Members Erik van Ryssen

Jan 25 2012: I think it's hilarious that god gave some of us enough intelligence to understand he doesn't excist.

Jan 24 2012: The only two refernces I can think of is: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

May 23 2010: @ Jarvis. To be exact, they synthesized a DNA out of four chemicals, had it stitched together by yeast, then extracted it and implanted it in a LIVING cell. One of the problems they had was getting a flawless copy of the original. In some parts it does not allow any mistakes, in others you can skip and add whole blocks of it without any visible effects. That is where they plugged in those watermarks that have auto turn-off functions imbedded in them. So yes you are correct. The code came from a computer, but had to be very similar to an existing one to be able to transplant it. And they are still in the process of learning how, where and what they can vary. But will manage over time, off course.
@ John, I agree we have to admit our understanding is flawed and limited. They gave proof they understand that too by calling it "a baby step that brings us to the point where we can start to understand and answer these questions." Ethical questions are raised, so let's take responsibility!

May 23 2010: Accusing someone of being criminal is a quite strong statement. But I thin it is just a reflection of your emotional response to the fact that something is happening here that you don't seem to fully understand. And that is scary of course! So you are forgiven. But, can I please ask you to take responsibility for that lack of understanding and not mingle with the debate unless you have a constructive argument based contribution? Try to understand what has happened first before you comment on it. Thank you.

May 23 2010: If being god is about creating life we ARE god. By definition! And for quite some time already. Now can we/will you allow us to, take responsibility for it? Thank you.

May 23 2010: This reply is the best proof that Einstein was right when he said "great spirits have often found violent opposition of weak minds." It also insults human intelligence, although we should not feel, or act, insulted about it. And most of all, since +60% of world population is applying some kind of religious set of rules to live it's life, it shows most of mankind have not realized humanity had already entered the era of being god instead of believing in one. And who tries to prevent us from taking responsibility for that? Exactly, those same religious people to blame us later for the damage. Now let's take advantage of this denying attitude and simply ignore them, beat them back to hell (after all they believe in that too!) or promise them heaven. And maybe ask those religious people: what constructive contribution they have brought to humankind in the last, 10, 50, 100, or 1000 years? Pedophilia? Then come and tell scientists all they try and do is bad or worse than your contribution.

May 21 2010: So finally we have succeeded in COPYING a DNA chain and past it into another cell. Great step forward! Designing new forms of life is now a matter of time. Exceeding the limits of present biology laws as well, we can now design lifeforms that have characteristics that are not based on the criteria necessary for survival in nature. Brilliant! And for all those who see the dangers of this evolution: Join in so you can help define the boundaries of the acceptable. Ethically or morally. I for one state we have the obligation to ourselves and the human race to go on on this track, and create new life forms to benefit us all. We have the means, we should use it and take responsibility for the opportunities we have created. Mediocracy and humbleness would be out of place. Go for the limit. Push the envelope. Scientific evolution for us all!

Mar 18 2010: Marine traffic the legislation starts with a simple statement: Before abiding any rules all participants should prevent accidents and practice good seamanship. I would love to see that being put into place for land traffic too. But of course, anyone finishing a training for a captain IS thoroughly trained and therefor potentially skilled to do the math. Not something that can be said from the training we give to drivers before they are allowed on the road.

Jan 26 2010: Unfortunately not. At present only 20% of the US citizens identify with an atheist opinion. And a staggering 160 million americans still identify oneself as christian. See Richard Dawkins on the issue. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Jan 20 2010: I wanted to distantiate myself from being negative or giving negative comments. Since it is always more easy to comment and judge, then it is to do better or improve. But in this case I'm so puzzled by the fact that I could not in the least be impressed by a speaker who was presented by TED as being "On of the best" speakers, that I am looking for an explanation. Content wise it was average, contained very little information or incentive to contemplate and I can not imagine that I'm the only one who thought so. Presentational wise it was reasonably balanced, although not very goal orientated it had a little humor once and a while, but what should have been the punch line was presented with so little soul it was not at all convincing to me. It felt as if in response to his capital loss he had incorporated the attitude off Madoff in promising a huge thing, and not bringing it home. Can anyone explain what we witnessed here?

Jan 8 2010: This reasoning is just confirming that we are consuming unimaginable amounts of fossil fuel. And in stead of seeing that as an unsolvable problem it promts us to aim for solutions that our beyond our imagination, by looking at it NOT through the limitations of our (Technological) knowledge of this moment, but by having the confidence we will succeed if we have the courage to set ourself goals that go beyond the limitations of our technology today. It shows us we have to explore posibilities even when our instinct or educational formation tells us we should not, and liberate us from the limitations that looking at a problem through our knowledge framework brings us. So, the fact that we do not know substitutes for oil yet, does not prove they do not exist. It just proves we have not found them yet. More pragmatically: we have not yet developed commercially beneficial alternatives yet. But we will, as soon a energy prizes rise or oil runs out.

Nov 25 2009: It is indeed a pretty interesting concept. Although I can imagine it first being used as a replacement for brick production and conventional building. Probably a lot more "carbon emission friendly" than the conventional way of producing bricks.

I have not yet anything to offer to Mr Larson that might help realising his idea. But am willing to promote it and see how usable it can be in the north of Brazil in the building of brick production as previously mentioned.

Nov 16 2009: Indeed a very inspiring presentation.

What I am surprised about mostly in the comments of the viewers here, is the lack of understanding for the fact that up to date date, controlable, objective and accurate data are of practically no influence on the formation of opinion for the majority of people in this world. Not with the intention to offend anyone or insult, I dare to say that the large majority of people take life changing decisions on based on information from unreliable sources. And most people take ALL information they get for granted depending on HOW it is presented and not by checking it's source. Publicity is the best example of that. How many people really believe they'll get product x cheaper when they are being told so by a slick sales person on a television add? If that goes for this, it also goes for other information. People don't check sources, and don't re-evaluate information they receive.

Nov 7 2009: Amongst other things, an inspiring journey through our (mis)perception of social definitions. I enjoyed very much, and look forward to the possible offspring of this presentation into my day to day life.