Fabulous TED talk ok, we need to get in touch. Admirable.
20100126
20100123
I will miss you Xavier
At The Grave Of Richard Wagner by Kronos Quartet
Download now or listen on posterous
01 At The Grave Of Richard Wagner.mp3 (4151 KB) Download now or listen on posterous
"At the grave of Richard Wagner", Interpreted by the Kronos Quartet, Composed by Franz Liszt, Recorded in 1993.
I will miss you Xavier
At The Grave Of Richard Wagner by Kronos Quartet
Download now or listen on posterous
01 At The Grave Of Richard Wagner.mp3 (4151 KB) Download now or listen on posterous
"At the grave of Richard Wagner", Interpreted by the Kronos Quartet, Composed by Franz Liszt, Recorded in 1993.
20100120
Dreaming of type 1 civilization?
Thanks to Will Moller for the link.
As defined by Michio Kaku :
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
The world leaders had the same requirements at the COP15 Copenhagen summit.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
What a humbling question.
The first thing that pops to my mind is how difficult it is to link that different scales of actions : the global political decision and the everyday individual behavior changes in little gestures. Maybe we need to proceed the other way round this time?
Would it be possible? A peaceful working global interoperability?
- Knowledge : People need to know about it.
- Desire : the proposed world need to desirable, ethical social model.
- Capacity : everyone needs to be able to participate in their own ways within earth limits.
I am working on this with this nascent project : the World Environment Organization and I am looking for programmers and lawyers for that (the website is very very bad for now, lots of work to do, contact me).
But the real question is : is a Type 1 civilzation even desirable?
The type 1 civilization Michio Kaku describes has :
- a type 1 language : english (an everyone speaks another native land language).
- a type 1 monetary system (a global currency + capitalism).
- a type 1 political system (democracry + republic).
hummmm...... I think only americans agree with themselves on this. What does a chinese, an indian, a brazilian, cuban, french, arabic, persian, african person think about supremacy? Portuguese, English, French, Japanese have attempted it not long ago, Americans are doing it now... I think this "type 1 thinking" contradicts with the values of tolerance and cohesive forces necessary for the making a durable type 1 civilization.Haven't all empires collapsed? Diversity is the driving force for competition, evolution and civilizational progress, we can't wish for ONE dominant system, there wouldn't be any more progress, just an unstoppable normative force. Myself being a japanese descent I am very surprised Kaku advocates a totalitarian type 1 civilization, as if plurality wasn't thinkable, only American domination... How sad...
As Michio Kaku describes it, the type 1 civilization is a civilization of absolute control : control over the planet, processes, including its weather, geothermal energy. So it is human domination over "nature". Which is also a questionnable desire. And Kaku suggests that's only achievable with a type 1 language, 1 monetary and 1 political system. I think this way of thinking is dangerous. Think about linguistics : why do we have so many words, so many languages, so many dialects... Why do Eskimos have so many different words to describe "snow"? Why do we have every week new artificial computer and artificial languages? Diversity is a fact, and is necessary. Kaku suggests each will have his/her own local language + english, but the fact is that local languages tend to disappear on the long term.
Kaku interestingly simplified the options for accessing the type 1 civilization conditional to :
- positive "integration forces" with tolerance, multi-cultural fabric on one hand ;
- and on the other hand "disintegration forces" : "weapons of mass destruction, germ weapons, terrorism..."
I think it is a good simplification, it does help : we need to concentrate on minimizing the disintegration forces, and maximizing integration forces. On this we can all agree, but it only is valid if no country has a domination desire... and he himself clearly declares he has!
Kaku also takes the example of the European Union, and falsely explains its inception as a counter-measure to the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is not true! Europe was born after the war as a space of political cooperation, to ensure peace - and later only - to improve economic condition. Thanks to American help on this, by the way.
The US is very different, it is a very recent rich colonized land, from which the natives have largely been subject to what many qualify a genocide. Europe is a land of a much higher diversity of languages, economies and political systems than the US today, and according to the recent economic crisis, Europe happens to be more stable and resilient. Still the US is now a dominant economic, political, military and cultural entity.
The US alone wont make the entire world access this type 1 civilization by forcing its normative military power, economy, language and values. There will be no global acceptance of the US type 1 civilization project. That would create too much friction. I like to think civilization type 0 transitioning to a civilization type 1 as the moment a plane breaks the sound barrier, or brakes itself. (video explaining sonic boom).
If our "civilization type 0" tries to transition to "civilization type 1" without enough velocity and cohesion it will fail like the early supersonic flights dramatic attempts. And we got only one chance!!!
