Feb 7 2012: What distinguishes the gun from the bomb? Scale.
The gun protects the interests of the one who holds it. Whether the person who holds the gun will use it positively or negatively is a question of whether societies can make good decisions.
The gun is more effective than the sword. The bomb is more effective than the gun. The more efficient the weapon, the more unstable the whole world is. At some point, societies need to make better decisions, or we have to find an alternative to "guns."
Jan 17 2012: This is currently considered to be the holy grail of technological advancements in Japan. Although current technology and the massive scale of the challenge prevents this from becoming reality right now, it is certainly plausible in the future.
Jan 6 2012: I would disagree.
The meat industry (and agriculture) generate a huge amount of waste. It takes an immense amount of land, generates immense amount of pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Also, there is also surprisingly little real "meat" in the stuff we eat already.
Lab-created meat could very well generate a more efficient way to get our "meat" demand.
That being said, this would have to be a process taken into deep consideration.
The meat simply could not be safe, be extremely expensive in its creation, possible ethical concerns, nutritional standards, etc.
However, the way I see it, with the rise in population, the meat industry simply isn't sustainable. Either we give up completely on meat, make the industry more efficient, or find more creative alternatives.
Jan 3 2012: I think that the way to connect people lies upon
1. creating a reliable and healthy way of communication
2. bind people under a single purpose, or goal
3. allow those individuals to freely express themselves.
I think there is a slight language barrier between the older and younger generation (especially on the web). There is also great differences in likes/dislikes, opinions, and aspirations which might make #2 more challenging. #3 would be depended directly upon the way the platform that each party is using is designed: something that can have a tremendous impact.
Jan 3 2012: Many universities, and even high schools offer self-paced classes. Those students that can pick up on the material quickly will not become bored and demotivated, while students that need to take a longer time will not be forced to have, as Salman Khan puts it, a 'swiss cheese education' where they have large segments that they have not completely mastered, but must move on to keep up. I find, from personal experience, that self-paced classes can leverage from a diversity of skill ranges. Those who are more experienced with the subject area can act as mentors and teachers, and those who teach reinforce the material they have learned.
However, self-paced classes have disadvantages too. One issue might be that the teacher of the class would have difficulty accommodating for such a diverse population. These classes would most likely work if the student is fully invested into learning the material, rather than completing a mere qualification. For this reason, these classes generally work better in universities- where students are not only more thirsty for knowledge, but also function with the incentive of make "every expensive penny count."
I believe Salman Khan's talk reveals an interesting way of implementing self-paced learning in grade-schools.
As for the issue of motivation, part of the problem is that many students (including me at some point) do not "get" education. It is a mere qualification, and the fail to see the relevance of it upon their futures. I think the student needs to have the goal/endgame in order to be motivated. One endgame might be that the student aspires to become an engineer, doctor, etc. In this context, the education becomes a means to achieve one's dreams.
I believe that education shouldn't be forced upon, however we as human beings have a natural inclination to learn. I suppose some aspects might not necessarily be voluntarily but are crucial to learn in order to function in society (such as reading/writing, and basics).
Jan 2 2012: I agree.
School punishment can often discourage one from enjoying their education, and can also diminish one's creative potential (as Ken Robinson put it: taking away the child's willingness to make mistakes).
Education needs to be voluntary, driven by the positive fruits of the education itself rather than the negative whip of punishment. I am not quite certain we need to "reward success" either. I probably am very well naive, but I believe a student is truly ready to learn when they do so not because of a physical reward, but the reward of getting the education itself. Perhaps we should first show the value of getting an education first before they actually get education (although specifics might make this difficult).
The current system of discipline is geared at getting students to meet standards.
I ask this: why do we need to standardize students?
We group students by age groups, require that they learn X amount of material in Y amount of time.
Does education need to function on a timescale? Do we need to control what we learn and what we do not learn?
Although I believe there should be a fixed set of basics that we should teach everybody, I do agree with you that students have a right to "learn what we are interested in."
I take it based upon your suggestions, that you have been in a position where you were not able to voice out your ideas/critique.
TEDCred score: +4.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Guns are designed to kill people. When are guns actually a positive influence in society?
The gun protects the interests of the one who holds it. Whether the person who holds the gun will use it positively or negatively is a question of whether societies can make good decisions.
