He means that there is no longer any real need for structured learning at all, ever. So long as there is a computer with a broadband connection, a group and some encouragement.
So there is no goal in the sense I think you are asking about.
If you need to know something, go online and look it up. If you need to learn something, find a group locally and/or online with similar needs and learn with them.
If you are a teacher, don't worry. This change will take time and there will be new opportunities for you along the way, so long as you are willing to learn :)
Aug 2 2011: This may not be a popular view, but I believe it to be a necessary one.
If a species, any species, grows too fast then it exceeds its resources, sickens and dies out. This applies to us too.
At some point we cannot continue to grow in population. The earth is a limited resource. We can either start choosing to limit our population over the next 40 years or we can do it after that, after the creation of these nightmarish megalopolises and the attendant degradation of the earth.
I suggest we need to accept that we are in fact part of the natural order and not exempt from it. I suggest we need to set a reasonable limit on human population based very much on the society we choose to have, and then work to bring this to the consciousness of all people.
We must change our growth imperative or it will kill us all. Let us do it now rather than when it is far too late.
you refer to the work of Geoffrey West re the efficiencies of ever-larger cities. His work does however contain a very large catch. For the city to not die it requires an ever-accelerating pace of change. Fall behind and the city dies.
So to follow this model we are betting the survival of millions of people on the ability for a huge, rapidly growing (and simultaneously aging) city with an immensely complex set of service-delivery hardware to change evr-more rapidly. I contend that is frankly a ludicrous proposition. Nothing can continue to get better and better faster and faster forever.
Smaller, manageable locally and with far lower resource requirements is a far better model. Remember Cuba which reduced energy consumption by 90% overnight and found solutions that work and which continue to work.
Geoffrey West's models do not reflect what happens when a radical paradigm change occurs, they only project evolutionary change from the current baseline.
In sum, it is a radical re-imagining of how we live and manage our population that is needed. We cannot continue as we are and expect an endless exponential growth in the rate of change to save us.
Jul 19 2011: In todays world, wars are started by politicians for political reasons. Sadly, that doesn't mean they are always good and proper reasons. I say this an an ex-serviceman and with the greatest respect for those who serve and die at the whim of those who rule.
War is never necessary. Neither is it something that should be avoided at all cost.
The most useful definition of war I have seen is 'war is the execution of a nation's foreign policy by other means'.
So if your country is at war, please reflect on whether you believe your nation has a sufficiently good reason to be there and make your voice heard if you don't.
War overseas kills your country's young men and women, and it kills people of all ages in the area of conflict. I submit that very very rarely will war be a less destructive option than whatever is promoted as the reason for going to war.
I do not agree at all with the statement that war is a tool of peace. Peace is what exists when there is no war.
Rule of law and diplomacy are what exist to resolve differences in peace. The United Nations exists for the same reason. There are always always alternatives to war. Only when all options are truly exhausted AND grave harm is being perpetrated does war become the lesser of 2 evils.
War is a choice. When we in our societies are mature enough we will not choose war any more. Forums like TED help this process and all of us here have the opportunity to spread the word.
I suffer from fear of heights too. Yet I had a career as aircrew. For me the fear was actually of falling, not the heights themselves. Anywhere I feel secure, like in a plane or even in the harness of a hangglider, the fear is usually absent and always manageable. I wonder if it's similar for you?
Jul 16 2011: The slums I have seen are unhealthy environments in every sense. Perhaps we need some new terminology to describe different levels of amenity?
I continue to refer to the Cuban model because it's real and because an entire society was able to make it work, because the input of resources to realign an entire culture was very low, and because both the process and the results were/are empowering to people and their communities.
Adam, I think the difference between our sense of things may be that you are speaking from a perspective of enhancing slums and I am speaking from a desire to design a future in which there are no slums, just empowered self-sufficient communities.
I don't think we're worlds apart when it comes to ways and means of operating in a low energy low resource environment.
the only experiential evidence I know of is Cuba, where they did it for their entire population because they had no choice. So it can definitely scale to that level. The Cubans had to overcome many difficulties and each region or area will have their own challenges.
I haven't read the Giver. There are videos and books about Cuba.
Jul 15 2011: Even though I have previously responded to the question you are asking, upon reflection I have to say the real issue is not how to cope with that scenario, it is how to change it.
I simply cannot imagine how bad the quality of life will be for the overwhelming majority of people in the megalopolises you are speaking of.
I believe we need to move to highly sustainable local communities, to follow the Cuban model. That is, local commmunities with enough space to grow nearly all food, generate nearly all power, catch their own water, deal with sewage and provide employment and empowerment in the provision of these services.
There are many challenges, family planning not least among them.
Do we really want cities with hundreds of millions of people living in high density accommodation, most of them in slums?
Gas still ties us to a non-renewable resource. How long will the reserves last at the forecast rates of growth? It's also a carbon emitter. How do you 'green' it?
Jul 14 2011: Clearly the design of the city is critical to its sustainability. Monolithic cities ringed by large coal-burning power stations is probably not what we want but what we will have if there isn't effective design.
Satellite cities with local infrastructure is probably a better model with multi-modal supply including as much sustainable energy as can be generated in the locale.
