Jul 30 2012: This reminds me of the work of surrealist H.R. Giger (you know, the "Alien" movies). The intricacy is amazing. I'm think that if Giger is doing by art what is otherwise being done by science (algorithms), that would be an interesting study.
Jul 25 2011: "The love of money is the root of all evil."
When we are willing to go to such extreme lengths to make money, and in the process disrupt ecosystems, people's lives, the beauty of our world, and the such, we have lost our souls. But on the good side, we have made money.
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"
Apr 23 2011: Religion is one of the "cements" of civilization. If we argue that civilization is superior to no civilization--at least in terms of humanity's survival and advancement--then, in whatever way that religion supports civilization, it supports the evolutionary concept of selection, helping some humans survive while others do not.
Religion, for all of its flaws, is an advancement over purely "law of the jungle" living. It is a shared approach--which allows a degree of enforcement. These shared beliefs not only bind a people together in terms of theological/mystical beliefs, but just as two strangers that both have on Steelers jerseys have something in common that allows them to strike up a conversation, so, too, religion provides a common framework in which we can all work together.
Beyond the mystical elements of religion, there are ethical elements of what is and is not acceptable, that are passed down to its adherents and their children. Further, these elements must be within certain parameters or they will be rejected (e.g., if the priests say that everyone must cut off their right hand, some people aren't going to agree). This keeps the priesthood in balance--a market force against certain priestly excesses.
In a nutshell, religion has enabled men to live together in a degree of harmony (at least WITHIN that religion) that has permitted the rise of the other advantages of civilization...culture, advanced thought, art, and, it is hoped, the evolution of religion itself to higher and higher degrees of understanding and ethical knowledge. Religion just might be one of the best "tools" that mankind has for ensuring our survival. Though science might be more rational, it is to religion that people give their hearts and deepest allegiances, and to which they retreat in times of great crisis.
It is impossible to deny God by pursuing the truth.
The Creation story that I was raised with, that I love, that I cherish, is not "just" a story: It is the story of origins told in a manner that would be understood and accepted by ancient mankind. No, we cannot accept it as literal today, though we have no reason at all to suppose that the over-arching message--the God is behind it all--is not equally valid for our own, more advanced, view of origins.
Whether you agree with the talk or not--and I tend to agree with it--it certainly makes sense to go forward with some sort of plan rather than none at all. And if that plan is to somehow eradicate weapons that can wipe out all that we have done, or can set us back hundreds of years, that makes sense. And if that plan seeks to preserve the ecological balances that have allowed us to flourish, that makes sense. And if that plan seeks to pass on the knowledge that we have acquired, preparing future generations to do better than us, to perhaps settle among the stars in "Goldilocks" worlds we do not yet know of, well, that's a good thing.
Indeed, I completely agree with you about God and evolution (as one who believes that evolution cannot explain the ultimate origin of everything--and that intelligence is no less likely to have always existed than matter). I'm glad that we both see it as such.
As for the Twin Towers, the key is that we can never know if those who died will become this or that. But with SURVIVORS we will be able to tell. (Of course, the effect of 9/11 on life in general might play a role in the future, as well--it already had, of course).
Mar 31 2010: I noticed that "Miracle on the Hudson" was given short shrift. But I got to thinking....
I like to believe that perhaps there was someone--or several someones--that survived what would have otherwise been a fatal crash, and will go on to cure cancer, or discover the secret to cold fusion, or negotiate peace for mankind. Or perhaps a still unborn grandchild of one of those people will change our very understanding of the universe. My friends, it is ALL important! Every single thing. Every life, every death, every moment--it all is part of the Grand Equation that God (or evolution) is working. I'm betting that the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 seemed like insignificant news to many. Some of the greatest literature on earth "fell stillborn from the presses." It all matters. What we think is most significant will likely be the forgotten footnotes of the future...while what we deem unimportant will have shown itself to be absolutely crucial.
Jan 16 2010: The insurance data got me to thinking. Maybe while car seats have no apparent advantage when it comes to fatalities or crash injuries, PERHAPS the wear and tear one tends to feel AFTER an accident (sore necks, joints, etc.) is allayed to some extent by car seats? No, your child may not be any less safe by just wearing a seat belt, but perhaps a child in a serious accident would come through with less auxiliary pains that are not considered an actual injury?
In any case, that might be a possible explanation.
Dec 21 2009: You are EXACTLY RIGHT. I didn't think of this! A media outlet could do this as a public service. When corrupt officials know that they are going to be in the spotlight, red tape mysteriously goes away. Even an internet site could go a long way.
Dec 21 2009: Shubhendu, apparently you are not following my reasoning. My point was that it's kind of shame that because of corruption, we wind up spending money whether we go about it legally or illegally. I then point out that it is likely that you will save money doing it legally, which is at least a plus in that direction. Lastly, I make the point that, on principle, I'd rather pay money to undercut corruption than to give in to corruption. I DO NOT consider Shaffi Mather's work to be any different from hiring a a lawyer--that's pretty much exactly what it is. Hope this better explains my position--sorry for the confusion!