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by forcing the entire world to speak the same language, use the same currency, have the same political ideas.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by dominating the nature.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization with our actual political democratic system inability to change efficiently individual everyday little gestures.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization if each of us doesn't have the knowledge, desire and capacity to be on that flight.
Today, "I have a dream" has been published on http://www.ted.com :
Today the American president is a black man.
The dream is becoming a reality. Maybe.
I have a dream that we will all enter type 1 civilization with cohesion in our diversity of languages, currencies, political ideas.
I have a dream that we will enter type 1 civilization in harmony with nature, not dominating it.
I have a dream that each of our everyday gestures would reflect our many better political systems.
I have a dream that, not only a rich minority, but all of us will enter type 1 civilization with the capacity, knowledge and desire to, in their own ways.
Dreaming of type 1 civilization?
Thanks to Will Moller for the link.
As defined by Michio Kaku :
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
The world leaders had the same requirements at the COP15 Copenhagen summit.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
What a humbling question.
The first thing that pops to my mind is how difficult it is to link that different scales of actions : the global political decision and the everyday individual behavior changes in little gestures. Maybe we need to proceed the other way round this time?
Would it be possible? A peaceful working global interoperability?
- Knowledge : People need to know about it.
- Desire : the proposed world need to desirable, ethical social model.
- Capacity : everyone needs to be able to participate in their own ways within earth limits.
I am working on this with this nascent project : the World Environment Organization and I am looking for programmers and lawyers for that (the website is very very bad for now, lots of work to do, contact me).
But the real question is : is a Type 1 civilzation even desirable?
The type 1 civilization Michio Kaku describes has :
- a type 1 language : english (an everyone speaks another native land language).
- a type 1 monetary system (a global currency + capitalism).
- a type 1 political system (democracry + republic).
hummmm...... I think only americans agree with themselves on this. What does a chinese, an indian, a brazilian, cuban, french, arabic, persian, african person think about supremacy? Portuguese, English, French, Japanese have attempted it not long ago, Americans are doing it now... I think this "type 1 thinking" contradicts with the values of tolerance and cohesive forces necessary for the making a durable type 1 civilization. Haven't all empires collapsed? Diversity is the driving force for competition, evolution and civilizational progress, we can't wish for ONE dominant system, there wouldn't be any more progress, just an unstoppable normative force. Myself being a japanese descent I am very surprised Kaku advocates a totalitarian type 1 civilization, as if plurality wasn't thinkable, only American domination... How sad...
As Michio Kaku describes it, the type 1 civilization is a civilization of absolute control : control over the planet, processes, including its weather, geothermal energy. So it is human domination over "nature". Which is also a questionnable desire. And Kaku suggests that's only achievable with a type 1 language, 1 monetary and 1 political system. I think this way of thinking is dangerous. Think about linguistics : why do we have so many words, so many languages, so many dialects... Why do Eskimos have so many different words to describe "snow"? Why do we have every week new artificial computer and artificial languages? Diversity is a fact, and is necessary. Kaku suggests each will have his/her own local language + english, but the fact is that local languages tend to disappear on the long term.
Kaku interestingly simplified the options for accessing the type 1 civilization conditional to :
- positive "integration forces" with tolerance, multi-cultural fabric on one hand ;
- and on the other hand "disintegration forces" : "weapons of mass destruction, germ weapons, terrorism..."
I think it is a good simplification, it does help : we need to concentrate on minimizing the disintegration forces, and maximizing integration forces. On this we can all agree, but it only is valid if no country has a domination desire... and he himself clearly declares he has!
Kaku also takes the example of the European Union, and falsely explains its inception as a counter-measure to the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is not true! Europe was born after the war as a space of political cooperation, to ensure peace - and later only - to improve economic condition. Thanks to American help on this, by the way.
The US is very different, it is a very recent rich colonized land, from which the natives have largely been subject to what many qualify a genocide. Europe is a land of a much higher diversity of languages, economies and political systems than the US today, and according to the recent economic crisis, Europe happens to be more stable and resilient. Still the US is now a dominant economic, political, military and cultural entity.
The US alone wont make the entire world access this type 1 civilization by forcing its normative military power, economy, language and values. There will be no global acceptance of the US type 1 civilization project. That would create too much friction. I like to think civilization type 0 transitioning to a civilization type 1 as the moment a plane breaks the sound barrier, or brakes itself. (video explaining sonic boom).
If our "civilization type 0" tries to transition to "civilization type 1" without enough velocity and cohesion it will fail like the early supersonic flights dramatic attempts. And we got only one chance!!!
