TED Conversations

First, a thought-provoking question from Ye-Jin Ahn:  If communism was working the way its progenitors wanted it to, would it be better than capitalism?

The main reason why communism was made was people wanted to be equal without getting restricted by their environment, but nowadays communism is abused by some dictators such as North Korean leaders. Besides, capitalism also has its own problem. There are so many people who didn’t have opportunities to try what they really wanted to do due to their poverty or else.

If communism was working as it was intended, would it be better than capitalism?

Yubal Masalker responds:

I think it would. The problem was that there was a huge gap between the theory and its practice. The communism theory was an outcry for change in the reality of severe injustice of those times. It had noble ideals. But as it usually occurs in the mankind’s history, the great ideals fell victim to basic human nature — the human nature of greed and selfishness. This means, whoever gains the power in the name of any ideals, exploit those ideals only for the benefit of himself and his close group. Communism was not exception of this basic human nature, as well as the Capitalism and many countless other man-made systems of diverse ideals.

So I think that instead of looking for the BIG answers from the failure of Communism (like dictatorships, organizing labor differently, the Chinese interpretation of communism or whatever) it would be much better for the all mankind to look for more seemingly minor answers, which are actually the real true answers. Because these answers are common to perhaps all the mankind’s ideological failures in the history and not just for the failure of the communism — for example, also the latest economic crisis due to the failure of the Capitalism.

While John Moonstroller reminds us that:

First we need to find a country that practices communisim without dictators to determine an answer to this question.

And Heather White adds:

The current problem capitalism has is the same problem communism had — its utopian ideology was infiltrated by psychopaths. I’m serious.

People with psychopathic tendencies are attracted to power and prestige — they climb the greasy pole, by whatever means, and when they get power or influence they use it for their own gratification, glorification and empowerment. They lobby for the relaxation of regulation, and once they achieve this they exploit it ruthlessly. You cannot expect a psychopath to have self restraint or feelings of remorse — they are relentless — they want it all.

Corporation directorships, government departments and politics, are disproportionally represented by psychopaths. In the population as a whole they make up 1%, within the halls of corporate and political power it is estimated that they make up to 4% (source: Jon Ronson’s TED Talk).

With 221 comments and five days remaining, there’s plenty of time to get involved in the debate!

Also this week:  The latest in our TEDinClass series, from University of Oregon student Jon Cox:  Cats pose a serious threat to biodiversity: Why do we accept it? What should be done?

According to the ASPCA, there are around 90 million owned domestic cats (Felis catus) in the U.S., and taking into account strays and feral cats, the total number is estimated to be as high as 160 million (1).Loss et al. (2013) estimates that cats roaming outdoors kill 1.4-­3.7 BILLION birds and 6.9­-20.7 BILLION mammals in the U.S. annually (2). Reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, lizards, frogs, etc., are also frequently killed by cats.

Cats are even more popular New Zealand, where they are contributing to declines of endemic birds such as the critically endangered kakapo (3), which have evolved in the absence of predators. Businessman/philanthropist Gareth Morgan is trying to gather support for legislation that would aggressively deal with stray and feral cats and potentially eliminate cats from New Zealand to take pressure off of threatened species (4 & 5). With Morgan’s plan, in addition to regulation that would reduce cat populations and increase owner accountability, residents would be encouraged to not replace their cats. As of now the majority of New Zealanders surveyed are in opposition to Morgan’s initiative.

Would a proposition like Morgan’s meet similar resistance in the U.S.? Probably, but is he on the right track? Would you personally support something like it for your state or country?

Mario R responded:

I found an interesting article that highlighted the effects of reducing predatory effects in ecosystems. The article was talking about predatory chains and how the elimination of a top, or superpredator, might open the door for a different predator, or mesopredator, to take the original predator’s place. This would in fact lead to the extinction of the prey. The example they looked at was an endemic bird population, and the superpredator were feral domestic cats.

This got me to thinking about the effects of suppressing cats’ activities outdoors. If something was done to regulate cats’ outdoor liberties, would there be increases in predatory activity of a different species on the same prey?

And Erik Parker replied:

Great point as usual, Mario.

That was exactly the same line of thought that I was mulling over. For as long as there have been modern urban and suburban areas there have been cats present, really. So I think it makes sense to think about it as though those environments and cats have co-evolved in a way. That means we have no real way of knowing what will happen if cats are eliminated from an area all together. Sure we can speculate that maybe those species preyed upon by the cats in those environments will recover greatly, but what’s to say that some other species wouldn’t come in to fill that niche vacated by the cats? The reality is that we really don’t know what will happen until it does, and this unpredictability is why removal experiments are often so dangerous.

