Kevin Kelly tells technology's epic story

[crudhousefull]

Okay for the dummies that don't get it, thoughts are a natural phenomena. All we can do is make a choices with the thoughts we get from an unknown source. Even the choices we make are based on more thoughts...so basically the whole thing is natural phenoma without a 'you' in it at all. Get rid of your egos and meditate silly people

[crudhousefull]

I love videos like these. Shows graphically how the west really does consider technology its new religion lol. I love looking at the faces when the speaker generally asks them to imagine life without technology. Hilarious

[GloryAtWill]

I wonder what Kevin Kelly would think of The Venus Project? Or anyone else in this comment section for that matter....

[SantaBJ]

There is no such thing as bad technology. I could not agree more, Sir.

[YYwb]

All who disagree the entire talk without pointing out any evident logical error, must believe in a certain god.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

@YYwb All who demand that anyone who disagrees with something must ALWAYS point out ALL logical errors, EXPLICITLY, (and when limited to 500 characters, at that), should apply the same to him-/her-self or shut up.

...and also realise that most people find their time more valuable, and that such behavior would be found annoying, anyway.

...and any who seriously say that failing to do so, implies faith in a certain god, should get used to being taken as seriously as a claimed "alien abductee".

[ZarlanTheGreen]

I love technology, but this guy...

The overly vague statements, the fallacies and all the other things that were bullcrap forced me to thumb this down (I'd have given it 1-2 stars, but since youtube's downgrade...)

I'd just like to add, that humans could hunt animals without any tools at all, besides the human body. How? Running and tracking. It's called persistence hunting: watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

Humans are the best endurance runners on the planet.

Were not fast or strong, but we are persistent.

[YYwb]

@ZarlanTheGreen 1-2 stars just means thumb down, altogether only 5 stars. so.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

@YYwb And a video that is so-so? A video that is bad, I'd have given 2 stars. 1 star, would be for those that are despicably bad. 4 for one that is good, and five for brilliant ones.

Thumb up and thumb down, is very limiting.

[YYwb]

@ZarlanTheGreen Youtube doesnt care! At least you've had your say.

[elpresidio]

@ZarlanTheGreen YouTube's data has shown that Thumb up and thumb down (much like 'like' and 'dislike') is a more effective system that people engage in. This is why YouTube got rid of the 5 star system because the hard data YouTube has been measuring shows that most people in a 5 star system would rate something only a 1 or a 5 star. People are inclined to polarization naturally. Most people stay clear of gray areas and choose black or white an efficient way to organize the world.

[elpresidio]

@ZarlanTheGreen Of course there are some exceptions such as ratings for restaurants and movies. For somethings a star system works better than a thumbs up thumbs down system. In away I suppose YouTube's thumb system is a nod toward the old "At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert" which so famously made thumbs up/ thumbs down popular.

[cr99991]

There is more bullshit coming out of this guy than out of BP headquarters.

[cammameil]

This is the worst of the TED talks I have seen so far:

A graph about global warming from before we recorded weather? Is it based on ice-core samples? Who took the samples? What technical training did they have? How are we sure that it was hammers that caused a rise in temperature and not solar activity... or inactivity?

And on fossils, he really needs to read Jared Diamond's works before he starts throwing up graphs like the one at 3:09 and pretending he understands what it means.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Is he umpiring a tennis match?

[Sairin13]

Susan Blackmore's Memes and Temes TED Talk is like this too.

[mseedre]

this is a MUST see for everyone!!!

[nickersucker]

His diagram of the migration of man is slightly wrong. It has been found that the Australian aboriginal is the closest in DNA to the Indian person (not American Indian). So, somehow, a very long time ago, they managed to migrate to the land known today as Australia, but not through SE Asia. Interesting No?

[hutchings000]

Interesting...

Why he made the connection with early man and Climate change baffles me.

Assuming mankind is solely responsible for climate change? Really?

He probably didn't explain it very well...

[gareth450uk]

Some of his statements are toss but the idea of technology as a force of nature and extension of life is a fascinating one.

[OldPappy]

Truelly Fantastic.

[mugin11223344]

hes comment on DDT is not correct. DDT is not good and should be banned everywhere.

Insect poison DDT is an example of how a chemical can affect animals. DDT was largely previously used to kill insects, for example. mosquitoes that spread malaria. And it was effective.

