The following information is used for educational purposes only.
La necesaria renovación de la dirigencia
Las entidades intermedias, como las cámaras empresariales y los sindicatos, precisan dejar atrás los probados peligros que acarrea la endogamia
27 DE MAYO DE 2017
En pocos días se producirá un cambio importante en la conducción de la Unión Industrial Argentina (UIA). Asumirá la presidencia el respetado hombre de negocios Miguel Acevedo, director de Aceitera General Deheza. Poco tiempo atrás, Daniel Llambías, reconocido dirigente empresario y ex gerente general del Banco Galicia, renunció a la Asociación de Bancos Privados de Capital Argentino (Adeba) por desinteligencias con uno de los dueños del Banco Macro, Jorge Brito, cuestionado ex titular de la institución, sospechado en escándalos de corrupción como el financiamiento del misterioso fondo The Old Fund, que compró la imprenta Ciccone. El cargo fue cubierto por Jorge Brito (hijo), directivo del mismo banco que su padre.
La Sociedad Rural Argentina resolverá, a su vez, el año próximo, quién será su presidente luego de tres períodos de buena gestión de Luis Miguel Etchevehere.
La lista de novedades en las conducciones de otras entidades empresariales es más vasta todavía. Después de 16 años al frente de la Cámara Argentina de la Mediana Empresa (CAME), Osvaldo Cornide fue reemplazado por Fabián Tarrío, ungido por un movimiento renovador. Ese relevo fue una derivación alentada por sectores del macrismo a la luz de los vínculos que Cornide, asiduo visitante y ferviente aplaudidor en los actos de la Casa Rosada, había anudado con el kirchnerismo.
No todos estos movimientos han respondido a razones similares. En algunos casos, obedecieron al cumplimiento de normas estatutarias; en otros, porque rencillas internas forzaron a hombres con sentido de la dignidad a dar un paso al costado; en algunos más, porque ha imperado al fin la ley de gravedad y han caído como consecuencia, estrepitosamente o no, quienes se habían aferrado a funciones de conducción como si éstas estuvieran concebidas para su retención ad eternum.
Por sus antecedentes, que se suman a las expectativas que despierta, el tema de la Cámara Argentina de la Construcción (Camarco), irónicamente -pero con mucho fundamento- denominada "Cámara Argentina de la Corrupción", es un asunto aparte. Es tan amplia la convicción entre políticos, magistrados, periodistas y ciudadanos comunes de que las obras públicas costeadas por el erario público en los tres lustros de gobiernos kirchneristas han constituido una de las áreas más contaminadas por la corrupción de doble mano, que todo lo que se haga por remozar esa cámara empresarial parecerá poco. El enroque cosmético de figuras en su conducción resulta claramente insuficiente.
El Estado nacional, las provincias y hasta los municipios están siendo observados con atención por la opinión pública. Alienta las fundadas sospechas el hecho de que no pocos de sus actores proceden de la misma actividad que en Brasil ha sido fuente de escándalos que derivaron en fuertes temblores en sus principales instituciones. De modo que el llamado de atención sobre los procedimientos que involucran la concesión de las obras públicas concierne por igual tanto al sector privado como al público.
Los visos de eternidad que se perciben en la representación de organizaciones intermedias impresionan algo menos en las empresariales que en las sindicales. El jerarca gremial con más antigüedad en su cargo, Ramón Baldassini, conductor de la Federación de Obreros y Empleados de Correos y Telecomunicaciones (Foecyt) desde 1963, se está retirando, pero por lo menos en una decena de gremios hay jefes sindicales que llevan entre 20 y casi 40 años de campañas continuas al frente de sus respectivos gremios. No muy lejos de ellos se ubican dirigentes como Roberto Baradel, quien acaba de ser reelegido para un cuarto mandato consecutivo en el Sindicato Unificado de Trabajadores de la Educación de Buenos Aires (Suteba).
Si los recambios periódicos representan aire fresco para las instituciones políticas, ¿por qué no habría de ocurrir otro tanto con esas organizaciones intermedias de la sociedad que, en muchos casos, también manejan gigantescos fondos públicos?
Ningún estatuto produce milagros en beneficio de los intereses genuinos de una corporación o del papel que a ésta le cabe. Una sola cláusula puede servir, sin embargo, para suscitar la renovación que todo cuerpo necesita para revitalizarse. Está científicamente demostrado que es indispensable conjurar a tiempo los riesgos de la endogamia. Un ejemplo en la buena dirección, después de no pocos tropiezos, lo trazó la Asociación de Entidades Periodísticas Argentinas (ADEPA), cuando treinta años atrás acordó entre sus miembros que nadie podría perdurar por más de tres años en su consejo ejecutivo sin entrar en un período, por así llamarlo, sabático.
La perpetuación en los cargos constituye un mal endémico en la Argentina. Quienes ofician en la intermediación entre la sociedad y el Estado en defensa de intereses sectoriales y, en definitiva, del interés general, deberían actuar de manera aleccionadora a fin de contribuir a oxigenar el espacio público de forma periódica.
Que así se haga implicará también que las instituciones queden claramente por delante de los intereses de sus dirigentes, tantas veces enviciados por las mieles y los recursos del poder. Ni el mesianismo ni la vergonzosa borrachera de quienes se sienten atornillados a una silla y a sus privilegios pueden ser el camino hacia una gestión eficaz y transparente.
Hace falta sangre nueva, no sólo por la esperanza que los cambios infunden con vistas a cerrar un penoso ciclo de corrupción sistémica tanto en entidades empresariales y sindicales como en instituciones de los poderes político y judicial de todo el país, sino porque la transitoriedad en los cargos públicos es parte de una ética que a todos conviene respetar.
Fuente:www.lanacion.com.ar
In this blog, teachers, students and all those who have some kind of interest in the English language will find useful, interesting, curious and funny things to be used in their classes or for their personal enjoyment.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
MUS/GINT-Ed Sheeran - Thinking Out Loud & other songs
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Ed Sheeran - Thinking Out Loud [Official Video]
Published on Oct 7, 2014
Lyrics
"Thinking Out Loud"
When your legs don't work like they used to before
And I can't sweep you off of your feet
Will your mouth still remember the taste of my love?
Will your eyes still smile from your cheeks?
And, darling, I will be loving you 'til we're 70
And, baby, my heart could still fall as hard at 23
And I'm thinking 'bout how people fall in love in mysterious ways
Maybe just the touch of a hand
Well, me—I fall in love with you every single day
And I just wanna tell you I am
So, honey, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Place your head on my beating heart
I'm thinking out loud
Maybe we found love right where we are
When my hair's all but gone and my memory fades
And the crowds don't remember my name
When my hands don't play the strings the same way (mmm...)
I know you will still love me the same
'Cause, honey, your soul could never grow old, it's evergreen
And, baby, your smile's forever in my mind and memory
I'm thinking 'bout how people fall in love in mysterious ways
Maybe it's all part of a plan
Well, I'll just keep on making the same mistakes
Hoping that you'll understand
That, baby, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Place your head on my beating heart
Thinking out loud
Maybe we found love right where we are (oh, oh)
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, lo-ud
So, baby, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Oh, darling, place your head on my beating heart
I'm thinking out loud
But maybe we found love right where we are
Oh, baby, we found love right where we are
And we found love right where we are
Ed Sheeran - Shape of You [Official Video]
Published on Jan 30, 2017
Lyrics
Shape of you
[Verse 1]
The club isn't the best place to find a lover
So the bar is where I go
Me and my friends at the table doing shots
Drinking fast and then we talk slow
And you come over and start up a conversation with just me
And trust me I'll give it a chance now
Take my hand, stop, put Van the Man on the jukebox
And then we start to dance, and now I'm singing like
[Pre-Chorus]
Girl, you know I want your love
Your love was handmade for somebody like me
Come on now, follow my lead
I may be crazy, don't mind me
Say, boy, let's not talk too much
Grab on my waist and put that body on me
Come on now, follow my lead
Come, come on now, follow my lead
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
And last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
[Verse 2]
One week in we let the story begin
We're going out on our first date
You and me are thrifty, so go all you can eat
Fill up your bag and I fill up a plate
We talk for hours and hours about the sweet and the sour
And how your family is doing okay
Leave and get in a taxi, then kiss in the backseat
Tell the driver make the radio play, and I'm singing like
[Pre-Chorus]
Girl, you know I want your love
Your love was handmade for somebody like me
Come on now, follow my lead
I may be crazy, don't mind me
Say, boy, let's not talk too much
Grab on my waist and put that body on me
Come on now, follow my lead
Come, come on now, follow my lead
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
And last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
[Bridge]
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
Last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
Ed Sheeran - Castle On The Hill [Official Video]
Published on Jan 23, 2017
Lyrics
Castle on the hill
[Verse 1]
When I was six years old I broke my leg
I was running from my brother and his friends
And tasted the sweet perfume of the mountain grass I rolled down
I was younger then, take me back to when I
[Pre-Chorus]
Found my heart and broke it here
Made friends and lost them through the years
And I've not seen the roaring fields in so long, I know I've grown
But I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
I'm on my way
Driving at 90 down those country lanes
Singing to "Tiny Dancer"
And I miss the way you make me feel, and it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
[Verse 2]
Fifteen years old and smoking hand-rolled cigarettes
Running from the law through the backfields and getting drunk with my friends
Had my first kiss on a Friday night, I don't reckon that I did it right
But I was younger then, take me back to when
[Pre-Chorus]
We found weekend jobs, when we got paid
We'd buy cheap spirits and drink them straight
Me and my friends have not thrown up in so long, oh how we've grown
But I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
I'm on my way
Driving at 90 down those country lanes
Singing to "Tiny Dancer"
And I miss the way you make me feel, and it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
[Bridge]
One friend left to sell clothes
One works down by the coast
One had two kids but lives alone
One's brother overdosed
One's already on his second wife
One's just barely getting by
But these people raised me
And I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
And I'm on my way, I still remember
These old country lanes
When we did not know the answers
And I miss the way you make me feel, it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Source: www.youtube.com/https:/http://www.azlyrics.com/lyric/genius.com/
Ed Sheeran - Thinking Out Loud [Official Video]
Published on Oct 7, 2014
Lyrics
"Thinking Out Loud"
When your legs don't work like they used to before
And I can't sweep you off of your feet
Will your mouth still remember the taste of my love?
