Propagandist where is Russia, china china ... usa bla bla bla he's not even mentioning european countries. Eastern europe, europe, ts ts ts shame on you fanatic.
"there is no such thing as a hiv epidemic in Africa" - of course there is. Most HIV-infected people die of diseases after their immune defence has caved in, due to the virus & go into statistics as though they died of pneumonia or a common cold. Also Rosling takes no notice of the vast differences in populationnumbers, its all just percentages, which leads his audience to believe that we are not so bad off in the world after all. And his source material is gapminder, his own invention. Avoid.
@passtillborn He realizes there is an epidemic, but his only point was that Africa is not one big situation but instead a distribution of countries, some of which have HIV levels as low as in Europe/America. He advocates contextualizing foreign aid instead of treating every country the same, which is a reasonable notion.
The population numbers are evident on every single graph, because the size of the bubble is exactly the relative population size of the country.
@Ledwix He explicitly says theres no hiv epidemic in Africa, gives no regard or option for the public to view the population numbers. The graph says plenty of percentage numbers,less about population. People infected in South Africa is about 6 million in a country of 44 million. Thats not an epidemic? And about the race issue? Whos viewing it as that? Illitaracy in the US concerns about 4 million people nationwide,real problem in America,a nation of nations in all but name. Is that a local one?
@passtillborn - love the way you say that illiteracy is a problem but seem to be incapable of spelling it correctly. Was that deliberate, or are you illiterate?
@meadowfabricsdotcom Please, spelling errors in comments are common, fingers fly over the keyboard, so thats really nothing to spazz out over. And for being a professor, there are a lot of professors et al out there who dont know the first thing about the world, being a professor does not mean you cant or shouldnt scrutinize what they say. Pointing out flaws is not ranting. No gods, no leaders. Question authority.
I discuss with my acquaintances so glibly about these and many other issues. I suppose I like to pretend I generally know what I'm talking about. But when I see something like this, something as simple as changing your perspective and showing you that you might be looking at something with a somewhat skewed view, it makes you want to ask yourself what it is you're really talking about and how it affects everyone. It makes me want to be more objective. Moreover, it makes me want to learn.
China went backward for 100 years during the 19th century because of various invasions by foreign powers. After the world wars ended then there were civil wars. Mao didn't need to do much to improve life expectancy except from winning the civil war. Respects to Hans Rosling but he needs to know the history background before giving undue credits to some random historical figures.
For his first dozen years Mao's policies of sparrow shooting and melting agricultural tools down to steel sent China plenty backwards. You can see the bounce at 2:20.
i don't think illness or natural disasters count as solutions, since their out of human control.
killing people off is an easy solution that anyone can come up with. there are 2 ways to carry this out - kill yourself, or kill someone else. the former would suck for you. the latter would mean that you're a selfish bastard. (and cause a host of other problems...)
either way, its bad.
there ought to be a better way than to 'off 1 sixth of the population', no?
hearing others sharing your native language speak English with an accent is horrible because it reminds you of the fact that you probably have a similar accent even though you don´t want to acknowledge it or can't hear it yourself. I find Mr. Rosling very hard to listen to for this very reason, though I happily endure it for the quality of his content.
The only reason why we speak English is because its easy to communicate with it, right? And if one can speak English fluently albeit with accent, why would they gamble on a translater who doesn't necesarily know what the speaker means exactly?
Haha, hear that wonderful accent! We Swede's have one of the undoubtedly coolest English accents in the world. Put in the mouth of a nice viking girl, and it's one of the sexiest.
This was something of an eye opener for me, always good when someone puts it in hard facts and numbers.
Ugh... you are joking, surely. Swedish all wrong for the english language. We (yes, I'm a swede too) speak with the tip of our tongues. English is more spoken with the back of the tongue. So when you suddenly start speaking english with the tip of the tongue, it just gets, bleah, complete torture to the ear. :-P Oh course the opposite apply too: a natve english-speaking person trying to talk in swedish, ending up with that drawl that unavoidably comes with trying to use the back of the tongue.
The only weakness of showing increasing INCOME per US Dollar is that the money supply of the US Dollar has significantly increased over the last 50 years.
For instance, a house in Allodial Title, standing as one of the people, could be bought for $4000 40 years ago.
Now, an identical house but only as Real Estate, standing as a citizen of the United States, would cost $400,000.
So comparing the INCOME 40 years ago, we must first adjust for the inflation of the total money supply of USD.
That's a good point. They should add inflation to this tool. It might put America a bit lower on the bracket when the value of currency is considered, and who knows the difference in other currencies.
Notice how China's life expectancy bounces dramaticaly in the 1960's. Mao may have implemented health care but his ideologically inspired famine caused a larger drop in life expectancy that the 1918 flu.
I find the whole issue so lame anyway. It is rooted in the thoughts of AVERAGE people. Only average people think average intelligence is special.
Important human intelligence comes from VERY RARE SPECIAL PEOPLE. Mozart was not average. Vonbraun was not average. Tesla was not average.
Nearly everyone ALREADY deals with being a peon in the shadow of giants. Why do they care if they are a 85iq loser or a 125iq loser. All colors of loser unworthy of tying the shoes of smart people.
Actually most of them were average, but simply more violent and ruthless than most "normal" people. Vonbraun used many trial rockets before getting it right not to mention slave concentration camp labor. Modern shoes are mass produced, labor intensive, poor quality junk that end up in the landfills in less than a year.
Out of Africa is religion. It is bunk science trying to weave in two biblical stories, Adam and Eve, and Tower of Babble. TOWER OF BABBLE: "We were all CLONES at first" then EVOLVED INTO a scatter of races and cultures. yet, EVEN THIS BOGUS STORY, has the same problem. When you argue, 'people evolved different genes to APPEAR DIFFERENT 'race' brains are ALSO GENES. So why did THOSE BRAIN GENES not ALSO change? Because this is a LIE a story we make up, and the STORY does not like brains changing
The main reason we look the most alike, is selective breeding. More accurately, it is caused BY MURDER. Even before science identified cave men, neanderthal, human BEHAVIOR already took it into account. For tens of thousands of years, we as a species have MURDERED PEOPLE who looked too different, and in many ways WE STILL DO. We slaughtered our way to this 'standard' of appearance. No doubt, in the past, we had THROWBACKS, and murdered them for being so ugly.
I don't want to silence crazy people, but it would be nice if there was a limit to how much crazy you could spout in a given amount of time. P4H I think is over that limit.
The less intelligent exist. Fact of life. Even the DUMBEST of my opponents, does understand, breeding ANY PLANT, or ANY ANIMAL. None of them actually thinks you breed blind crippled pigs with your prize hog. They are not even aware AT ALL, they simply have a NEO-RELIGION that these same ancient FACTS OF LIFE, (Don't apply to humans) Yes, THEY DO. DNA/Genes, you are BRED, IDENTICAL to a pig, horse, or any other mammal. You are not even ALMOST different. Your traits breed true, MIND and body
Example: IQ. On the net, this is about adults. IN SCIENCE, it is about children. Simple idea. One child is put GRADES BACK, he can't compete with his OWN AGE. Another child, is grades ahead, he is more advanced. THEN: the FOOL SAYS - "(LIES!) Science shows that ENVIRONMENT made them better or worse NOT genes!" did it? No, it was a lie. BUT - it is the HAPPY way of looking at life. I have real bad news: SCIENCE: DISCOVERY: is not a promise of making you HAPPY. It can also say things YOU DONT like
Take serial killers: Caucasians have a GENETIC TRAIT that makes them have a high number of super cunning homicidal predators. It is not environment or education. It is a BRAIN GENE, that if manifested in just the right way, makes a super predator. ALL human groups don't have it. Caucasians are famous for it. Is that 'racism'? I guess. Still true.