But in the 1960s it was discovered that DDT poisoned the birds - eg. peregrine falcon, brown pelican and Bald Eagle.

[mugin11223344]

Their eggs had shells so thin that they broke. The result was that the number of these birds fell dramatically. Today, DDT is banned in many countries across the world, but it is still used in developing countries in the fight against malariamyg!

Many chemicals have been shown to disrupt human and animal hormones. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are largely used in industry, and from there spread to animals and humans.

[mugin11223344]

Because of these substances we see today alligators, which are born with small genitals. And you find polar bears and fish that are born with both male and female genitalia. The chemicals are passed from mother to child through the womb and breast milk in mammals - and through the egg in reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds.

[mugin11223344]

In 1962 published a book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, who was the starting point for the "environmental movement" as we know it today. In the book, the writer expressed great concern over the human (industrial) processing of wild and including the use of pesticides (DDT), which kills by nature.

[piotrezzz]

For a great eye-opener on really old technical technology, try to yougle -youtube/googling .. hey, I invented a word .. THAT's techonology ;-)

Anyways, yougle Antikythera mechanism.

[Brothergeorge]

I'm not sure how much I agree with this guy, but I like the way he thinks.

[askdhuwuw]

@Brothergeorge 

[askdhuwuw]

@Brothergeorge

my reply to u was just me verifying a Youtube bug.

You can post an empty reply....

[griskrossaren]

confused old man, lay down for the young to take over

[ProtectedNET]

@griskrossaren show some respect, i don't think you even watched the video.

[griskrossaren]

lol youre a religious person.. 0_0 i dont think you even watched Life..

[ProtectedNET]

@griskrossaren How's like outside the internet?!

no seriously, i watched the video and found it cool.

Don't see how you must be religious person to respect the elders.

[hannaremnant]

without technology?!? I learned a lot, and its nistory is interesting -but imagine how the natural world would be now if human populations hadn't exponentially increased with technology, killing off species and ecosystems. We don't know what makes the universe tick either -or even the miracle of birth...muhawhaw (sorry, just being silly).

[Fensterplaetzchen]

I like the video in the way he understands new technology (computers ect.) as a natural part in the evolutionary chain. But on the other hand I think as humans we maybe should put conscious beings first.

[liquidminds]

the correct phrasing would be "how come that i think that your statements are wrong"

And that can be explained very easily. You didn't get that information from any source you trust before, that's why you don't believe it.

Can't blame you. I wouldn't believe any stranger in a youtube-comment without proof. But look and the facts and you see that I'm right.

there are so many things people did not consider when judging what bulb is better. warm light makes you feel warmer, saving heatingcosts

[TheDauntlessidiot]

this is very interesting

[EveryHumanBeing]

I think a lot of people are missing the point with this talk. WE ARE TECHNOLOGY... get it.

That's the point.

[victor1eremita]

this guy is a fucking idiot.

[YoLninYo]

First the Bill Gates' talk, now this guy's advocating of "the good nuclear" ...

Looks like the NewKewLurr Industry is trying real hard to change the minds of the new opinion makers (as it were.)

[soulsurferjeweet]

Also, I found this talk to be quite worthless actually...

[soulsurferjeweet]

The bad thing is that bad men, commercial 'make the most profit'-oriented men are riding this big horse called Technology right now mostly. And they're steering it not into such a positive direction.

[LemonLimeLaughter]

He sounds like Terence Mckenna, what he says.

[elchafa]

Is the chair too big, or the man too little?

[luiza2166]

I don't like to criticize videos but come on TED, make better choices. What a useless talk, what a waste of everyone's time.

[Keeban3]

9000 years ago global warming started? Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.

[AlgeKalipso]

Teleological explanations, antroporphizing objects and processes, energy-matter-information... I can't believe how pseudo-everything this talk is.

[roborious]

every time he say's technology

take a drink

[themindminder]

He said "Technology" 55 times :)

Cheers

[XaneCrazy]

and you said it once congratz.

[defect530]

@roborious

omg am i drunk O.o

[bestplugins]

@roborious best idea everrrrrr, hic!

[vwrocco17]

adapt and overcome

[tyrannicoystercult]

his point on our domestication of the human race is great, but does he perhaps overstate it?

