Jun 25 2009: I don't see the title as a diversion; she did deliver something like what I was generally expecting --- though of course I didn't really expect the actual facts she presented. I would be disappointed if her talk was just a cheap self-help guide on how to please your partner.
Jun 25 2009: Adam, it was never meant to be serious. It was meant to be whimsical from start to end. What's wrong with that? She is a journalist, she isn't trying to defend ideas in a "serious" academic field, she is trying to communicate something to the public. I see her work as an "enlightened" form of entertainment. Something that makes you laugh and then makes you think. A bit like the Ig-nobel prizes.
Jun 17 2009: Interesting talk. Particularly this part:
"These ideas can infect and do the most damage to someone who has compromised immune system".
Following through with this analogy, the vaccine that will correct this immune system imbalance, as Benscoter mentions by the end of her talk, is education. Not only of Science, but in this case especially Philosophy and History. Philosophy teaches us that there are always multiple views on any subject, and we should never take any particular one as an absolute truth. History teaches us that those who are most dogmatic in their beliefs tend to be responsible for the greatest atrocities.
Feb 16 2009: Brilliant, inspiring talk! I commented on Schwartz's talk on the paradox of choice in my blog, and I criticised his apparent advocacy of solving that problem via policy. This time Barry hits the spot precisely. We have too many policies being followed blindly, we need to put human beings back in charge.
@Max Kleinman -- the Obama quote isn't as famous yet, but it is far better. Obama isn't talking about only what's right for one country -- at this point in history, a country as powerful as the United States (and all countries to the extent of their means) have the moral responsibility to do what's right for the world. And this not only in issues like climate change, but combating poverty, war and oppression everywhere. I can't think of a more grandiose role for America, to transition from the most powerful empire in History to the catalyst of a new kind of global cooperation.
@Mark Salata, Evan Maruszewski and others -- I agree with Nicholas Evans, the point of the talk was not to ask which set of moral rules to follow next. It was to point out that setting any set of rules in stone will not do. Bringing to morality and politics the spirit of plurality, self-doubt and the rejection of absolutes, all grounded in practical reality, will serve them as well as it did serve science.
Jan 23 2009: Interesting experience and well-moderated views. I'm glad someone has the patience to do this to give the rest of us insight into the differences in culture we have inside western society itself. His views are tempered enough to avoid the aggressive and non-constructive confrontation that has been seen in other debates on religion.
Jan 12 2009: A brilliant communicator with a great message that could change how we view and inform ourselves about the world. I believe this kind of technology associated with the freedom of information Rosling advocates, and perhaps with future uses of the internet as a means for direct participation from individual citizens could dramatically alter the way we conceive of democracy.
Ken Zenka said: "Professor Dumbkaff says that the difference between the western world and third world countries is family size and life expectancy??? I swear I don't know how they find all of the world's biggest morons and manage to cram them all in one website. Everybody knows that westerners place their focus on the sciences (incorporating the highest mental faculties) to improve the world and advance civilization whereas thirdies are base individuals of low character and mental abilities who leech off of the westerners."
As a national of a latin american country and a scientist, I find your opinion not only misinformed but extremely prejudicial. From which severely distorted lens did you acquire your world view? It is better to attempt to obtain information from a simplified (but useful) model as that used by Rosling when focusing on the available data about life span and family sizes than on an outright racist prejudice as the one you seem to hold.
Jan 12 2009: Interesting talk, but I would differ from Rosedale on an important issue. I have tried Second Life for a short while and I don't think people really find SL's 3-D model of information-gathering as attractive as Rosedale thinks.
Yes, SL is growing quickly, but look at how much faster Facebook has grown in less time. Yes, people want and will use the connectivity that internet allows, but as far as social networks go, they seem to want easy, fast, creative ways to interact with flesh-and-bone people, not virtual avatars. It seems that most people do not really find it nearly as interesting to create alter-egos in a virtual world as they find it interesting to create digital versions of their actual egos on social networking sites.
