TED Community » L.A. Hall

More About Me

I'm passionate about

journalism, sociology, anthropology, growth, politics, economics

An idea worth spreading

Life is a game. I write to you as a fellow player. Most of us play at least two games. The first is society, but most forget we are always -- ALWAYS -- playing the other: reality. People veil, but get, their desires under a mask of civility. Everyone does this.

Talk to me about

Journalism, existential stuff, society, economics -- I don't know, man. Anything.

People don't know that I'm good at

Skateboarding, sprinting through the woods, eating.

My TED Story

I grew up in the woods, went to a very small public high school, did horribly, go to a bad college for writing, plan on transferring, and consider myself an anomaly.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +3.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: All international issues should be resolved in a world court

  Apr 23 2013: ZX Style, your point seems to be "law isn't perfect. People make mistakes." I know that. I know that one out of every ten convict we kill on death row is innocent. Our legal system is far from perfect. That being said, it is far preferable to nothing. And that's what we have in place on an international scale. Imagine if there were no federal government, just states. That doesn't seem to make much sense to us, but what really doesn't make sense to us is the principle of dividing a common people.
  
  If you cannot see the world united in the future, you are not thinking big enough. Globalization has already connected all economies, and sovereign debt sucks. The world will fly one flag. We will unite. Science and exploration will take precedent; and man will advance. That is the way of the future.

• A reply on Conversation: What form of renewable energy has or will have the lowest impact on biodiversity?

  Apr 23 2013: I'm sorry, but you're being quit childish. I understand you feel that you have much clout on this website, but that does not mean that you can make claims and have them be true. Here are some assertions you've just made. One is that we are NOT talking about important energy issues. That is beyond asinine. The US consumes 25% of the world's oil, and most of that is imported. The price of oil is rising. The price of coal has just about doubled. We may not be talking about your preferred solution, nuclear, but honestly, man, I'm sorry, but to say we're not talking about important energy issues is baseline stupid.
  
  Secondly, you presented your opinion on a longstanding energy debate as indisputable fact. You said, "Uuuh, yeah -- duh everyone -- nuclear's the way to go. Anyone SMART knows that." There are lots of problems with nuclear. I'm not going to rule it out, because only time will tell. This is a civilized debate. But Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were all the result of operator error. In nuclear, the only way to reduce "operator error" is automation. And robots fail. The risks of nuclear energy are simply too high. Not to mention that there is no risk-free way to mine or store radioactive material. And the thing, for me, is the radioactivity itself. Exposure to radioactive materials is incredibly harmful.
  
  Third, you called our "vision of renewables" "romantic." Please, with the fossil fuel industry receiving $775 billion in subsidies, I'd love to see this "romantic vision" you speak of. Until markets internalize externalities, the world economy will remain in disarray.
  
  Lastly, you said, "we" are "rich and careless." Who is we? The US? The world? G20 nations? And who is rich? Who is careless?
  
  It's best to avoid generalizations in a debate like this.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What form of renewable energy has or will have the lowest impact on biodiversity?

  Apr 23 2013: Krisztián, a word of advice. Be a little nicer, friend! The sun is not renewable. I think that's common sense. Distinctions are important here. In the context of Earth, it's fair to call solar energy renewable, because for at least a few more BILLION YEARS, the supply of solar energy flowing through the atmosphere WILL BE boundless. And humans can, with current technology, do nothing to stop this.
  
  I understand what you're saying, but you've got to remember what language is for. It's for helping others understand. I think when we talk about renewables vs. nonrenewables we're talking about a very important energy issue. And when you say the sun is nonrenewable, that's true. I would say that the sea is nonrenewable, too. We only have one sea. Yet it seems silly to call wavepower nonrenewable, and even sillier to say that about solar. You've made quite a hoity-toity, inconsequential, academic, devil's-advocate, smart alec sort of argument that is big on logic and small on humanity. I'd advise a revision of your attitude concerning debate.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What form of renewable energy has or will have the lowest impact on biodiversity?

  Apr 23 2013: We do not consume the sun the same way we consume oil. When the sun burns out, life on Earth may very well cease. This inevitability, to you, is what? Some sort of axiom that says, "Since the sun's not renewable, RENEWABLE ENERGY IS DUMB!" The sun is not renewable. You are right there. And when it burns out, we will die (if we're still on Earth, that is.) What are your suggested implications?

• A comment on Conversation: This idea needs a lot more examination than it got. "Nation States" have been responsible for most of the major catastrophes recently.

  Apr 21 2013: In that case, Shawn, the unity I speak of is not only uncommon, it is unprecedented.

• A reply on Conversation: This idea needs a lot more examination than it got. "Nation States" have been responsible for most of the major catastrophes recently.

  Apr 21 2013: I do not know what you mean by, "unity of the usual kind." Human civilization has never achieved unity. To call it 'usual' is odd to me. If you mean what I suspect you do -- that sometimes evil masquerades as good -- than I agree, but just as much of a threat to human civilization is a lack of effort where discerning right and wrong are concerned. As Theodore Roosevelt put it, "The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well-nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad. There is nothing more distressing to every good patriot, to every good American, than the hard, scoffing spirit which treats the allegation of dishonesty in a public man as a cause for laughter."
  
  Cynicism is brewing in our uninformed world, and rightly so. There is a vast, deep well of injustice. Islands of wealth can only ignore seas of poverty for so long. The seas are rising. Soon the flood will come. In a few thousand years, humanity will rule itself, and "science and progress will lead to all men's happiness."

• A comment on Conversation: This idea needs a lot more examination than it got. "Nation States" have been responsible for most of the major catastrophes recently.

  Apr 21 2013: Shawn, the unification of humanity is a natural feature of our moral trajectory. As Chaplin said in the speech below, "The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die; and the power they took from the people will return to the people and so long as men die, liberty will never perish. Let us all unite!! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie! They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people!! Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise!! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness." Amen. Rest in peace, Mr. Chaplin. I care much for what Christians want, and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, too. I also know all of these groups are united under Homo sapien, and I care much more about the needs of humanity than the wants of its organized religions. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Abraham had more in common than their followers do. We ought to understand they were all just striving to be good, as we all should. As, one day, we all will.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Life's purpose is to serve humanity.

  Apr 21 2013: The world is sick. If we look at history, the cure is there: kindess and nonviolence. They always work. Victories won by any other means are impermanent. I believe the ultimate aim of life is to serve Nature and -- like you said -- humanity.

• A comment on Conversation: This idea needs a lot more examination than it got. "Nation States" have been responsible for most of the major catastrophes recently.

  Apr 21 2013: "The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die; and the power they took from the people will return to the people and so long as men die, liberty will never perish. Let us all unite!! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie! They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people!! Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise!! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness.
  
  Soldiers: In the name of democracy, let us all unite!!!" - Charlie Chaplin

• A comment on Conversation: All international issues should be resolved in a world court

  Apr 21 2013: ZXStyle, would you rather have your fate sealed by a gavel or a gun? I think it is easy for us to debate the specifics of this sitting in America. Millions of innocents globally are consumed by violence. We would not allow that to happen on our soil. We should not allow it to happen anywhere. As long as it does, we underline a non-existent difference between "us" and "them."
  
  "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another." - Euclid