Will your eyes still smile from your cheeks?
And, darling, I will be loving you 'til we're 70
And, baby, my heart could still fall as hard at 23
And I'm thinking 'bout how people fall in love in mysterious ways
Maybe just the touch of a hand
Well, me—I fall in love with you every single day
And I just wanna tell you I am
So, honey, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Place your head on my beating heart
I'm thinking out loud
Maybe we found love right where we are
When my hair's all but gone and my memory fades
And the crowds don't remember my name
When my hands don't play the strings the same way (mmm...)
I know you will still love me the same
'Cause, honey, your soul could never grow old, it's evergreen
And, baby, your smile's forever in my mind and memory
I'm thinking 'bout how people fall in love in mysterious ways
Maybe it's all part of a plan
Well, I'll just keep on making the same mistakes
Hoping that you'll understand
That, baby, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Place your head on my beating heart
Thinking out loud
Maybe we found love right where we are (oh, oh)
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, lo-ud
So, baby, now
Take me into your loving arms
Kiss me under the light of a thousand stars
Oh, darling, place your head on my beating heart
I'm thinking out loud
But maybe we found love right where we are
Oh, baby, we found love right where we are
And we found love right where we are
Ed Sheeran - Shape of You [Official Video]
Published on Jan 30, 2017
Lyrics
Shape of you
[Verse 1]
The club isn't the best place to find a lover
So the bar is where I go
Me and my friends at the table doing shots
Drinking fast and then we talk slow
And you come over and start up a conversation with just me
And trust me I'll give it a chance now
Take my hand, stop, put Van the Man on the jukebox
And then we start to dance, and now I'm singing like
[Pre-Chorus]
Girl, you know I want your love
Your love was handmade for somebody like me
Come on now, follow my lead
I may be crazy, don't mind me
Say, boy, let's not talk too much
Grab on my waist and put that body on me
Come on now, follow my lead
Come, come on now, follow my lead
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
And last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
[Verse 2]
One week in we let the story begin
We're going out on our first date
You and me are thrifty, so go all you can eat
Fill up your bag and I fill up a plate
We talk for hours and hours about the sweet and the sour
And how your family is doing okay
Leave and get in a taxi, then kiss in the backseat
Tell the driver make the radio play, and I'm singing like
[Pre-Chorus]
Girl, you know I want your love
Your love was handmade for somebody like me
Come on now, follow my lead
I may be crazy, don't mind me
Say, boy, let's not talk too much
Grab on my waist and put that body on me
Come on now, follow my lead
Come, come on now, follow my lead
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
And last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Oh—I—oh—I—oh—I—oh—I
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
[Bridge]
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
[Chorus]
I'm in love with the shape of you
We push and pull like a magnet do
Although my heart is falling too
I'm in love with your body
Last night you were in my room
And now my bedsheets smell like you
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Come on, be my baby, come on
Come on, be my baby, come on
I'm in love with your body
Every day discovering something brand new
I'm in love with the shape of you
Ed Sheeran - Castle On The Hill [Official Video]
Published on Jan 23, 2017
Lyrics
Castle on the hill
[Verse 1]
When I was six years old I broke my leg
I was running from my brother and his friends
And tasted the sweet perfume of the mountain grass I rolled down
I was younger then, take me back to when I
[Pre-Chorus]
Found my heart and broke it here
Made friends and lost them through the years
And I've not seen the roaring fields in so long, I know I've grown
But I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
I'm on my way
Driving at 90 down those country lanes
Singing to "Tiny Dancer"
And I miss the way you make me feel, and it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
[Verse 2]
Fifteen years old and smoking hand-rolled cigarettes
Running from the law through the backfields and getting drunk with my friends
Had my first kiss on a Friday night, I don't reckon that I did it right
But I was younger then, take me back to when
[Pre-Chorus]
We found weekend jobs, when we got paid
We'd buy cheap spirits and drink them straight
Me and my friends have not thrown up in so long, oh how we've grown
But I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
I'm on my way
Driving at 90 down those country lanes
Singing to "Tiny Dancer"
And I miss the way you make me feel, and it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
[Bridge]
One friend left to sell clothes
One works down by the coast
One had two kids but lives alone
One's brother overdosed
One's already on his second wife
One's just barely getting by
But these people raised me
And I can't wait to go home
[Chorus]
And I'm on my way, I still remember
These old country lanes
When we did not know the answers
And I miss the way you make me feel, it's real
We watched the sunset over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Over the castle on the hill
Source: www.youtube.com/https:/http://www.azlyrics.com/lyric/genius.com/
Monday, May 22, 2017
GINT-TED Talks-My story | Elizabeth Smart | TEDxUniversityofNevada
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
My story | Elizabeth Smart | TEDxUniversityofNevada
TEDx Talks
Published on Jan 31, 2014
The abduction of Elizabeth Smart was one of the most followed child abduction cases of our time. In this riveting talk she discusses her abduction and encourages you that when you are faced with a trial, don't give up, don't surrender, move forward, because you never know the lives you will be able to touch.
My story | Elizabeth Smart | TEDxUniversityofNevada
TEDx Talks
Published on Jan 31, 2014
The abduction of Elizabeth Smart was one of the most followed child abduction cases of our time. In this riveting talk she discusses her abduction and encourages you that when you are faced with a trial, don't give up, don't surrender, move forward, because you never know the lives you will be able to touch.
MT/BUS/GINT-TED Talks-David Grady: How to save the world (or at least yourself) from bad meetings (& The Conference Call)
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Filmed October 2013 at TED@State Street Boston
David Grady: How to save the world (or at least yourself) from bad meetings
An epidemic of bad, inefficient, overcrowded meetings is plaguing the world’s businesses — and making workers miserable. David Grady has some ideas on how to stop it.
Transcript:
Picture this: It's Monday morning, you're at the office, you're settling in for the day at work, and this guy that you sort of recognize from down the hall, walks right into your cubicle and he steals your chair. Doesn't say a word — just rolls away with it. Doesn't give you any information about why he took your chair out of all the other chairs that are out there. Doesn't acknowledge the fact that you might need your chair to get some work done today. You wouldn't stand for it. You'd make a stink. You'd follow that guy back to his cubicle and you'd say, "Why my chair?"
Okay, so now it's Tuesday morning and you're at the office, and a meeting invitation pops up in your calendar. (Laughter) And it's from this woman who you kind of know from down the hall, and the subject line references some project that you heard a little bit about. But there's no agenda. There's no information about why you were invited to the meeting. And yet you accept the meeting invitation, and you go. And when this highly unproductive session is over, you go back to your desk, and you stand at your desk and you say, "Boy, I wish I had those two hours back, like I wish I had my chair back." (Laughter)
Every day, we allow our coworkers, who are otherwise very, very nice people, to steal from us. And I'm talking about something far more valuable than office furniture. I'm talking about time. Your time. In fact, I believe that we are in the middle of a global epidemic of a terrible new illness known as MAS: Mindless Accept Syndrome. (Laughter) The primary symptom of Mindless Accept Syndrome is just accepting a meeting invitation the minute it pops up in your calendar. (Laughter) It's an involuntary reflex — ding, click, bing — it's in your calendar, "Gotta go, I'm already late for a meeting." (Laughter)
Meetings are important, right? And collaboration is key to the success of any enterprise. And a well-run meeting can yield really positive, actionable results. But between globalization and pervasive information technology, the way that we work has really changed dramatically over the last few years. And we're miserable. (Laughter) And we're miserable not because the other guy can't run a good meeting, it's because of MAS, our Mindless Accept Syndrome, which is a self-inflicted wound.
Actually, I have evidence to prove that MAS is a global epidemic. Let me tell you why. A couple of years ago, I put a video on Youtube, and in the video, I acted out every terrible conference call you've ever been on. It goes on for about five minutes, and it has all the things that we hate about really bad meetings. There's the moderator who has no idea how to run the meeting. There are the participants who have no idea why they're there. The whole thing kind of collapses into this collaborative train wreck. And everybody leaves very angry. It's kind of funny. (Laughter) Let's take a quick look. (Video) Our goal today is to come to an agreement on a very important proposal. As a group, we need to decide if — bloop bloop — Hi, who just joined? Hi, it's Joe. I'm working from home today. (Laughter) Hi, Joe. Thanks for joining us today, great. I was just saying, we have a lot of people on the call we'd like to get through, so let's skip the roll call and I'm gonna dive right in. Our goal today is to come to an agreement on a very important proposal. As a group, we need to decide if — bloop bloop — (Laughter) Hi, who just joined? No? I thought I heard a beep. (Laughter)
Sound familiar? Yeah, it sounds familiar to me, too. A couple of weeks after I put that online, 500,000 people in dozens of countries, I mean dozens of countries, watched this video. And three years later, it's still getting thousands of views every month. It's close to about a million right now. And in fact, some of the biggest companies in the world, companies that you've heard of but I won't name, have asked for my permission to use this video in their new-hire training to teach their new employees how not to run a meeting at their company. And if the numbers — there are a million views and it's being used by all these companies — aren't enough proof that we have a global problem with meetings, there are the many, many thousands of comments posted online after the video went up. Thousands of people wrote things like, "OMG, that was my day today!" "That was my day every day!" "This is my life." One guy wrote, "It's funny because it's true. Eerily, sadly, depressingly true. It made me laugh until I cried. And cried. And I cried some more." (Laughter) This poor guy said, "My daily life until retirement or death, sigh." These are real quotes and it's real sad.
A common theme running through all of these comments online is this fundamental belief that we are powerless to do anything other than go to meetings and suffer through these poorly run meetings and live to meet another day. But the truth is, we're not powerless at all. In fact, the cure for MAS is right here in our hands. It's right at our fingertips, literally. It's something that I call ¡No MAS! (Laughter) Which, if I remember my high school Spanish, means something like, "Enough already, make it stop!"