Is our civility more deeply wired into us than sex, hunger, menstruation, shitting, and death?

with such an open definition for technology, I would say those things actually guide everything from the bottom, they have to steal the spot as most important cornerstone or foundation for our actions.

[FOUADMKHAN]

"I use the word want". It's called technological determinism. He's pretending like he came up with the idea.

technology is just the coming together of science and art to help humans consume more effectively.

He's confusing it all.

In a computer chip, the energy density is higher but the overall entropic footprint of making that computer chip on the universe, is immense.

Our technology only creates more entropy in the universe. It's not a life form, it's a disease.

[CAlex6977]

There are so many logical errors in this speech I find it to be really hard to watch.

[mrkvamaster]

Indeed this is another talk that is absolutely worthless any way you look at it.

[beebobox]

@CAlex6977 could you point them out for me, the logical errors i mean, i want to catch as many as possible.

thanks in advance.

[jackster1990]

@CAlex6977 what are the errors?

[jackster1990]

@CAlex6977 ok i think i see what you mean now.

[jccarbunkle]

@CAlex6977 Youve misunderstood the metaphor. Technology responds to selection and "exotropy" in basically the same way as biological life.

[doloppost]

He used some generalisations I found misplaced, like "The European Way of dealing with new technologies" and Technology giving freedom and choices and diversity... whatever happened to those old vegatables of long ago? They got replaced. By technology. And freedom in let say a minefield? I watched the whole video, but watching AKIRA gives the same insights ;)

[liquidminds]

I know what I am talking about, but you obviously didn't get it, why you incist on me not knowing what I am talking now.

The first regular lightbulb ever ignited is still burning. the only reason why regular bulbs break is because they do not contain a vacuum. when a oxygen-molecule hits the wire, it burns through.

if they were produced correctly, they would last a lot longer then others do, beeing more efficent, wherever light is used for a short time only. switching on and off kills new bulb

[zcqw4a1]

incredible

[natewheatshelf]

I liked that one.

[liquidminds]

the lightbulb is probably the worst example for "bad" and "better"

regular lightbulbs are A LOT more friendly to our environment than energy-saving bulbs, they burn for a lot longer time, are 100% recyclable (energy-saving bulbs aren't!!!), they cost less in production and so on...

energy-saving-bulbs are a step backwards in technology.

[LamaPaj]

@liquidminds

Uh... I have energy bulbs. I have had the same bulbs for 10 years. In my desk-lamp i use regular bulbs(they get bright faster, ill give you that). In the desk lamp i have switched bulbs atleast 5 times in the same period, even though i use it a lot less then all other lamps. IMHO i think that we should use leds for lighting though.

[liquidminds]

I've already switched more energy-bulbs since the old ones got prohibited a couple month ago, than I switched regular bulbs all my life.

Doesn't change that they contain toxic chemicals, that musn't be thrown to regular garbage. A clear disadvantage against the old bulbs, that were, except for the wire, 100% recyclable.

[freedomfighterone]

No, DDT is bad in the human environment.

[Keylimedelight]

So's malaria.

[freedomfighterone]

So, do you want to be spread with DDT, idiot? It's pretty poisonous.

[LamaPaj]

DDT kills the wildlife. Thats why its prohibited. Malaria effects us, DDT effects our entire ecosystem.

[Keylimedelight]

If you'll notice he wasn't supporting the use of DDT spraying over fields but its use in spraying homes and as an additive to mosquito nets. Yes it has downsides, there not as bad as the 2-3 million people that die of malaria every year.

I'm really not simply having a youtube argument for the sake of argument. please look into the associated costs and see if there is any better alternative for dealing with this problem. DDT is far from a perfect solution but the cost of not using it is high.

[benjamindees]

Brilliant talk. I especially liked the graphics at 8:03 and 8:25. They both could use some more discussion, though. The subtle interrelationships between energy, matter, entropy, extropy, technology and life deserve a more thorough treatment.

[Richy15251]

He said stars are nuclear 'fission' machines :S

[LamaPaj]

lol

[gr1283]

why's he sitting on a high chair?

[chairde]

Dr. Michio Kaku, George Friedman and Kevin Kelly are my heroes. Brilliant minds and brilliant thinkers.

[normskis69]

@chairde

Try the channel 'singularityu'. I think you'd enjoy the lectures.