The article Mario linked to makes the good point that other predators often move in to such situations quickly, and in particular uses the example of rodents coming in to prey on the eggs of birds usually targeted by feral cats. I was able to find some more articles that addressed this phenomena of top predator removal harming an ecosystem overall, and I think they would be valuable to take a look at as it is a really counterintuitive but interesting viewpoint:

1. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1671/3249.short
2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534701021942

While Phoebe Cone added:

I find it pretty ironic to call for the elimination of cats as pets because of their effect on bird biodiversity, when humans are directly causing the loss of so many other species. You could argue that legislation to limit the population of humans in the US should be implemented, because “it is for the greater good and humans are just too destructive to justify”, but of course most people would not support that. Similarly, the majority of people will never support a decision to make cat ownership illegal. There has to be a balance. I do not think it is reasonable to force people to give up pets, a major source of enjoyment and entertainment (a provider of “cultural services”, if you will) to protect other species that the general population, to be honest, probably doesn’t care all that much about.

I think the focus should be on public education and on feral cat population control. The people who are most likely to want to donate their time and resources to organizations that advocate things such as the protection of bird biodiversity are probably animal lovers, and therefore are likely to keep pets themselves. If we increased public education that let people know that regulating their cats’ outdoor activities could lead to more beautiful birds gracing their feeders and yards, I think people would be much more receptive to the idea that cats harm bird biodiversity. As another person mentioned, putting bells on cat collars is a great idea … It’s not perfect, but it’s a much more balanced and reasonable approach to this issue.

This conversation has ended, but be sure to check out the rest of the 198 comments here!

TED Conversations

First, kicking off a new semester with Jessica Green’s Biodiversity class, a question from University of Oregon student Noel Laporte: What form of renewable energy has or will have the lowest impact on biodiversity?  Noel asks:

Climate change, air pollution, rising sea levels and species extinction can all be attributed to the increasing usage of non-renewable energy in the world today. Non-renewable energy reserves are diminishing and finite with an ever-increasing demand from countries around the world. Coal, natural gas and oil all have detrimental effects on the environment. These effects are both local and global, harming species throughout the world. As we consider different renewable forms of energy, can we rank their potential impacts on biodiversity?

Chelsea Grochowski responds:

Concentrating solar thermal plants could fulfill a significant chunk of our more immediate energy demands while other technologies progress. Most people associate solar with photovoltaic solar cells, but PV technology isn’t quite there yet and it’s incredibly expensive. Solar thermal systems on the other hand are much less expensive, more efficient, and because of their heat storage capabilities, are able to operate when there is no daylight.

Land and water are required for CSP systems and both of these can impact biodiversity, however, unlike PV cells, hazardous and rare materials aren’t required for their manufacture. CSPs can be built in areas of lower diversity such as abandoned mining lands and transportation and transmission corridors…

The carbon footprint for the entire life cycle of solar technologies, including manufacture, materials transport, maintenance, etc., is also far less when compared with that of natural gas and coal.

While Ben Story adds:

I think that nuclear power is a very viable option for minimizing the effect of energy production on biodiversity worldwide. In comparison, to standard sources of energy, nuclear energy produce, “…wastes (that) comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes.” (Source)

A recent study into the effect of renewable energy has revealed that nuclear power comes in third behind wind and hydroelectric power; in terms of its effect on climate change. Climate change being one of the most significant impacts on biodiversity. Although nuclear power does produce significant physical waste, it does not pose any threats to bird populations (as do wind turbines) nor does it threaten local fish and aquatic wildlife (as do dams producing hydroelectric power). In terms of threat to ecosystems worldwide I believe nuclear power to be the ultimate choice if our goal is to conserve global biodiversity.

I think that physical waste is the biggest threat to biological diversity and by reducing waste we can seriously diminish the human effect on ecosystems across the globe. Although, nuclear power instills fear in many people, it is actually one of the safest forms of energy; if safety regulations worldwide are sufficiently increased we can avoid incidents such as those experienced in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

And Joseph Middaugh responds:

Now that the ‘war’ on renewables is over the two I am intrigued with the most are solar and magnetic. Solar due to the fact that technology is rapidly improving and getting stronger as apparent with the developers at Goal Zero. The other is not always thought of as alternative energy, however, after riding a magnetic train at 160mph and not one gas emission or vibration while running. Check out what Magna Drive in Seattle is doing to reduce our needs for oil consumption by using magnets in couplings in manufacturing plants.