Is it possible to move entirely to rooftop thermal solar and block-level wind if the design is done properly? Can building-level thermal storage replace the need for a base load in such a scenario? If you can design that you can free us from both coal and nuclear. How about it?
TEDCred score: +1.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Sugata Mitra: Build a School in the Cloud
He means that there is no longer any real need for structured learning at all, ever. So long as there is a computer with a broadband connection, a group and some encouragement.
So there is no goal in the sense I think you are asking about.
If you need to know something, go online and look it up. If you need to learn something, find a group locally and/or online with similar needs and learn with them.
If you are a teacher, don't worry. This change will take time and there will be new opportunities for you along the way, so long as you are willing to learn :)
A comment on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
If a species, any species, grows too fast then it exceeds its resources, sickens and dies out. This applies to us too.
At some point we cannot continue to grow in population. The earth is a limited resource. We can either start choosing to limit our population over the next 40 years or we can do it after that, after the creation of these nightmarish megalopolises and the attendant degradation of the earth.
I suggest we need to accept that we are in fact part of the natural order and not exempt from it. I suggest we need to set a reasonable limit on human population based very much on the society we choose to have, and then work to bring this to the consciousness of all people.
We must change our growth imperative or it will kill us all. Let us do it now rather than when it is far too late.
A comment on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
you refer to the work of Geoffrey West re the efficiencies of ever-larger cities. His work does however contain a very large catch. For the city to not die it requires an ever-accelerating pace of change. Fall behind and the city dies.
So to follow this model we are betting the survival of millions of people on the ability for a huge, rapidly growing (and simultaneously aging) city with an immensely complex set of service-delivery hardware to change evr-more rapidly. I contend that is frankly a ludicrous proposition. Nothing can continue to get better and better faster and faster forever.
Smaller, manageable locally and with far lower resource requirements is a far better model. Remember Cuba which reduced energy consumption by 90% overnight and found solutions that work and which continue to work.
Geoffrey West's models do not reflect what happens when a radical paradigm change occurs, they only project evolutionary change from the current baseline.
In sum, it is a radical re-imagining of how we live and manage our population that is needed. We cannot continue as we are and expect an endless exponential growth in the rate of change to save us.
A comment on Conversation: Is war a necessity or something that should be avoided at all cost?
War is never necessary. Neither is it something that should be avoided at all cost.
The most useful definition of war I have seen is 'war is the execution of a nation's foreign policy by other means'.
So if your country is at war, please reflect on whether you believe your nation has a sufficiently good reason to be there and make your voice heard if you don't.
War overseas kills your country's young men and women, and it kills people of all ages in the area of conflict. I submit that very very rarely will war be a less destructive option than whatever is promoted as the reason for going to war.
I do not agree at all with the statement that war is a tool of peace. Peace is what exists when there is no war.
Rule of law and diplomacy are what exist to resolve differences in peace. The United Nations exists for the same reason. There are always always alternatives to war. Only when all options are truly exhausted AND grave harm is being perpetrated does war become the lesser of 2 evils.
War is a choice. When we in our societies are mature enough we will not choose war any more. Forums like TED help this process and all of us here have the opportunity to spread the word.
Let us together bring an end to war.
A reply on Conversation: What is the one thing that you wish you could do but are too afraid?
I suffer from fear of heights too. Yet I had a career as aircrew. For me the fear was actually of falling, not the heights themselves. Anywhere I feel secure, like in a plane or even in the harness of a hangglider, the fear is usually absent and always manageable. I wonder if it's similar for you?
Ken.
A reply on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
I continue to refer to the Cuban model because it's real and because an entire society was able to make it work, because the input of resources to realign an entire culture was very low, and because both the process and the results were/are empowering to people and their communities.
Adam, I think the difference between our sense of things may be that you are speaking from a perspective of enhancing slums and I am speaking from a desire to design a future in which there are no slums, just empowered self-sufficient communities.
I don't think we're worlds apart when it comes to ways and means of operating in a low energy low resource environment.
A reply on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
the only experiential evidence I know of is Cuba, where they did it for their entire population because they had no choice. So it can definitely scale to that level. The Cubans had to overcome many difficulties and each region or area will have their own challenges.
I haven't read the Giver. There are videos and books about Cuba.
A comment on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
I simply cannot imagine how bad the quality of life will be for the overwhelming majority of people in the megalopolises you are speaking of.
I believe we need to move to highly sustainable local communities, to follow the Cuban model. That is, local commmunities with enough space to grow nearly all food, generate nearly all power, catch their own water, deal with sewage and provide employment and empowerment in the provision of these services.
There are many challenges, family planning not least among them.
Do we really want cities with hundreds of millions of people living in high density accommodation, most of them in slums?
A reply on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
thanks for your reply.
Gas still ties us to a non-renewable resource. How long will the reserves last at the forecast rates of growth? It's also a carbon emitter. How do you 'green' it?
A comment on Conversation: A conversation with Shell: How can we create a future where every city has reliable energy, clean water and enough to eat?
Satellite cities with local infrastructure is probably a better model with multi-modal supply including as much sustainable energy as can be generated in the locale.
Is it possible to move entirely to rooftop thermal solar and block-level wind if the design is done properly? Can building-level thermal storage replace the need for a base load in such a scenario? If you can design that you can free us from both coal and nuclear. How about it?