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by forcing the entire world to speak the same language, use the same currency, have the same political ideas.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by dominating the nature.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization with our actual political democratic system inability to change efficiently individual everyday little gestures.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization if each of us doesn't have the knowledge, desire and capacity to be on that flight.
Today, "I have a dream" has been published on http://www.ted.com :
Today the American president is a black man.
The dream is becoming a reality. Maybe.
I have a dream that we will all enter type 1 civilization with cohesion in our diversity of languages, currencies, political ideas.
I have a dream that we will enter type 1 civilization in harmony with nature, not dominating it.
I have a dream that each of our everyday gestures would reflect our many better political systems.
I have a dream that, not only a rich minority, but all of us will enter type 1 civilization with the capacity, knowledge and desire to, in their own ways.
Dreaming of type 1 civilization?
Thanks to Will Moller for the link.
As defined by Michio Kaku :
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
As defined by Michio Kaku :
- Type-1 civilization : is capable of harnessing the entire power of a planet, and dominate its processes, including its weather, geothermal energy, etc. It should be able to construct facilities anywhere it wants to on the planet.
- Type-2 civilization : is capable of harnessing the power of its local star, and subsidiary planets.
- Type-3 civilization can become inter-stellar/multi-stellar, capable of expanding across multiple star systems, and eventually the entire galaxy. (Star Trek is one exemple of Type-III Civilization)
We are currently at the zero-point-something mark on this scale.As a 2010 TED fellow, we are collectively required to adress the question "what the world needs now?".
The world leaders had the same requirements at the COP15 Copenhagen summit.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
Each of us has the opportunity everyday in each of our most insignificant actions - they are significant.
What a humbling question.
The first thing that pops to my mind is how difficult it is to link that different scales of actions : the global political decision and the everyday individual behavior changes in little gestures. Maybe we need to proceed the other way round this time?
Would it be possible? A peaceful working global interoperability?
- Knowledge : People need to know about it.
- Desire : the proposed world need to desirable, ethical and a sustainable social model.
- Capacity : everyone needs to be able to participate in their own ways within earth limits.
I am working on this with this nascent project : the World Environment Organization and I am looking for programmers and lawyers for that (the website is very very bad for now, lots of work to do, contact me).
But the real question is : is a Type 1 civilzation even desirable?
The type 1 civilization Michio Kaku describes has :
- a type 1 language : english (an everyone speaks another native land language).
- a type 1 monetary system (a global currency + capitalism).
- a type 1 political system (democracry + republic).
hummmm...... I think only americans agree with themselves on this. What does a chinese, an indian, a brazilian, cuban, french, arabic, persian, african person think about supremacy? Portuguese, English, French, Japanese have attempted it, Americans are doing it now... I think this "type 1 thinking" contradicts with the values of tolerance and cohesive forces necessary for the making a durable type 1 civilization. Havent all empires collapsed? Diversity is the driving force for competition, evolution and civilizational progress, we can't wish for ONE dominant system, there wouldn't be any more progress, just an unstoppable normative force. Myself being a japanese descent I am very surprised Kaku advocates a totalitarian type 1 civilization, as if plurality wasn't thinkable, only American domination... How sad...
As Michio Kaku describes it, the type 1 civilization is a civilization of absolute control : control over the planet, processes, including its weather, geothermal energy. So it is human domination over "nature". Which is also a questionnable desire. And Kaku suggests that's only achievable with a type 1 language, 1 monetary and 1 political system. I think this way of thinking is dangerous. Think about linguistics : why do we have so many words, so many languages, so many dialects... Why do Eskimos have so many different words to describe "snow" and other languages don't? Why do we have every week new artificial computer and artificial languages? Diversity is a fact, and is necessary. Kaku suggests each will have his/her own local language + english, but the fact is that local languages tend to disappear on the long term.
Kaku interestingly simplified the options for accessing the type 1 civilization conditional to :
- positive "integration forces" with tolerance, multi-cultural fabric on one hand ;
- and on the other hand "disintegration forces" : "weapons of mass destruction, germ weapons, terrorism..."
I think it is a good simplification, it does help : we need to concentrate on minimizing the disintegration forces, and maximizing integration forces. On this we can all agree, but it only is valid if no country has a domination desire... and he himself clearly declares he has!
Kaku also takes the example of the European Union, and falsely explains its inception as a counter-measure to the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is not true! Europe was born after the war as a space of political cooperation, to ensure peace - and later only - to improve economic condition. Thanks to American help on this, by the way.
The US is very different, it is a very recent rich colonized land, from which the natives have largely been subject to what many qualify a genocide. Europe is a land of a much higher diversity of languages, economies and political systems than the US today, and according to the recent economic crisis, Europe happens to be more stable and resilient. Still the US is now a dominant economical, political, military and cultural entity.