Do we need the very rare smart people to advance humanity? YES we do. If EVERYONE could invent rockets, they would have.
Please don't lapse into tedious bull. It is not about racism. AVERAGE IQ: go look it up. This group is low, that group is high. Problem is, go look up the word AVERAGE. An average IQ, compared to a smart human, is a moron. Is a pitiful moron. The ACTUAL SMART PEOPLE, are vastly above average. Who cares what kind of average you are. How it manifests though, is some groups don't manifest ANY super genius specimens. As a WHOLE, they are dumb humans. If I was maximum average, I would be ashamed.
I know pretty much everyone is aware, that 'racial appearance' comes from genes. At that point you ADMIT, this group over here is DIFFERENT than that group over there. THEN you have a problem and need LIES: Then it is: "Oh, we differ in UNIMPORTANT genes, but NOT in the 'good' ones" There is NO SUCH THING. The GENE that makes you more intelligent is JUST ANOTHER gene, same as the others. If you can differ in ONE you can differ in another. It is sad, not fair, cruel, unhappy. Evolution is cruel
and now you understand and of course disagree. But at least you understand the argument.
IMPORTANT SEX: man+woman=child. Child NEEDS PARENTS= family. and all that.
Your agenda would be: "When two men or two women have ENTERTAINMENT SEX as recreation, as 'emotional therapy' this is EQUAL TO important sex. It is not. They are forms of group masturbation.
Not that I don't understand. It is rooted in what this is all about. More sophisticated variety of humans are interested in higher things, ART POETRY MUSIC SCIENCE ON AND ON.
As a lower variety of human, what interests you? The same thing that interests RATS, DOGS, SWINE, - orgasm. Your idea of CULTURE is orgasm. "We need MORE PEOPLE HAVE MORE ORGASM! This will advance human culture!" Wow! Such culture you have! You will encourage base animal urges typical of the SEWER RAT
The real tip was his lie that American weapons flood Mexico.
THAT IS OFFICIAL STATE PROPAGANDA.
Everyone in the know is aware that Mexican gangs use weapons from SOUTH AMERICAN ARMIES. They also get their weapons from Asia. Grenades? Not America. Ak47? Not American. The only weapons America makes they want is HANDGUNS, because we make LUXURY handguns. They war with ASSAULT WEAPONS.
Thank you: great accidental answer. You define public perception. I know you didn't mean to. It was accidental. What you said was: "I have NO FACTS and I never ONCE looked into it, BUT, I already have an answer and i will defend it." Yes, were told that by GUN CONTROL PEOPLE, since you repeat it, about 80%+ you are one. American MILITARY HARDWARE is not available to AMERICANS much less Mexicans. Mexican gangs use military surplus from their own southern nations, and Asian arms. Not ours.
What really proves my point, is all the people who spread this disinformation - it LEADS WHERE? Where is that line of argument going? I already said it. After that discussion, THE REAL DISCUSSION slithers out of the shadows, that Americans must be ROBBED OF THEIR RIGHTS AND DISARMED 'for the greater good' right? To keep Americans safe, you must disarm them for their own good. No need at all to discuss WHY that lie is popular.
'sexual liberation' is a Marxist goal to destroy family and CLASSICAL WESTERN CULTURE.
Simply proven: Go ask a Marxist. What is a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE? It is disease that spreads through 'liberated sexuality' lots of sex with lots of people across genders.
So, does sexual liberation spread sexually transmitted disease?
They will LIE and say, "Sex DOES NOT spread sexually transmitted disease!"
Sexual liberators SPREAD DISEASE, and honestly, could not care less
Its called a condom. Quit being so angry about sex, youre going to a have a miserable life if you spaz out every time you find yourself in a remotely sexual situation.
And you really did think calling me sexually repressed would carry your laughable babble about condoms. While - peon, condoms DO EXIST ALREADY, so your plan to invent them? We STILL have disease and already HAVE condoms, so, your CURE of the problems ALREADY FAILED, and no DONT BOTHER telling me what I already knew, that you BLAME YOUR VICTIMS. Sure - your AGENDA DID get them diseased, but you will add, "Their fault, THEY SHOULD HAVE used a condom" ADMITTING THEY DONT
condoms dont cure diseases, they prevent their spread, EFFECTIVELY. thats called SUCCESS. and yes, getting a disease which is preventable does fall on the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual
you invented this AGENDA and its all IN YOUR HEAD. the fact of the matter is, everyone has been getting their bone on since the days of the dinosaurs.
also: the ancient greeks invented western civ, only later did it hijack the judeo christian culture not the other way around
Please good sir, lay off the caps lock key. Condom usage in the world is being actively discouraged by a number of institutions, one of them being the catholic church. In countries (Sweden for example) which are sexually liberated and where condoms carry no stigma, but rather are seen as a given in a new sexual encounter, rates of STD's are correspondingly low. Men in sexually repressive socities are also more prone to visit prostitutes, who become hubs of STD spread. If you want figures, google
Yes, promiscuous people who don't use protection are the main spreaders of STDs. (This includes classical western adultery and classical western prostitution. (But not strictly regulated legal prostitution))
However, I don't understand where "across genders" comes into the picture. (e.g. lesbian sex is in general safer than heterosexual sex)
Understand? You have me on that one. On that point, we could not be more different. As a functional person, sexuality is something I DO MYSELF WITH WHO I CHOOSE. You would never be involved certainly not your approval or opinion. None of your business. My issue was DISEASE. A public health issue that is my business. At what point did you ELECT YOURSELF to deciding if other people should or should not be lesbian? The ORGASMIC ACT is procreation. WE NEED THAT OR EXTINCTION. Your 'other uses'?
Thus: this is not OPINION. This is SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGICAL FACT: humans age and die. For our special to perpetuate itself: (ALL SCIENCE FACT) a MAN who makes SPERM, has an orgasm in a woman, fertilizing her egg, and they make MORE PEOPLE. This is the ROOT of sexuality. ROOT of marriage. ROOT OF FAMILY. Then you come along with 'recreational sex' and want whatever. Probably want: your CHEAP FUCKING to be on EQUALITY with required PROCREATION. It's not or even close. It SPREADS DISEASE. No value
Since YOU ASKED, don't bother me more. THE TRUTH? Simple: What is best, is KNOWN TO EVERYONE. We are mammals. Same with horses. You want the very best specimens (no disease, no deformity, high intelligence, long life span) to have AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE, 100 if possible. The inferior specimens have ZERO kids. Thus: HOW do you breed HORSES, when you breed ALL HORSES. You can't. It FAILS. You genetically POISON all horses by doing that. Thus, why these plans are IDIOT. QUALITY is a factor
Yes I do. As an idea, it is fundamental to the human species. random example: CORN (that's a food plant if you did not know) so let's say LIKE HUMANS, you come along and say, "I have these BAD STRAINS of corn, and I will MIX THEM with the FAT SWEET CORN, because it would be PLANT RACIST, not to mix the BAD with the GOOD? Sound wise to you? I 100% agree: the same INFERIOR humans I mention, obviously can't understand. I can. Beauty, intelligence, Health, longevity, are NOT too complex for MY kind
oh how is "your" kind is so much better, when you cant even put together a sentence? why would the "bad strains" of people even need to be remedied? if "they"re so "bad", then they wont be able to provide for their children by being a productive part of society. oh wait "they" can and thats all that matters.
Food plants are not a good example to prove your point.
Lots of the food plants we have today are the result of hybridization. We couldn't have achieved such results using just artificial selection to keep the "best" (at least not in any reasonable amount of time).
Recreative sex has at the very least recreative value. If recreative sex had no value prostitution wouldn't be much of a business.
