TED Community » Nick Adolfo

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: Is the generation in education getting less intelligent than the ones before them or smarter?

  Jun 22 2011: State Content standards list information that students must master in order to be considered "Proficent" in the particular discipline. They do not specify the methods by which this information is imparted to students. It is the process, not the content, that seperates one school from another. Somehow, education has come to be presented in ways that lack relevance for many students. That must change. Schools need to become institutions that both prepare students for continuing their education and for employment by giving them real-world skills. The school reform movement is garnering momentum. The key will be reaching inner-city students who have grown to distrust education. Contrary to popular opinion, our top students are as good or better than the top students in any other country. The problems is the large gap in achievement. Edutopia.org (The George Lucas Foundation) is a great resource for school reform.

• A comment on Conversation: Is the generation in education getting less intelligent than the ones before them or smarter?

  Jun 21 2011: I think there is much more pressure nowadays to conform to certain ideologies in education and those that dare challenged those ideologies are sometimes villified. This has led to much less independent thought and, therefore, much less independent thinkers. When I was in school, I lived in an America where people said things things like, "I hate what you have to say but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it!" We go to great lengths to quash intellectual opposition rather than revel in the liberty of true public discourse.

• A reply on Conversation: Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?

  May 9 2011: Have you ever been sceptical about something you later agreed with? Or are we simply destined to evil destruction unless we accept your world view about what we can and can't eat? You seem to presume a lot about me and conclude that I am ignorant of topics because I do not agree with your conclusions about them. The fact is, two different people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. I have not supported my arguements with much empirical data, but neither have you.
  
  I did not come here to debate (I don't have time), but simply share my views whether or not the majority agrees. Many times, in science it is the minority that is ultimately correct. If you feel the need to respond please do so, but I will comment no more.

• A reply on Conversation: Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?

  May 8 2011: Well, since I teach about carrying capacity I think I have a pretty good understanding. The statement was in response to the proximity of individuals and the spead of disease, not the overall carrying capacity of an ecosystem. The spread of disease is a factor in carrying capacity, but only one of many.
  
  I'm not denying that there are environmental issues and impacts. They are not a new phenomenon to the 20th or 21st Century. But I think that this is leading to cataclymic consequences is simply fear mongering. I have faith that we will overcome these challenges and progress. Somehow, some have come to human kind as "outside" of nature, when in fact we are very much a part of nature.
  
  Honestly, think you overestimate "destructive power of humanity's colllective ignorance and greed." Not only does it presume the one saying it is more altruistic and wise than the rest of us, it also implies that the rest of us are not very bright." If humanity was ignorant of it's place in nature, it would simply consume until no more were left without any consideration of the consequences. We would then go the way of the dinosaur.
  
  Those in the global warning community who would tell someone in Nigeria that they musn't have the industrial development that could lead to more properity because of it's "global impact." So far, the disaster warnings are proving to be over exagerated. Ocean levels have not risen to the levels they predicted five years ago inspite of "all the glaciers and polar caps melting."
  
  The rate of the extinction of species has risen, however, this is part of a cycle that has gone on since the beginning of time. The Earth has been contantly changing for a variety of reasons. The idea the we need to try to preserve everything the same forever is what I'm now going to call, "The Environmental Fallacy."

• A reply on Conversation: How can a talented teenager prepare himself for a scientific career? What do you scientists recommend? (Personal experiences, please).

  May 8 2011: I would agree with you and have said the same myself. I did not say that the fine, performing, or other arts are the only way to be creatively expressive. My point was that there are many sides to human beings and that acheiving in academic subjects must be balanced with expressing that knowledge and experience in creative ways.

• A reply on Conversation: Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?

  May 8 2011: If the entire world population were brought together and each given 1000 square feet around them, we would fit into an area the size of about Texas. There is plenty of room still. Once again, it is not about running out of the resource, it's how we manage it.With global transportation, we already spread almost all diseases throughout the world. I agree with you that natural selection would predict that those with better immune systems will survive. How did human population continue to grow before modern medicine and anti-biotics?

• A comment on Conversation: Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?

  May 7 2011: I think the question begs an answer and implies that the human poputation is somehow in danger. I have news. The human population continues to grow and at present has not run out of anything! We hear all the time about the cataclysms that await us if we do not subscribe to certain political philosophies related to the environment.
  
  The "problem" that we have now is not the availbility of resources but their distribution. I call it the "Overpopulation Fallacy" and in fact people have been talking about it for pretty much all of recorded history as partially evidenced by this 1847 work:
  
  http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/bitstream/2262/9279/1/jssisiVolII21_9.pdf
  
  Who knows what the future holds for our production of energy, use of materials, and disposal of waste. One hundred and fifty years ago, use of petroleum products was not widespread. That could change again in another 150 years. If we could find new and inovate ways to channel and distribute water, we could turn vast areas like the FERTILE soil of the Mojave desert into garden lands.
  
  The idea the we all might have to become vegetarians to survive is rooted in fear and does not reflect a objective analysis of the data or the history of human kind.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: How can a talented teenager prepare himself for a scientific career? What do you scientists recommend? (Personal experiences, please).

  May 7 2011: No matter which specific field he chooses, I'd suggest continue learning as much math as he can at the university level. Understanding math is the key understanding almost all higher scientific concepts and provides training in logical thought and problem solving. That being said, keep in mind also that the brain has both a right and a left side, so don't become so consumed with science and math that creative expression is no longer part of your life.