The issues you outline with Bulgaria being authoritarian and controlling, sounds less a lack of play, then it does an issue with how power is wielded from the top down.
Getting people to play will be the equivalent of treating the symptom not the cause.
May 5 2011: I use evolution as a thought facilitator on many issues, while not "believing" it an infallible construct.
I do not think it is possible for humans to do anything but interpret observations rather than attest facts no matter how fiercely.
Anyway this is a serious question, despite that I ask it facetiously.
Why do you believe that evolution is a fact? Do you believe it is a fact as much as Christians believe (and state) that Christianity is true? Whats the difference between you two? Do you both accede to higher authorities any less? What personal proof (non secondary evidence) have you that it is true?
May 5 2011: The components of a definition of education:
1) Education is an institution which changes dynamically.
2) Education is a personal investment in effort to save effort later.
3) Education communicates the peer reviewed constructs of "legitimate" authorities.
4) Education communicates strategies and perspectives.
5) Education teaches [4] in order to increase the learners control in some field.
But there are many viewpoints from which to look at it.
To leaders, It is viewed as a useful institution for creating workers with skills.
To workers and learners, it is viewed as a useful institution for increasing personal control and general betterment.
It is also viewed as a podium to purchase other's specialist efforts in identifying advantageous strategies.
In undeveloped nations, it is perceived as a way to gain relative advantage with respect to those that are not educated.
It can also be viewed as a tool of inequality, as it makes competition by the dis-empowered much more difficult.
It can be viewed as a tool for leap-frogging the competition, or collaborating with others for personal profit.
It can be used however the wielder chooses and sometimes does not even intend.
So overall, I would define it as a strategy of: an investment in trading resources for personal development in, the latest constantly updated, strategies and practices that provide perceived advantages ideally designed to facilitate the attainment of resources afterwards (to justify the initial expenditure.)
I was struck by your ted talk on questioning bio engineering as I think that you are right in observing that it stretches our philosophy to breaking point, and I am struck by a number of possibilities.
I hold that ethics is not thought of as it really functions, which is as a convention construct for smoother interaction and growth of the group that uses it.
I also hold that ethics is not universal or absolute, but is rather dependent on its utility in the environment.
Which I think can be used to frame bio_engineering. To me ethics bears a striking resemblance to what bio-engineering is about, which I believe is: creating new better adapted constructs by transplanting nature's other constructs, for advantage in new environments. Sort of like communicating ethics ideas and using them in different societies.
With this analogy, I think that there is really no difference in what bio-engineering offers us except for increased speed of adaptation and a wider selection of tools to achieve it. In which case, theres really little to be feared over what already happens and exists.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Steve Keil: A manifesto for play, for Bulgaria and beyond
The issues you outline with Bulgaria being authoritarian and controlling, sounds less a lack of play, then it does an issue with how power is wielded from the top down.
Getting people to play will be the equivalent of treating the symptom not the cause.
A comment on Conversation: Why don't people believe the fact of evolution?
I do not think it is possible for humans to do anything but interpret observations rather than attest facts no matter how fiercely.
Anyway this is a serious question, despite that I ask it facetiously.
Why do you believe that evolution is a fact? Do you believe it is a fact as much as Christians believe (and state) that Christianity is true? Whats the difference between you two? Do you both accede to higher authorities any less? What personal proof (non secondary evidence) have you that it is true?
Just wondering.
A comment on Conversation: I challenge you to Define Education
1) Education is an institution which changes dynamically.
2) Education is a personal investment in effort to save effort later.
3) Education communicates the peer reviewed constructs of "legitimate" authorities.
4) Education communicates strategies and perspectives.
5) Education teaches [4] in order to increase the learners control in some field.
But there are many viewpoints from which to look at it.
To leaders, It is viewed as a useful institution for creating workers with skills.
To workers and learners, it is viewed as a useful institution for increasing personal control and general betterment.
It is also viewed as a podium to purchase other's specialist efforts in identifying advantageous strategies.
In undeveloped nations, it is perceived as a way to gain relative advantage with respect to those that are not educated.
It can also be viewed as a tool of inequality, as it makes competition by the dis-empowered much more difficult.
It can be viewed as a tool for leap-frogging the competition, or collaborating with others for personal profit.
It can be used however the wielder chooses and sometimes does not even intend.
So overall, I would define it as a strategy of: an investment in trading resources for personal development in, the latest constantly updated, strategies and practices that provide perceived advantages ideally designed to facilitate the attainment of resources afterwards (to justify the initial expenditure.)
A comment on Talk: Paul Root Wolpe: It's time to question bio-engineering
I was struck by your ted talk on questioning bio engineering as I think that you are right in observing that it stretches our philosophy to breaking point, and I am struck by a number of possibilities.
I hold that ethics is not thought of as it really functions, which is as a convention construct for smoother interaction and growth of the group that uses it.
I also hold that ethics is not universal or absolute, but is rather dependent on its utility in the environment.
Which I think can be used to frame bio_engineering. To me ethics bears a striking resemblance to what bio-engineering is about, which I believe is: creating new better adapted constructs by transplanting nature's other constructs, for advantage in new environments. Sort of like communicating ethics ideas and using them in different societies.
With this analogy, I think that there is really no difference in what bio-engineering offers us except for increased speed of adaptation and a wider selection of tools to achieve it. In which case, theres really little to be feared over what already happens and exists.
Radek