Here's how No MAS works. It's very simple. First of all, the next time you get a meeting invitation that doesn't have a lot of information in it at all, click the tentative button! It's okay, you're allowed, that's why it's there. It's right next to the accept button. Or the maybe button, or whatever button is there for you not to accept immediately. Then, get in touch with the person who asked you to the meeting. Tell them you're very excited to support their work, ask them what the goal of the meeting is, and tell them you're interested in learning how you can help them achieve their goal. And if we do this often enough, and we do it respectfully, people might start to be a little bit more thoughtful about the way they put together meeting invitations. And you can make more thoughtful decisions about accepting it. People might actually start sending out agendas. Imagine! Or they might not have a conference call with 12 people to talk about a status when they could just do a quick email and get it done with. People just might start to change their behavior because you changed yours. And they just might bring your chair back, too. (Laughter) No MAS! Thank you. (Applause).
David Grady: The Conference Call
davidjohngrady
Uploaded on Aug 1, 2010
Source: www.youtube.com
Filmed October 2013 at TED@State Street Boston
David Grady: How to save the world (or at least yourself) from bad meetings
An epidemic of bad, inefficient, overcrowded meetings is plaguing the world’s businesses — and making workers miserable. David Grady has some ideas on how to stop it.
Transcript:
Picture this: It's Monday morning, you're at the office, you're settling in for the day at work, and this guy that you sort of recognize from down the hall, walks right into your cubicle and he steals your chair. Doesn't say a word — just rolls away with it. Doesn't give you any information about why he took your chair out of all the other chairs that are out there. Doesn't acknowledge the fact that you might need your chair to get some work done today. You wouldn't stand for it. You'd make a stink. You'd follow that guy back to his cubicle and you'd say, "Why my chair?"
Okay, so now it's Tuesday morning and you're at the office, and a meeting invitation pops up in your calendar. (Laughter) And it's from this woman who you kind of know from down the hall, and the subject line references some project that you heard a little bit about. But there's no agenda. There's no information about why you were invited to the meeting. And yet you accept the meeting invitation, and you go. And when this highly unproductive session is over, you go back to your desk, and you stand at your desk and you say, "Boy, I wish I had those two hours back, like I wish I had my chair back." (Laughter)
Every day, we allow our coworkers, who are otherwise very, very nice people, to steal from us. And I'm talking about something far more valuable than office furniture. I'm talking about time. Your time. In fact, I believe that we are in the middle of a global epidemic of a terrible new illness known as MAS: Mindless Accept Syndrome. (Laughter) The primary symptom of Mindless Accept Syndrome is just accepting a meeting invitation the minute it pops up in your calendar. (Laughter) It's an involuntary reflex — ding, click, bing — it's in your calendar, "Gotta go, I'm already late for a meeting." (Laughter)
Meetings are important, right? And collaboration is key to the success of any enterprise. And a well-run meeting can yield really positive, actionable results. But between globalization and pervasive information technology, the way that we work has really changed dramatically over the last few years. And we're miserable. (Laughter) And we're miserable not because the other guy can't run a good meeting, it's because of MAS, our Mindless Accept Syndrome, which is a self-inflicted wound.
Actually, I have evidence to prove that MAS is a global epidemic. Let me tell you why. A couple of years ago, I put a video on Youtube, and in the video, I acted out every terrible conference call you've ever been on. It goes on for about five minutes, and it has all the things that we hate about really bad meetings. There's the moderator who has no idea how to run the meeting. There are the participants who have no idea why they're there. The whole thing kind of collapses into this collaborative train wreck. And everybody leaves very angry. It's kind of funny. (Laughter) Let's take a quick look. (Video) Our goal today is to come to an agreement on a very important proposal. As a group, we need to decide if — bloop bloop — Hi, who just joined? Hi, it's Joe. I'm working from home today. (Laughter) Hi, Joe. Thanks for joining us today, great. I was just saying, we have a lot of people on the call we'd like to get through, so let's skip the roll call and I'm gonna dive right in. Our goal today is to come to an agreement on a very important proposal. As a group, we need to decide if — bloop bloop — (Laughter) Hi, who just joined? No? I thought I heard a beep. (Laughter)
Sound familiar? Yeah, it sounds familiar to me, too. A couple of weeks after I put that online, 500,000 people in dozens of countries, I mean dozens of countries, watched this video. And three years later, it's still getting thousands of views every month. It's close to about a million right now. And in fact, some of the biggest companies in the world, companies that you've heard of but I won't name, have asked for my permission to use this video in their new-hire training to teach their new employees how not to run a meeting at their company. And if the numbers — there are a million views and it's being used by all these companies — aren't enough proof that we have a global problem with meetings, there are the many, many thousands of comments posted online after the video went up. Thousands of people wrote things like, "OMG, that was my day today!" "That was my day every day!" "This is my life." One guy wrote, "It's funny because it's true. Eerily, sadly, depressingly true. It made me laugh until I cried. And cried. And I cried some more." (Laughter) This poor guy said, "My daily life until retirement or death, sigh." These are real quotes and it's real sad.
A common theme running through all of these comments online is this fundamental belief that we are powerless to do anything other than go to meetings and suffer through these poorly run meetings and live to meet another day. But the truth is, we're not powerless at all. In fact, the cure for MAS is right here in our hands. It's right at our fingertips, literally. It's something that I call ¡No MAS! (Laughter) Which, if I remember my high school Spanish, means something like, "Enough already, make it stop!"
Here's how No MAS works. It's very simple. First of all, the next time you get a meeting invitation that doesn't have a lot of information in it at all, click the tentative button! It's okay, you're allowed, that's why it's there. It's right next to the accept button. Or the maybe button, or whatever button is there for you not to accept immediately. Then, get in touch with the person who asked you to the meeting. Tell them you're very excited to support their work, ask them what the goal of the meeting is, and tell them you're interested in learning how you can help them achieve their goal. And if we do this often enough, and we do it respectfully, people might start to be a little bit more thoughtful about the way they put together meeting invitations. And you can make more thoughtful decisions about accepting it. People might actually start sending out agendas. Imagine! Or they might not have a conference call with 12 people to talk about a status when they could just do a quick email and get it done with. People just might start to change their behavior because you changed yours. And they just might bring your chair back, too. (Laughter) No MAS! Thank you. (Applause).
David Grady: The Conference Call
davidjohngrady
Uploaded on Aug 1, 2010
Source: www.youtube.com
Saturday, May 20, 2017
GINT-TED Talks-What makes you special? | Mariana Atencio
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
What makes you special? | Mariana Atencio | TEDxUniversityofNevada
TEDx Talks
Published on Feb 2, 2017
NBC News journalist Mariana Atencio has traveled the world from Haiti to Hong Kong. In her TEDx talk, Mariana tells us how the people she's met along the way and her own immigrant experience have taught her that the only thing we all have in common is being human. Get ready to 'get human' and embrace what makes you different! Take a stand to defend your race: the human race!
Mariana Atencio is a Peabody Award-winning journalist, currently a national correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC. The Huffington Post called her ‘our Latina Christiane Amanpour’ and Jorge Ramos wrote: ‘Mariana is the next-gen voice for Latinos breaking all barriers.’ Mariana is known for combining in-studio work and high profile interviews like Pope Francis, with tenacious field reporting all over the world, covering youth-led protests in places like Ferguson, Mexico, Haiti and Hong Kong.
What makes you special? | Mariana Atencio | TEDxUniversityofNevada
TEDx Talks
Published on Feb 2, 2017
NBC News journalist Mariana Atencio has traveled the world from Haiti to Hong Kong. In her TEDx talk, Mariana tells us how the people she's met along the way and her own immigrant experience have taught her that the only thing we all have in common is being human. Get ready to 'get human' and embrace what makes you different! Take a stand to defend your race: the human race!
Mariana Atencio is a Peabody Award-winning journalist, currently a national correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC. The Huffington Post called her ‘our Latina Christiane Amanpour’ and Jorge Ramos wrote: ‘Mariana is the next-gen voice for Latinos breaking all barriers.’ Mariana is known for combining in-studio work and high profile interviews like Pope Francis, with tenacious field reporting all over the world, covering youth-led protests in places like Ferguson, Mexico, Haiti and Hong Kong.
MUS/GINT-Don´t write me off just yet & Way back into love
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Don´t write me off just yet
"Don't Write Me Off"
It’s never been easy for me
To find words to go along with a melody
But this time there’s actually something, on my mind
So please forgive these few brief awkward lines
Since I met you, my whole life has changed
It’s not just my furniture you’ve rearranged
I was living in the past, but somehow
you’ve brought me back
And I haven’t felt like this since
before Frankie said relax
And while I know, based on my track record,
I might not seem like the safest bet
All I’m asking you is don’t write me off, just yet
For years I’ve been telling myself the same old story
That I’m happy to live off my so-called former glories
But you’ve given me a reason to take another chance
Now I need you, despite the fact that you’ve
killed all my plants
And though I know, I’ve already blown more chances
Than anyone should ever get
All I’m asking you is don’t write me off, just yet
Don’t write me off just yet
"Way Back Into Love"
(feat. Drew Barrymore)
[Verse 1]
[Drew Barrymore:]
I've been living with a shadow overhead,
I've been sleeping with a cloud above my bed,
I've been lonely for so long,
Trapped in the past,
I just can't seem to move on!
[Hugh Grant:]
I've been hiding all my hopes and dreams away,
Just in case I ever need 'em again someday,
I've been setting aside time,
To clear a little space in the corners of my mind!
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love.
I can't make it through without a way back into love.
Ooo hooow
[Verse 2]
[Drew Barrymore:]
I've been watching but the stars refuse to shine,
I've been searching but I just don't see the signs,
I know that it's out there,
There's gotta be something for my soul somewhere!
[Hugh Grant:]
I've been looking for someone to shed some light,
Not somebody just to get me through the night,
I could use some direction,
And I'm open to your suggestions.
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love.
I can't make it through without a way back into love.
And if I open my heart again,
I guess I'm hoping you'll be there for me in the end!
[Middle-eight]
[Drew Barrymore:]
There are moments when I don't know if it's real
Or if anybody feels the way I feel
I need inspiration
Not just another negotiation
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love,
I can't make it through without a way back into love,
And if I open my heart to you,
I'm hoping you'll show me what to do,
And if you help me to start again,
You know that I'll be there for you in the end!