[Fensterplaetzchen]

Why Kaku?

[chairde]

@Fensterplaetzchen

Because Michio Kaku is one of the founders of string theory. He is also one of the few scientists who can clearly explain extremely complex issues in a way in which others can understand. His lectures are awesome to behold and I have only seen him on videos. I really like his Type I,II,III civilizations.

[Fensterplaetzchen]

Okay thanks for the answer. I also think he is good at explaining things. What I don't like about him is that he is over exaggerating. He is always refering to "the final formula" and "reading god's minds" ect.

[chairde]

@Fensterplaetzchen

Well he is selling Science and I don't mind the hyperbole.

[ratholin]

@Fensterplaetzchen plus exotropy isn't a word

[JaredHutcheson1]

I lost some respect for Kaku when he was asked about protocol in case scientists make contact with intelligent alien life and he seemed to support the position that the public shouldn't know about it. Otherwise he's a brilliant man.

[saadk88]

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!

[planetdarwin]

Think of Earth as an art gallery. If 100 people walk in the gallery, they can all walk around and look at the art on the walls. If you fill it with 500, some can still see the art, but most can't get a good look. Now shove 1000 people in the gallery. A few will have their faces smooshed against the artwork, and the rest will be suffocating or trampled; nobody sees the art.

The next time someone says there's plenty of room on Earth for more humans, think of that analogy.

[Familiar7]

horrible analogy

[planetdarwin]

@Familiar7

ok... how about this one....

Earth is like a neverending cornucopia of resources so we don't have to worry about anything. Better?

[GundamFreaq]

Agreed. People can share their view of the artwork. If you look at the auditorium in TED, not everyone can be there live, yet here we are consuming the same information as the audience of masterminds. @ planetdarwin, think outside the speck of dirt because the limitless possibilities depend on the amount of work applied.

[neoxavier]

@planetdarwin

think of earth as an art gallery. some part of gallery is better and more interesting than other part.. so people tends to go to that place.. even thou they know the part is already full.. whose fault is that?

there still plenty room on Earth for human.. it just people does not want to go there..

[BaileysBeads]

We're using more space on earth than just the spot we live on.

[planetdarwin]

@neoxavier

You mean places like Greenland? Do these places you suggest have places to grow enough food as well? If you're just talking about square footage for human bodies then you're not seeing the bigger picture.

[neoxavier]

for instance... why new york is has more people than let say nebraska.? I believe nebraska has more potential than new york.

I think your analogy is using square footage for human bodies.

I get your point, but your analogy is not suitable to convey your message

[JaredHutcheson1]

I tend to think of endangered animal species in this way. If we cause them to die out, that's one more beautiful work of art that my descendants won't get to see. Imagine if the work of DaVinci or some important literary movement were lost forever. That's how I feel every time I read about some critically endangered endemic species that looks as if its going to be crushed under the careless foot of humanity and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

[hivemindanarchist]

What a shallow collection of pro-technology cliches.

[DoJaenin]

Yeah, i stopped watching when he referred to technology as the 7th kingdom of life.

[hwn000]

Turned it off at 6:04 when he presents a graph with "Human Impact on Climate" on the y-axis, as though that's something that can be quantified.

[jbroadclearing]

wow. who let this guy ramble on like this? Technology loves biology, if we let it? There are way too many wierd references to technology as some kind of entity.

And the universe did not progress towards us! This shit just happened!

Trends in evolutionary life? Even if those are the case that just happens to be the case! It's not on fuckin' purpose. Technology has its own agenda? Tools don't have urges!

[BenNCM]

Who the fuck are you you medieval dickweed?

[jert38]

For a better discussion on basically the same topic, see Susan Blackmore. She really hits the nail right on the head. This guy is just poking about nearing the conclusions that she so eloquently reveals.

[rubbermuck]

I'll check that out, in return, I suggest you look up Jacque Fresco, really inspiring man

[bluzy25]

love the video but climate change is a joke, pollution is the problem!

[BenNCM]

pollution is a joke, population is the problem.

[NaltaLife]

population is a joke, we have more than enough resources to support the amount of people in the world, the only reason you hear about things like world hunger and mass food shortages in 3rd world countries around the world, is that theres always someone taking the supplies from everyone. The United states actually pays farmers to NOT grow food, and we TRY to feed people, but there is almost always some political problem.