You overestimate the value of reproductive sex because you use narrow-minded self-centered interpretation of evolution.
IMHO there is a complex trade-off between quantity and quality of life. Hence a significant improvement of humanity's quality of life as a whole can be a more productive life goal than maximising #offspring (both personal and total).
"It is disease that spreads through 'liberated sexuality' lots of sex with lots of people across genders."
It is you who claims that because of disease, bi/homosexuality is bad. Hence it is you who elects yourself to decide of other people's sexual habits.
I, on the other hand, was simply refuting your argument by pointing out that lesbian intercourse contributes less to the spread of disease, and hence ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, heterosexual women are to blame for STDs.
You can find this is people who care about population control. "America needs family planning' Q: so we should STOP IMMIGRATION and poof, population controlled? A: ABSOLUTELY NOT! if you stopped immigration, you would slow population growth (which was a lie anyway) and prevent the REAL GOAL - of genocide. GROUPS YOU HATE you want eliminated. Groups you DON'T HATE must REPLACE them. Should the SUCCESSFUL humans be left alone? to continue to be successful? NO WAY! they must be stamped out
Typical crap science. This is where you START: with your conclusions, then apply your data to prove it. Obvious example: is the Neo-Creationism. New Creationism says, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. All humans EVOLVED THE SAME, during <-DURING geographic separation. (yes you LOL evolutionists are MODERN CREATIONISTS who push humans evolve globally as a joined population DURING isolation. Did he prove SOME gene lines were more successful? ABSOLUTELY NOT! he began with mission not to.
Anyone alive today comes from a gene line(s) that was fairly successful in evolutionary terms ;-).
My off the wall guess is that you are mixing two distinct measures of success:
- Social measures of ability (IQ, economic success etc)
- Evolutionary measures of success (How many great great grandchildren you have)
That said, I do agree that political correctness can have a destructive effect on science. I would however like to see a genetics article claiming that all men are created equal.
That is where all known scientific investigations proved that we are not equal.
Those into EVOLUTION call it 'lies and racism'
They also betrayed the most famous evolutionist for having said it first? Crick? Watson? one of them. When GENETICS AND EVOLUTION showed we were NOT equal, it was rejected. If you find ONE article on it not going into the 'racism' I would be shocked.
yes we are not equal because of our upbringings. but you cant try and tell me that if one of those minorities you are talking about was raised in what could be universally agreed upon a good home, with out any of the negative influences that plague their lives today, that they wouldstill follow in the same path
Thank you! Yes, you just argued on my BEHALF. Please continue. What LAWS OF EVOLUTION does my position break? Evolution says all humans PLANET WIDE - evolved the SAME BRAINS - while geographically isolated? That is CREATIONISM not evolution. Why would you assume no humans exist MORE EVOLVED THAN YOU? It would be racist? unfair? Evolution is fair? based on LOVE? No. It is BRUTAL AND UNFAIR. We are made of genes. JUST genes, not HAPPY ONES SAD ONES. not important and unimportant. SKIN, OR BRAINS!
It is a hypothesis. Multi regionalism is what happened. 1) NO TESTS ANYWHERE suggest we are equally intelligent. People struggle to explain WHY there is an IQ gap, not its existence. 2) It explains RACE. We appear so massively different, because we have DIFFERENT homoerectus ancestors.
Asians have Asian Erectus and the epicanthic eyefold. I dont. 3) PRE-homo sapien sapien already EXPLORED THE PLANET before 'human' existed at all. 4) The hypothesis we could not BREED with the other forms of human, is not science. It is a USEFUL GUESS. Out of Africa is NEO-CREATIONISM. It is a way for people to take ADAM AND EVE - and transform it into a NEW NARRATIVE identical to it. a whole PLANET of other near-humans but 'magic Africa adam and eve' appear, cant breed with them
Mitochondria Eve, is bogus science. If you had a full neanderthal RIGHT NOW, and he mated with a human female. The child would test as PURE HUMAN on mitochondria. much less after 30,000 years. The most intelligent strain of human, has bred with all to some degree. the ORIGINAL SOURCES are still apparent. having a 'modern human face' is not proof of being human. We don;t have the same faces now. We STILL DO, identify race of skeletons JUST THE BONES, we don't even have the same skeletons.
Your opinion that races are "too different" to have diverged in only 3000 generations doesn't count as constructive evidence.
This is not my area of expertise, and I think we can at least agree that neither position is untenable.
On the other hand, If we can resume the previous topic and/or you can point me to some statistical study that supports attributing the racial IQ divide to genetics (or even better, some data), that would be very kind.
Let's ASSUME in 3,000 years people TRANSFORMED RADICALLY, when the last 2000 years no such changes have happened because that IS common era history. We have Rome older than that.
But, I will indulge you. One kind of people EXPLODED into very different groups. Now, you need to make up some kind of argument where, BRAINS NEVER CHANGE, in people who changed RADICALLY otherwise, down to the skeleton. You require: Brains DONT EVOLVE as the whole body changes around it. Brains are made out of some OTHER form of genes? Nope. In your version, what makes ONLY BRAINS never differentiate when all else does?
I'm not making stuff up. I just made a rough estimate assuming 1 generation = 20 years. (The recent african origin theory puts the migration at about 60.000 BC).
I said 3000 generations, not 3000 years.
The racial difference physically isn't so huge. The difference between sexes is many times greater (just look at two skeletons).
However, average IQ doesn't depend much on sex. (Although other tests or parts and cognition do vary).
I'd expect the racial difference to be much smaller.
As I already said, your own argument is self defeating. If the entire human species begins as one thing - let's call it a race, then leaves Africa, and after leaving, 'our races we know today' come from this base group differentiating. Then - humans evolved to be different. This leads to the TOTAL BULL: the 'appearance genes' are different than 'function genes' all you end up arguing even if you win, is that SOME evolved to be more intelligent, and some ended up less. Brain genes have SAME ruels
I already said that I do believe in a strong genetic factor to intelligence, and do not claim that all men are born equal in that sense.
It is also pretty much certain statistically speaking that some races will score better on IQ than others, even after removing non-genetic factors.
What I am contesting is whether or not the difference is significant compared to other factors. (I doubt we even have the data to make a reliable genetic IQ ranking of races.)
The time since people came out of africa to different parts of the world was rather short. We did only adapt our skincolour and minor features to local conditions.
But the brain is our most valuable feature. All populations are under pressure to be intelligent and develop tools to survive. So there is no cause for some human population to become so dumb that you can measure it.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your position.
Are you saying that the scientific literature covers the issue and concludes that we are unequal, covers the issue and concludes that we are equal, or doesn't cover the issue?
I don't think race is the determining factor. It's a fact anyone can observe that IQ (to choose an arbitrary measure) has a genetic component, and no serious biologist since cold war russia will deny that. Poverty and segregation statistically explain the divide.
IQ is affected by a number of factors, including: Nutrition, especially during childhood and education (learning to think in the way that IQ tests measure). If you had been given no more than a bowl of rice a day as a child, and hadn't had access to education, chances are you'd make even worse points than the ones you're trying to make now.
Increasing family planning availability greatly decreases infant mortality rates. Abstinence-only education farmed out to the world by the previous administration has harmed everyone soooo much.
i wonder if anyone noticed something very funny about all this...europeans had to be the first to try their methods and yet the poor bum profited in the end... kinda like they gonna brag about how they are better then europeans or americans when in fact none of it could have been possible without european ingenuity.
They are inflation adjusted goob, you think Rosling's an idiot? He and his team have greatly advanced the science of adjusting historical statistics to common references to allow fair cross comparisons.
No, we will surely drop back to 1800 if we stop trying to advance technology and just ban cars or whatever. Given sufficient technological level everyone can have a car like a BMW.
