TED Community » Christophe Cop

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Science, truth, social games, life, Japan

An idea worth spreading

[2 years ago] offer all children of the world the possibility to see Ted-talks ted talks (from a certain age, say 10 and up).
Each of those kids should at least know what adults can dream about. [Current] There is only one big story left... from the start of this universe up to now and how it all evolved and is evolving. We can go for an era of "splendorism", where we build on positive-sum-games that can propel humanity towards a great future.

Talk to me about

Statistics, TedxFlanders, Philosophy of science

People don't know that I'm good at

Appreciating them

My TED Story

July 3rd 2009: I organised the first TEDx event in Belgium. It was small scale, low budget. I did get 3 good speakers and an audience of 70 people. I see this as a step towards more events
October 2009: foundation of non profit organisation: IdeasWE vzw (Ideas Worth Executing).
January 22nd 2010: TEDx Flanders II. Four speakers, 70 people, warm atmosphere, very nice food during the break,... September 5th 2010 TEDxFlanders @the ZOO was our first big event, Since then, we started Youth events, Salons & Live events. 24th of September was our first big peak where 1000 people attended our main event in the Flemish Opera. There was absolutely no negative feedback! everybody loved it! We are still growing, and our name is getting established. This adventure is taking me further than I ever could imagine

Comments

• TEDCred score: +15467.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  Jun 7 2013: Tone,
  
  I quite get what you are saying. The difference you and I make are only one assumption:
  "we can assume reality as a fact"
  If you assume the above, and the next (which I follow): "our sensory imput is sufficiently reliable (for percieving reality)", then I think you are completely right.
  
  The reason why I don't assume your assumption, (but for most practical reasons I do assume it), is that - in principle - you can even doubt that there is a reality (as we can't claim we know it completely and how it operates). This means that you need to assign at least a minimum amount of uncertainty (small, but non-zero).
  
  So I think we are quite on the same line
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  Jun 2 2013: Nicholas, I think what you say is almost totally wrong and beside the question Pabitra is asking. (but maybe it's semantics)
  
  1) I don't agree that there is such a thing as "human standards of knowledge". there are limits to human understanding. Knowledge already has claims pertaining the outer reality and is not bound by humans.
  2) It does not matter who makes which standards unless you think authority is a valid argument for acceptance. If you happen to make standards that are better, it might be proven and might become accepted by a broader range of people.
  3) what are "first objectives"? I think you mean that certainty can only come form certain things? While this appears to be true intuitively, you might want to check Shannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication (I don't know, as I don't get the meaning of what you are trying to say)
  4) I think that what you claim here is not necessary true. It might. I can assume that a particle is measure-able in more than one way (Higgs bosons are inferred through a whole variety of observations, as are neutrino's, and those are about the hardest to measure)
  5) I completely reject that there is a difference between all sciences other than the measurement tools and the validity and reliability of those tools. Furthermore, a field of study, in order to be proper, needs to be scientific. Unless you refer to study of a book, an art or a law in "as-is" method: just acquiring the literal information that is given.
  5b) I still claim that science is the best way, and the best documented way to approximate certainty or knowledge about this universe we live in. It is verifiable and transparent (if not, it can be challenged as not sufficiently documented or proven claim) , as any other method is not (otherwise, it would be incorporated as a scientific tool).
  It is clearly way better than revelation, intuition, learning something written or agreed by authority by heat.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Do you agree with euthanasia? (for humans)

  May 30 2013: Be careful when using (a variant of) the precautionary principle, as that might lead to horrible consequences and more suffering (for example: not using a drug that can save 80% of a target population but causes serious harm for 0.001% while not using it will harm all of them)
  
  So errors will always happen and there are rare occasions when recovery happens. Though I'm not willing to pay millions to keep people alive and in pain in order to save one. I'd rather let those million people die in peace (as is their will), even if one could be saved. That one life is not worth all the suffering.
  
  I know, this is cold calculus, but sadly, utilitarian decisions need to be made in health-care and in respecting peoples wishes.
  If you go for moral imperatives (you shall not kill), then you value the rule higher than the will of all the individuals. I'm not willing to go so far.

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  May 30 2013: Thanks for the reply.
  I think it's good to attack ideas, especially if they are flawed. Your input is much appreciated...
  
  The problem of the lower incomes is solved if you provide a basic income for everyone... which means that if you don't work, you spend 100% on survival, and every penny you earn above it, will be completely spendable on extra's
  As for the very rich: there are still options to tax property or "resting money" or speculation &c,
  As luxury produce are heavily taxed, they will pay a lot (factor 3 or 10 if needed).
  
  On the other hand, people's wages should go up as well, as the total cost of an employee stays the same (and is untaxed).
  
  The social system is good in Belgium, so I can't share the same experience as you when it comes to dog-eat-dog mentality.
  
  taxing corporations seems a good idea. I guess you'll need a global government or import tax for multi-national organisations; as they will try and evade taxes

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  May 29 2013: "I am curious about the idea of not taxing income but taxing consumption instead"
  
  Well, the basic idea is that tax on labour seems unfair to me:
  1) you work: you get taxed (i.e. a penalty, punishment)
  2) you don't work: you get money (well, in European countries like Belgium, we do) , so you get rewarded.
  