This conversation has ended, but be sure to check out the rest of the 168 comments here!

Next, a thought-provoking topic on drug-resistant bacteria, started by Anna Crist, titled: Purell now, Bacteri-ell later?  Anna writes:

The hygiene hypothesis, the idea that “too much cleanliness prevents the development of a well-balanced immune response”(Sironi and Clerici, 2010), has received a lot of support and also criticism. It has recently been challenged by the hypothesis of “early immune challenge”, which states that a lack of appropriate immune stimulation during early childhood might account for the increased development of allergies in industrialized countries (Kramer et al, 2013). This proposal places less emphasis on excessive hygienic practices and focuses more on the insufficient exposure to specific environmental microbes, particularly those from non-urban environments, as the reason behind the rise of atopic disease. While different, both hypotheses point to the beneficial health affects of some microbes.

What do you think is the reason for increased allergy levels in industrialized countries? Do you think that a concoction of the “right” microbial species in the form of a lotion, drink, or inhalant (aka “Bacteri-ell”) could be a future replacement for natural exposure to beneficial microbes? Instead of using hand sanitizers like Purell, do you see a future where people from some regions of the world are unsanitizing their hands with “Bacteri-ell”?

Julia Goldberg responds:

According to the National Institute of Health it was found that from 1988-1994 more than 50% of Americans from ages 6-59 were sensitive to at least one allergen. However, a similar study done in 1980 found rates 2-5 times lower. The reason for this large increase in allergens is thought to be the more sterile lifestyles we now live. By disinfecting everything around us, we are severely limiting the amount of bacteria we are exposed to.

Being exposed to different bacteria at a young age is very similar to receiving a vaccination. A vaccination works by stimulating an individual’s immune system in order to develop an immunity to a pathogen. Our bodies immune systems are formed by being exposed to seemingly harmless substances around us, such as pollen, animals, foods, etc. When we do not receive these “vaccinations” of harmless substances at a young age, it can result in allergies later in life when they are finally encountered.

Exposure to certain germs and allergens at a young age are important in the development of our immune systems. Without these exposures our bodies will be unable to fight off everyday substances later in life.

And Walter Holt adds:

Studies have shown that not just humans, but all mammals have microbes on their skin in the order of trillions, with thousands of different species. Also, studies have shown that when we have a more biologically diverse set of microbes, then we have a better immune response to many different pathogens and antigens. But I doubt that our bodies would be ready for an onslaught of microbes in gel form.

We do need more helpful microbes on our skin, and in our gut, but disrupting the biodiversity by adding selected microbes we think are most important could upset our body’s ecosystem. It could become, in a sense, like an invasive species problem on our skin.

Check out this Nature article on allergies and microbes. There’s some good background on the subject here.

While Carly Otis clarifies:

Many people in this conversation have pointed out that it would be a better idea to encourage people to stray away from the use of antibiotics, rather than introduce themselves to microorganisms more frequently. While this is probably a good idea, the focus of the question is whether or not it is possible to develop immunity to microorganisms if you weren’t exposed to them at a young age. We don’t know enough about microbes at this point to be able to determine whether applying a culture of bacteria to ourselves would result in positive or negative outcomes, however the idea is a step in the right direction.  Once we have determined which microbes have definitively positive influences on humans, it would be a good idea to allow ourselves to be exposed to them regularly. It may be hard to keep the organisms alive in a way that mimics Purell, because nutrients may become limited quickly. In what other ways could we expose ourselves to these organisms, without having to worry that the culture will die?

With 169 comments, there’s more to read, or check out the rest of the fascinating discussions on TED Conversations!

Robert Gordon and Erik Brynolfsson debated their opposing views of where the economy is headed at TED2013. Last week, they brought the debate to a TED Conversation. Photos: James Duncan Davidson

Last week, TED speakers Robert Gordon and Erik Brynjolfsson joined us for a live, one-hour debate on the future of the US economy.  It was a furious hour of typing, with both speakers contributing just over 1,500 words in response to a wide variety of user questions.  A few highlights:

Ryan Zeigler asks:

Mr. Brynjolfsson, you stated in your talk that you feel that we need to “race with machines” rather than against them. In what manner do you feel that this effects the future of education?

