- Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia.
Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags.
Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons.
Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?
Controversial opinion here: I don't have a problem with or hate TED. I look at it as a cool way to get little insights into new things. That's it. It's bite size chunks of over-simplified problem/solutions presented in a way that I can understand. The fact that the talks range anywhere from 6-20 minutes make it obvious that any presented solution is going to be oversimplified. No one thinks that watching a TED talk will make you a master in any area of study. No one thinks watching a TED is going to change the world. It exposes people to new ideas. And if those new ideas have to be wrapped in a easily digestible talk, then so be it. The fact that TED attracts X visitors to their site and Y listeners to their podcasts and those visitors are not on facebook or upworthy or watching cats on youtube for Z minutes is a positive thing. Why exactly is this a problem? Because only the smartest, most intelligent people who have the time to digest numerous papers that usually reside behind paywalls should be able to learn about something? or because scientists asking for private donations have to up their presentations skills? Malcolm Gladwell would exist with or without TED, so I'm not sure how that example was even relevant. This is only from my vantage point of watching TED talks on my computer. I have no idea the things that happen at the conferences - the people who may meet or the collaborations that may happen. I certainly hope that throwing a bunch of smart people in a room together would have some sort of positive impact on something but who knows.Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.
So I talked a fair amount of smack about TED not to long ago. The organization is not without its problems, but I think the idea is still fundamentally sound. I also think that while criticism can certainly be leveled, a lot of this is misplaced. For example: I don't think TED talks are about solutions or the future. TED talks are about aspects of the present that hold potential promise. The idea behind the TED conferences is not to fix the world, but to accelerate and lubricate the interplay of disparate branches of research. It's like the difference between science and engineering: one is about solving proofs, the other is about solving story problems. TED is a "solving proofs" organization while the world needs more story problems solved. Certainly. But then, the broadcast of the talk itself is secondary - the point is to get clever people in the room together and get them to introduce themselves. As an icebreaker, a TED talk is pretty much pitch-perfect. That's because it's the wrong metaphor. The object is not to solve the puzzle, the object is to draw your attention to pieces you haven't considered before. I may be mistaken - there might be this vast grandiosity to TED that I haven't seen or experienced. What I've seen is nerds nerding out with other nerds to the point where they started taping the nerdgasm for nerds to nerd out to all over the nerd world. I suspect that if they actually wanted to do something they'd make a PAC or a 401©(3) and rattle cages for donations. Armies don't march on ideas, they march on their stomachs. So while I again feel that the whole edifice is not without its problems, I don't think these are the problems it has. If you're expecting a TED conference to change the world, the fool is you.But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?
The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an "epiphimony" if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations. What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
Problems are not "puzzles" to be solved. That metaphor assumes that all the necessary pieces are already on the table, they just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed. It's not true.
Is there a place that takes TED talks seriously? I enjoy a good TED talk but at least 60% of them are bull-shitty garbage or so far outside my areas of interest that I couldn't tell you what they are. I'd say about 10% of the talks are great, not for their ability predict what will come but for their ability to provoke a bit of thoughtful perspective on areas of the the world I hadn't thought of before.Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
What? Maybe in some bizarre Jingoistic libertarian fever dream. I don't even think Freedman was that silly at his worst.
This is the TED talk I am referencing in my post here for those of you who weren't aware of it. (This appears to mostly be a transcript of the TED talk.)
All correct, although I disagree with how he says some of it.