up as less and less oil is produced.
A reply on Talk: Richard Sears: Planning for the end of oil
A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?
On another note, I think a distinction must be made between memetic and genetic evolution. Though memetic evolution is becoming more and more fashionable as an area of study, there is far less history to study- the oldest known surviving texts are only a few thousand years old, and oral traditions mutate so quickly that it's difficult to study their history at all. Genetic history however is millions of years old with excellently preserved examples, and still seems to have many mysteries. I wouldn't sell it short !-)
A comment on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?
The thing is, human population has been expanding for as long as anyone can remember, but established species always have stable populations. In an expanding population, having more children indefinitely would be beneficial, but in a steady one, each mating pair can only have a finite number of offspring. If a species grows for too long, it presumably destroys its niche, so there needs to be an upper limit on how many offspring a species can typically have, depending on how many die before mating age. This is a question not of individual fitness but of species wide fitness
If we accept this premise, it's fairly easy to see why death is beneficial to the individual. Imagine a species where the typical mating pair can produce 3 children on average, can reproduce for three generations, and reaches sexual maturity in one. A pair that has 3 children in its first generation will have nine times as many descendants by the third generation as one that has 3 children in the third generation. Evolutionarily, it's better to reproduce early rather than late (unless the population is shrinking, but never mind that now). 'Natural Causes' encourage early reproduction.
I don't remember the math, but the paper I read explained to my satisfaction at the time that given the above conditions (which admittedly don't apply to humans since we don't have a stable population yet) there would always be an optimum age for an individual of a species. the exact age would depend on various factors, but it would always be finite.
I really haven't done the theory justice and unfortunately don't remember the name of the paper, but I thought it was interesting enough to share anyway. Hope someone enjoyed the read!
A comment on Conversation: How do you feel about the responsibility of the government towards the young people (18-25) regarding the economic and financial crisis?
First, regarding a free market approach to solving the economic problem: isn't the current system of affairs the outcome of free markets? It would seem to me that votes are simply a service people exchange for some perceived benefit. Or, if you're like many youths today, a service withheld because the perceived benefit is too low.
But regarding universal education, I do have an idea that I think would work, and I'm interested to hear what you think of it. The fact is, education is expensive. It may be overvalued, but it will always be valuable. And having worked as a teacher, I know it's not something like water that can be easily provided for many people. But information, unlike education, is even easier to provide than clean water. It's already universally available in the developed world, even rural areas have computer access centers, and anyone who walks to one, or to their public library, can learn all they want at khan academy or MIT. So learning isn't actually expensive. What is expensive is getting a degree.
So rather than subsidize everyone's education, why don't governments simply require that final exams and qualifying examinations be open to all who wish to register? Universities would still be able to attract students who want to interact with experts and their peers, but anyone who gained their knowledge otherwise could have it recognized officially.
This would give skilled people who trained in other countries a chance to practice their professions here, and anyone who wished to get a degree could earn one without taking on debt, if they were dedicated or talented enough. I think this would be a good compromise to the problem of expensive education.