Erik Brynjolfsson responds:

We really need to reinvent education. My industry has lagged other industries in digitizing. Far behind music and other media, finance, manufacturing, retailing, etc.  But that’s good news: lots of room to improve.  Digitization of education will do two things:

1. Much higher quality and lower cost as very best teachers and methods reach larger audiences. Examples: superstars like Sal Khan of Khan Academy or physics lessons from best MIT profs at EdX.
.
2. More importantly, gather enormous data about what’s working and not working. Apply big data techniques to improve teaching methods and to personalize how things are taught. Adapt pace and methods, based on students unique situation. Continuous learning by the educators, not just students. My students are already doing this to optimize ad clicks – can soon do it for education.

Michael Noyes asks:

Capitalism has created more wealth by far for more people than any other system. However, have we reached a point in our technological history when the pendulum must swing back toward more socialist economics to achieve more prosperity for more people?

Robert J. Gordon responds:

You have to distinguish between “socialism” and the capitalist welfare state as exemplified by Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. Socialism involves government ownership of the means of production and was practiced by the postwar UK Labour government which nationalized steel, transport, etc. It was Thatcher’s achievement to reverse all that, and Britain went from being a laggard to one of Europe’s most dynamic economies.

Yes, we need more of a welfare state, particularly to prepare children in poverty to compete in our educational system. Now they are dropping out of high school and condemning themselves to lives of manual labor and unemployment.

Theresa Sanker asks:

When are America’s economic priorities going to shift toward education, saving, and long-term investment, and away from excessive reliance on military power and cheap energy?

Erik Brynjolfsson responds:

When more people like you demand it. Simple as that.

Robert Gordon adds:

Heckman has shown that the problem is not that we don’t spend enough resources on education. Reducing class sizes has no effect. The problem is that educational resources are not distributed evenly. In an ideal world we would get rid of property taxation as the basis for educational finance, since that gives an advantage to communities with wealthy residents. We should have education funded by a nationwide value-added tax.

The problem with our military, besides the needless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the endless buckets of cash poured into ridiculous projects like the F-35 fighter which has no known enemy to justify its cost. We built the B-17 in WWII for $250,000 per plane!

Finally, what’s wrong with cheap energy? Are you in favor of expensive energy?

With 113 excellent questions and answers, this was a fascinating and informative debate. Don’t miss the rest of the responses, available on TED Conversations »

TED Conversations

First, a lively and informative discussion on the science of Hadar Cohen’s excellent question:  Is the heart overlooked when it comes to intelligence?

The center of the nervous system, the brain, has been popularly defined as the fundamental core of intellectual activity. Yet, in my Bioelectricity class with Professor Nina Tandon, we learned about recent research suggesting that information processing in the body may in fact be more distributed.

For example, there is increasing evidence suggesting that the cardioelectromagenetic field can actually affect human beings in close proximity. These signals are stronger in amplitude when in direct contact, but are still detectable up to several feet away from the source. Through these interactions, the heart transfers energies between human beings. The heart can therefore be characterized as the engine for distributing and controlling energy of the human body.

See this, this and this.

Given that the heart and other organs are frequently excluded from intellectual discussion, I would like to ask the TED community, how do these new findings affect how we view intelligence? How will our interactions with each other differ if we view more of our bodies as ”intelligent?”

Allan MacDougal responded with:

Yes, I think intelligence is distributed throughout the body, and only now is evidence beginning to catch up with intuition in this and many other areas. This opens up the wider implications in the gulf of understanding — trust even — between intuition and science.

There is good reason why we refer to “the gut” for instinct and “the heart” for emotion, feeling and love, and there is extraordinary evidence from heart transplant patients, who relate that their emotions and interests changed post-operatively, to those of their donor. This phenomenon, known as “cellular memory” has been researched by Dr David Armour at the University of Montreal.

This should come as no surprise, since the heart has been found to contain 40,000 neurons, so is in effect a small “brain”.

And Christophe Cop contributed:

I can safely assume that the bulk of information processing happens in the Central Nervous System (CNS), especially when it comes to bodily action that relates to consciousness.

This does not mean that our whole body affects and co-influences our CNS. Our hormones and sensors give a lot of information and influence what we do and think. I do agree that we do not fully understand all the interactions between all our organs (I think the possible permutations are staggering). We know that food influences our moral decisions (judges give smaller punishments after a snack). On a cell level, we can assume there is a lot of regulation and communication going on (with surrounding cells). Still, it’s nerve cells who are specialized in information processing and passing it on to the other nerve cels

So is there a possibility our heart “thinks”? I don’t think so. The article refers to a nerve nucleus: It’s function certainty is information processing (as our gut-brain does as well). But the number of cells there probably indicates that it’s contribution [to intelligence] cannot be as big as that of the CNS.