Sorry, I didn't mean that it's sustainable at our current level of technology. Technology will advance along as will the demand for better cars in poor countries. Your claims are unfounded and not based in science.
wow! that was amazingly informative! i've definitely changed my mindset, and now i definitely want to make sure i know what's REALLY going on in the world.
This guy has made two speeches on ways to use statistical data now that both blew my mind completely - KUDOS to Hans Rosling ; and that's coming from a proud Dane :)
A new perspective that obviosly disturbs a lot of people with a backward kind of perspective.
vasa107 3 weeks ago
Good try Mr. Rosling...but no amount of reverse psychology's going to work with the US government lol
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Mathematical pornography, like most TED.
labonka 1 month ago
These charts stole my attention from his point.
phenomenon91 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Propagandist where is Russia, china china ... usa bla bla bla he's not even mentioning european countries. Eastern europe, europe, ts ts ts shame on you fanatic.
SomeUser9753 3 months ago
the best comment this guy makes when he says, students are just stating their views based on the year their teacher was born...!! lolz
myfavization 3 months ago
And as all these other countries become wealthier and more developed, they'll all want to play computer games.
Irishfreedom 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finest benaughty women "benaughtyman.info"
gunadhiterwe 1 year ago
Patti Maes, Karl Sims and other MIT Staff use Ambient Technology account to procure human research subjects
cynthiadupuy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Too much brains can make you insane.This guy has a brain but he does'nt have a mind
themiraiman 1 year ago
@themiraiman - what the hell does that even mean?
meadowfabricsdotcom 1 year ago
"there is no such thing as a hiv epidemic in Africa" - of course there is. Most HIV-infected people die of diseases after their immune defence has caved in, due to the virus & go into statistics as though they died of pneumonia or a common cold. Also Rosling takes no notice of the vast differences in populationnumbers, its all just percentages, which leads his audience to believe that we are not so bad off in the world after all. And his source material is gapminder, his own invention. Avoid.
passtillborn 1 year ago
@passtillborn He realizes there is an epidemic, but his only point was that Africa is not one big situation but instead a distribution of countries, some of which have HIV levels as low as in Europe/America. He advocates contextualizing foreign aid instead of treating every country the same, which is a reasonable notion.
The population numbers are evident on every single graph, because the size of the bubble is exactly the relative population size of the country.
Ledwix 1 year ago 4
@Ledwix He explicitly says theres no hiv epidemic in Africa, gives no regard or option for the public to view the population numbers. The graph says plenty of percentage numbers,less about population. People infected in South Africa is about 6 million in a country of 44 million. Thats not an epidemic? And about the race issue? Whos viewing it as that? Illitaracy in the US concerns about 4 million people nationwide,real problem in America,a nation of nations in all but name. Is that a local one?
passtillborn 1 year ago
@passtillborn - love the way you say that illiteracy is a problem but seem to be incapable of spelling it correctly. Was that deliberate, or are you illiterate?
meadowfabricsdotcom 1 year ago
@meadowfabricsdotcom Please, spelling errors in comments are common, fingers fly over the keyboard, so thats really nothing to spazz out over. And for being a professor, there are a lot of professors et al out there who dont know the first thing about the world, being a professor does not mean you cant or shouldnt scrutinize what they say. Pointing out flaws is not ranting. No gods, no leaders. Question authority.
passtillborn 1 year ago
@passtillborn Population is the size of the dots in the graph. The key to dot size correlating to population size was to the right of the graph
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
@passtillborn - and we should listen to your rants why?
Are you a tenured professor at a major European university like Rosling? Or are you somebody with an opinion and an internet connection?
meadowfabricsdotcom 1 year ago 4
I discuss with my acquaintances so glibly about these and many other issues. I suppose I like to pretend I generally know what I'm talking about. But when I see something like this, something as simple as changing your perspective and showing you that you might be looking at something with a somewhat skewed view, it makes you want to ask yourself what it is you're really talking about and how it affects everyone. It makes me want to be more objective. Moreover, it makes me want to learn.
rougeliter 1 year ago
I published this video on the Dutch website WELSTIJL (31 may) Kind regards Sem Mallée
welstijlfilms 1 year ago
I love chart porn
Torakization 1 year ago 28
hahah this guy kicks ass!
VantekHG 1 year ago 3
China went backward for 100 years during the 19th century because of various invasions by foreign powers. After the world wars ended then there were civil wars. Mao didn't need to do much to improve life expectancy except from winning the civil war. Respects to Hans Rosling but he needs to know the history background before giving undue credits to some random historical figures.
commenting2008 2 years ago
it was rational approach given by you... well said...
carelessmaniac 2 years ago
For his first dozen years Mao's policies of sparrow shooting and melting agricultural tools down to steel sent China plenty backwards. You can see the bounce at 2:20.
PlatoCantRepent 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we need a massive wipeout of mankind... too many, too little resources...
lets off 1 sixth of the population
nestorrfortuna 2 years ago
heheh, u wanna volunteer yourself?
xboi108th 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i do not think it is a matter of volunteering.
not many beings are willing to discontinue existence. i think the solution lies in a massive wipeout by illness and natural disasters.
i do not think "final solutions" are up to us...
nestorrfortuna 2 years ago
i don't think illness or natural disasters count as solutions, since their out of human control.
killing people off is an easy solution that anyone can come up with. there are 2 ways to carry this out - kill yourself, or kill someone else. the former would suck for you. the latter would mean that you're a selfish bastard. (and cause a host of other problems...)
either way, its bad.
there ought to be a better way than to 'off 1 sixth of the population', no?
xboi108th 2 years ago
After you.
nilbud 2 years ago
it'll work out somehow
astrakancafe 2 years ago
hearing others sharing your native language speak English with an accent is horrible because it reminds you of the fact that you probably have a similar accent even though you don´t want to acknowledge it or can't hear it yourself. I find Mr. Rosling very hard to listen to for this very reason, though I happily endure it for the quality of his content.
Squirenetic 2 years ago
The only reason why we speak English is because its easy to communicate with it, right? And if one can speak English fluently albeit with accent, why would they gamble on a translater who doesn't necesarily know what the speaker means exactly?
hmsrenown 2 years ago
Really intresting facts..Good points hes making, Hes really funny too.. 15.05 =D.. wouldnt mind having him as my teacher..
UnleasheThePower 2 years ago
i Love this guy...and...You're Welcome World ;-)
VoiceOfReasonQQ 2 years ago 3
Haha, hear that wonderful accent! We Swede's have one of the undoubtedly coolest English accents in the world. Put in the mouth of a nice viking girl, and it's one of the sexiest.
This was something of an eye opener for me, always good when someone puts it in hard facts and numbers.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago 5
Ugh... you are joking, surely. Swedish all wrong for the english language. We (yes, I'm a swede too) speak with the tip of our tongues. English is more spoken with the back of the tongue. So when you suddenly start speaking english with the tip of the tongue, it just gets, bleah, complete torture to the ear. :-P Oh course the opposite apply too: a natve english-speaking person trying to talk in swedish, ending up with that drawl that unavoidably comes with trying to use the back of the tongue.
mkarnerfors 2 years ago
... Du sätter orden i fel ordning pucko :P
LamaPaj 2 years ago
How dare he mention the positive things America does for the world
/sarcasm
adj789 2 years ago 25
I love Hans Rosling!
Alas, its frustrating since his 'change your mindset' is basically chapter 1 of any developing economics textbook.
It almost felt like he's saying 'dont worry about it. Developing countries will get there...eventually'
None the less, I hold Mr Rosling with high regard.
alcany 2 years ago 2
whats all that at the end? is it a BMW commercial trying to appeal to TED watchers?
willowtreephoto 2 years ago
It's a BMW ad paying for TED.
