Oct 24 2011: Isaac, I think that a Friday afternoon may have prompted less understanding on my part. So I apologise for that. Yes it seems a lot clearer in the way you've laid it out here. So i thank you for your time in laying out an ugly bag of snakes for a simple man such as myself.
Surely the point of categorisation isn't to restrict in itself. However has taken on negative connotations for the way they have been used? In that case is it not those applying the categorisations rather than the category's themselves?
I agree that it is silly to be proud of that which you don't care about. But in my own group of friends I can't say I know any that would accept themslves as part of a category unless they wanted to. It may be differeing cultures here?
I understand your point that we should be careful about continuing to classify without grounds. (If it can be said that way). However, picking up on your last point here, shouldn't categories allow us as a species something to be proud of? For example, your religious leanings or country of origin? Prehaps the world could become a little happier if humans had more to be proud of. Taking negative connotations of categories and turning them on their head? For example, there are many negative stereotypes concerning Jewish people. Some right-wing/anti-semetic people (Another category for you!?) would say they were money grabbing. I would say they are fastidious?
@Orlando - I guessed it was a response, as you replied to the stub. Was it not rude of you to point this out in such a condescending way?
I would also ask how you cannot have enlightened debate without proof? And before you respond with what I know will be "But he should provide proof first" I would ask that if you were to ask for proof, at least do so in a way that would not get another person's back up?
If I have misread anything, please enlighten me, Orlando.
I jest, of course. Ironically we can see many similarities between the cultures of ancient Rome and modern America. From the disguising economics wars as an attempt at National Security, to the severely competitive politicing which results in mud-slinging before, during, and after a presidential/governmental election.
As to the original poster, Richard, who would you say "won" the "cold war"? Do you classify wars with no real land battles as not real? Suggesting a need to impose victory through force? With reference to Vietnam, I must admit I find it confusing. You label this question about the Cold War directly but then focus only on the Vietnam War, please could you clarify?
Oct 19 2011: James, fantastic idea. If you're getting bogged down the IT stuff I have a programmer friend, or two, who could possibly help.
Prehaps to tie in with the idea floated by Michael Clancy, the ability of smart phones to post online the building you are in could help. Allowing your $/£/etc.10 quest for groceries & dropping off at a shelter to be trackable. Much like chain quests in other games. "Go here>talk to NPC>collecct berries for potion>administer potion" could read "Go to shop>buy clothes/food>go to shelter>take picture of smiling recipients>post online"
I think it is a fantastic idea, would love to hear more. Prehaps you could LinkedIn me, or even set up a LinkedIn group to discuss further. Something you'd agree with Andrea? This would remove the time frame placed on this idea to be discussed here.
Further to, I agree with Andrea. Grab yourself a patent, it would make your position stronger when looking for investers. I'd be happy to pocket-dip to see such an idea progress into real-world terms.
Oct 19 2011: I'd ask why you used the word paradigm? In what context do you believe atheism to be a pattern of theism?
I also find, I do not know if you meant it this way, but one particular phrase very offensive.
"If you characterize yourself as an atheist, you are still in a theistic paradigm. So, my idea is to stop thinking of yourself as such. " - Now are you saying that you'll stop categorizing yourself as religious if I were to agree to categorise myself as none religious? Furthermore, why do we need to move away from categorisations? Should we not be individually proud of our of categeories? Proud of the differences in this fabric of life?
Aug 19 2011: Agreed, it could also be that with advances within the medical sector require, as I have said, a higher production value due to man-hours and processes.
And for what reason are you bringing this up? It does not serve your argument, Gabriel, as it detracts from your point. Why would you say the consumer is cheated? Do you not believe that, if for example, the technological sector brought out massive leaps the inability for human nature to deal with change would show through?
Think of the older generations, I come across people every day in my line of work that are resitant to useing e-governance because they prefer paper copies and in a lot of cases can't handle the newer technologies. Such massive leaps would not be accomodating to those currently living whereas a slow-release allows accustomisation.
Aug 18 2011: Oh that you would heed your own words Gabriel. Your opening statement is not clear, I am trying to deduce what exactly you mean still.