The US alone wont make the entire world access this type 1 civilization by forcing its normative military power, economy, language and values. There will be no global acceptance of the US type 1 civilization project. That would create too much friction. I like to think civilization type 0 transitioning to a civilization type 1 as the moment a plane breaks the sound barrier. (video explaining sonic boom).
If our "civilization type 0" tries to transition to "civilization type 1" without enough velocity and cohesion it will fail like the early supersonic flights dramatic attempts. And we got only one chance!!!
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by forcing the entire world to speak the same language, use the same currency, have the same political ideas.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization by dominating the nature.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization with our actual political democratic system inability to change efficiently individual everyday little gestures.
We wont transition to type 1 civilization if each of us doesn't have the knowledge, desire and capacity to be on that flight.
Today, "I have a dream" has been published on TED :
Today the American president is a black man.
The dream is becoming a reality. Maybe.
I have a dream that we will all enter type 1 civilization with cohesion in our diversity of languages, currencies, political ideas.
I have a dream that we will enter type 1 civilization in harmony with nature, not dominating it.
I have a dream that each of our everyday gestures would reflect our many better political systems.
I have a dream that, not only a rich minority, but all of us will enter type 1 civilization with the capacity, knowledge and desire to, in their own ways.
20100119
20100118
Ressource based economy
Via Cesar Alonso, thanks for the link.
Some of the ideas in this Venus Project are amazing, on the conceptual level, the pragmatic and creative ones. On the other hand, the designs Jacques Fresco is proposing really don't match the philosophy : "James Bond Grand architecture for a more equitable world" just don't really make me believe it is a "new direction".
What disrupts me with a singular "ENTIRELY NEW UPDATED SYSTEM" : I don't believe a visionary architect can propose an entire new way of life and vocabulary ; I believe in how new technologies and new ideas slowly infiltrate and change people's lives, not as one grand radical proposal, but rather many small working transitions. So, as an architect you want to modify the system not by the designing the whole system, but designing intelligent components that will facilitate the creative sustainable activities of other humans. To summarize, it is not about inventing an entire new system, but about programming good building components. Also I must disagree on the discourse that says Industrial revolution will make us free. This is what we have been attempting since 300 years, the same old ideal future that we never reach, a future for a free "updated new" class (a rich minority of "visionaries") that the rest of humanity must labour and pay for it... Our society is industrial, I am not sure getting rid of 90% of human labour with new supertechnological means is the good underlying priority in the agenda... In other words, the Jaques Fresco "Venus Project" is an interesting and inspiring Utopian project. Someone has to dream, and show a bundle of possibilities to the majority, and the rest of us, as actor-consumers, can buy into it, more or less. Jacques Fresco is doing his job being the figure of the grand visionary architect for a glorious future, I respect that ; but I think to deeply impact the world, every single human needs to have the freedom, capacity and desire to the the architect of his/her own life. And that might not be possible in a world where resources are limited. So it goes back to the beginning of the Venus project : "a Resource Based Economy". On this everyone can agree, we need to start by considering the resource before making grand plans. The architect should publicly employ his creative mind to fabricate this fabulous tool that will give an entire new perception of our actual system, a tool with which a new -probably much less fancy than described- future can be built. Also, you cannot be ethically at both ends of the chains : you cant be judge and jury, and if you are : don't expect any credibility.
It is scary for other to have one grand vision that incorporates all the aspects of a NEW life, it is too intimidating and normative. To conclude : to work out this "not-new" resource limited word, let's do it in the right order : first, let's set up the "sensors" to measure this limited and changing world.
Before we invent super great grand designs and strategies, let's simply get to know what is happening, and make that knowledge available to everyone.
- There is an open-source project that enables people to do that today : http://pachube.com
- There is a global observatory system : http://earthwatch.unep.net/data/g3os.php
- There is an ocean division of this global observation system that works : http://www.argo.net
Some of the ideas in this Venus Project are amazing, on the conceptual level, the pragmatic and creative ones. On the other hand, the designs Jacques Fresco is proposing really don't match the philosophy : "James Bond Grand architecture for a more equitable world" just don't really make me believe it is a "new direction".