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

You apparently have no concept of ecological footprint or resource chains. Enjoying your Fox News talking points?

[NaltaLife]

i am absolutely not saying that we are not effecting the earth, i completely agree that what america is using compared to others is ridiculous now what i am trying to say, is that if we are sitting around concerned about population growth, then we are wasting our time. Humanity can support it self almost limitlessly. I am honestly wondering where on earth you got the idea that i have "no concept of ecological footprint or resource chains" I was simply trying to produce a counter argument

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

You say humanity can support itself almost limitlessly... implying that we're nowhere near any kind of resource ceiling. That's the kind ofstatement that makes me think you don't understand where we get the things we consume, etc., because if you knew how many of our resources are already strained/limited/lacking, you wouldn't say such a silly thing.

[NaltaLife]

im saying that there is no limit to human intuition and thats the only real resource we need. in the 1800's people didn't think we would get through the 1900's but then we adapted and here we are, i would not be surprised and you should not be either, that when we do infact run out of critical resources on earth, that human intuition would find some sort of substitute and/or find new resources on other planets and/or find ways to more efficiently use our current resources.

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

Sure humanity will always "find a way", but it's not going to be the amazing rollercoaster ride of innovation you're imagining, it's going to be (and has already become) a brutal fight amongst ourselves for what's left. Essentially, our adaptations will be neither artistic or brilliant, only crude, patchwork, and enough to work for a fraction of the population. Do you like the idea of humanity progressing toward a rat-like existence?

[NaltaLife]

im sorry if i portrayed my ideas in any sort of "far fetched" or "wishful" manner. the honest truth of it all is we ARE rats, running about in our mediocre lives trying to grab as much as we can. In fact the ONLY difference from our behavior and the behavior of rats is our technology and our ability to expand technology

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

Let me point out one of many differences between humans and rats you seem to be unaware of: Rats don't educate each other about sexual reproduction, they just go around and squirt babies everywhere, in every corner, and a lot of them die but who cares right, some survive so all's good? Humans have high communication, education, and predictive reasoning. We have the ability and knowledge to separate ourselves from the population ceiling. You seem to be okay with that lost potential.

[NaltaLife]

technology as i stated before is the result of such , "communication, education, and predictive reasoning" and thats all im going to say. in my opinion you are now simply nitpicking an argument that should have long since ended. and REALLY? the reproductive habits of rats is the FIRST thing you come up with?

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

Good luck with your "opinionate and run" approach to life.

[planetdarwin]

@NaltaLife

Also, your analogy of 1800's vs the 1900's is inadequate because it wasn't a lack of resources in the 1800's that bothered people, but a frustration with inability to access the resources. A family could own hundreds of cattle and starve because their fences kept breaking. That's not the same problem we have today, where a truck can drive cross country to bring you a tube of toothpaste for $1.39.

[BenNCM]

I agree. Poor people serve a well defined purpose being poor. God forbid if everyone in the world was well fed, educated and able to determine their own destiny. That just wouldn't be fair.

[thunderpants10]

Technology has taken this mans mustache.

[notNEWW]

nuclear techonology is a choice, but what is easier and more cost effective is to engineer coal emissions to go underground ..... i mean really it kills 2birds with one stone .... enriches water/purifies aquifer table ( just look at a britta filter it's just charcoal) and reduces CO2 emissions .... no need to start banging out 1000's of nuclear power plants . but hey maybe a few hundred ... but let's retro fit the present coal energy plants too .... for the water purifcation ..maybe under ocean?

[boorens18]

@notNEWW the problem is that coal is a non-renewable energy source....its a finite amount with a definite possibility of running out.

[lightsculler]

@boorens18

There is so much coal in known deposits (let alone unknown) that there's no point in making the 'finite' argument against it's use. No criticism intended, just helping out. Your anti-coal argument will only be weakened if you use the 'finite' argument.

[boorens18]

@lightsculler read Wired Science's 2008 article on the topic. The amount of coal is actually a fraction of the estimates previously put forth. Further your suggestion still has a massive cost (likely comparable to nuclear reactors) First in research, then second and most expensive, building enough machines to process and pump the worlds CO2 output underground. That is certainly no cheap solution considering the number neccessary.