A resource based economy is what we already have, i.e. a resource is in demand the price goes up. For example, Central Rand Gold, shares increasing from pence to pounds. The 'value' of gold as a resource has climbed to a phenominal high. Surely this natural resource is what you are on about building up within a new style economy?
Secondly, any natural resource would have to be processed in order for use. Which would add man hours, now if a particular resource required technology to bring about (medicine for example) and more man hours, the cost of that resource would rise. So how would one then "barter" for such an item?
Your idea on survival theory is intriguing but has no place in this debate and it is a fallacy to use it as a valid argument. We are not stranded on an island, we are part of societies. Even at the small scale, such as a hamlet, whilst people help each other out more, payment is metered out. Why?
So, I ask you again, what system do you propose to replace? And please be thorough,
Aug 17 2011: I'd like to add, if I may. That the economy of which you so resent is the sole reason America maintained a solid 'economy' during the war years. As they were providing high demand, low supply weaponry to the Allies.
"The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power."
That is already the case, sir. You seem to be suggesting that we follow village economics and not city economics. I can tell you that following such a line in the large urban areas, is madness and unsustainable.
Prehaps instead of posturing you could provide us with an example of a new economical structure as opposed to dismissing the current one as out and out wrong?
Finally I must take issue with your idea on governance.
You seem to be aiming to push economics and governance to a Communistic stylee, and yet refute this. Would you agree, I wonder, with the idea of the Transmutation of Morales, and the ideas expounded by Plato concerning the kalos kai agathos class?
Aug 16 2011: "Value is relative and has no true manifestation."
Wrong, the quantitive manisfestation is the economy. It is how we measure value through mediums such as supply and demand. Whereby that which is highly demanded with a low supply is worth more than that which is high in supply and does not have a high demand.
"Our economy must reflect what we have on our planet, what we need for our planet, and how we can make the very most of what is available"
Surely this is covered by supply and demand. Materials in high demand with low supply have a higher value placed on them than those with low demand and high supply.
Whilst you may be right concerning the powering of homes with finite resources, the ability to do this on a large scale is currently not available to everyone for a low enough cost, why? Because the materials and construction is currently high in demand (Through green initiatives) and low in supply.
TEDCred score: +1.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.
Surely the point of categorisation isn't to restrict in itself. However has taken on negative connotations for the way they have been used? In that case is it not those applying the categorisations rather than the category's themselves?
I agree that it is silly to be proud of that which you don't care about. But in my own group of friends I can't say I know any that would accept themslves as part of a category unless they wanted to. It may be differeing cultures here?
I understand your point that we should be careful about continuing to classify without grounds. (If it can be said that way). However, picking up on your last point here, shouldn't categories allow us as a species something to be proud of? For example, your religious leanings or country of origin? Prehaps the world could become a little happier if humans had more to be proud of. Taking negative connotations of categories and turning them on their head? For example, there are many negative stereotypes concerning Jewish people. Some right-wing/anti-semetic people (Another category for you!?) would say they were money grabbing. I would say they are fastidious?
@Orlando - I guessed it was a response, as you replied to the stub. Was it not rude of you to point this out in such a condescending way?
I would also ask how you cannot have enlightened debate without proof? And before you respond with what I know will be "But he should provide proof first" I would ask that if you were to ask for proof, at least do so in a way that would not get another person's back up?
If I have misread anything, please enlighten me, Orlando.
A reply on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.
Prehaps you could say why you believe that the point is wrong so that we might better understand your point of view?
A comment on Conversation: Should America have won the Cold War in the early 1950's?
Si vis pacem, para bellum-Vegetius.
I jest, of course. Ironically we can see many similarities between the cultures of ancient Rome and modern America. From the disguising economics wars as an attempt at National Security, to the severely competitive politicing which results in mud-slinging before, during, and after a presidential/governmental election.
As to the original poster, Richard, who would you say "won" the "cold war"? Do you classify wars with no real land battles as not real? Suggesting a need to impose victory through force? With reference to Vietnam, I must admit I find it confusing. You label this question about the Cold War directly but then focus only on the Vietnam War, please could you clarify?
A comment on Conversation: A website-based humanitarian L.A.R.P. (live action role playing) game.