DigitalAssassin 2 years ago
bmw has sponsored TED for like... Ever?
leafsoup 2 years ago 3
im kinda happy that someone sponsors them :D they deserve the cash!
LamaPaj 2 years ago 2
Thank you for more Hans Rosling! My roommates and I love him. We laughed so hard during the Sweden race.
Tranceformable 2 years ago
Yay, Singapore represent!
jackywushengzong 2 years ago
Interesting speach, somewhat hard to follow on points but nonetheless very interesting
SchinTeth 2 years ago
I wish he didn't use logarithmic scales with money related axis.
LeMegasandwich 2 years ago 3
I think he did it to illistrate his point easier to the audience. Prob easier to show corralations on a linear axis then a saggy curve.
alcany 2 years ago
The only weakness of showing increasing INCOME per US Dollar is that the money supply of the US Dollar has significantly increased over the last 50 years.
For instance, a house in Allodial Title, standing as one of the people, could be bought for $4000 40 years ago.
Now, an identical house but only as Real Estate, standing as a citizen of the United States, would cost $400,000.
So comparing the INCOME 40 years ago, we must first adjust for the inflation of the total money supply of USD.
OneManAndHisFiction 2 years ago
That's a good point. They should add inflation to this tool. It might put America a bit lower on the bracket when the value of currency is considered, and who knows the difference in other currencies.
manofaction2828 2 years ago 2
Notice how China's life expectancy bounces dramaticaly in the 1960's. Mao may have implemented health care but his ideologically inspired famine caused a larger drop in life expectancy that the 1918 flu.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
Great presentation, thanks TED
dnickbg 2 years ago
I find the whole issue so lame anyway. It is rooted in the thoughts of AVERAGE people. Only average people think average intelligence is special.
Important human intelligence comes from VERY RARE SPECIAL PEOPLE. Mozart was not average. Vonbraun was not average. Tesla was not average.
Nearly everyone ALREADY deals with being a peon in the shadow of giants. Why do they care if they are a 85iq loser or a 125iq loser. All colors of loser unworthy of tying the shoes of smart people.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Did you see to many "Andromeda Ascendant" shows?
Do you think of yourself as a "Nietzschean"?
pcuimac 2 years ago
Actually most of them were average, but simply more violent and ruthless than most "normal" people. Vonbraun used many trial rockets before getting it right not to mention slave concentration camp labor. Modern shoes are mass produced, labor intensive, poor quality junk that end up in the landfills in less than a year.
joesub007 2 years ago
they were average people with above average determination
screenflicker1 2 years ago
Why can I type out thousands of words of arguments at a whim, and all I get in return is, "You r smelly and dummy poop who types funny'?
GENES
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Out of Africa is religion. It is bunk science trying to weave in two biblical stories, Adam and Eve, and Tower of Babble. TOWER OF BABBLE: "We were all CLONES at first" then EVOLVED INTO a scatter of races and cultures. yet, EVEN THIS BOGUS STORY, has the same problem. When you argue, 'people evolved different genes to APPEAR DIFFERENT 'race' brains are ALSO GENES. So why did THOSE BRAIN GENES not ALSO change? Because this is a LIE a story we make up, and the STORY does not like brains changing
punished4honesty 2 years ago
The main reason we look the most alike, is selective breeding. More accurately, it is caused BY MURDER. Even before science identified cave men, neanderthal, human BEHAVIOR already took it into account. For tens of thousands of years, we as a species have MURDERED PEOPLE who looked too different, and in many ways WE STILL DO. We slaughtered our way to this 'standard' of appearance. No doubt, in the past, we had THROWBACKS, and murdered them for being so ugly.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
I don't want to silence crazy people, but it would be nice if there was a limit to how much crazy you could spout in a given amount of time. P4H I think is over that limit.
scatman2929 2 years ago 2
The less intelligent exist. Fact of life. Even the DUMBEST of my opponents, does understand, breeding ANY PLANT, or ANY ANIMAL. None of them actually thinks you breed blind crippled pigs with your prize hog. They are not even aware AT ALL, they simply have a NEO-RELIGION that these same ancient FACTS OF LIFE, (Don't apply to humans) Yes, THEY DO. DNA/Genes, you are BRED, IDENTICAL to a pig, horse, or any other mammal. You are not even ALMOST different. Your traits breed true, MIND and body
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Example: IQ. On the net, this is about adults. IN SCIENCE, it is about children. Simple idea. One child is put GRADES BACK, he can't compete with his OWN AGE. Another child, is grades ahead, he is more advanced. THEN: the FOOL SAYS - "(LIES!) Science shows that ENVIRONMENT made them better or worse NOT genes!" did it? No, it was a lie. BUT - it is the HAPPY way of looking at life. I have real bad news: SCIENCE: DISCOVERY: is not a promise of making you HAPPY. It can also say things YOU DONT like
punished4honesty 2 years ago
You can tell punished4honesty is right because anyone with that high of a capslock to normal text ratio must be correct.
scatman2929 2 years ago
Take serial killers: Caucasians have a GENETIC TRAIT that makes them have a high number of super cunning homicidal predators. It is not environment or education. It is a BRAIN GENE, that if manifested in just the right way, makes a super predator. ALL human groups don't have it. Caucasians are famous for it. Is that 'racism'? I guess. Still true.
Do we need the very rare smart people to advance humanity? YES we do. If EVERYONE could invent rockets, they would have.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Who's famous for it?
hannibal lector isnt real
Buffalo Bill isnt real
Freddy Krueger isnt real
Norman Bates isnt real
I dont think you could build a rocket either.
jwfcp 2 years ago
Please don't lapse into tedious bull. It is not about racism. AVERAGE IQ: go look it up. This group is low, that group is high. Problem is, go look up the word AVERAGE. An average IQ, compared to a smart human, is a moron. Is a pitiful moron. The ACTUAL SMART PEOPLE, are vastly above average. Who cares what kind of average you are. How it manifests though, is some groups don't manifest ANY super genius specimens. As a WHOLE, they are dumb humans. If I was maximum average, I would be ashamed.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
I know pretty much everyone is aware, that 'racial appearance' comes from genes. At that point you ADMIT, this group over here is DIFFERENT than that group over there. THEN you have a problem and need LIES: Then it is: "Oh, we differ in UNIMPORTANT genes, but NOT in the 'good' ones" There is NO SUCH THING. The GENE that makes you more intelligent is JUST ANOTHER gene, same as the others. If you can differ in ONE you can differ in another. It is sad, not fair, cruel, unhappy. Evolution is cruel
punished4honesty 2 years ago
and now you understand and of course disagree. But at least you understand the argument.
IMPORTANT SEX: man+woman=child. Child NEEDS PARENTS= family. and all that.
Your agenda would be: "When two men or two women have ENTERTAINMENT SEX as recreation, as 'emotional therapy' this is EQUAL TO important sex. It is not. They are forms of group masturbation.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Not that I don't understand. It is rooted in what this is all about. More sophisticated variety of humans are interested in higher things, ART POETRY MUSIC SCIENCE ON AND ON.
As a lower variety of human, what interests you? The same thing that interests RATS, DOGS, SWINE, - orgasm. Your idea of CULTURE is orgasm. "We need MORE PEOPLE HAVE MORE ORGASM! This will advance human culture!" Wow! Such culture you have! You will encourage base animal urges typical of the SEWER RAT
punished4honesty 2 years ago
So, do you TEACH STUPID PEOPLE you knew in advance WOULD NOT USE A CONDOM, to spread more sexual disease? YES
punished4honesty 2 years ago
The real tip was his lie that American weapons flood Mexico.
THAT IS OFFICIAL STATE PROPAGANDA.