What disrupts me with a singular "ENTIRELY NEW UPDATED SYSTEM" : I don't believe a visionary architect can propose an entire new way of life and vocabulary ; I believe in how new technologies and new ideas slowly infiltrate and change people's lives, not as one grand radical proposal, but rather many small working transitions. So, as an architect you want to modify the system not by the designing the whole system, but designing intelligent components that will facilitate the creative sustainable activities of other humans. To summarize, it is not about inventing an entire new system, but about programming good building components. Also I must disagree on the discourse that says Industrial revolution will make us free. This is what we have been attempting since 300 years, the same old ideal future that we never reach, a future for a free "updated new" class (a rich minority of "visionaries") that the rest of humanity must labour and pay for it... Our society is industrial, I am not sure getting rid of 90% of human labour with new supertechnological means is the good underlying priority in the agenda... In other words, the Jaques Fresco "Venus Project" is an interesting and inspiring Utopian project. Someone has to dream, and show a bundle of possibilities to the majority, and the rest of us, as actor-consumers, can buy into it, more or less. Jacques Fresco is doing his job being the figure of the grand visionary architect for a glorious future, I respect that ; but I think to deeply impact the world, every single human needs to have the freedom, capacity and desire to the the architect of his/her own life. And that might not be possible in a world where resources are limited. So it goes back to the beginning of the Venus project : "a Resource Based Economy". On this everyone can agree, we need to start by considering the resource before making grand plans. The architect should publicly employ his creative mind to fabricate this fabulous tool that will give an entire new perception of our actual system, a tool with which a new -probably much less fancy than described- future can be built. Also, you cannot be ethically at both ends of the chains : you cant be judge and jury, and if you are : don't expect any credibility.
It is scary for other to have one grand vision that incorporates all the aspects of a NEW life, it is too intimidating and normative. To conclude : to work out this "not-new" resource limited word, let's do it in the right order : first, let's set up the "sensors" to measure this limited and changing world.
Before we invent super great grand designs and strategies, let's simply get to know what is happening, and make that knowledge available to everyone.
- There is an open-source project that enables people to do that today : http://pachube.com
- There is a global observatory system : http://earthwatch.unep.net/data/g3os.php
- There is an ocean division of this global observation system that works : http://www.argo.net
So, at that point in history, the glory isn't in the grand future design, but being creatively contributing to these observation and action project.
Personally that's what I am trying to do with Open_Sailing project, and with the World Environment Organization : trying to build open-source instruments to contribute to existing necessary researches. What's interesting is that the complexity of the infrastructure make the CENTRAL figure of the architect obsolete, a good system needs that each participant of the distributed system is an architect, towards a collective wisdom and creativity, social innovation, object oriented politics (Latour), adhocracy, highly tolerant and entropic "open architecture" and "architecture of play".
Ressource based economy
http://earthwatch.unep.net/data/g3os.php
Via Cesar Alonso, thanks for the link.
Some of the ideas in this Venus Project are amazing, on the conceptual level, the pragmatic and creative ones. On the other hand, the designs Jacques Fresco is proposing really don't match the philosophy : "James Bond Grand architecture for a more equitable world" just don't really make me believe it is a "new direction".
What disrupts me with a singular "ENTIRELY NEW UPDATED SYSTEM" : I don't believe a visionary architect can propose an entire new way of life and vocabulary ; I believe in how new technologies and new ideas slowly infiltrate and change people's lives, not as one grand radical proposal, but rather many small working transitions. So, as an architect you want to modify the system not by the designing the whole system, but designing intelligent components that will facilitate the creative sustainable activities of other humans. To summarize, it is not about inventing an entire new system, but about programming good building components. Also I must disagree on the discourse that says Industrial revolution will make us free. This is what we have been attempting since 300 years, the same old ideal future that we never reach, a future for a free "updated new" class (a rich minority of "visionaries") that the rest of humanity must labour and pay for it... Our society is industrial, I am not sure getting rid of 90% of human labour with new supertechnological means is the good underlying priority in the agenda... In other words, the Jaques Fresco "Venus Project" is an interesting and inspiring Utopian project. Someone has to dream, and show a bundle of possibilities to the majority, and the rest of us, as actor-consumers, can buy into it, more or less. Jacques Fresco is doing his job being the figure of the grand visionary architect for a glorious future, I respect that ; but I think to deeply impact the world, every single human needs to have the freedom, capacity and desire to the the architect of his/her own life. And that might not be possible in a world where resources are limited. So it goes back to the beginning of the Venus project : "a Resource Based Economy". On this everyone can agree, we need to start by considering the resource before making grand plans. The architect should publicly employ his creative mind to fabricate this fabulous tool that will give an entire new perception of our actual system, a tool with which a new -probably much less fancy than described- future can be built. Also, you cannot be ethically at both ends of the chains : you cant be judge and jury, and if you are : don't expect any credibility.
It is scary for other to have one grand vision that incorporates all the aspects of a NEW life, it is too intimidating and normative. To conclude : to work out this "not-new" resource limited word, let's do it in the right order : first, let's set up the "sensors" to measure this limited and changing world.