The conversation has reached its conclusion, but you can still take a look at the 312 comments»

Meanwhile, an interesting new economics debate is building around Arkady Grudzinsky’s question: Would you prefer sales tax to income tax?

I see several advantages of sales tax compared to income tax:

1. Sales tax inhibits spending, income tax inhibits earning. When money are taxed when spent, not when earned, it may encourage saving and investing rather than spending and incurring debts.

2. One can avoid paying a sales tax on discretionary items by not buying these items — sales tax is less coercive.

3. Sales tax on discretionary items appears to be self-regulating. When it is too large, people stop buying the taxed items, and the tax revenues drop. It’s easier to determine the economic effect of sales tax and optimize the sales tax percentage. Whereas, the economic effect of changing income taxes is a lot harder to determine.

4. The tax code would be extremely simple — just a look-up table of tax rates (this may be a naive statement).

5. “Taxing the rich” would mean taxing the excessive luxurious lifestyle. Why would a frugal billionaire who leads a lifestyle of an average citizen be taxed more than an average citizen?

I understand, there is no “correct answer”. This is why I post this as a debate. I’d like to know how many people think this way and to hear cases for or against both types of taxation.

Bernie Amell responds:

The price signals sent by income taxes, without proportional taxes taken from consumptive industries, sends a perverse set of price signals. Full employment is devalued, while the price of shipping goods from distant places or from energy inefficient production is subsidized. Faced with these price signals any corporation must focus its creative talent on exploitation of off shore jobs rather than jobs at home. On shore industries that are highly consumptiive (ie. irrigation agriculture of bulk grains) are subsidized while industries that are less consumptive and job creative (ie. permaculture farms) are discouraged.

I look for the day when there are no income taxes and we charge every industry or carrier that sells to our market is charged for the all of the energy and material consumption involved in the production AND transport of their goods to us. I am not arguing for an increase or decrease in taxation — save that for a different debate.

With 66 comments and a week remaining, you’re welcome to join in the debate!

TED Conversations

From Mindshare in London, Nik Gill poses a challenging question: Can first world countries spend their overseas aid budgets more effectively?

On March 20th, 2013, Great Britain’s government firmly backed a legislation that would ensure that 0.7% (~£11 Billion) of Gross National Income will be spent on Overseas Aid.

With many skeptics feeling that this money is often wasted or better spent in more important areas, how would you like to see this money spent to change the perception that International Aid isn’t effective?

Bernie Fischer responds:

This conversation is very close to my heart… As an individual who comes form a ’3rd’ world country I have seen the amazing benefits that come from foreign aid. However the problem that I see developing is that there is no transparency for individuals from where the aid is originating. Governments offer this aid, but the individuals that work and supply the money through trade etc do not necessarily understand how and where the aid is being offered. It creates a repetitive cycle of why give when I don’t see benefits. Pledging is one thing… how do we know that we are doing any good?

To which Nik responds:

The fact that the givers do not see the visibility of the goodness they are creating and in turn the beneficiaries of aid do not understand where it has comes from is an interesting one.

Do you think we can easily bridge this connection?

With two days remaining, there’s time to add your thoughts to the exchange »  

Meanwhile, TEDx Organizer Amy Robinson asks, How might gaming and crowd-sourcing change the future of science?

Jane McGonigal recently said that people spend about 3 billion hours each week playing online games. A small but growing fraction of this time comes from citizen scientists, people with little or no scientific background who contribute to real research by playing games. Over 1 million people worldwide participate in projects ranging from protein folding (FoldIt) to wildlife species counts (SnapSerengeti from Zooniverse); they identify new objects in space (NASA) and categorize classical works of music (What’s the Score from Zooniverse/Oxford). A wave of new projects are changing how the scientific method happens as we know it.

Do you think gaming in science will transform how discoveries are made? Why or why not? What do you think of this approach?

How could we help researchers embrace the idea of crowd-sourcing research? What could scientists learn from the gaming industry?

Finally, are you a citizen scientist? What do you play? Why do you play it?

Conversations Host Fritzie Reisner responds:

This reminds me at first glance of how universities have long offered students and community the opportunity to be subjects in faculty research through study pools where people can sign up to participate in experiments in behavioral science or health. I can see that the analysis of data from online gaming and other online behaviors might be seen as a natural expansion of that.

Another commenter, Don Anderson, shares his thoughts on the topic:

I’m both impressed and disappointed by the current selection of crowd-source-games.

The reasons for being impressed in clear, so I’ll say where I hope for improvement.

*unlike computers, humans are great at transcribing old documents and yet I don’t see it in gaming. We have world-search gaming apps, why not transcription-gaming apps.