Everyone in the know is aware that Mexican gangs use weapons from SOUTH AMERICAN ARMIES. They also get their weapons from Asia. Grenades? Not America. Ak47? Not American. The only weapons America makes they want is HANDGUNS, because we make LUXURY handguns. They war with ASSAULT WEAPONS.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
That doesn't sound right.
Does south America even have large enough production facilities for it's own consumption?
(Or are we talking about weapons that the US sells to south american armies who then resell them to mexico?)
Paulginz 2 years ago
Thank you: great accidental answer. You define public perception. I know you didn't mean to. It was accidental. What you said was: "I have NO FACTS and I never ONCE looked into it, BUT, I already have an answer and i will defend it." Yes, were told that by GUN CONTROL PEOPLE, since you repeat it, about 80%+ you are one. American MILITARY HARDWARE is not available to AMERICANS much less Mexicans. Mexican gangs use military surplus from their own southern nations, and Asian arms. Not ours.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
What really proves my point, is all the people who spread this disinformation - it LEADS WHERE? Where is that line of argument going? I already said it. After that discussion, THE REAL DISCUSSION slithers out of the shadows, that Americans must be ROBBED OF THEIR RIGHTS AND DISARMED 'for the greater good' right? To keep Americans safe, you must disarm them for their own good. No need at all to discuss WHY that lie is popular.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
The question marks were intended to indicate that I was asking questions.
It's understandable however that you misinterpreted them as signs of sarcasm, given the median public in the youtube comment section.
The US makes AK-47s by the way. (Though I guess old russian ones are cheaper.)
I just thought that the US was the top producer and exporter in pretty much every category of weapon... so it was a natural suspect.
Paulginz 2 years ago
'sexual liberation' is a Marxist goal to destroy family and CLASSICAL WESTERN CULTURE.
Simply proven: Go ask a Marxist. What is a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE? It is disease that spreads through 'liberated sexuality' lots of sex with lots of people across genders.
So, does sexual liberation spread sexually transmitted disease?
They will LIE and say, "Sex DOES NOT spread sexually transmitted disease!"
Sexual liberators SPREAD DISEASE, and honestly, could not care less
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Its called a condom. Quit being so angry about sex, youre going to a have a miserable life if you spaz out every time you find yourself in a remotely sexual situation.
jwfcp 2 years ago
I agree with you, you lost.
And you really did think calling me sexually repressed would carry your laughable babble about condoms. While - peon, condoms DO EXIST ALREADY, so your plan to invent them? We STILL have disease and already HAVE condoms, so, your CURE of the problems ALREADY FAILED, and no DONT BOTHER telling me what I already knew, that you BLAME YOUR VICTIMS. Sure - your AGENDA DID get them diseased, but you will add, "Their fault, THEY SHOULD HAVE used a condom" ADMITTING THEY DONT
punished4honesty 2 years ago
My Kingdom for an opponent that is even a challenge.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
condoms dont cure diseases, they prevent their spread, EFFECTIVELY. thats called SUCCESS. and yes, getting a disease which is preventable does fall on the RESPONSIBILITY of the individual
you invented this AGENDA and its all IN YOUR HEAD. the fact of the matter is, everyone has been getting their bone on since the days of the dinosaurs.
also: the ancient greeks invented western civ, only later did it hijack the judeo christian culture not the other way around
i can USE caps too, UNNECESSARILY
jwfcp 2 years ago
Please good sir, lay off the caps lock key. Condom usage in the world is being actively discouraged by a number of institutions, one of them being the catholic church. In countries (Sweden for example) which are sexually liberated and where condoms carry no stigma, but rather are seen as a given in a new sexual encounter, rates of STD's are correspondingly low. Men in sexually repressive socities are also more prone to visit prostitutes, who become hubs of STD spread. If you want figures, google
Squirenetic 2 years ago 3
Good Answer Squirenetic.
SiliconBong 2 years ago
Yes, promiscuous people who don't use protection are the main spreaders of STDs. (This includes classical western adultery and classical western prostitution. (But not strictly regulated legal prostitution))
However, I don't understand where "across genders" comes into the picture. (e.g. lesbian sex is in general safer than heterosexual sex)
Paulginz 2 years ago
Understand? You have me on that one. On that point, we could not be more different. As a functional person, sexuality is something I DO MYSELF WITH WHO I CHOOSE. You would never be involved certainly not your approval or opinion. None of your business. My issue was DISEASE. A public health issue that is my business. At what point did you ELECT YOURSELF to deciding if other people should or should not be lesbian? The ORGASMIC ACT is procreation. WE NEED THAT OR EXTINCTION. Your 'other uses'?
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Thus: this is not OPINION. This is SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGICAL FACT: humans age and die. For our special to perpetuate itself: (ALL SCIENCE FACT) a MAN who makes SPERM, has an orgasm in a woman, fertilizing her egg, and they make MORE PEOPLE. This is the ROOT of sexuality. ROOT of marriage. ROOT OF FAMILY. Then you come along with 'recreational sex' and want whatever. Probably want: your CHEAP FUCKING to be on EQUALITY with required PROCREATION. It's not or even close. It SPREADS DISEASE. No value
punished4honesty 2 years ago
it doesnt spread disease.
what makes a better society? 1-3 kids or 5-7? people getting their bone on every day is a given.
jwfcp 2 years ago
Since YOU ASKED, don't bother me more. THE TRUTH? Simple: What is best, is KNOWN TO EVERYONE. We are mammals. Same with horses. You want the very best specimens (no disease, no deformity, high intelligence, long life span) to have AS MANY KIDS AS POSSIBLE, 100 if possible. The inferior specimens have ZERO kids. Thus: HOW do you breed HORSES, when you breed ALL HORSES. You can't. It FAILS. You genetically POISON all horses by doing that. Thus, why these plans are IDIOT. QUALITY is a factor
punished4honesty 2 years ago
as far as 'sex does not spread sexually transmitted disease' I mentioned that earlier here as a laughable stupidity. Read down. You will find it.
sex does not spread SEXUALLY transmitted disease. HAHAHHA
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Yes, except YOU dont decide what is best. What is best is what is best for having survived to reproduce.
how do all horses survive to breed when there are too many horses to be supported by the environment? The best survive.
jwfcp 2 years ago
Yes I do. As an idea, it is fundamental to the human species. random example: CORN (that's a food plant if you did not know) so let's say LIKE HUMANS, you come along and say, "I have these BAD STRAINS of corn, and I will MIX THEM with the FAT SWEET CORN, because it would be PLANT RACIST, not to mix the BAD with the GOOD? Sound wise to you? I 100% agree: the same INFERIOR humans I mention, obviously can't understand. I can. Beauty, intelligence, Health, longevity, are NOT too complex for MY kind
punished4honesty 2 years ago
oh how is "your" kind is so much better, when you cant even put together a sentence? why would the "bad strains" of people even need to be remedied? if "they"re so "bad", then they wont be able to provide for their children by being a productive part of society. oh wait "they" can and thats all that matters.
jwfcp 2 years ago
Your adhominem fallacy ended your privilege to speak to someone like me. I have others more important to invest in.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
I discussed the claims you made about yourself, so no, it wasn't ad hominem.
jwfcp 2 years ago
Food plants are not a good example to prove your point.
Lots of the food plants we have today are the result of hybridization. We couldn't have achieved such results using just artificial selection to keep the "best" (at least not in any reasonable amount of time).
Paulginz 2 years ago
That's not how breeding works if you want long term results.
Genetic diversity is CRITICAL to the long term survival of a group or species.
The most obvious reason is adaptability. (our social nature leads to division of tasks as a second reson).
High genetic diversity can also have a direct effect on the fitness of a single offspring.
This is why pure-bred animals will often be beaten by a good cross-breed.