Prehaps to tie in with the idea floated by Michael Clancy, the ability of smart phones to post online the building you are in could help. Allowing your $/£/etc.10 quest for groceries & dropping off at a shelter to be trackable. Much like chain quests in other games. "Go here>talk to NPC>collecct berries for potion>administer potion" could read "Go to shop>buy clothes/food>go to shelter>take picture of smiling recipients>post online"
I think it is a fantastic idea, would love to hear more. Prehaps you could LinkedIn me, or even set up a LinkedIn group to discuss further. Something you'd agree with Andrea? This would remove the time frame placed on this idea to be discussed here.
Further to, I agree with Andrea. Grab yourself a patent, it would make your position stronger when looking for investers. I'd be happy to pocket-dip to see such an idea progress into real-world terms.
A comment on Conversation: An atheist is still in a theist paradigm.
I also find, I do not know if you meant it this way, but one particular phrase very offensive.
"If you characterize yourself as an atheist, you are still in a theistic paradigm. So, my idea is to stop thinking of yourself as such. " - Now are you saying that you'll stop categorizing yourself as religious if I were to agree to categorise myself as none religious? Furthermore, why do we need to move away from categorisations? Should we not be individually proud of our of categeories? Proud of the differences in this fabric of life?
A reply on Conversation: A new global economy with relation to the natural world, rather than the fluctuation of 'value'.
And for what reason are you bringing this up? It does not serve your argument, Gabriel, as it detracts from your point. Why would you say the consumer is cheated? Do you not believe that, if for example, the technological sector brought out massive leaps the inability for human nature to deal with change would show through?
Think of the older generations, I come across people every day in my line of work that are resitant to useing e-governance because they prefer paper copies and in a lot of cases can't handle the newer technologies. Such massive leaps would not be accomodating to those currently living whereas a slow-release allows accustomisation.
A reply on Conversation: A new global economy with relation to the natural world, rather than the fluctuation of 'value'.
A resource based economy is what we already have, i.e. a resource is in demand the price goes up. For example, Central Rand Gold, shares increasing from pence to pounds. The 'value' of gold as a resource has climbed to a phenominal high. Surely this natural resource is what you are on about building up within a new style economy?
Secondly, any natural resource would have to be processed in order for use. Which would add man hours, now if a particular resource required technology to bring about (medicine for example) and more man hours, the cost of that resource would rise. So how would one then "barter" for such an item?
Your idea on survival theory is intriguing but has no place in this debate and it is a fallacy to use it as a valid argument. We are not stranded on an island, we are part of societies. Even at the small scale, such as a hamlet, whilst people help each other out more, payment is metered out. Why?
So, I ask you again, what system do you propose to replace? And please be thorough,
A reply on Conversation: A new global economy with relation to the natural world, rather than the fluctuation of 'value'.
"The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power."
That is already the case, sir. You seem to be suggesting that we follow village economics and not city economics. I can tell you that following such a line in the large urban areas, is madness and unsustainable.
Prehaps instead of posturing you could provide us with an example of a new economical structure as opposed to dismissing the current one as out and out wrong?
Finally I must take issue with your idea on governance.
You seem to be aiming to push economics and governance to a Communistic stylee, and yet refute this. Would you agree, I wonder, with the idea of the Transmutation of Morales, and the ideas expounded by Plato concerning the kalos kai agathos class?
A comment on Conversation: A new global economy with relation to the natural world, rather than the fluctuation of 'value'.
Wrong, the quantitive manisfestation is the economy. It is how we measure value through mediums such as supply and demand. Whereby that which is highly demanded with a low supply is worth more than that which is high in supply and does not have a high demand.
"Our economy must reflect what we have on our planet, what we need for our planet, and how we can make the very most of what is available"
Surely this is covered by supply and demand. Materials in high demand with low supply have a higher value placed on them than those with low demand and high supply.
Whilst you may be right concerning the powering of homes with finite resources, the ability to do this on a large scale is currently not available to everyone for a low enough cost, why? Because the materials and construction is currently high in demand (Through green initiatives) and low in supply.
A comment on Conversation: Without spending money, how can I make the biggest impact on my community with 15 minutes/day?