Source:www.youtube.com/http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/
Don´t write me off just yet
"Don't Write Me Off"
It’s never been easy for me
To find words to go along with a melody
But this time there’s actually something, on my mind
So please forgive these few brief awkward lines
Since I met you, my whole life has changed
It’s not just my furniture you’ve rearranged
I was living in the past, but somehow
you’ve brought me back
And I haven’t felt like this since
before Frankie said relax
And while I know, based on my track record,
I might not seem like the safest bet
All I’m asking you is don’t write me off, just yet
For years I’ve been telling myself the same old story
That I’m happy to live off my so-called former glories
But you’ve given me a reason to take another chance
Now I need you, despite the fact that you’ve
killed all my plants
And though I know, I’ve already blown more chances
Than anyone should ever get
All I’m asking you is don’t write me off, just yet
Don’t write me off just yet
"Way Back Into Love"
(feat. Drew Barrymore)
[Verse 1]
[Drew Barrymore:]
I've been living with a shadow overhead,
I've been sleeping with a cloud above my bed,
I've been lonely for so long,
Trapped in the past,
I just can't seem to move on!
[Hugh Grant:]
I've been hiding all my hopes and dreams away,
Just in case I ever need 'em again someday,
I've been setting aside time,
To clear a little space in the corners of my mind!
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love.
I can't make it through without a way back into love.
Ooo hooow
[Verse 2]
[Drew Barrymore:]
I've been watching but the stars refuse to shine,
I've been searching but I just don't see the signs,
I know that it's out there,
There's gotta be something for my soul somewhere!
[Hugh Grant:]
I've been looking for someone to shed some light,
Not somebody just to get me through the night,
I could use some direction,
And I'm open to your suggestions.
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love.
I can't make it through without a way back into love.
And if I open my heart again,
I guess I'm hoping you'll be there for me in the end!
[Middle-eight]
[Drew Barrymore:]
There are moments when I don't know if it's real
Or if anybody feels the way I feel
I need inspiration
Not just another negotiation
[Chorus]
[Both:]
All I wanna do is find a way back into love,
I can't make it through without a way back into love,
And if I open my heart to you,
I'm hoping you'll show me what to do,
And if you help me to start again,
You know that I'll be there for you in the end!
Source:www.youtube.com/http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/
POL/ECON/GINT-No nos sigan prestando, por favor-Jorge Lanata
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
No nos sigan prestando, por favor
por Jorge Lanata
© Proporcionado por Clarín
La ley habla de “personas”, pero seguro podría ampliarse. La presentación debe ser personal y voluntaria, junto a dos fotos carnet y copia del DNI. El trámite es gratuito. El programa se llama “Autoexclusión de salas de juegos de azar”; allí se anotan los ludópatas para que, durante dos años renovables, no los dejen entrar en los casinos. Si lográramos anotarnos como “país” en los organismos de crédito y los bancos, quizá, por un tiempo, dejarían de prestarnos dinero.
“Por favor, no sigan prestándonos”, podría agregarse, escrita a mano, una notita con tono dramático abrochada con un clip.
La discusión de shock o gradualismo que apareció hace mas de un año nos llevó a la misma trampa: Argentina sigue gastando más de lo que gana. Algunos números publicados por Ismael Bermúdez en este diario: “En 2016, la deuda pública creció en U$S 35.000 millones (…) El total de la deuda contraída con organismos públicos, multilaterales y acreedores privados llega al 60% del PBI”, sigue Bermúdez en el suplemento Económico del domingo. “Se estima que durante 2017 el endeudamiento público podría pegar otro salto similar atento al déficit fiscal estimado para este año ( más del 6% del PBI) y la mayor carga financiera. En proporción al PBI, la deuda volvió a subir del 38,7% en 2011 hasta el 53,6% en 2015, para aproximarse al 60% en 2016. En ese período, la economía se mantuvo estancada y sufrió dos fuertes devaluaciones (comienzos de 2014 y fines de 2015). Esta deuda no incluye lo que adeudan las Provincias y tampoco la deuda del Banco Central en LEBAC en pesos y moneda extranjera .En tanto, aumentó el peso de los intereses en el gasto público. Según la Asociación de Presupuesto (ASAP), en los primeros tres meses de este año, y con relación igual periodo de 2016, la cuenta de intereses aumentó un 60%, unos 20 puntos por encima de la inflación”.
Queremos dejar de fumar con un pucho apagado en la boca: ¿cuánto vamos a tardar en prenderlo? Y ¿cuánto tardará, otra vez, en repetirse el Mito del Eterno Retorno?. Es decir, aumento de los intereses, reticencia a nuevos créditos, intervención en decisiones de política económica interna, default.
Las explicaciones del gobierno al público han sido, hasta ahora botánicas: nos hablan de brotes verdes que parecen pertenecer más a la física cuántica que a la clásica: sólo algunos los ven.
Nunca ningún gobierno me dijo tantas veces que yo estaba bien, pero no me daba cuenta. A esa altura me siento un tarado (Con razón siempre me decían: “Yo se lo que te conviene…”).
Hace mas de un año y medio el Presidente se perdió la oportunidad de convocar a un acuerdo que permitiera acomodar las cuentas. En estas mismas páginas lo propusimos. ¿Podrá repetirse una segunda oportunidad en octubre si se impone en las elecciones?
Estuvo hasta ayer en Buenos Aires, invitado por el Senado, Ramon Tamames, uno de los gestores del Pacto de la Moncloa y firmante de la Constitución Española de 1978, ex legislador del Partido Comunista (daba cierta vergüenza ajena escuchar a un ex miembro del partido comunista español y compararlo con sus pares argentinos, siempre veinte o treinta años detrás del almanaque). Tamames dijo al aire de Radio Mitre: -Teníamos que hacer algo, la inflación había superado el 20% y los aumentos por los que presionaban los sindicatos estaban desfasados, llegaban al 25%.
Tamames hablaba de España a fines del 77. De La Moncloa participaron todos los partidos políticos con representación parlamentaria: “Ha sido motivos de especial consenso la necesidad de que los costes derivados de la superación de la crisis sean soportados equitativamente por los distintos grupos sociales, así como la democratización efectiva del sistema político y económico que los hará de comportarse para su aceptación por el conjunto de la sociedad”, dice el apartado “Criterios Previos”.
El acuerdo es extenso y muy diverso. Incluye “limitación y ejemplaridad de los gastos del Estado revisando todos aquellos cuya existencia no se justifique de modo estricto y en línea con el esfuerzo que se solicita a todos los españoles”, “orientación prioritaria del gasto publico para el fomento del empleo”, “mayores aportes al seguro de desempleo”, reducción de los costes de trabajo para empresas”, “moderación de los ritmos de aumento de la masa monetaria”, “contener el alza de los precios y lograr que en 1978 no aumenten mas del 22% anual”, “crecimiento de la masa salarial hasta un 20%”, “transformación del marco actual de relaciones laborales”, “modificación del estatuto de la empresa pública”,etc., etc.
Lo que España discutía entonces era un paso histórico: de la España rural de Franco a la modernidad de Europa. Le pregunte si la Moncloa fue una mesa en la que todos perdían. Tamames dijo que no, se ganaba y perdía de manera equilibrada.
Tal vez eso nos permitiría salir de la espiral que armamos hace tanto tiempo.
Fuente:http://www.msn.com/es-ar/noticias/nacional/no-nos-sigan-prestando-por-favor/ar-BBBjXlK?li=AAggPN3&ocFid=mailsignout
No nos sigan prestando, por favor
por Jorge Lanata
© Proporcionado por Clarín
La ley habla de “personas”, pero seguro podría ampliarse. La presentación debe ser personal y voluntaria, junto a dos fotos carnet y copia del DNI. El trámite es gratuito. El programa se llama “Autoexclusión de salas de juegos de azar”; allí se anotan los ludópatas para que, durante dos años renovables, no los dejen entrar en los casinos. Si lográramos anotarnos como “país” en los organismos de crédito y los bancos, quizá, por un tiempo, dejarían de prestarnos dinero.
“Por favor, no sigan prestándonos”, podría agregarse, escrita a mano, una notita con tono dramático abrochada con un clip.
La discusión de shock o gradualismo que apareció hace mas de un año nos llevó a la misma trampa: Argentina sigue gastando más de lo que gana. Algunos números publicados por Ismael Bermúdez en este diario: “En 2016, la deuda pública creció en U$S 35.000 millones (…) El total de la deuda contraída con organismos públicos, multilaterales y acreedores privados llega al 60% del PBI”, sigue Bermúdez en el suplemento Económico del domingo. “Se estima que durante 2017 el endeudamiento público podría pegar otro salto similar atento al déficit fiscal estimado para este año ( más del 6% del PBI) y la mayor carga financiera. En proporción al PBI, la deuda volvió a subir del 38,7% en 2011 hasta el 53,6% en 2015, para aproximarse al 60% en 2016. En ese período, la economía se mantuvo estancada y sufrió dos fuertes devaluaciones (comienzos de 2014 y fines de 2015). Esta deuda no incluye lo que adeudan las Provincias y tampoco la deuda del Banco Central en LEBAC en pesos y moneda extranjera .En tanto, aumentó el peso de los intereses en el gasto público. Según la Asociación de Presupuesto (ASAP), en los primeros tres meses de este año, y con relación igual periodo de 2016, la cuenta de intereses aumentó un 60%, unos 20 puntos por encima de la inflación”.
Queremos dejar de fumar con un pucho apagado en la boca: ¿cuánto vamos a tardar en prenderlo? Y ¿cuánto tardará, otra vez, en repetirse el Mito del Eterno Retorno?. Es decir, aumento de los intereses, reticencia a nuevos créditos, intervención en decisiones de política económica interna, default.
Las explicaciones del gobierno al público han sido, hasta ahora botánicas: nos hablan de brotes verdes que parecen pertenecer más a la física cuántica que a la clásica: sólo algunos los ven.
Nunca ningún gobierno me dijo tantas veces que yo estaba bien, pero no me daba cuenta. A esa altura me siento un tarado (Con razón siempre me decían: “Yo se lo que te conviene…”).
Hace mas de un año y medio el Presidente se perdió la oportunidad de convocar a un acuerdo que permitiera acomodar las cuentas. En estas mismas páginas lo propusimos. ¿Podrá repetirse una segunda oportunidad en octubre si se impone en las elecciones?