IN-BREEDING is a genetic poison. Introducing "outsiders" is almost always beneficial.
Paulginz 2 years ago
Recreative sex has at the very least recreative value. If recreative sex had no value prostitution wouldn't be much of a business.
You overestimate the value of reproductive sex because you use narrow-minded self-centered interpretation of evolution.
IMHO there is a complex trade-off between quantity and quality of life. Hence a significant improvement of humanity's quality of life as a whole can be a more productive life goal than maximising #offspring (both personal and total).
Paulginz 2 years ago
Yeah, thats kinda my point, why are you on such a high horse about what others do their selves with who they choose? double standard much?
jwfcp 2 years ago
????????
Here's what you wrote:
"It is disease that spreads through 'liberated sexuality' lots of sex with lots of people across genders."
You're the one claiming homosexuality/bisexuality is a bad thing. (and hence electing yourself to decide other people's sexual behaviour).
I just pointed out that your STD argument against homosexuality doesn't work.
The rest of your argument also doesn't apply to recreative sex using a condom.
Paulginz 2 years ago
You wrote:
"It is disease that spreads through 'liberated sexuality' lots of sex with lots of people across genders."
It is you who claims that because of disease, bi/homosexuality is bad. Hence it is you who elects yourself to decide of other people's sexual habits.
I, on the other hand, was simply refuting your argument by pointing out that lesbian intercourse contributes less to the spread of disease, and hence ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, heterosexual women are to blame for STDs.
Paulginz 2 years ago
You can find this is people who care about population control. "America needs family planning' Q: so we should STOP IMMIGRATION and poof, population controlled? A: ABSOLUTELY NOT! if you stopped immigration, you would slow population growth (which was a lie anyway) and prevent the REAL GOAL - of genocide. GROUPS YOU HATE you want eliminated. Groups you DON'T HATE must REPLACE them. Should the SUCCESSFUL humans be left alone? to continue to be successful? NO WAY! they must be stamped out
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Typical crap science. This is where you START: with your conclusions, then apply your data to prove it. Obvious example: is the Neo-Creationism. New Creationism says, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. All humans EVOLVED THE SAME, during <-DURING geographic separation. (yes you LOL evolutionists are MODERN CREATIONISTS who push humans evolve globally as a joined population DURING isolation. Did he prove SOME gene lines were more successful? ABSOLUTELY NOT! he began with mission not to.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Anyone alive today comes from a gene line(s) that was fairly successful in evolutionary terms ;-).
My off the wall guess is that you are mixing two distinct measures of success:
- Social measures of ability (IQ, economic success etc)
- Evolutionary measures of success (How many great great grandchildren you have)
That said, I do agree that political correctness can have a destructive effect on science. I would however like to see a genetics article claiming that all men are created equal.
Paulginz 2 years ago
Sure: it is called the racial IQ divide.
That is where all known scientific investigations proved that we are not equal.
Those into EVOLUTION call it 'lies and racism'
They also betrayed the most famous evolutionist for having said it first? Crick? Watson? one of them. When GENETICS AND EVOLUTION showed we were NOT equal, it was rejected. If you find ONE article on it not going into the 'racism' I would be shocked.
Same as this video. EQUALITY assumed.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
yes we are not equal because of our upbringings. but you cant try and tell me that if one of those minorities you are talking about was raised in what could be universally agreed upon a good home, with out any of the negative influences that plague their lives today, that they wouldstill follow in the same path
omghai2u 2 years ago
Thank you! Yes, you just argued on my BEHALF. Please continue. What LAWS OF EVOLUTION does my position break? Evolution says all humans PLANET WIDE - evolved the SAME BRAINS - while geographically isolated? That is CREATIONISM not evolution. Why would you assume no humans exist MORE EVOLVED THAN YOU? It would be racist? unfair? Evolution is fair? based on LOVE? No. It is BRUTAL AND UNFAIR. We are made of genes. JUST genes, not HAPPY ONES SAD ONES. not important and unimportant. SKIN, OR BRAINS!
punished4honesty 2 years ago
opinions are subjective
omghai2u 2 years ago
No. The current theory is that homo sapiens evolved in africa, and hence we spread to the rest of the planet AFTER evolving the "same brain".
There were earlyer mass-migrations such as that of homo erectus, but they all died and we descend from the later homo sapiens migrations.
There's a nice wikipedia article:
recent african origin of modern humans.
Define "More evolved".By soem criteria extremophile bacteria or people with down's syndrome are "more evolved" than us.
Paulginz 2 years ago
It is a hypothesis. Multi regionalism is what happened. 1) NO TESTS ANYWHERE suggest we are equally intelligent. People struggle to explain WHY there is an IQ gap, not its existence. 2) It explains RACE. We appear so massively different, because we have DIFFERENT homoerectus ancestors.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Asians have Asian Erectus and the epicanthic eyefold. I dont. 3) PRE-homo sapien sapien already EXPLORED THE PLANET before 'human' existed at all. 4) The hypothesis we could not BREED with the other forms of human, is not science. It is a USEFUL GUESS. Out of Africa is NEO-CREATIONISM. It is a way for people to take ADAM AND EVE - and transform it into a NEW NARRATIVE identical to it. a whole PLANET of other near-humans but 'magic Africa adam and eve' appear, cant breed with them
punished4honesty 2 years ago
Mitochondria Eve, is bogus science. If you had a full neanderthal RIGHT NOW, and he mated with a human female. The child would test as PURE HUMAN on mitochondria. much less after 30,000 years. The most intelligent strain of human, has bred with all to some degree. the ORIGINAL SOURCES are still apparent. having a 'modern human face' is not proof of being human. We don;t have the same faces now. We STILL DO, identify race of skeletons JUST THE BONES, we don't even have the same skeletons.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
PS:
Your opinion that races are "too different" to have diverged in only 3000 generations doesn't count as constructive evidence.
This is not my area of expertise, and I think we can at least agree that neither position is untenable.
On the other hand, If we can resume the previous topic and/or you can point me to some statistical study that supports attributing the racial IQ divide to genetics (or even better, some data), that would be very kind.
Paulginz 2 years ago
I don't care. I don't need it.
I am not the one who needs to make stuff up.
You are in that position.
Let's ASSUME in 3,000 years people TRANSFORMED RADICALLY, when the last 2000 years no such changes have happened because that IS common era history. We have Rome older than that.
punished4honesty 2 years ago
But, I will indulge you. One kind of people EXPLODED into very different groups. Now, you need to make up some kind of argument where, BRAINS NEVER CHANGE, in people who changed RADICALLY otherwise, down to the skeleton. You require: Brains DONT EVOLVE as the whole body changes around it. Brains are made out of some OTHER form of genes? Nope. In your version, what makes ONLY BRAINS never differentiate when all else does?
punished4honesty 2 years ago
I'm not making stuff up. I just made a rough estimate assuming 1 generation = 20 years. (The recent african origin theory puts the migration at about 60.000 BC).
I said 3000 generations, not 3000 years.
The racial difference physically isn't so huge. The difference between sexes is many times greater (just look at two skeletons).
However, average IQ doesn't depend much on sex. (Although other tests or parts and cognition do vary).
I'd expect the racial difference to be much smaller.
Paulginz 2 years ago
It is the most widely accepted hypothesis.
"he hypothesis we could not BREED with the other forms of human, is not science. It is a USEFUL GUESS."
Correct.
"The child would test as PURE HUMAN on mitochondria."
Well duh (assuming viability). Too bad it doesn't work with Neanderthal females...
What's your CONSTRUCTIVE evidence for independent evolution of sapiens?
The intelligence similarity between races either does or doesn't contradict independent evolution. You can't have it both ways.