*MMORPGs often have mini-games in them and think crowd-sourcing-science games would be great for them.

*The gaming industry employs all types of employee, artist, programmers, actors, script writers, orchestras, conductors, etc. to improve the gaming experience. So I think they would love and pay to work with scientist to add the feeling of being productive and part of something bigger as part of the experience.

*for my android apps search I would love to see “citizen-scientist games” as a category.

Three days are left in the conversation, so there’s still time to contribute your thoughts»

Intrigued?  Check out more ideas, questions, and debates over on TED Conversations»

Location of TED Conversations started in the past 30 days, based on member profiles.

TED Conversations is a unique space where any member of the TED.com community can get feedback on an idea, pose an interesting question, or start a fascinating debate with fellow TEDizens from around the globe.  We’ve seen participants from Columbia to Palestine, Sudan to Nepal—a total of 114 countries in just the past 30 days.  See just where above. And below, a sampling of the discussions happening in this global community:

Seigi Karasaki, from Tokyo, Japan, asks: Do people deserve to know the truth, even if it isn’t in their best interest?

Is truth always the best choice of action? In “On the Decay of the Art of Lying,” Mark Twain argues:

“Lying is universal–we all do it; we all must do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others’ advantage, and not our own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling. Then shall we be rid of the rank and pestilent truth that is rotting the land; then shall we be great and good and beautiful, and worthy dwellers in a world where even benign Nature habitually lies, except when she promises execrable weather.”

What are your thoughts?

From Kamloops, Canada, David Johnson responds to Stewart Brand’s provocative de-extinction talk: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?

Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?Stewart Brand and his colleagues are at the biotech precipice of reviving extinct species. The Revive and Restore project plans to not only bring species back but restore them to the wild, as well as protect currently endangered species.

I don’t think any of us will have a problem with the latter, this discussion is focused on the primary goal; reintroduction of extinct species. We are not talking about dinosaurs, but the Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, Heath Hen, Bucardo, the Taz Tiger, etc.

Up for debate here: Should we?

And Pabitra Mukhopadhyay, from Kolkata, India, invites us to consider a thought-provoking linguistics question: He, she or s/he? Should languages be made gender neutral or be left on their own to preserve literary integrity?

Feminists have long argued that sexist language can have real world consequences for gender relations and the relative status of men and women, and recent research suggests that grammatical gender can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines.

But language is as much a communication tool as literature. Some argue that steward and stewardess are distinct but equal terms and dropping one for another takes away the beauty of literary expression.

Interestingly there are a number of genderless languages—they have no grammatical gender but have specific words to recognize gender. There are also natural gender languages which have evolved through a constant process on conscious neutralization of grammatical genders.

Things start to get serious when studies of Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino, T. Andrew Caswell and Emmi K. Laakso on the gendering of languages come to fore. After investigating 111 languages of the world, their findings suggest that countries where gendered languages are spoken show less gender equality compared to countries with other grammatical gender systems. Furthermore, countries where natural gender languages are spoken demonstrate greater gender equality, which may be due to the ease of creating gender symmetric revisions to instances of sexist language. Norway and Sweden show Global Gender Gap Indices of .82 and .81 (1 being ideally gender equal) and both these countries have natural gender languages. Yemen scores a GGG index of .46 with a gendered language.

Do you agree with this co-relation?

With 237 open discussion topics, join us in tackling more big ideas, questions, and debates on TED Conversations»

TED Conversations is a unique space where any member of this community can get feedback on an idea, pose an interesting question, or start a fascinating debate with fellow TEDizens from around the globe. This week, dozens of new conversations were started — from “What are the ethics of spending money?” to “Are we on the brink of creating a human-like digital mind?” Here, a sampling of the highlights from this week.

From Nina Tandon’s class at Cooper Union, student George Holevas posed a thought-provoking question: Do you believe the human brain will continue to increase its capabilities? He writes:

According to neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran’s TED Talk, “The neurons that shaped civilization”, a sudden emergence and rapid spread of a number of skills that are unique to human beings occurred 75k to 100k years ago. These defining skills include the use of tools, fire, shelter and language, and the ability to interpret a person’s behavior …

The question I would like to pose is, might our brains (collectively, as a species) soon experience such a new type of development once again? If so, what new skills could this more sophisticated neuron system facilitate our ability to perform, considering trends in globalization and collaboration (e.g. collaborative tasks across geographies, learning multiple languages more quickly, etc.)? Has the brain’s full potential already been unleashed? Or will it perpetually continue to develop more complex neural permutations?