Estuvo hasta ayer en Buenos Aires, invitado por el Senado, Ramon Tamames, uno de los gestores del Pacto de la Moncloa y firmante de la Constitución Española de 1978, ex legislador del Partido Comunista (daba cierta vergüenza ajena escuchar a un ex miembro del partido comunista español y compararlo con sus pares argentinos, siempre veinte o treinta años detrás del almanaque). Tamames dijo al aire de Radio Mitre: -Teníamos que hacer algo, la inflación había superado el 20% y los aumentos por los que presionaban los sindicatos estaban desfasados, llegaban al 25%.
Tamames hablaba de España a fines del 77. De La Moncloa participaron todos los partidos políticos con representación parlamentaria: “Ha sido motivos de especial consenso la necesidad de que los costes derivados de la superación de la crisis sean soportados equitativamente por los distintos grupos sociales, así como la democratización efectiva del sistema político y económico que los hará de comportarse para su aceptación por el conjunto de la sociedad”, dice el apartado “Criterios Previos”.
El acuerdo es extenso y muy diverso. Incluye “limitación y ejemplaridad de los gastos del Estado revisando todos aquellos cuya existencia no se justifique de modo estricto y en línea con el esfuerzo que se solicita a todos los españoles”, “orientación prioritaria del gasto publico para el fomento del empleo”, “mayores aportes al seguro de desempleo”, reducción de los costes de trabajo para empresas”, “moderación de los ritmos de aumento de la masa monetaria”, “contener el alza de los precios y lograr que en 1978 no aumenten mas del 22% anual”, “crecimiento de la masa salarial hasta un 20%”, “transformación del marco actual de relaciones laborales”, “modificación del estatuto de la empresa pública”,etc., etc.
Lo que España discutía entonces era un paso histórico: de la España rural de Franco a la modernidad de Europa. Le pregunte si la Moncloa fue una mesa en la que todos perdían. Tamames dijo que no, se ganaba y perdía de manera equilibrada.
Tal vez eso nos permitiría salir de la espiral que armamos hace tanto tiempo.
Fuente:http://www.msn.com/es-ar/noticias/nacional/no-nos-sigan-prestando-por-favor/ar-BBBjXlK?li=AAggPN3&ocFid=mailsignout
BIOL/GINT-TED Talks-Robert Sapolsky: The biology of our best and worst selves
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Filmed April 2017 at TED2017
Robert Sapolsky: The biology of our best and worst selves
How can humans be so compassionate and altruistic — and also so brutal and violent? To understand why we do what we do, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky looks at extreme context, examining actions on timescales from seconds to millions of years before they occurred. In this fascinating talk, he shares his cutting edge research into the biology that drives our worst and best behaviors.
Transcript:
Chris Anderson: So Robert spent the last few years think about how weird human behavior is, and how inadequate most of our language trying to explain it is. And it's very exciting to hear him explain some of the thinking behind it in public for the first time. Over to you now, Robert Sapolsky.
(Applause)
Robert Sapolsky: Thank you. The fantasy always runs something like this. I've overpowered his elite guard, burst into his secret bunker with my machine gun ready. He lunges for his Luger. I knock it out of his hand. He lunges for his cyanide pill. I knock that out of his hand. He snarls, comes at me with otherworldly strength. We grapple, we fight, I manage to pin him down and put on handcuffs. "Adolf Hitler," I say, "I arrest you for crimes against humanity."
Here's where the Medal of Honor version of the fantasy ends and the imagery darkens. What would I do if I had Hitler? It's not hard to imagine once I allow myself. Sever his spine at the neck. Take out his eyes with a blunt instrument. Puncture his eardrums. Cut out his tongue. Leave him alive on a respirator, tube-fed, not able to speak or move or see or hear, just to feel, and then inject him with something cancerous that's going to fester and pustulate until every cell in his body is screaming in agony, until every second feels like an eternity in hell. That's what I would do to Hitler.
I've had this fantasy since I was a kid, still do sometimes, and when I do, my heart speeds up — all these plans for the most evil, wicked soul in history. But there's a problem, which is I don't actually believe in souls or evil, and I think wicked belongs in a musical. But there's some people I would like to see killed, but I'm against the death penalty. But I like schlocky violent movies, but I'm for strict gun control. But then there was a time I was at a laser tag place, and I had such a good time hiding in a corner shooting at people. In other words, I'm your basic confused human when it comes to violence.
Now, as a species, we obviously have problems with violence. We use shower heads to deliver poison gas, letters with anthrax, airplanes as weapons, mass rape as a military strategy. We're a miserably violent species. But there's a complication, which is we don't hate violence, we hate the wrong kind. And when it's the right kind, we cheer it on, we hand out medals, we vote for, we mate with our champions of it. When it's the right kind of violence, we love it. And there's another complication, which is, in addition to us being this miserably violent species, we're also this extraordinarily altruistic, compassionate one.
So how do you make sense of the biology of our best behaviors, our worst ones and all of those ambiguously in between?
Now, for starters, what's totally boring is understanding the motoric aspects of the behavior. Your brain tells your spine, tells your muscles to do something or other, and hooray, you've behaved. What's hard is understanding the meaning of the behavior, because in some settings, pulling a trigger is an appalling act; in others, it's heroically self-sacrificial. In some settings, putting your hand one someone else's is deeply compassionate. In others, it's a deep betrayal. The challenge is to understand the biology of the context of our behaviors, and that's real tough.
One thing that's clear, though, is you're not going to get anywhere if you think there's going to be the brain region or the hormone or the gene or the childhood experience or the evolutionary mechanism that explains everything. Instead, every bit of behavior has multiple levels of causality.
Let's look at an example. You have a gun. There's a crisis going on: rioting, violence, people running around. A stranger is running at you in an agitated state — you can't quite tell if the expression is frightened, threatening, angry — holding something that kind of looks like a handgun. You're not sure. The stranger comes running at you and you pull the trigger. And it turns out that thing in this person's hand was a cell phone.
So we asked this biological question: what was going on that caused this behavior? What caused this behavior? And this is a multitude of questions.
We start. What was going on in your brain one second before you pulled that trigger? And this brings us into the realm of a brain region called the amygdala. The amygdala, which is central to violence, central to fear, initiates volleys of cascades that produce pulling of a trigger. What was the level of activity in your amygdala one second before?
But to understand that, we have to step back a little bit. What was going on in the environment seconds to minutes before that impacted the amygdala? Now, obviously, the sights, the sounds of the rioting, that was pertinent. But in addition, you're more likely to mistake a cell phone for a handgun if that stranger was male and large and of a different race. Furthermore, if you're in pain, if you're hungry, if you're exhausted, your frontal cortex is not going to work as well, part of the brain whose job it is to get to the amygdala in time saying, "Are you really sure that's a gun there?"
But we need to step further back. Now we have to look at hours to days before, and with this, we have entered the realm of hormones. For example, testosterone, where regardless of your sex, if you have elevated testosterone levels in your blood, you're more likely to think a face with a neutral expression is instead looking threatening. Elevated testosterone levels, elevated levels of stress hormones, and your amygdala is going to be more active and your frontal cortex will be more sluggish.
Pushing back further, weeks to months before, where's the relevance there? This is the realm of neural plasticity, the fact that your brain can change in response to experience, and if your previous months have been filled with stress and trauma, your amygdala will have enlarged. The neurons will have become more excitable, your frontal cortex would have atrophied, all relevant to what happens in that one second.
But we push back even more, back years, back, for example, to your adolescence. Now, the central fact of the adolescent brain is all of it is going full blast except the frontal cortex, which is still half-baked. It doesn't fully mature until you're around 25. And thus, adolescence and early adulthood are the years where environment and experience sculpt your frontal cortex into the version you're going to have as an adult in that critical moment.
But pushing back even further, even further back to childhood and fetal life and all the different versions that that could come in. Now, obviously, that's the time that your brain is being constructed, and that's important, but in addition, experience during those times produce what are called epigenetic changes, permanent, in some cases, permanently activating certain genes, turning off others. And as an example of this, if as a fetus you were exposed to a lot of stress hormones through your mother, epigenetics is going to produce your amygdala in adulthood as a more excitable form, and you're going to have elevated stress hormone levels.
But pushing even further back, back to when you were just a fetus, back to when all you were was a collection of genes. Now, genes are really important to all of this, but critically, genes don't determine anything, because genes work differently in different environments. Key example here: there's a variant of a gene called MAO-A, and if you have that variant, you are far more likely to commit antisocial violence if, and only if, you were abused as a child. Genes and environment interact, and what's happening in that one second before you pull that trigger reflects your lifetime of those gene-environment interactions.
Now, remarkably enough, we've got to push even further back now, back centuries. What were your ancestors up to. And if, for example, they were nomadic pastoralists, they were pastoralists, people living in deserts or grasslands with their herds of camels, cows, goats, odds are they would have invented what's called a culture of honor filled with warrior classes, retributive violence, clan vendettas, and amazingly, centuries later, that would still be influencing the values with which you were raised.
But we've got to push even further back, back millions of years, because if we're talking about genes, implicitly we're now talking about the evolution of genes. And what you see is, for example, patterns across different primate species. Some of them have evolved for extremely low levels of aggression, others have evolved in the opposite direction, and floating there in between by every measure are humans, once again this confused, barely defined species that has all these potentials to go one way or the other.
So what has this gotten us to? Basically, what we're seeing here is, if you want to understand a behavior, whether it's an appalling one, a wondrous one, or confusedly in between, if you want to understand that, you've got take into account what happened a second before to a million years before, everything in between.
So what can we conclude at this point? Officially, it's complicated. Wow, that's really helpful. It's complicated, and you'd better be real careful, real cautious before you conclude you know what causes a behavior, especially if it's a behavior you're judging harshly.
Now, to me, the single most important point about all of this is one having to do with change. Every bit of biology I have mentioned here can change in different circumstances. For example, ecosystems change. Thousands of years ago, the Sahara was a lush grassland. Cultures change. In the 17th century, the most terrifying people in Europe were the Swedes, rampaging all over the place. This is what the Swedish military does now. They haven't had a war in 200 years. Most importantly, brains change. Neurons grow new processes. Circuits disconnect. Everything in the brain changes, and out of this come extraordinary examples of human change.