Dec 21 2009: In a sense, this is exchanging on "Pay For Something You Shouldn't Have to Pay For" for another "Pay For Something You Shouldn't Have to Pay For." I shouldn't have to pay $100 to a corrupt official to get a permit that should be given because I am a citizen. Nor, should I have to pay, say, $30 to have some legitimate company cut through the corruption for me.
We can all agree with that, I suppose. But the truth is that UNLESS you pay the $100, you aren't going to get what you need. In that case, why not either save money by paying for what amounts to a personal lawyer...or, even if it is also $100, at least not rewarding a corrupt officer of the people?
This is what lawyers do, you know. Corrupt insurance companies, for instance, might withhold legitimate claims from you...so you pay a lawyer to make it happen. I'd rather stick it to the insurance company for trying to do me wrong, even if it cost me a big percentage of a take I would not have gotten otherwise.
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: Michael Hansmeyer: Building unimaginable shapes
A comment on Talk: Kevin Slavin: How algorithms shape our world
When we are willing to go to such extreme lengths to make money, and in the process disrupt ecosystems, people's lives, the beauty of our world, and the such, we have lost our souls. But on the good side, we have made money.
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"
A comment on Conversation: What is the evolutionary benefit conferred by religion?
Religion, for all of its flaws, is an advancement over purely "law of the jungle" living. It is a shared approach--which allows a degree of enforcement. These shared beliefs not only bind a people together in terms of theological/mystical beliefs, but just as two strangers that both have on Steelers jerseys have something in common that allows them to strike up a conversation, so, too, religion provides a common framework in which we can all work together.
Beyond the mystical elements of religion, there are ethical elements of what is and is not acceptable, that are passed down to its adherents and their children. Further, these elements must be within certain parameters or they will be rejected (e.g., if the priests say that everyone must cut off their right hand, some people aren't going to agree). This keeps the priesthood in balance--a market force against certain priestly excesses.
In a nutshell, religion has enabled men to live together in a degree of harmony (at least WITHIN that religion) that has permitted the rise of the other advantages of civilization...culture, advanced thought, art, and, it is hoped, the evolution of religion itself to higher and higher degrees of understanding and ethical knowledge. Religion just might be one of the best "tools" that mankind has for ensuring our survival. Though science might be more rational, it is to religion that people give their hearts and deepest allegiances, and to which they retreat in times of great crisis.
A comment on Talk: David Christian: The history of our world in 18 minutes
Some histories are more valid than others.
It is impossible to deny God by pursuing the truth.
The Creation story that I was raised with, that I love, that I cherish, is not "just" a story: It is the story of origins told in a manner that would be understood and accepted by ancient mankind. No, we cannot accept it as literal today, though we have no reason at all to suppose that the over-arching message--the God is behind it all--is not equally valid for our own, more advanced, view of origins.
Whether you agree with the talk or not--and I tend to agree with it--it certainly makes sense to go forward with some sort of plan rather than none at all. And if that plan is to somehow eradicate weapons that can wipe out all that we have done, or can set us back hundreds of years, that makes sense. And if that plan seeks to preserve the ecological balances that have allowed us to flourish, that makes sense. And if that plan seeks to pass on the knowledge that we have acquired, preparing future generations to do better than us, to perhaps settle among the stars in "Goldilocks" worlds we do not yet know of, well, that's a good thing.
A reply on Talk: Kirk Citron: And now, the real news
Indeed, I completely agree with you about God and evolution (as one who believes that evolution cannot explain the ultimate origin of everything--and that intelligence is no less likely to have always existed than matter). I'm glad that we both see it as such.
As for the Twin Towers, the key is that we can never know if those who died will become this or that. But with SURVIVORS we will be able to tell. (Of course, the effect of 9/11 on life in general might play a role in the future, as well--it already had, of course).
Good comments.
A comment on Talk: Kirk Citron: And now, the real news
I like to believe that perhaps there was someone--or several someones--that survived what would have otherwise been a fatal crash, and will go on to cure cancer, or discover the secret to cold fusion, or negotiate peace for mankind. Or perhaps a still unborn grandchild of one of those people will change our very understanding of the universe. My friends, it is ALL important! Every single thing. Every life, every death, every moment--it all is part of the Grand Equation that God (or evolution) is working. I'm betting that the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 seemed like insignificant news to many. Some of the greatest literature on earth "fell stillborn from the presses." It all matters. What we think is most significant will likely be the forgotten footnotes of the future...while what we deem unimportant will have shown itself to be absolutely crucial.
A comment on Talk: Steven Levitt on child carseats
In any case, that might be a possible explanation.
A reply on Talk: Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption
A reply on Talk: Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption
A comment on Talk: Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption
We can all agree with that, I suppose. But the truth is that UNLESS you pay the $100, you aren't going to get what you need. In that case, why not either save money by paying for what amounts to a personal lawyer...or, even if it is also $100, at least not rewarding a corrupt officer of the people?
This is what lawyers do, you know. Corrupt insurance companies, for instance, might withhold legitimate claims from you...so you pay a lawyer to make it happen. I'd rather stick it to the insurance company for trying to do me wrong, even if it cost me a big percentage of a take I would not have gotten otherwise.