Allan Macdougal responds:

The kind of attention we give to the world you describe only exists in the present and the past — what is known — and is thus not creative and speculative. In other words, ‘what is’ exists predominantly in one part of the brain, while the creative, speculative ‘what could be’ exists predominantly in another. It is open to question therefore, whether such discoveries as fire and the use of tools were accidents, or whether an element of creative input was present.

Creativity is the key to increasing capability, in my humble opinion. The more we confuse knowledge retention and ‘what is already known’ with intelligence — and go on to prime our children through education on that basis, the less we are likely to increase our capability.

And Arkady Grudzinsky adds:

After reading Julian Jaynes’ “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,” where he argues that there have been considerable changes in human brain since the times of Homer’s Iliad (that’s only about 3000 years ago), I believe that our brain changes continuously, perhaps every few generations. Consider that children in today’s high schools easily absorb information that took humanity many centuries or even millennia to acquire.

With five days remaining, there’s time to add your thoughts to the exchange »

Following this week’s powerful talk on desertification and climate change, Linda Hesthag Ellwein asked: How attached are you to your deeply held beliefs? If solutions to global problems challenge your worldview, how do you react?

One of the participants is Shannon Horst, co-founder of the Savory Institute.  She writes:

Some of the best work on this topic remains Thomas Kuhn’s work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” I re-read it recently, just hunting for the nuggets (it can be pretty heavy reading) for some work I am currently doing around health care and new ideas — and found his insights into how revolutions take place in science as pertinent as ever. Recommended for all following this discussion on Allan’s talk.

Another commenter, Scott Reil, shares his own story on the topic:

I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Elaine Ingham not long after she and Allan met, and getting her perspective (that of probably the leading soil biologist on the planet) in relation to his work was amazing. She made it very clear to me that my long-held belief — that old-growth forest was the best natural carbon sink we could develop — was way off base; it was her opinion that from what Allan was showing her, savannah, due to its higher root densities, and greater depth of root zone, coupled with a much higher biodiversity (both above and below the soil surface), made it a much better carbon sink.

It was also neat to see that Dr. Ingham was just as geeked out about Allan’s work as I was; scientific aloofness is a myth from my (admittedly limited) contacts with big-name scientists.

And check out lots more fascinating discussions and debates over at TED Conversations » 

TED Conversations

Jason Pontin, who will be speaking from the TED U stage later this month, started a fascinating debate: Why can’t we solve big problems?

I think that blithe optimism about technology’s powers has evaporated as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve — such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age — have come to seem intractably hard. I’d love to know what the TED Community thinks our difficulties are — or, even if the idea is true at all.

With 46 comments and one month remaining, this should be a lively debate.

Next, why should college students have all the fun?  Nina Tandon‘s class at Cooper Union is hosting a series of fun and thought-provoking conversations from their studies, and you are welcome to join in:

Will humankind ever achieve an end to science history?  

Would a separation of Science and State help or hinder innovation and scientific discovery?

Is science just “imagination in a straightjacket”?

And finally, from yesterday’s live chat with Ainissa Ramirez, author of the TED Book Save Our Science: How we can make science, technology, engineering, and math education more fun for kids?

Rachel Lehmann-Haupt asked:

Why is it so important to get kids going to with STEM in pre-school?

To which Ainissa replied:

STEM from a business case is important, since most of the jobs of the 21st century will have some math or scientific skill needs. But, STEM is much more than that. I would say that it is important for human development. Being curious and learning by trial and error is what we do as children to discover and learn. But, the way that we teach does not allow children to learn via these modes. STEM is inherently about using one’s curiosity to explore and exercises this muscle for human development.

Theodore Hoppe asked:

I think your book is a great statement. It’s the type of book I would like to see distributed to school board members. No Child Left Behind has forced teachers to focus on reading and less on science. My view is that encouraging a child’s natural curiosity is important. What are your thoughts on this?

Ainissa’s response:

I agree. STEM can be the means to teach reading and writing and all the other topics. It doesn’t have to be in a vacuum. And I think NCLB put a nail in the STEM coffin for two reasons: 1. Science isn’t on the test and 2. The testing also forces teachers to teach to them. So, STEM isn’t getting taught at all in some cases.

Abra Williams asked:

More recently, I’ve seen educators stress STEAM. What are your thoughts on making STEM more fun by incorporating the Arts?

To which Ainissa responded:

I am all for STEAM. In fact, I think they should call it TEAMS, since there is collaboration in it. To me, the path to making creative problem solvers does not matter. I only focus on STEM because it is what I know well. I have had discussions with artists about this, and we are all in the same boat.