[lightsculler]

@boorens18

1) 'Beware the man with one book'. I prefer not to rely on a single article for the information I use. Will not engage with someone who does.

2) My 'suggestion' was not to describe coal as a finite resource. Not sure what you mean re: 'expensive' and 'pump the worlds CO2 output underground'. That's not my position.

The issue you have engaged with does not interest me very much, just wanted to help you out since your 'finite coal resource' argument doesn't hold much water.

[boorens18]

@lightsculler its not one book...I guess you didnt really bother to check it out. Be ware the guy who doesnt take time to investigate. Its an article supported with multiple journals.

2.) the point is that coal is NOT as abundant as needed, nor can it solely be relied upon so your solution doesnt hold much water.

[lightsculler]

1) I did check it out. Original response still applies as science does not judge accuracy by acclamation. In any case, I wasn't personally criticising you, just indicating I wasn't going to be drawn on the argument, because...

2) I was HELPING you. I know the skeptics arguments very well, and your 'finite coal' argument is weak, hence they will pound on it successfully. Concentrate on stronger arguments, such as coal not being suitable AT ALL, regardless of it's availability.

[m0llusk]

Evolution is emergent, but does not necessarily lead anywhere. This technology that wants clean water has polluted fresh water and acidified the oceans. This thinking is interesting, but overloaded with assumptions from straight, white, males who are relatively well served by their society. Any rational course followed to its end results in chaos. Dynamic systems are too complex for simple metrics.

[JaredHutcheson1]

Maybe he means the technology "wants" clean water because technology is dependent on humans and humans need clean water to survive. I'm sure he's well aware that at the moment technology is not being used to achieve what is in the best interest of humans and therefore not in the interest of the perpetuation of technology itself.

[infernalgr]

technology at 1800's? wtf man? do you homework...

Technology is the Greek word ΤΕΧΝΟΛΟΓΙΑ (Technologia) and it's actually two words.... (ΤΕΧΝΗ - ΛΟΓΙΑ (TECHNI & LOGIA) techni means (mastery, artistry, workmanship, skill, craft) and logia means "the talking about it" part.

[chunkybutt420]

@infernalgr YEAH SEEMS WEIRD MAYBE HE MEANS THE FIRST USE IN ENGLISH/WESTERN CIV??

[lacihobo]

what can you say about anthropology? It's a Greek word to... See if you can find some other Greek words that the ancient Greeks doesn't used!

[infernalgr]

Well you dont have to time travel in Ancient Greece to find the usage of Anthropology it's used even today.

Comes from Anthropos (Man - Human) and Logy that i explaned what it means.

[Origen305]

Technology -

1615, "discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," from Gk. tekhnologia "systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique," originally referring to grammar, from tekhno- (see techno-) + -logia. The meaning "science of the mechanical and industrial arts" is first recorded 1859. High technology attested from 1964; short form high-tech is from 1972.

re: your question, Encephalitis. But infernalg is mostly correct about technology.

[t3tsuyaguy1]

It's been my understanding throughout my education that we commonly use Greek and Latin in ways the origin cultures never did. In this case, it would have been the man in the 1800's taking the Greek words techni & logia and sticking them together because he felt it clearly described the phenomena he was trying to label.

[seomoz]

I haven't understood every single work, but he seems right.

[fuunguus]

We aren't really that conditioned to eating cooked meals. I mean, dogs are conditioned to eating meat, but they can still eat and extract nutrients from a variety of vegetable food. But again, dogs haven't had a need for vegetable food for a very long time, thus evolution hasn't selected dogs with gens that can tackle new kinds of plant poisons. A 200 gram chocolate plate can kill a dog. Fire technology hasn't been around for that long, we can still eat basically every thing we cook raw.

[fuunguus]

Fire has only given us the ability to eat/drink food with poisons in it that is destroyed by heat, contaminated food and water, etc, we are not really conditioned to eating cooked food just because of that.

[t3tsuyaguy1]

I listened to a story about researchers who found that cooking food actually mimics part of our digestion process. Introducing heat causes the chemicals in the food to react with each other in a similar way as our digestive enzymes do.

This means we can eat things we don't have digestive enzymes for. It also means that people with deficient digestive systems can survive and reproduce.

Now a large % of people couldn't eat enough uncooked food to survive.