Paulginz 2 years ago
As I already said, your own argument is self defeating. If the entire human species begins as one thing - let's call it a race, then leaves Africa, and after leaving, 'our races we know today' come from this base group differentiating. Then - humans evolved to be different. This leads to the TOTAL BULL: the 'appearance genes' are different than 'function genes' all you end up arguing even if you win, is that SOME evolved to be more intelligent, and some ended up less. Brain genes have SAME ruels
punished4honesty 2 years ago
I already said that I do believe in a strong genetic factor to intelligence, and do not claim that all men are born equal in that sense.
It is also pretty much certain statistically speaking that some races will score better on IQ than others, even after removing non-genetic factors.
What I am contesting is whether or not the difference is significant compared to other factors. (I doubt we even have the data to make a reliable genetic IQ ranking of races.)
Paulginz 2 years ago
Why are you shouting all the time?
The time since people came out of africa to different parts of the world was rather short. We did only adapt our skincolour and minor features to local conditions.
But the brain is our most valuable feature. All populations are under pressure to be intelligent and develop tools to survive. So there is no cause for some human population to become so dumb that you can measure it.
You only want to rationalize you being a racist.
(sorry for bad english)
pcuimac 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your position.
Are you saying that the scientific literature covers the issue and concludes that we are unequal, covers the issue and concludes that we are equal, or doesn't cover the issue?
I don't think race is the determining factor. It's a fact anyone can observe that IQ (to choose an arbitrary measure) has a genetic component, and no serious biologist since cold war russia will deny that. Poverty and segregation statistically explain the divide.
Paulginz 2 years ago
IQ is affected by a number of factors, including: Nutrition, especially during childhood and education (learning to think in the way that IQ tests measure). If you had been given no more than a bowl of rice a day as a child, and hadn't had access to education, chances are you'd make even worse points than the ones you're trying to make now.
Squirenetic 2 years ago 3
Increasing family planning availability greatly decreases infant mortality rates. Abstinence-only education farmed out to the world by the previous administration has harmed everyone soooo much.
thpt 2 years ago
But abstinence is the souls condom.
pookiehohn 2 years ago
i wonder if anyone noticed something very funny about all this...europeans had to be the first to try their methods and yet the poor bum profited in the end... kinda like they gonna brag about how they are better then europeans or americans when in fact none of it could have been possible without european ingenuity.
Uragan 2 years ago
Read, "Guns, germs & steel" by Jared Diamond
Squirenetic 2 years ago
Hans Rosling always gives the most interesting talks.
nikanj 2 years ago
repeat after me : Africa does not have an HIV/AIDS epidemic, some African countries have !
repeat again ...
haha, great talk!
pinochet222 2 years ago
I would like to see those charts adjusted for inflation.
Peace
truefictions 2 years ago
They are.
AngrySkeptic 2 years ago
i think they were adjusted for inflation, or at least they claimed to be adjusted...
lidixmang 2 years ago
They are inflation adjusted, he mentioned this in his earlier talks. It would be pretty meaningless if it wasn't.
nikanj 2 years ago
They are inflation adjusted goob, you think Rosling's an idiot? He and his team have greatly advanced the science of adjusting historical statistics to common references to allow fair cross comparisons.
TimTrimT 2 years ago
fucking hell americans just have to clap everytime someone says something good about them...
so annoying.
tdreamgmail 2 years ago
I love the wallpaper.
tudoralexe 2 years ago 2
a very enlightening man....
marcus53002 2 years ago 3
BMW cars are not the future. They are an abomination. To much weight, to much kW, to much resources needed.
A world full of cars is not sustainable.
We will drop back to 1800 if we don´t change out lifestyle.
pcuimac 2 years ago
No, we will surely drop back to 1800 if we stop trying to advance technology and just ban cars or whatever. Given sufficient technological level everyone can have a car like a BMW.
nawitus 2 years ago 2
Did you think for one second?
How can you call producing 6*10^9 cars and fueling them with carbon based liquids sustainable?
It would only be possible if we used 100% energy from sun and wind and hydrogen cell technology and if we recycle all the materials from old cars.
But that solution is nowhere in sight. We will have plus 6 degree celius in 2050 if we go on like we did the last 50 years. Educate yourself.
pcuimac 2 years ago
Sorry, I didn't mean that it's sustainable at our current level of technology. Technology will advance along as will the demand for better cars in poor countries. Your claims are unfounded and not based in science.
nawitus 2 years ago
YOU AINT TOUCHING ME WITH ANY VACCINE!
Donninator1 2 years ago
Pussy :p
Kan2209 2 years ago
Very informative.
ChristopherAtheist 2 years ago 2
WHAT an awesome awesome awesome lecture! Thank you for show us, statistics students, the reason to devote ourself!
liuyuhongsh 2 years ago
I love the stats, they're so interesting to watch. Can you imagine being a student of this guy, that would be an awesome class.
JavoMonster 2 years ago
i know its such applicable knowledge rather than irrelavent
like every graph he puts up slaps your old mindset to hell
Ezplain 2 years ago
I have seen this before, very good though.
MisterWeed 2 years ago
thank you so much for sharing this with the world.
mydadbrucelee 2 years ago
i think this is a re-post because i've seen this before but it's still amazing to watch & learn
spyglass71 2 years ago
wow! that was amazingly informative! i've definitely changed my mindset, and now i definitely want to make sure i know what's REALLY going on in the world.
KennilworthyWhisp 2 years ago 4
a perfect example of an EXCELLENT TED talk. 5 stars!
spartan9180 2 years ago 5
statistics ftw!
CognosSquare 2 years ago 3
Amazing.
bornemix 2 years ago 2
This guy has made two speeches on ways to use statistical data now that both blew my mind completely - KUDOS to Hans Rosling ; and that's coming from a proud Dane :)
GronTheMighty 2 years ago 15
Comment removed
zalchion 2 years ago
"It's the world department, and we have high hope in you", what is the world department? Can I involve?
otivaeey 2 years ago
Is this a reupload? I remember the same guy using the same programs for similar datasets. Either way, it was still enjoyable to watch.
adamabra8 2 years ago
data, very good data presentations.
otivaeey 2 years ago
I think he was mistaken or his students were mistaken when he says
us - Western World
them - Developing World
I think the real US and them is
US - 6 Billion poor people (20% wealth)
Them - 6 thousand people (80% wealth)
SebastianGeffen 2 years ago 3
Following your logic the Germans should ignore Africa, because the vast majority og Germans are also belong to the poor....
anotherelvis 2 years ago
...you failed to follow the logic
SebastianGeffen 2 years ago
Indeed
anotherelvis 2 years ago
i love gapminder is genious
mollen19 2 years ago
Yes, soap, water, food, but also educating women...I'm going to try that one.
2bsirius 2 years ago
I like Hans Rosling, I am subscribed to his channel.
Kargoneth 2 years ago 2
"A thank to the US taxpayers !" is awesome.
Joerexia 2 years ago
what is the address of the website he mentioned?
seres420 2 years ago 2
A new Rosling talk! Awesome. He's got some very lucky students.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gah, stupid swedish accent X_X
Lintassimilator 2 years ago
I think its kinda cute.
*cough*
I mean i'm gonna go eat some steak and do some push ups.
Shigren 2 years ago
jag vet xD
yared94 2 years ago
A nice addition for TED to do on Youtube would be to include more details in the 'more info bit' like, for instance to this video:
Web links to things relevant to the video.
The website that Mr. Rosling talked about instead of us having to find it. (Laziness factor admittedly)
..anything else that would be relevant to whatever video is posted.
micropanic 2 years ago 6
Right on micropanic.
I've already visited that website for making comparative charts but I can't retrieve it in my messy bookmark. Anyone remembering it ?
italianchappy 2 years ago
found. It's gapminder.
italianchappy 2 years ago 4