Before we invent super great grand designs and strategies, let's simply get to know what is happening, and make that knowledge available to everyone.
There is an open-source project that enables people to do that today : http://pachube.com
There is a global observatory system : http://earthwatch.unep.net/data/g3os.php
There is an ocean division of this global observation system that works : http://www.argo.net
Some of the ideas in this Venus Project are amazing, on the conceptual level, the pragmatic and creative ones. On the other hand, the designs Jacques Fresco is proposing really don't match the philosophy : "James Bond Grand architecture for a more equitable world" just don't really make me believe it is a "new direction".
What disrupts me with a singular "ENTIRELY NEW UPDATED SYSTEM" : I don't believe a visionary architect can propose an entire new way of life and vocabulary ; I believe in how new technologies and new ideas slowly infiltrate and change people's lives, not as one grand radical proposal, but rather many small working transitions. So, as an architect you want to modify the system not by the designing the whole system, but designing intelligent components that will facilitate the creative sustainable activities of other humans. To summarize, it is not about inventing an entire new system, but about programming good building components. Also I must disagree on the discourse that says Industrial revolution will make us free. This is what we have been attempting since 300 years, the same old ideal future that we never reach, a future for a free "updated new" class (a rich minority of "visionaries") that the rest of humanity must labour and pay for it... Our society is industrial, I am not sure getting rid of 90% of human labour with new supertechnological means is the good underlying priority in the agenda... In other words, the Jaques Fresco "Venus Project" is an interesting and inspiring Utopian project. Someone has to dream, and show a bundle of possibilities to the majority, and the rest of us, as actor-consumers, can buy into it, more or less. Jacques Fresco is doing his job being the figure of the grand visionary architect for a glorious future, I respect that ; but I think to deeply impact the world, every single human needs to have the freedom, capacity and desire to the the architect of his/her own life. And that might not be possible in a world where resources are limited. So it goes back to the beginning of the Venus project : "a Resource Based Economy". On this everyone can agree, we need to start by considering the resource before making grand plans. The architect should publicly employ his creative mind to fabricate this fabulous tool that will give an entire new perception of our actual system, a tool with which a new -probably much less fancy than described- future can be built. Also, you cannot be ethically at both ends of the chains : you cant be judge and jury, and if you are : don't expect any credibility.
It is scary for other to have one grand vision that incorporates all the aspects of a NEW life, it is too intimidating and normative. To conclude : to work out this "not-new" resource limited word, let's do it in the right order : first, let's set up the "sensors" to measure this limited and changing world.
Before we invent super great grand designs and strategies, let's simply get to know what is happening, and make that knowledge available to everyone.
There is an open-source project that enables people to do that today : http://pachube.com
There is a global observatory system : http://earthwatch.unep.net/data/g3os.php
There is an ocean division of this global observation system that works : http://www.argo.net
So, at that point in history, the glory isn't in the grand future design, but being creatively contributing to these observation and action project.
Personally that's what I am trying to do with Open_Sailing project, and with the World Environment Organization : trying to build open-source instruments to contribute to existing necessary researches. What's interesting is that the complexity of the infrastructure make the CENTRAL figure of the architect obsolete, a good system needs that each participant of the distributed system is an architect, towards a collective wisdom and creativity, social innovation, object oriented politics (Latour), adhocracy, highly tolerant and entropic "open architecture" and "architecture of play".
20100114
Strong disagreement on "The Uniqueness of Humans", Prof. Robert Sapolsky
As a future TED fellow I watch TED lectures with a lot of attention
and pleasure ... but I needed to react to this one.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html Really interesting talk about what makes us "uniquier" from other
animals, on the behavior, psychology and culture aspect as a specie.
I do agree that we have an immense OPPORTUNITY as educated, empowered
primates. The talk is addressed at Stanford University students on the
day of their graduation : I understand and highly value the
encouraging content of the message. Professor Robert Sapolsky explains
how privileged and responsible the soon-to-be-graduated audience
members should feel, and the immense RESPONSIBILITY they will have in
the real world. In a sense it is very good to make young women and men
responsible and ambitious, but on the other hand, it does glorifies
the audience more than it does give it direction ... and that's the
greatest thing about this talk.
