TED Community » Rob Brown

Comments

• TEDCred score: +12.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Talk: David MacKay: A reality check on renewables

  May 26 2012: Wow, the math to illustrate the biofuel/berm problem, which may be correct in the final analysis that biofuel will not work, is certainly a profoundly abstracted and not useful analysis.

• A reply on Conversation: How do you deal with introvert vs. extrovert tensions?

  Mar 17 2012: processing speed is a part of the definition as I understand it. that does not mean "smarter" or "dumber". just faster or slower. Introvert brains, as it has been described at least, use slower pathways than extrovert brains do. this is probably why it is draining for introverts to deal with extroverts and vice versa... we are not processing the things around us with the same rhythm and it's hard to accommodate a different speed.
  
  "slower" is often better, when it comes to thought...
• +2

  A reply on Talk: Let's talk parenting taboos: Rufus Griscom + Alisa Volkman

  Feb 22 2012: we are only of only the first few generations in which becoming a parent was really a choice. that is very different than just doing it because that is what people do and you better to if you want to be accepted!
  
  If you choose it, it's not terribly surprising or strange that you might spend some time wondering if you were choosing it based on good information, or whether you chose wisely.
  
  and in doing so, you might even figure out some stuff you didn't know prior, and think perhaps others might feel the same way. I can say personally I had almost nothing to do with children until I had my own. it's been an incredible journey, perhaps even more so because I had no expectation whatsoever in my life earlier that I would choose to become a parent.
  
  elder care is a major issue deserving of lots of attention and scrutiney, no doubt. But why does it seem so troubling to several on here that perhaps many of the new parents out there are examining what is probably the single biggest life commitment any of them will ever make?
  
  Is that really so mundane and trivial we should just shrug and ignore it?
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Let's talk parenting taboos: Rufus Griscom + Alisa Volkman

  Feb 22 2012: I think not much time was spent on the 'empty nest' happiness, probably because these are young parents. But I have seen family gatherings of grandparents and their adult children and THEIR kids that have happiness levels I have only read about prior... I think there are some fruits that may be gathered after the children are grown, not just in the growing of them. Such as, having strong family connections late in life.
• +4

  A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

  Jan 27 2012: I find religiousity objectionable in exactly the same way I think smoking or an obsession with sports is objectionable. I think they are all poor decisions and that people would be far better off without them. I make no apologies for that at all.
  
  However, many of the finest people I know are religious, smokers, or sports fans. Just because a person engages in behaviour I think silly or detrimental does not mean that they are wholly stupid, bad people, or in any way unworthy of respect. No one is perfect... that cannot be a standard for respect or even admiration. I admire Martin Luther King and the Dalai Llama even while I strongly disagree with much of the basis of their entire lives.
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

  Jan 27 2012: Secular Humanism has a basic moral framework. That which generates the best results for the most people is good. allowing murder is pretty clearly not good by that standard. Many things are not as clear, which is why you can be a liberal or a conservative secular humanist. But as long as those two hypothetical humanists agree that it is the consequence for people here, in this life, that is the proper moral guide, they are still both humanists, and the argument is open to ongoing development of EVIDENCE to sway things one way or another.
  
  nonreligious people are not as sure of themselves, of course, as religious people are, because without a magic book that gives you all the answers, the universe is a complicated place. We just aren't afraid of that fact.
  
  I don't think it's too much to ask that in shared institutions that govern us here in this world that the way in which they govern have some relation to the things that make this world better. If you think your particular afterworld is really great, kudos to you, but there is no rational basis at all for forcing everyone else to accept it with the weight of law.
• +14

  A reply on Talk: Damon Horowitz: Philosophy in prison

  Dec 6 2011: you appear to be confused about what philosophy is about. it's not about relativism... that's a straw man argument put forth by theists. Any thinking person knows that what they feel in their "subconscious" is fallible and must be examined to know if it's true or not. If you disagree I challenge you to say you have never had a moment of "surety", "righteous anger" or the like that turned out to be wrong. Philosophy is, as the speaker notes, the study of knowing how we know what we know. In that process, we tend to find that many of the things we think we know, we don't really. This can be for many reasons.
  
  Further, to claim you have an "absolute truth" is a bit... odd. Since YOUR god seems to disagree with several other Gods worshipped by hundreds of millions in the world, I would call whatever truth you think you have far from absolute. It's certainly far more questionable than any logical or empirical truths I've seen.
  
  Humanist philosophers can relate right and wrong in solid terms, the effects on humanity. This to me seems a lot more absolute than some theoretical idea about what might cause problems for us in some other life that has no evidence for its existence. but, hey, maybe that's just me.
• +5

  A reply on Talk: Graham Hill: Less stuff, more happiness

  Oct 29 2011: Kids are the easiest ones to prune for, especially when they are young. they ignore the vast majority of what they "own". if it disappears, they forget it even existed. Step one, move it all to an out of the way place, step two, make the unloved stuff just go away to an even more out of the way place, and if it's not missed, see you later, toy stuffed alligator!
  
  kids do much better with less anyway. executive function, imagination play, etc etc...
  
  While living in 420 custom designed 1,000/sf apartment is not for everyone, pretty much all of us could shrink our expectations. Do you really need a formal dining room? Separate living room, study, guest bed? How important is that huge cathedral great room? When you're looking at apartments are you looking for big? Would you need big if you ditched a bunch of your stuff?
  
  options are always limited for those who are less affluent, that's no different here. but that doesn't mean that there are not options. All of us with kids have been quickly surprised at how large and fast the kid stuff pile grows... poor or not, you can get a huge pile of cheap crap with little effort (or desire, thanks to gifts) but I'm here to report, it does not have to be that way and the kids don't miss it when it goes away. Even if all you do is ask for gifts to be second hand (so it's not contributing to the consumer machine) and just ditch it after you receive it, you'll be making a difference.

• A reply on Talk: Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women

  Jan 13 2011: I think you can explain the presence of men in homeless shelters in terms of the disparate performance of men and women. Women cluster to the middle in terms of performance. Men are more likely to be geniuses, and also more likely to be literal morons. I am stealing the quote from someone else, but "nature seems more willing to take chances with male brains".
  
  That would explain why you see more homeless men, and more men at the very top. and it does seem accurate. There are also many mental illnesses that are more prevalent amongst men, and at least as of today many fewer men who have problems earning will have a "sugar momma" to support them than you will find for women who might have problems earning.
  
  I suspect you'd see the same thing in homeless shelters 50 years ago, when men definitely dominated, so your point is a bit off the mark even if my speculation on the reason is wrong.
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

  Jul 14 2010: Hardly. the risks with nuclear are not limited to the reactor design. fuel must be mined, processed into dangerous forms, often reprocessed into yet more dangerous forms (from a security and proliferation standpoint), and then even with the best reprocessing you have to guard a pile of nearly weapons grade radioactive junk for hundreds of years. As in: 3 or 4 times longer than america has been a country. I'm not that confident that's feasible, and I think it's irreponsible to saddle the next 50 generations with this responsibility so we can save seven cents a kwh.
  
  hydro dams are the only failures that cause mass catastrophe in the renewable energy market. isolated, small scale accidents happen with anything. they don't allow a terrorist organization to make a bomb, virtually destroy the gulf of mexico, flood the tennesee river valley with ash or cause other such major destruction.
  
  recycling solves most other issues. You're shilling.