Intrigued?  Join us for more big ideas, questions, and debates this week on TED Conversations»

TED Conversations

Innocent Ukomba asks: Can donor funding really fix African challenges, or should we empower African communities to address their own challenges?

Charity gives but does not really transform. For a very long time, donor assistance has been chanelled through to Africa and that really hasn’t changed much. Could it be possible to birth a generation of people who are willing to be empowered with a means of generating income that eventually gets channeled back into communities for the purposes of delivering renewal and transformation? How do we get communities to participate in the engineering of a promising future both for the continent and individual nations?

Aissatu Sila replies:

The answer is no.

That’s not just my personal opinion, it’s the reality — a reality in which I live. I’m from Guinea-Bissau and I know for a fact that although donations can have a very big impact and help solve many issues, they are not the solution mainly because they cause dependency.

I deeply appreciate individual donations to global causes, but isn’t it convenient to Western governments to keep funding our dependence and underdevelopment, so they can keep exploring our resources?

How do we get communities to transform the future? By educating them and providing a stable economy in which they can prosper. As Deekay Mgbekemdi said and I agree — it’s a leadership issue. Once we have the right leaders, we’ll follow the right path.

TED Conversations

This week, long-time member Arkady Grudzinsky asked:  If this were the last day of your life, how would you spend it?  He writes:

It just occurred to me today that finishing my most urgent project at work wouldn’t be on my to do list. I would love to read some thoughts or stories.

To which Joanne Donovan responded:

I think this question is profoundly interesting because these ARE the last days of your life, you just do not, or cannot determine the exact amount of time you have left.

I have a friend who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He is not a young man, in fact it could be said, he has lived most of his natural life anyway. Yet, just the mere fact that he has been given a loose parameter of time wherein his death might fall, has changed the quality of life he lives each day.  He now lives each moment to its fullest in complete joy. He does things everyday he may have been too lazy or disinterested to try before the diagnosis. In fact he lives now as we all should live, as if each breath we take is an eternal gift. The irony is, we often need an outside influence to put us into this perspective of happiness, and are often not able to find it ourselves. Why is that?

With 130 inspiring responses, this conversation is worth a read. View the full exchange » 

Meanwhile, Theodore Hoppe shared a fun reminder:  Let’s celebrate all the people that have participated in TEDx! Theodore writes:

Have you seen the list of TEDx events that people are holding all around the world? There are so many excellent speakers, and talks, that for one reason or another will never be added to this site. Many TEDx events are streamed on the internet live, others get taped and then uploaded to YouTube. I have watched over a dozen live TEDx events and have also watched over 100 TEDx videos. Who else watches these?

When Doug Watson responded that he’d love to be able to attend a TEDx event, but won’t be able to due to active military service, Theodore responded with a helpful link to TEDxAustin, the next TEDx event to host a free live stream on the web.  Thank you, Theodore!

Finally, a thought-provoking debate by Matias Haro is reaching its conclusion this week: What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism?  Matias asked:

Now, what do you think is the solution to stop this vicious circle of poverty? What is your Government doing about it?

Bear in mind that Latin America has just extreme poverty levels (not as much as Africa), but still much more than the First World countries. At least in my country there is a surprisingly high number of slums (check some photos in Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_miseria )

In my opinion, emphasis should be made on giving labour to these people outside-the-system. But for that, we need to offer public AND quality education. Yet I’m conscious that a malnourished child is not going to be able to be properly educated, is he?. So what can we do to ensure that child will have a better future? It’s difficult to come up with a solution, but we’re in the 21st Century now, it’s about time we stopped poverty.

The 229 responses include, from Mike Colera:

In every country there is poverty. Governments cannot cure poverty. If they could, it would have been done long ago. They can cause poverty, they can maintain people in a level of poverty as to provide political support as you have noted.

People are impoverished because they do not know to create wealth or they are prevented by outside forces. Capitalism is the easiest way for an individual to create wealth. He does this by taking his stuff transforming it to something that others want and exchanging it for what he needs. He gains wealth through his efforts. It’s really simple. The problem is that most people in poverty have lost the desire to escape, they live in despair and I know of no answer to that problem.

And, from Mahabalraj Singh Peshi:

I would suggest you read a book titled, Poor Economics by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflos. To get an idea of what is being done in the world to help reduce poverty.

This is a complex question with multiple compounding causes. There is no simple solution here and what works for one country may still fail in another country.

Check out lots more fascinating discussions and debates over at TED Conversations »