I highlighted the words "Opportunity" and "Responsibility" as a simple
equation. As a matter of fact, we have the opportunity to be in charge
of our lives and others, educated or not, and we all do in different
ways BUT the grand ambition that generations feed upon generations is
not necessarily healthy : as if we had to force-feed-forward, an
ideology of performance and sacrifice... What's even greater in this talk is that the performance we are
encouraged to perform is the heroic figure of the PARADOX BELIEVER,
may it be Jesus or this nun working in the death row ... Volunteer
martyrs? Are these our moral models? Acting incoherently and negating
our animal tit for tap instinct would be the ultimate mark of
superior intelligence, what makes us beyond "uniquier", but
"uniquierest"? Why do we want to pretend to be better than all other
animals? Where does this extravagant arrogance leads humans? What do
humans do to the other species? To the earth? What if we were thinking
a bit more like animals, maybe we wouldn't destroy our world as much
as we do as "super intelligent" specie? Isn't there anything to learn
from animals but that we are superior and responsible for everything?
This is why I think this talk is greatly wrong. This talk tells you "you have immense power, so be responsible and
powerful" but it does pose the figure of the paradox believer as the
role model, when in the world we have so many NON-PARADOXAL problems
that need to be addressed humbly, with common sense and creativity. As
a scientist specialized in primate behavior (logic development of
social interactions), he could propose an other approach to
problem-solving but the paradox that usually leads to immobility or to
the dichotomic self-destructive psychologic profile (to cite the drone
pilot in Texas). We dont need no more paradox heroes, we need coherent
positive models, no more martyrs please.
What makes us different is not what makes us "uniquier" or superior
Professor Sapolsky. That's terribly wrong and non scientific. I am very sorry but we are not "uniquier" or "superior", we are
different, and we should concentrate our efforts on observing and
studying other species and learn what good they do to themselves and
the environment, and try to implement these methods in our own lifes.
I am not claiming we should go back to being monkeys, but I think our
attitude toward the world must change so radically we might loose a
lot of human ego, as a specie, as individuals. It is another ego we
would gain, the ego of being part of this world, truly, among the
other animals. This new ego we should desire is what I wish you were
exploring professor Sapolsky. And this time, it is not so much about
being superiorly intelligent, it is about being good, in a true sense. Cesar Harada, Paris, France. 2010/01/14
and pleasure ... but I needed to react to this one.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html Really interesting talk about what makes us "uniquier" from other
animals, on the behavior, psychology and culture aspect as a specie.
I do agree that we have an immense OPPORTUNITY as educated, empowered
primates. The talk is addressed at Stanford University students on the
day of their graduation : I understand and highly value the
encouraging content of the message. Professor Robert Sapolsky explains
how privileged and responsible the soon-to-be-graduated audience
members should feel, and the immense RESPONSIBILITY they will have in
the real world. In a sense it is very good to make young women and men
responsible and ambitious, but on the other hand, it does glorifies
the audience more than it does give it direction ... and that's the
greatest thing about this talk.
I highlighted the words "Opportunity" and "Responsibility" as a simple
equation. As a matter of fact, we have the opportunity to be in charge
of our lives and others, educated or not, and we all do in different
ways BUT the grand ambition that generations feed upon generations is
not necessarily healthy : as if we had to force-feed-forward, an
ideology of performance and sacrifice... What's even greater in this talk is that the performance we are
encouraged to perform is the heroic figure of the PARADOX BELIEVER,
may it be Jesus or this nun working in the death row ... Volunteer
martyrs? Are these our moral models? Acting incoherently and negating
our animal tit for tap instinct would be the ultimate mark of
superior intelligence, what makes us beyond "uniquier", but
"uniquierest"? Why do we want to pretend to be better than all other
animals? Where does this extravagant arrogance leads humans? What do
humans do to the other species? To the earth? What if we were thinking
a bit more like animals, maybe we wouldn't destroy our world as much
as we do as "super intelligent" specie? Isn't there anything to learn
from animals but that we are superior and responsible for everything?
This is why I think this talk is greatly wrong. This talk tells you "you have immense power, so be responsible and
powerful" but it does pose the figure of the paradox believer as the
role model, when in the world we have so many NON-PARADOXAL problems
that need to be addressed humbly, with common sense and creativity. As
a scientist specialized in primate behavior (logic development of
social interactions), he could propose an other approach to
problem-solving but the paradox that usually leads to immobility or to
the dichotomic self-destructive psychologic profile (to cite the drone
pilot in Texas). We dont need no more paradox heroes, we need coherent
positive models, no more martyrs please.
What makes us different is not what makes us "uniquier" or superior
Professor Sapolsky. That's terribly wrong and non scientific. I am very sorry but we are not "uniquier" or "superior", we are
different, and we should concentrate our efforts on observing and
studying other species and learn what good they do to themselves and
the environment, and try to implement these methods in our own lifes.