First one: this is a man named John Newton, a British theologian who played a central role in the abolition of slavery from the British Empire in the early 1800s. And amazingly, this man spent decades as a younger man as the captain of a slave ship, and then as an investor in slavery, growing rich from this. And then something changed. Something changed in him, something that Newton himself celebrated in the thing that he's most famous for, a hymn that he wrote: "Amazing Grace."
This is a man named Zenji Abe on the morning of December 6, 1941, about to lead a squadron of Japanese bombers to attack Pearl Harbor. And this is the same man 50 years later to the day hugging a man who survived the attack on the ground. And as an old man, Zenji Abe came to a collection of Pearl Harbor survivors at a ceremony there and in halting English apologized for what he had done as a young man.
Now, it doesn't always require decades. Sometimes, extraordinary change could happen in just hours. Consider the World War I Christmas truce of 1914. The powers that be had negotiated a brief truce so that soldiers could go out, collect bodies from no-man's-land in between the trench lines. And soon British and German soldiers were doing that, and then helping each other carry bodies, and then helping each other dig graves in the frozen ground, and then praying together, and then having Christmas together and exchanging gifts, and by the next day, they were playing soccer together and exchanging addresses so they could meet after the war. That truce kept going until the officers had to arrive and said, "We will shoot you unless you go back to trying to kill each other." And all it took here was hours for these men to develop a completely new category of "us," all of us in the trenches here on both sides, dying for no damn reason, and who is a "them," those faceless powers behind the lines who were using them as pawns.
And sometimes, change can occur in seconds. Probably the most horrifying event in the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre. A brigade of American soldiers went into an undefended village full of civilians and killed between 350 and 500 of them, mass-raped women and children, mutilated bodies. It was appalling. It was appalling because it occurred, because the government denied it, because the US government eventually did nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and appalling because it almost certainly was not a singular event. This man, Hugh Thompson, this is the man who stopped the My Lai Massacre. He was piloting a helicopter gunship, landed there, got out and saw American soldiers shooting babies, shooting old women, figured out what was going on, and he then took his helicopter and did something that undid his lifetime of conditioning as to who is an "us" and who is a "them." He landed his helicopter in between some surviving villagers and American soldiers and he trained his machine guns on his fellow Americans, and said, "If you don't stop the killing, I will mow you down."
Now, these people are no more special than any of us. Same neurons, same neurochemicals, same biology. What we're left with here is this inevitable cliche: "Those who don't study history are destined to repeat it." What we have here is the opposite of it. Those who don't study the history of extraordinary human change, those who don't study the biology of what can transform us from our worst to our best behaviors, those who don't do this are destined not to be able to repeat these incandescent, magnificent moments.
So thank you.
(Applause)
CA: Talks that really give you a new mental model about something, those are some of my favorite TED Talks, and we just got one. Robert, thank you so much for that. Good luck with the book. That was amazing, and we're going to try and get you to come here in person one year. Thank you so much.
RS: Thank you. Thank you all.
Filmed April 2017 at TED2017
Robert Sapolsky: The biology of our best and worst selves
How can humans be so compassionate and altruistic — and also so brutal and violent? To understand why we do what we do, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky looks at extreme context, examining actions on timescales from seconds to millions of years before they occurred. In this fascinating talk, he shares his cutting edge research into the biology that drives our worst and best behaviors.
Transcript:
Chris Anderson: So Robert spent the last few years think about how weird human behavior is, and how inadequate most of our language trying to explain it is. And it's very exciting to hear him explain some of the thinking behind it in public for the first time. Over to you now, Robert Sapolsky.
(Applause)
Robert Sapolsky: Thank you. The fantasy always runs something like this. I've overpowered his elite guard, burst into his secret bunker with my machine gun ready. He lunges for his Luger. I knock it out of his hand. He lunges for his cyanide pill. I knock that out of his hand. He snarls, comes at me with otherworldly strength. We grapple, we fight, I manage to pin him down and put on handcuffs. "Adolf Hitler," I say, "I arrest you for crimes against humanity."
Here's where the Medal of Honor version of the fantasy ends and the imagery darkens. What would I do if I had Hitler? It's not hard to imagine once I allow myself. Sever his spine at the neck. Take out his eyes with a blunt instrument. Puncture his eardrums. Cut out his tongue. Leave him alive on a respirator, tube-fed, not able to speak or move or see or hear, just to feel, and then inject him with something cancerous that's going to fester and pustulate until every cell in his body is screaming in agony, until every second feels like an eternity in hell. That's what I would do to Hitler.
I've had this fantasy since I was a kid, still do sometimes, and when I do, my heart speeds up — all these plans for the most evil, wicked soul in history. But there's a problem, which is I don't actually believe in souls or evil, and I think wicked belongs in a musical. But there's some people I would like to see killed, but I'm against the death penalty. But I like schlocky violent movies, but I'm for strict gun control. But then there was a time I was at a laser tag place, and I had such a good time hiding in a corner shooting at people. In other words, I'm your basic confused human when it comes to violence.
Now, as a species, we obviously have problems with violence. We use shower heads to deliver poison gas, letters with anthrax, airplanes as weapons, mass rape as a military strategy. We're a miserably violent species. But there's a complication, which is we don't hate violence, we hate the wrong kind. And when it's the right kind, we cheer it on, we hand out medals, we vote for, we mate with our champions of it. When it's the right kind of violence, we love it. And there's another complication, which is, in addition to us being this miserably violent species, we're also this extraordinarily altruistic, compassionate one.
So how do you make sense of the biology of our best behaviors, our worst ones and all of those ambiguously in between?
Now, for starters, what's totally boring is understanding the motoric aspects of the behavior. Your brain tells your spine, tells your muscles to do something or other, and hooray, you've behaved. What's hard is understanding the meaning of the behavior, because in some settings, pulling a trigger is an appalling act; in others, it's heroically self-sacrificial. In some settings, putting your hand one someone else's is deeply compassionate. In others, it's a deep betrayal. The challenge is to understand the biology of the context of our behaviors, and that's real tough.
One thing that's clear, though, is you're not going to get anywhere if you think there's going to be the brain region or the hormone or the gene or the childhood experience or the evolutionary mechanism that explains everything. Instead, every bit of behavior has multiple levels of causality.
Let's look at an example. You have a gun. There's a crisis going on: rioting, violence, people running around. A stranger is running at you in an agitated state — you can't quite tell if the expression is frightened, threatening, angry — holding something that kind of looks like a handgun. You're not sure. The stranger comes running at you and you pull the trigger. And it turns out that thing in this person's hand was a cell phone.
So we asked this biological question: what was going on that caused this behavior? What caused this behavior? And this is a multitude of questions.
We start. What was going on in your brain one second before you pulled that trigger? And this brings us into the realm of a brain region called the amygdala. The amygdala, which is central to violence, central to fear, initiates volleys of cascades that produce pulling of a trigger. What was the level of activity in your amygdala one second before?
But to understand that, we have to step back a little bit. What was going on in the environment seconds to minutes before that impacted the amygdala? Now, obviously, the sights, the sounds of the rioting, that was pertinent. But in addition, you're more likely to mistake a cell phone for a handgun if that stranger was male and large and of a different race. Furthermore, if you're in pain, if you're hungry, if you're exhausted, your frontal cortex is not going to work as well, part of the brain whose job it is to get to the amygdala in time saying, "Are you really sure that's a gun there?"
But we need to step further back. Now we have to look at hours to days before, and with this, we have entered the realm of hormones. For example, testosterone, where regardless of your sex, if you have elevated testosterone levels in your blood, you're more likely to think a face with a neutral expression is instead looking threatening. Elevated testosterone levels, elevated levels of stress hormones, and your amygdala is going to be more active and your frontal cortex will be more sluggish.
Pushing back further, weeks to months before, where's the relevance there? This is the realm of neural plasticity, the fact that your brain can change in response to experience, and if your previous months have been filled with stress and trauma, your amygdala will have enlarged. The neurons will have become more excitable, your frontal cortex would have atrophied, all relevant to what happens in that one second.
But we push back even more, back years, back, for example, to your adolescence. Now, the central fact of the adolescent brain is all of it is going full blast except the frontal cortex, which is still half-baked. It doesn't fully mature until you're around 25. And thus, adolescence and early adulthood are the years where environment and experience sculpt your frontal cortex into the version you're going to have as an adult in that critical moment.
But pushing back even further, even further back to childhood and fetal life and all the different versions that that could come in. Now, obviously, that's the time that your brain is being constructed, and that's important, but in addition, experience during those times produce what are called epigenetic changes, permanent, in some cases, permanently activating certain genes, turning off others. And as an example of this, if as a fetus you were exposed to a lot of stress hormones through your mother, epigenetics is going to produce your amygdala in adulthood as a more excitable form, and you're going to have elevated stress hormone levels.
But pushing even further back, back to when you were just a fetus, back to when all you were was a collection of genes. Now, genes are really important to all of this, but critically, genes don't determine anything, because genes work differently in different environments. Key example here: there's a variant of a gene called MAO-A, and if you have that variant, you are far more likely to commit antisocial violence if, and only if, you were abused as a child. Genes and environment interact, and what's happening in that one second before you pull that trigger reflects your lifetime of those gene-environment interactions.
Now, remarkably enough, we've got to push even further back now, back centuries. What were your ancestors up to. And if, for example, they were nomadic pastoralists, they were pastoralists, people living in deserts or grasslands with their herds of camels, cows, goats, odds are they would have invented what's called a culture of honor filled with warrior classes, retributive violence, clan vendettas, and amazingly, centuries later, that would still be influencing the values with which you were raised.
But we've got to push even further back, back millions of years, because if we're talking about genes, implicitly we're now talking about the evolution of genes. And what you see is, for example, patterns across different primate species. Some of them have evolved for extremely low levels of aggression, others have evolved in the opposite direction, and floating there in between by every measure are humans, once again this confused, barely defined species that has all these potentials to go one way or the other.
So what has this gotten us to? Basically, what we're seeing here is, if you want to understand a behavior, whether it's an appalling one, a wondrous one, or confusedly in between, if you want to understand that, you've got take into account what happened a second before to a million years before, everything in between.