  This seems so illogical to me.
  I do think that we need social support for the weak and the unfortunate, so I wouldn't giving people monetary support to live (not in luxury, but at least have sufficient to provide food and shelter).
  If you don't tax labor, you can't have fraud on that account, so you can save tax evasion remediation on that side (and use the people for other fraud like consumption tax fraud)
  If you tax consumption, you can apply different levels of taxation, depending on the pollution component (i.e. foodmiles and CO2 tax, health tax,... can be included), as well as a general tax component for government expenses. You can differentiate between healthy and unhealthy products and basic vs luxury products.
  
  If you, as a company think that the tax on your product is unfair (as the estimation is an approximation), you can try and prove your product is less polluting (e.g. part of recycling), healthy (vitamin content, clinical studies that prove it is healthy) or necessary (rice bread, water, internet,...) In which case the government adapts the tax rate of your product.
  
  As such, consumption might drop, but that is not a bad thing. We need to save our planet, and consumption does not make us happy. Nor is it a dogma in economics.
  
  As luxury products (yachts, jets, a second or expensive car) are taxed 200 or 300 percent, you can easily see that you can reduce inequality.
  
  &c &c.
  
  please note that I did not take everything into account, but if you have any objections to this theory, first think how you can solve some problems (by estimation, correction factors, adjustments). If you do find fundamental flaws in this paradigm, let me know

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  May 28 2013: They did ask for an opinion on wealth inequality, mr Blade Runner.
  
  That said, the connection between BNW, BB or a police state and what I wrote is quite far fetched, although I understand the hyperbole you are making.
  
  I am not saying that introducing alpha's and epsilons will create more equality. I'm not saying all power and money should go to a heavy structured and all seeing government. And I'm not saying police should survey everything for any kind of possible mischief and corruption they are up to.
  
  As for my opinion on reducing inequality: As numbers show: inequality-size is one of the best predictors of health, crime, hapinness,... &c, in moderate to high developed contries more than gdp (that hase a close to 0 correlation).
  This means that we do need to keep inequality within boundaries, while at the same time provide competition and forms of true meritocracy.
  I am a proponent of abolishing tax on income and having tax on consumption instead. If there is abundance, it might as well be shared, and if we are capitalizing our planet for the future, we do need to pay for it now, and not leave it to our children to be poor, sick and clean up the mess.
  
  I hope you see the differences with the novels and ideas you pointed out.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  May 27 2013: * basic income for everyone (i.e. give all citizens a monthly amount of money. Equaly)
  * negative tax scale
  * luxury weighted consumption tax
  * demand complete transparency of income once it exceeds 20 million a year. Any false gain of money will be severely punished
  * inflation/deflation: give everybody a new currency equally and let the old currency inflate very fast.
  
  * Actually: printing a lot of money and sharing it inversely to the people... might reset everything
  
  * re-introduction of the sabbatical year
  
  * agree to abolish heritage
  * go spartan
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: What's your million-dollar idea to change the world?

  May 27 2013: how about an inconvenient truth?
  
  We are doing well when you take "keep going on as if nothing happens" as target.
  
  Any project that has some serious feasibility should do.
  
  1) make peace in northern africa
  2) plant solar in the desert
  3) provide africa and europe with energy
  4) let the profit go to everybody on the planet
  
  On the other hand, I would like to see AI happen. 1 million in extra research might help
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Do you agree with euthanasia? (for humans)

  May 27 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia
  
  It has been legal in Belgium for more than 10 years, and no cases of serious abuse have been reported.
  But maybe there are cultural differences.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Do you agree with euthanasia? (for humans)

  May 27 2013: http://www.ted.com/conversations/6992/what_are_people_s_thoughts_on.html? for a previous conversation.
  
  http://www.ted.com/conversations/6992/what_are_people_s_thoughts_on.html?c=355063 my comment:
  In Belgium, we have laws that allow for euthanasia. They are good and help people who wish to end their suffering (letting them die).
  
  In broader terms, the dilemma is: to which extent can a person decide to commit suicide (not in practical terms, but from a moral point of view). To me, this is up to the person, so in principle suicide is a right.
  However: suicide during depression or as reckless act are not the cases I'm pleading for.
  A person who wishes to end his life needs to be capable of making the decision ("my life is not worth living -anymore-") under well thought out circumstances and needs to eliminate (fulfill) his/her responsibilities before doing so. (A parent of very young children should consider the education of their kids as an important responsibility for example).
  
  So for euthanasia: the conditions under which it is allowed are congruent with my proposed criteria. The person is often completely dependent on others (for care), chances of recovery are very small and the pain has been indicated as continuous and intolerable; or their mental state is going to the vegetative kind. Life as such can be judged by the person as "not worth living". If doctors and family understand (and somewhat agree), we can have a very humane form of euthanasia.