The gun is more effective than the sword. The bomb is more effective than the gun. The more efficient the weapon, the more unstable the whole world is. At some point, societies need to make better decisions, or we have to find an alternative to "guns."
A comment on Talk: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun
A comment on Conversation: Create a website to allow registered users to express their yes or no opinon on posted issues with only one vote per user per issue.
Many of the issues are not very cut-clear, and I think that sometimes the best step to compromise is finding common ground between the 'yes' and 'no'.
I think that this would save money that politicians already spend to take surveys.
A comment on Conversation: A robot to help you in day to day lives
A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0
That doesn't, however, deter from the validity of the message.
He is saying that although we may no buy into religion completely, we should acknowledge that certain aspects of it are valuable and noteworthy.
In a way similar to the accusation that while what he says isn't completely new or original, the message is worthwhile and worth repeating.
A comment on Conversation: Should Gays and Lesbians be allowed to have children?
Many children grow up with only one or no parents.
I believe what truly matters is that the parent's love the child, and looks out for the child's interests.
I suspect the resentment seems to be aimed at the fact that the parents are gay/lesbian, rather than any physical impact upon the child in question.
A reply on Conversation: Would you eat "in vitro" meat?
The meat industry (and agriculture) generate a huge amount of waste. It takes an immense amount of land, generates immense amount of pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Also, there is also surprisingly little real "meat" in the stuff we eat already.
Lab-created meat could very well generate a more efficient way to get our "meat" demand.
That being said, this would have to be a process taken into deep consideration.
The meat simply could not be safe, be extremely expensive in its creation, possible ethical concerns, nutritional standards, etc.
However, the way I see it, with the rise in population, the meat industry simply isn't sustainable. Either we give up completely on meat, make the industry more efficient, or find more creative alternatives.
A comment on Conversation: My idea is to connect young people and old people using existing internet platforms to resolve youth unemployment globally.
1. creating a reliable and healthy way of communication
2. bind people under a single purpose, or goal
3. allow those individuals to freely express themselves.
I think there is a slight language barrier between the older and younger generation (especially on the web). There is also great differences in likes/dislikes, opinions, and aspirations which might make #2 more challenging. #3 would be depended directly upon the way the platform that each party is using is designed: something that can have a tremendous impact.
A reply on Conversation: Let students help reform education
However, self-paced classes have disadvantages too. One issue might be that the teacher of the class would have difficulty accommodating for such a diverse population. These classes would most likely work if the student is fully invested into learning the material, rather than completing a mere qualification. For this reason, these classes generally work better in universities- where students are not only more thirsty for knowledge, but also function with the incentive of make "every expensive penny count."
I believe Salman Khan's talk reveals an interesting way of implementing self-paced learning in grade-schools.
As for the issue of motivation, part of the problem is that many students (including me at some point) do not "get" education. It is a mere qualification, and the fail to see the relevance of it upon their futures. I think the student needs to have the goal/endgame in order to be motivated. One endgame might be that the student aspires to become an engineer, doctor, etc. In this context, the education becomes a means to achieve one's dreams.
I believe that education shouldn't be forced upon, however we as human beings have a natural inclination to learn. I suppose some aspects might not necessarily be voluntarily but are crucial to learn in order to function in society (such as reading/writing, and basics).
A reply on Conversation: Let students help reform education
School punishment can often discourage one from enjoying their education, and can also diminish one's creative potential (as Ken Robinson put it: taking away the child's willingness to make mistakes).
Education needs to be voluntary, driven by the positive fruits of the education itself rather than the negative whip of punishment. I am not quite certain we need to "reward success" either. I probably am very well naive, but I believe a student is truly ready to learn when they do so not because of a physical reward, but the reward of getting the education itself. Perhaps we should first show the value of getting an education first before they actually get education (although specifics might make this difficult).
The current system of discipline is geared at getting students to meet standards.
I ask this: why do we need to standardize students?
We group students by age groups, require that they learn X amount of material in Y amount of time.
Does education need to function on a timescale? Do we need to control what we learn and what we do not learn?
Although I believe there should be a fixed set of basics that we should teach everybody, I do agree with you that students have a right to "learn what we are interested in."
I take it based upon your suggestions, that you have been in a position where you were not able to voice out your ideas/critique.