I think that's the idea anyway.

[Bocbo]

This man has never heard of a raw food diet? Thousands of people worldwide thrive without fire to cook. No bad children? Evil has its roots somewhere but it does not change the fact that it is evil. Blame the parents if you want but it does not change the fact that there are bad children. Technology is niether animate nor sentient, WE are the ones responsible for all WE do with it, anthropomorphizing, then applying moral relativism to technology is absurd.

[JaredHutcheson1]

There are children who we can see developing bad tendencies because of the way they're being raised but there are no inherently bad children.

He wasn't anthropomorphizing technology, he was talking about natural tendencies. Just like we might say that two magnets "want" to come together but we know that its not actually a conscious want. Technology is what some biologists would call humanity's extended phenotype just like the anthill is the ants' extended phenotype.

[Bocbo]

I led a civic group for young men for years and saw great parents struggling to raise BAD children, there are people who are bad, not that they were raised bad, they ARE bad, nature vs nurture, and sometimes nature throws in a rotten one.

[ChouJunk]

No one's born BAD! Never! They "bad" people are only made by events in life. Great people aren't necessary great parents. Being too good to or too passive while raising a child makes those "rotten" people you are refering to.

[Bocbo]

Some people are born with a gift for music, a good teacher can guide that talent to greatness. Nature (talent), nurture (the teacher). Some people are born predators, or sociopaths, some people ARE born bad.

[ChouJunk]

I'd say everyone's born neutral. Like someone said before no one's born good nor bad. What is good and what is bad? It's up to us to interpret.

Geniuses are made not born. Everything requiers work. At least that's what I think. o.o

[Paulginz]

Yes everything requires work. Even if you're really smart, you can't accomplish anything without at least trying.

That said, a huge (~50% very roughly) part of IQ is genetic (and yes, it's an imperfect and biased measure of intelligence, but whatever measure of intelligence you choose, I'm willing to bet there's still going to be a huge genetic factor)

[Tmants5654]

@ChouJunk Arguably not up to us interpret. Morality takes a great deal of study to understand.

[AutodidacticPhd]

@bocbo

Almost all of the studies I have ever seen on sociopathic and predatory behavior show clear evidence of common environmental factors in their childhood. As with any other kind of behavior, the tendency only reaches an extreme when combined with a complimentary upbringing.

[Paulginz]

As with pretty much any physical or psychological characteristic, both nature and nurture play a role.

So yes, you can be born with genes that will make you more likely to be violent, selfish, sadistic etc. I haven't found any twin studies on crime, (apparently the nazis had good ones... which reminds me why it's taboo to even consider the nature side of a nature vs nurture debate) but there's tons of studies linking genetics to agressiveness.

[neoaeonian]

@Bocbo, I agree with you totally. I experienced a bad kid when I was growing up, got to know his parents, home life, brother and sister, and this kid was bad to the bone, cruel to animals, people, & was eventually convicted of murder.

His parents, his older brother and younger sister were all great people.

He didn't lack in any way, he was way smarter than average, but he enjoyed hurting people.

Some people are born bad, and I can't see any way at all to blame anyone but him.

[weightpro]

I get what your saying but just something to keep in mind, there is no good or bad, that is viewed and created through an individual's perception on what behavior is 'good' or 'bad'.

[lordmetroid]

The talker enumerates the general trends of evolution of life. The first point is complexity, however that is wrong, evolution do not care if it creates a simple organism or complex organism.

Your intution says it is creating complexity but that is because you do not notice the simple single cell organism which are equally diverse.

If you make a graph of species ranked by complexity, it will show an even distribution of simple and complex life forms as per the logic of evolution would predict.

[VitriolicAC]

@lordmetroid

He was talking about the general trends of the progression of life over time, not the diversity (which is evolution's hold).

Hope that makes sense.

[defect530]

this talk starts slow but gets really good.

[LuckyChatt]

Very nice talk

[fenrirxe]

if ted was what it used to be, it wouldnt be called ted, it would be called old and boring.

[Cirkelo]

Good point!

[f1lptheon3]

is it just me, or ted isnt what it used to be anymore

[saadk88]

its just you.

[S0chan]

Nothing new but still very entertaining.

Very nice, thanks TED.

[MrChump0]

Haha, mooie oma fiets links op het podium!