Virtual reality is still far from being a substitute for real reality, and interactions between virtual people are still far from having all the complexities that make real interactions interesting. And I would bet that they will not quite be a substitute before great advances in human-digital interfaces allow people to engage all their senses in the experience, which is at present nothing more than science-fictional speculation, even if of an interesting type.
Given the comparative lack of interest in the sensory aspect of Second Life, the fact that it is built around the concept of information being represented as located in 3 dimensions of space (and one dimension of time) is thus actually a limitation rather than an advantage. For most people it is more complicated to find the relevant pieces of information and to have interesting and meaningful exchanges with people in Second Life than on Facebook, say.
It would be much more interesting to realise that our identities on the internet simply do not need to be bound by a representation of physical structure. There will always be a niche for 3-D virtual worlds, but I don't think it'll be the overarching paradigm, but always a subset of the virtual world broadly conceived.
Dec 21 2008: ...There are, of course, genuine concerns that technological development hasn't been introduced in a sustainable manner. This is a very important topic that deserves our most urgent attention. But it is orthogonal to the questions about the value and ethics of technological enhancement for the human species. Environmental questions will impose limits on the rate of responsible growth for technology, but it won't settle the question of an ultimate limit for it.
Dec 21 2008: A very interesting talk. I disagree with many aspects of it, but that makes it only more interesting.
I understand both sides of the discussion about death. Death is a natural phenomenon which is not in itself bad or good. It is a problem from an individual point of view, but from the point of view of our species the only important thing is continued reproduction. And even then we should be careful attributing "values" to a biological species when in reality evolution is a blind random process. From a species perspective death is in fact essential: heredity and variation are at the heart of evolution's capacity to adapt, and these processes can only happen (in a region of limited resources) with death.
But in a short-term individualistic scale death is in fact a big, big problem, and in that I agree with Bostrom. A problem is the difference between what we have and what we want, and most of us would want to live happy, long (even if not eternal) lives. Fear of death is fundamentally encoded in our genes, and thus it is a big problem for the individual. This is not a judgement of value, but a statement of fact.
The solution to the problem of death, however, may be arguable. Extension of lifespans through technology is a solution. Acceptance of death as a natural phenomenon, through a process of deconstruction of the ego, is another solution. Debating which is *the best* solution is pointless. Good is relative to each individual. Both should be pursued to the extent that they are helping people achieve what they want.
Finally, it is very interesting to see the fear of technological enhancement of life through the replies below. We have been enhancing our lives through technology ever since our ancestors developed tools and language. Technology isn't in itself bad. Anyone who insists so should never use forms of transportation other than walking, use a computer or telephone or any form of medicine.
Comments
TEDCred score: +9
TEDCred gives you a total score on all your comments on TED.com.
A reply on Talk: Mary Roach: 10 things you didn't know about orgasm
A specific audience? Who's not interested in orgasm? :)
A reply on Talk: Mary Roach: 10 things you didn't know about orgasm
A reply on Talk: Mary Roach: 10 things you didn't know about orgasm
A comment on Talk: Diane Benscoter on how cults rewire the brain
"These ideas can infect and do the most damage to someone who has compromised immune system".
Following through with this analogy, the vaccine that will correct this immune system imbalance, as Benscoter mentions by the end of her talk, is education. Not only of Science, but in this case especially Philosophy and History. Philosophy teaches us that there are always multiple views on any subject, and we should never take any particular one as an absolute truth. History teaches us that those who are most dogmatic in their beliefs tend to be responsible for the greatest atrocities.
A comment on Talk: Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria "talk"
A comment on Talk: Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom
@Max Kleinman -- the Obama quote isn't as famous yet, but it is far better. Obama isn't talking about only what's right for one country -- at this point in history, a country as powerful as the United States (and all countries to the extent of their means) have the moral responsibility to do what's right for the world. And this not only in issues like climate change, but combating poverty, war and oppression everywhere. I can't think of a more grandiose role for America, to transition from the most powerful empire in History to the catalyst of a new kind of global cooperation.
