I believe that the current socioeconomic model is outdated, and that should obvious to everyone. There are changes in the environment, in our understanding, and in the technology, that allow for alternatives, which were impossible 10 to 20 years ago.
I will link few ideas and concepts, that I liked. I will not add extensive comments on these ideas in this post, because I intend to make a separate one on each subtopic.
The next age of government - a talk by David Cameron. He presents exactly the type of technologies that should be integrated in modern society. He points the innovation possibilities form political perspective - transparency, choice and accountability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELnyoso6vI
The second material points out, that happiness has two variables in it's equation:
what you have
happiness = -----------------------
what you want
You can influence the result, not only by what you're missing, but by considering what you have. The presentation overlaps a bit with the previous one, but also touches on the business view and interpretation of the same ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UROCz70tlMY
The third idea that I want to share is related to education.
The system kills creativity - TED Talks: Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
The knowledge is pushed, and not pulled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X-8TA4RBog
Hakers and Painters by Paul Graham
TED talks video by Sal Khan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFEUsudhfs
Although I plan to do that in another post on this topic, I'll list some thoughts:
The current educational system is so, so, so old, that in the modern society it's more of a problem than a benefit. It's structured wrong, it's not integrated with modern society, imbalance of subjects/purpose, it's extremely inefficient and hinders potential, it lacks flexibility. Just to show some of these shortcomings with examples:
• structured wrong -- division of classes based on age, division of subjects, topics are presented rather than invoked through the right questions, division of "schoolwork" and "homework", division of school and work/life/play, division of "class" and "break", division of grades.
• not working with society -- the learning process never stops, but the formal education stops for big chunk of society. Some of them still study, but such education is not integrated in a system. Fast development implies that the middle aged people, including teachers, should be constantly updating their education too. Social stature based on the evaluation of the skills, and particularly the ability to teach. Teaching is more than a job, it's a calling.
• imbalanced -- potential of younger children is not realized. Lack of integration of play and (re)discovery. Social, cultural and philosophy not part of early years of education. Need of subject that addresses the happiness, life, state of mind even dreams from early age. Imbalance in between the subjects due to strong standardization.
• inefficient -- there are drop outs, illiterate, school graduation does not suffice for basic jobs. Some students graduate high school at age of 12 (college at 16) -- not because exceptional potential, but because they accept the sacrifices imposed by the education system. Advances in IT allow for grand improvements, but are not implemented because most adults involved in the education system (administration, teachers, parents) lack of computer literacy.
• lacks flexibility -- everyone gets the same subjects, same topics, same tasks, all at the same age, in all the same quantities. Lacks diversity in approach and it doesn't allow advancement to the next level of one subject, without having to advance in the rest. By exception allows advance but causes detach from the current social group. Time frames are not flexible - both on short and long term. Progression of subjects and topics are in one single sequence even if logically more are allowed.
What we need?:
The education system must incorporate process of self-evolution otherwise it will get outdated fast, and switching systems is always hard.
I do not see quite eye to eye with the next video, but the underlining idea is fine:
Paul Romer: Why the world needs charter cities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSHBma0Ithk
I agree with the giving freedom of choice to people. It should be easier to alter the status quo, but I disagree on linking that with migration. In many aspects the "rules", can be
virtually separated. For example, instead of having the government as the sole pension fund, there can be private ones, and a citizens can choose where to "invest". That example is applied in many places and is working, but the point is, that this principle can be extended more. I want to look at this idea as an option for providing a "test environment" for some "set of rules", and via competition for the citizen participation towards the specific set, it will be established which is better. Or both can run concurrently, and each have it's own satisfied subscribers. Of course there should be some rules for switching the "rule-set", but I won't elaborate in this post.
Let me know what you think.
I will link few ideas and concepts, that I liked. I will not add extensive comments on these ideas in this post, because I intend to make a separate one on each subtopic.
The next age of government - a talk by David Cameron. He presents exactly the type of technologies that should be integrated in modern society. He points the innovation possibilities form political perspective - transparency, choice and accountability.
The second material points out, that happiness has two variables in it's equation:
what you have
happiness = -----------------------
what you want
You can influence the result, not only by what you're missing, but by considering what you have. The presentation overlaps a bit with the previous one, but also touches on the business view and interpretation of the same ideas.
The third idea that I want to share is related to education.
The system kills creativity - TED Talks: Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?
The knowledge is pushed, and not pulled
Hakers and Painters by Paul Graham
TED talks video by Sal Khan
Although I plan to do that in another post on this topic, I'll list some thoughts:
The current educational system is so, so, so old, that in the modern society it's more of a problem than a benefit. It's structured wrong, it's not integrated with modern society, imbalance of subjects/purpose, it's extremely inefficient and hinders potential, it lacks flexibility. Just to show some of these shortcomings with examples:
• structured wrong -- division of classes based on age, division of subjects, topics are presented rather than invoked through the right questions, division of "schoolwork" and "homework", division of school and work/life/play, division of "class" and "break", division of grades.
• not working with society -- the learning process never stops, but the formal education stops for big chunk of society. Some of them still study, but such education is not integrated in a system. Fast development implies that the middle aged people, including teachers, should be constantly updating their education too. Social stature based on the evaluation of the skills, and particularly the ability to teach. Teaching is more than a job, it's a calling.
• imbalanced -- potential of younger children is not realized. Lack of integration of play and (re)discovery. Social, cultural and philosophy not part of early years of education. Need of subject that addresses the happiness, life, state of mind even dreams from early age. Imbalance in between the subjects due to strong standardization.
• inefficient -- there are drop outs, illiterate, school graduation does not suffice for basic jobs. Some students graduate high school at age of 12 (college at 16) -- not because exceptional potential, but because they accept the sacrifices imposed by the education system. Advances in IT allow for grand improvements, but are not implemented because most adults involved in the education system (administration, teachers, parents) lack of computer literacy.
• lacks flexibility -- everyone gets the same subjects, same topics, same tasks, all at the same age, in all the same quantities. Lacks diversity in approach and it doesn't allow advancement to the next level of one subject, without having to advance in the rest. By exception allows advance but causes detach from the current social group. Time frames are not flexible - both on short and long term. Progression of subjects and topics are in one single sequence even if logically more are allowed.
What we need?:
The education system must incorporate process of self-evolution otherwise it will get outdated fast, and switching systems is always hard.
I do not see quite eye to eye with the next video, but the underlining idea is fine:
Paul Romer: Why the world needs charter cities
I agree with the giving freedom of choice to people. It should be easier to alter the status quo, but I disagree on linking that with migration. In many aspects the "rules", can be
virtually separated. For example, instead of having the government as the sole pension fund, there can be private ones, and a citizens can choose where to "invest". That example is applied in many places and is working, but the point is, that this principle can be extended more. I want to look at this idea as an option for providing a "test environment" for some "set of rules", and via competition for the citizen participation towards the specific set, it will be established which is better. Or both can run concurrently, and each have it's own satisfied subscribers. Of course there should be some rules for switching the "rule-set", but I won't elaborate in this post.
Let me know what you think.