So what can we conclude at this point? Officially, it's complicated. Wow, that's really helpful. It's complicated, and you'd better be real careful, real cautious before you conclude you know what causes a behavior, especially if it's a behavior you're judging harshly.
Now, to me, the single most important point about all of this is one having to do with change. Every bit of biology I have mentioned here can change in different circumstances. For example, ecosystems change. Thousands of years ago, the Sahara was a lush grassland. Cultures change. In the 17th century, the most terrifying people in Europe were the Swedes, rampaging all over the place. This is what the Swedish military does now. They haven't had a war in 200 years. Most importantly, brains change. Neurons grow new processes. Circuits disconnect. Everything in the brain changes, and out of this come extraordinary examples of human change.
First one: this is a man named John Newton, a British theologian who played a central role in the abolition of slavery from the British Empire in the early 1800s. And amazingly, this man spent decades as a younger man as the captain of a slave ship, and then as an investor in slavery, growing rich from this. And then something changed. Something changed in him, something that Newton himself celebrated in the thing that he's most famous for, a hymn that he wrote: "Amazing Grace."
This is a man named Zenji Abe on the morning of December 6, 1941, about to lead a squadron of Japanese bombers to attack Pearl Harbor. And this is the same man 50 years later to the day hugging a man who survived the attack on the ground. And as an old man, Zenji Abe came to a collection of Pearl Harbor survivors at a ceremony there and in halting English apologized for what he had done as a young man.
Now, it doesn't always require decades. Sometimes, extraordinary change could happen in just hours. Consider the World War I Christmas truce of 1914. The powers that be had negotiated a brief truce so that soldiers could go out, collect bodies from no-man's-land in between the trench lines. And soon British and German soldiers were doing that, and then helping each other carry bodies, and then helping each other dig graves in the frozen ground, and then praying together, and then having Christmas together and exchanging gifts, and by the next day, they were playing soccer together and exchanging addresses so they could meet after the war. That truce kept going until the officers had to arrive and said, "We will shoot you unless you go back to trying to kill each other." And all it took here was hours for these men to develop a completely new category of "us," all of us in the trenches here on both sides, dying for no damn reason, and who is a "them," those faceless powers behind the lines who were using them as pawns.
And sometimes, change can occur in seconds. Probably the most horrifying event in the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre. A brigade of American soldiers went into an undefended village full of civilians and killed between 350 and 500 of them, mass-raped women and children, mutilated bodies. It was appalling. It was appalling because it occurred, because the government denied it, because the US government eventually did nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and appalling because it almost certainly was not a singular event. This man, Hugh Thompson, this is the man who stopped the My Lai Massacre. He was piloting a helicopter gunship, landed there, got out and saw American soldiers shooting babies, shooting old women, figured out what was going on, and he then took his helicopter and did something that undid his lifetime of conditioning as to who is an "us" and who is a "them." He landed his helicopter in between some surviving villagers and American soldiers and he trained his machine guns on his fellow Americans, and said, "If you don't stop the killing, I will mow you down."
Now, these people are no more special than any of us. Same neurons, same neurochemicals, same biology. What we're left with here is this inevitable cliche: "Those who don't study history are destined to repeat it." What we have here is the opposite of it. Those who don't study the history of extraordinary human change, those who don't study the biology of what can transform us from our worst to our best behaviors, those who don't do this are destined not to be able to repeat these incandescent, magnificent moments.
So thank you.
(Applause)
CA: Talks that really give you a new mental model about something, those are some of my favorite TED Talks, and we just got one. Robert, thank you so much for that. Good luck with the book. That was amazing, and we're going to try and get you to come here in person one year. Thank you so much.
RS: Thank you. Thank you all.
AI/TECH/GINT-TED Talks-Stuart Russell: 3 principles for creating safer AI
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Filmed April 2017 at TED2017
Stuart Russell: 3 principles for creating safer AI
How can we harness the power of superintelligent AI while also preventing the catastrophe of robotic takeover? As we move closer toward creating all-knowing machines, AI pioneer Stuart Russell is working on something a bit different: robots with uncertainty. Hear his vision for human-compatible AI that can solve problems using common sense, altruism and other human values.
Transcript:
This is Lee Sedol. Lee Sedol is one of the world's greatest Go players, and he's having what my friends in Silicon Valley call a "Holy Cow" moment —
(Laughter)
a moment where we realize that AI is actually progressing a lot faster than we expected. So humans have lost on the Go board. What about the real world?
Well, the real world is much bigger, much more complicated than the Go board. It's a lot less visible, but it's still a decision problem. And if we think about some of the technologies that are coming down the pike ... Noriko [Arai] mentioned that reading is not yet happening in machines, at least with understanding. But that will happen, and when that happens, very soon afterwards, machines will have read everything that the human race has ever written. And that will enable machines, along with the ability to look further ahead than humans can, as we've already seen in Go, if they also have access to more information, they'll be able to make better decisions in the real world than we can. So is that a good thing? Well, I hope so.
Our entire civilization, everything that we value, is based on our intelligence. And if we had access to a lot more intelligence, then there's really no limit to what the human race can do. And I think this could be, as some people have described it, the biggest event in human history. So why are people saying things like this, that AI might spell the end of the human race? Is this a new thing? Is it just Elon Musk and Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking?
Actually, no. This idea has been around for a while. Here's a quotation: "Even if we could keep the machines in a subservient position, for instance, by turning off the power at strategic moments" — and I'll come back to that "turning off the power" idea later on — "we should, as a species, feel greatly humbled." So who said this? This is Alan Turing in 1951. Alan Turing, as you know, is the father of computer science and in many ways, the father of AI as well. So if we think about this problem, the problem of creating something more intelligent than your own species, we might call this "the gorilla problem," because gorillas' ancestors did this a few million years ago, and now we can ask the gorillas: Was this a good idea?
So here they are having a meeting to discuss whether it was a good idea, and after a little while, they conclude, no, this was a terrible idea. Our species is in dire straits. In fact, you can see the existential sadness in their eyes.
(Laughter)
So this queasy feeling that making something smarter than your own species is maybe not a good idea — what can we do about that? Well, really nothing, except stop doing AI, and because of all the benefits that I mentioned and because I'm an AI researcher, I'm not having that. I actually want to be able to keep doing AI.
So we actually need to nail down the problem a bit more. What exactly is the problem? Why is better AI possibly a catastrophe?
So here's another quotation: "We had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire." This was said by Norbert Wiener in 1960, shortly after he watched one of the very early learning systems learn to play checkers better than its creator. But this could equally have been said by King Midas. King Midas said, "I want everything I touch to turn to gold," and he got exactly what he asked for. That was the purpose that he put into the machine, so to speak, and then his food and his drink and his relatives turned to gold and he died in misery and starvation. So we'll call this "the King Midas problem" of stating an objective which is not, in fact, truly aligned with what we want. In modern terms, we call this "the value alignment problem."
Putting in the wrong objective is not the only part of the problem. There's another part. If you put an objective into a machine, even something as simple as, "Fetch the coffee," the machine says to itself, "Well, how might I fail to fetch the coffee? Someone might switch me off. OK, I have to take steps to prevent that. I will disable my 'off' switch. I will do anything to defend myself against interference with this objective that I have been given." So this single-minded pursuit in a very defensive mode of an objective that is, in fact, not aligned with the true objectives of the human race — that's the problem that we face. And in fact, that's the high-value takeaway from this talk. If you want to remember one thing, it's that you can't fetch the coffee if you're dead.
(Laughter)
It's very simple. Just remember that. Repeat it to yourself three times a day.
(Laughter)
And in fact, this is exactly the plot of "2001: [A Space Odyssey]" HAL has an objective, a mission, which is not aligned with the objectives of the humans, and that leads to this conflict. Now fortunately, HAL is not superintelligent. He's pretty smart, but eventually Dave outwits him and manages to switch him off. But we might not be so lucky. So what are we going to do?
I'm trying to redefine AI to get away from this classical notion of machines that intelligently pursue objectives. There are three principles involved. The first one is a principle of altruism, if you like, that the robot's only objective is to maximize the realization of human objectives, of human values. And by values here I don't mean touchy-feely, goody-goody values. I just mean whatever it is that the human would prefer their life to be like. And so this actually violates Asimov's law that the robot has to protect its own existence. It has no interest in preserving its existence whatsoever.
The second law is a law of humility, if you like. And this turns out to be really important to make robots safe. It says that the robot does not know what those human values are, so it has to maximize them, but it doesn't know what they are. And that avoids this problem of single-minded pursuit of an objective. This uncertainty turns out to be crucial.
Now, in order to be useful to us, it has to have some idea of what we want. It obtains that information primarily by observation of human choices, so our own choices reveal information about what it is that we prefer our lives to be like. So those are the three principles. Let's see how that applies to this question of: "Can you switch the machine off?" as Turing suggested.
So here's a PR2 robot. This is one that we have in our lab, and it has a big red "off" switch right on the back. The question is: Is it going to let you switch it off? If we do it the classical way, we give it the objective of, "Fetch the coffee, I must fetch the coffee, I can't fetch the coffee if I'm dead," so obviously the PR2 has been listening to my talk, and so it says, therefore, "I must disable my 'off' switch, and probably taser all the other people in Starbucks who might interfere with me."
(Laughter)
So this seems to be inevitable, right? This kind of failure mode seems to be inevitable, and it follows from having a concrete, definite objective.
So what happens if the machine is uncertain about the objective? Well, it reasons in a different way. It says, "OK, the human might switch me off, but only if I'm doing something wrong. Well, I don't really know what wrong is, but I know that I don't want to do it." So that's the first and second principles right there. "So I should let the human switch me off." And in fact you can calculate the incentive that the robot has to allow the human to switch it off, and it's directly tied to the degree of uncertainty about the underlying objective.
And then when the machine is switched off, that third principle comes into play. It learns something about the objectives it should be pursuing, because it learns that what it did wasn't right. In fact, we can, with suitable use of Greek symbols, as mathematicians usually do, we can actually prove a theorem that says that such a robot is provably beneficial to the human. You are provably better off with a machine that's designed in this way than without it. So this is a very simple example, but this is the first step in what we're trying to do with human-compatible AI.