@Mark Salata, Evan Maruszewski and others -- I agree with Nicholas Evans, the point of the talk was not to ask which set of moral rules to follow next. It was to point out that setting any set of rules in stone will not do. Bringing to morality and politics the spirit of plurality, self-doubt and the rejection of absolutes, all grounded in practical reality, will serve them as well as it did serve science.
A comment on Talk: A.J. Jacobs' year of living biblically
A comment on Talk: Hans Rosling shows the best stats you've ever seen
Ken Zenka said: "Professor Dumbkaff says that the difference between the western world and third world countries is family size and life expectancy??? I swear I don't know how they find all of the world's biggest morons and manage to cram them all in one website. Everybody knows that westerners place their focus on the sciences (incorporating the highest mental faculties) to improve the world and advance civilization whereas thirdies are base individuals of low character and mental abilities who leech off of the westerners."
As a national of a latin american country and a scientist, I find your opinion not only misinformed but extremely prejudicial. From which severely distorted lens did you acquire your world view? It is better to attempt to obtain information from a simplified (but useful) model as that used by Rosling when focusing on the available data about life span and family sizes than on an outright racist prejudice as the one you seem to hold.
A comment on Talk: Philip Rosedale on Second Life
Yes, SL is growing quickly, but look at how much faster Facebook has grown in less time. Yes, people want and will use the connectivity that internet allows, but as far as social networks go, they seem to want easy, fast, creative ways to interact with flesh-and-bone people, not virtual avatars. It seems that most people do not really find it nearly as interesting to create alter-egos in a virtual world as they find it interesting to create digital versions of their actual egos on social networking sites.
Virtual reality is still far from being a substitute for real reality, and interactions between virtual people are still far from having all the complexities that make real interactions interesting. And I would bet that they will not quite be a substitute before great advances in human-digital interfaces allow people to engage all their senses in the experience, which is at present nothing more than science-fictional speculation, even if of an interesting type.
Given the comparative lack of interest in the sensory aspect of Second Life, the fact that it is built around the concept of information being represented as located in 3 dimensions of space (and one dimension of time) is thus actually a limitation rather than an advantage. For most people it is more complicated to find the relevant pieces of information and to have interesting and meaningful exchanges with people in Second Life than on Facebook, say.
It would be much more interesting to realise that our identities on the internet simply do not need to be bound by a representation of physical structure. There will always be a niche for 3-D virtual worlds, but I don't think it'll be the overarching paradigm, but always a subset of the virtual world broadly conceived.
A comment on Talk: Nick Bostrom on our biggest problems
A comment on Talk: Nick Bostrom on our biggest problems
I understand both sides of the discussion about death. Death is a natural phenomenon which is not in itself bad or good. It is a problem from an individual point of view, but from the point of view of our species the only important thing is continued reproduction. And even then we should be careful attributing "values" to a biological species when in reality evolution is a blind random process. From a species perspective death is in fact essential: heredity and variation are at the heart of evolution's capacity to adapt, and these processes can only happen (in a region of limited resources) with death.
But in a short-term individualistic scale death is in fact a big, big problem, and in that I agree with Bostrom. A problem is the difference between what we have and what we want, and most of us would want to live happy, long (even if not eternal) lives. Fear of death is fundamentally encoded in our genes, and thus it is a big problem for the individual. This is not a judgement of value, but a statement of fact.
The solution to the problem of death, however, may be arguable. Extension of lifespans through technology is a solution. Acceptance of death as a natural phenomenon, through a process of deconstruction of the ego, is another solution. Debating which is *the best* solution is pointless. Good is relative to each individual. Both should be pursued to the extent that they are helping people achieve what they want.
Finally, it is very interesting to see the fear of technological enhancement of life through the replies below. We have been enhancing our lives through technology ever since our ancestors developed tools and language. Technology isn't in itself bad. Anyone who insists so should never use forms of transportation other than walking, use a computer or telephone or any form of medicine.