I am not claiming we should go back to being monkeys, but I think our
attitude toward the world must change so radically we might loose a
lot of human ego, as a specie, as individuals. It is another ego we
would gain, the ego of being part of this world, truly, among the
other animals. This new ego we should desire is what I wish you were
exploring professor Sapolsky. And this time, it is not so much about
being superiorly intelligent, it is about being good, in a true sense. Cesar Harada, Paris, France. 2010/01/14
Are we "responsible" primates, Robert Sapolsky
Really interesting talk about what makes us "uniquier" from other animals, on the behavior, psychology and culture aspect as a specie.
I do agree that we have an immense OPPORTUNITY as educated, empowered primates. The talk is addressed at Stanford University students on the day of their graduation : I understand and highly value the encouraging content of the message. Professor Robert Sapolsky explains how privileged and responsible the soon-to-be-graduated audience members should feel, and the immense RESPONSIBILITY they will have in the real world. In a sense it is very good to make young women and men responsible and ambitious, but on the other hand, it does glorifies the audience more than it does give it direction ... and that's the greatest thing about this talk.
I highlighted the words "Opportunity" and "Responsibility" as a simple equation. As a matter of fact, we have the opportunity to be in charge of our lives and others, educated or not, and we all do in different ways BUT the grand ambition that generations feed upon generations is not necessarily healthy : as if we had to force-feed-forward, an ideology of performance and sacrifice...
What's even greater in this talk is that the performance we are encouraged to perform is the heroic figure of the PARADOX BELIEVER, may it be Jesus or this nun working in the death row ... Volunteer martyrs? Are these our moral models? Acting incoherently and negating our animal tit for tap instinct would be the ultimate mark of superior intelligence, what makes us beyond "uniquier", but "uniquierest"? Why do we want to pretend to be better than all other animals? Where does this extravagant arrogance leads humans? What do humans do to the other species? To the earth? What if we were thinking a bit more like animals, maybe we wouldn't destroy our world as much as we do as "super intelligent" specie? Isn't there anything to learn from animals but that we are superior and responsible for everything?
This is why I think this talk is greatly wrong.
This talk tells you "you have immense power, so be responsible and powerful" but it does pose the figure of the paradox believer as the role model, when in the world we have so many NON-PARADOXAL problems that need to be addressed humbly, with common sense and creativity. As a scientist specialized in primate behavior (logic development of social interactions), he could propose an other approach to problem-solving but the paradox that usually leads to immobility or to the dichotomic self-destructive psychologic profile (to cite the drone pilot in Texas). We dont need no more paradox heroes, we need coherent positive models, no more martyrs please.
What makes us different is not what makes us "uniquier" or superior Professor Sapolsky. That's terribly wrong and non scientific.
I am very sorry but we are not "uniquier" or "superior", we are different, and we should concentrate our efforts on observing and studying other species and learn what good they do to themselves and the environment, and try to implement these methods in our own lifes.
I am not claiming we should go back to being monkeys, but I think our attitude toward the world must change so radically we might loose a lot of human ego, as a specie, as individuals. It is another ego we would gain, the ego of being part of this world, truly, among the other animals. This new ego we should desire is what I wish you were exploring professor Sapolsky. And this time, it is not so much about being superiorly intelligent, it is about being good, in a true sense.
Cesar Harada, Paris, France. 2010/01/14
((tag : Ideology, Philosophy, Politics, TED, Monkeys, Animals, Youtube))
20100113
Making maps to fight disaster, build economies, Lalitesh Katragadda TED
We dont need to map things to think the world, we can update the maps day after day, from satellite view.
We attempted making maps of threats : http://opensailing.blogspot.com/2009/12/vital-function-map-world-threat-maps.html
and compute them real-time : https://sites.google.com/a/opensailing.net/www/labs/swarm_operating_system
Making maps to fight disaster, build economies, Lalitesh Katragadda TED
We dont need to map things to think the world, we can update the maps day after day, from satellite view.
We attempted making maps of threats : http://opensailing.blogspot.com/2009/12/vital-function-map-world-threat-maps.html
and compute them real-time : https://sites.google.com/a/opensailing.net/www/labs/swarm_operating_system
The World According to Monsanto – Full Documentary
http://twilightearth.com/environment-archive-2/the-world-according-to-monsanto-full-documentary/
The World According to Monsanto is an in-depth Documentary that looks at the domination of the agricultural industry from one of the world’s most insidious and powerful companies.
This is one of the most powerful, must see films for anyone interested in the behind the scenes world of the food industry, and how just one world dominating corporation holds the keys and patents to much of the worlds food supply. Monsanto, which started out as one of the planets largest chemical companies is also responsible for such chemical compounds as Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, PCBs and genetically-engineered crops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