Now, this third principle, I think is the one that you're probably scratching your head over. You're probably thinking, "Well, you know, I behave badly. I don't want my robot to behave like me. I sneak down in the middle of the night and take stuff from the fridge. I do this and that." There's all kinds of things you don't want the robot doing. But in fact, it doesn't quite work that way. Just because you behave badly doesn't mean the robot is going to copy your behavior. It's going to understand your motivations and maybe help you resist them, if appropriate. But it's still difficult. What we're trying to do, in fact, is to allow machines to predict for any person and for any possible life that they could live, and the lives of everybody else: Which would they prefer? And there are many, many difficulties involved in doing this; I don't expect that this is going to get solved very quickly. The real difficulties, in fact, are us.
As I have already mentioned, we behave badly. In fact, some of us are downright nasty. Now the robot, as I said, doesn't have to copy the behavior. The robot does not have any objective of its own. It's purely altruistic. And it's not designed just to satisfy the desires of one person, the user, but in fact it has to respect the preferences of everybody. So it can deal with a certain amount of nastiness, and it can even understand that your nastiness, for example, you may take bribes as a passport official because you need to feed your family and send your kids to school. It can understand that; it doesn't mean it's going to steal. In fact, it'll just help you send your kids to school.
We are also computationally limited. Lee Sedol is a brilliant Go player, but he still lost. So if we look at his actions, he took an action that lost the game. That doesn't mean he wanted to lose. So to understand his behavior, we actually have to invert through a model of human cognition that includes our computational limitations — a very complicated model. But it's still something that we can work on understanding.
Probably the most difficult part, from my point of view as an AI researcher, is the fact that there are lots of us, and so the machine has to somehow trade off, weigh up the preferences of many different people, and there are different ways to do that. Economists, sociologists, moral philosophers have understood that, and we are actively looking for collaboration.
Let's have a look and see what happens when you get that wrong. So you can have a conversation, for example, with your intelligent personal assistant that might be available in a few years' time. Think of a Siri on steroids. So Siri says, "Your wife called to remind you about dinner tonight." And of course, you've forgotten. "What? What dinner? What are you talking about?"
"Uh, your 20th anniversary at 7pm."
"I can't do that. I'm meeting with the secretary-general at 7:30. How could this have happened?"
"Well, I did warn you, but you overrode my recommendation."
"Well, what am I going to do? I can't just tell him I'm too busy."
"Don't worry. I arranged for his plane to be delayed."
(Laughter)
"Some kind of computer malfunction."
(Laughter)
"Really? You can do that?"
"He sends his profound apologies and looks forward to meeting you for lunch tomorrow."
(Laughter)
So the values here — there's a slight mistake going on. This is clearly following my wife's values which is "Happy wife, happy life."
(Laughter)
It could go the other way. You could come home after a hard day's work, and the computer says, "Long day?"
"Yes, I didn't even have time for lunch."
"You must be very hungry."
"Starving, yeah. Could you make some dinner?"
"There's something I need to tell you."
(Laughter)
"There are humans in South Sudan who are in more urgent need than you."
(Laughter)
"So I'm leaving. Make your own dinner."
(Laughter)
So we have to solve these problems, and I'm looking forward to working on them.
There are reasons for optimism. One reason is, there is a massive amount of data. Because remember — I said they're going to read everything the human race has ever written. Most of what we write about is human beings doing things and other people getting upset about it. So there's a massive amount of data to learn from.
There's also a very strong economic incentive to get this right. So imagine your domestic robot's at home. You're late from work again and the robot has to feed the kids, and the kids are hungry and there's nothing in the fridge. And the robot sees the cat.
(Laughter)
And the robot hasn't quite learned the human value function properly, so it doesn't understand the sentimental value of the cat outweighs the nutritional value of the cat.
(Laughter)
So then what happens? Well, it happens like this: "Deranged robot cooks kitty for family dinner." That one incident would be the end of the domestic robot industry. So there's a huge incentive to get this right long before we reach superintelligent machines.
So to summarize: I'm actually trying to change the definition of AI so that we have provably beneficial machines. And the principles are: machines that are altruistic, that want to achieve only our objectives, but that are uncertain about what those objectives are, and will watch all of us to learn more about what it is that we really want. And hopefully in the process, we will learn to be better people. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: So interesting, Stuart. We're going to stand here a bit because I think they're setting up for our next speaker.
A couple of questions. So the idea of programming in ignorance seems intuitively really powerful. As you get to superintelligence, what's going to stop a robot reading literature and discovering this idea that knowledge is actually better than ignorance and still just shifting its own goals and rewriting that programming?
Stuart Russell: Yes, so we want it to learn more, as I said, about our objectives. It'll only become more certain as it becomes more correct, so the evidence is there and it's going to be designed to interpret it correctly. It will understand, for example, that books are very biased in the evidence they contain. They only talk about kings and princes and elite white male people doing stuff. So it's a complicated problem, but as it learns more about our objectives it will become more and more useful to us.
CA: And you couldn't just boil it down to one law, you know, hardwired in: "if any human ever tries to switch me off, I comply. I comply."
SR: Absolutely not. That would be a terrible idea. So imagine that you have a self-driving car and you want to send your five-year-old off to preschool. Do you want your five-year-old to be able to switch off the car while it's driving along? Probably not. So it needs to understand how rational and sensible the person is. The more rational the person, the more willing you are to be switched off. If the person is completely random or even malicious, then you're less willing to be switched off.
CA: All right. Stuart, can I just say, I really, really hope you figure this out for us. Thank you so much for that talk. That was amazing.
SR: Thank you.
(Applause)
Filmed April 2017 at TED2017
Stuart Russell: 3 principles for creating safer AI
How can we harness the power of superintelligent AI while also preventing the catastrophe of robotic takeover? As we move closer toward creating all-knowing machines, AI pioneer Stuart Russell is working on something a bit different: robots with uncertainty. Hear his vision for human-compatible AI that can solve problems using common sense, altruism and other human values.
Transcript:
This is Lee Sedol. Lee Sedol is one of the world's greatest Go players, and he's having what my friends in Silicon Valley call a "Holy Cow" moment —
(Laughter)
a moment where we realize that AI is actually progressing a lot faster than we expected. So humans have lost on the Go board. What about the real world?
Well, the real world is much bigger, much more complicated than the Go board. It's a lot less visible, but it's still a decision problem. And if we think about some of the technologies that are coming down the pike ... Noriko [Arai] mentioned that reading is not yet happening in machines, at least with understanding. But that will happen, and when that happens, very soon afterwards, machines will have read everything that the human race has ever written. And that will enable machines, along with the ability to look further ahead than humans can, as we've already seen in Go, if they also have access to more information, they'll be able to make better decisions in the real world than we can. So is that a good thing? Well, I hope so.
Our entire civilization, everything that we value, is based on our intelligence. And if we had access to a lot more intelligence, then there's really no limit to what the human race can do. And I think this could be, as some people have described it, the biggest event in human history. So why are people saying things like this, that AI might spell the end of the human race? Is this a new thing? Is it just Elon Musk and Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking?
Actually, no. This idea has been around for a while. Here's a quotation: "Even if we could keep the machines in a subservient position, for instance, by turning off the power at strategic moments" — and I'll come back to that "turning off the power" idea later on — "we should, as a species, feel greatly humbled." So who said this? This is Alan Turing in 1951. Alan Turing, as you know, is the father of computer science and in many ways, the father of AI as well. So if we think about this problem, the problem of creating something more intelligent than your own species, we might call this "the gorilla problem," because gorillas' ancestors did this a few million years ago, and now we can ask the gorillas: Was this a good idea?
So here they are having a meeting to discuss whether it was a good idea, and after a little while, they conclude, no, this was a terrible idea. Our species is in dire straits. In fact, you can see the existential sadness in their eyes.
(Laughter)
So this queasy feeling that making something smarter than your own species is maybe not a good idea — what can we do about that? Well, really nothing, except stop doing AI, and because of all the benefits that I mentioned and because I'm an AI researcher, I'm not having that. I actually want to be able to keep doing AI.
So we actually need to nail down the problem a bit more. What exactly is the problem? Why is better AI possibly a catastrophe?
So here's another quotation: "We had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire." This was said by Norbert Wiener in 1960, shortly after he watched one of the very early learning systems learn to play checkers better than its creator. But this could equally have been said by King Midas. King Midas said, "I want everything I touch to turn to gold," and he got exactly what he asked for. That was the purpose that he put into the machine, so to speak, and then his food and his drink and his relatives turned to gold and he died in misery and starvation. So we'll call this "the King Midas problem" of stating an objective which is not, in fact, truly aligned with what we want. In modern terms, we call this "the value alignment problem."
Putting in the wrong objective is not the only part of the problem. There's another part. If you put an objective into a machine, even something as simple as, "Fetch the coffee," the machine says to itself, "Well, how might I fail to fetch the coffee? Someone might switch me off. OK, I have to take steps to prevent that. I will disable my 'off' switch. I will do anything to defend myself against interference with this objective that I have been given." So this single-minded pursuit in a very defensive mode of an objective that is, in fact, not aligned with the true objectives of the human race — that's the problem that we face. And in fact, that's the high-value takeaway from this talk. If you want to remember one thing, it's that you can't fetch the coffee if you're dead.
(Laughter)
It's very simple. Just remember that. Repeat it to yourself three times a day.
(Laughter)
And in fact, this is exactly the plot of "2001: [A Space Odyssey]" HAL has an objective, a mission, which is not aligned with the objectives of the humans, and that leads to this conflict. Now fortunately, HAL is not superintelligent. He's pretty smart, but eventually Dave outwits him and manages to switch him off. But we might not be so lucky. So what are we going to do?
I'm trying to redefine AI to get away from this classical notion of machines that intelligently pursue objectives. There are three principles involved. The first one is a principle of altruism, if you like, that the robot's only objective is to maximize the realization of human objectives, of human values. And by values here I don't mean touchy-feely, goody-goody values. I just mean whatever it is that the human would prefer their life to be like. And so this actually violates Asimov's law that the robot has to protect its own existence. It has no interest in preserving its existence whatsoever.
The second law is a law of humility, if you like. And this turns out to be really important to make robots safe. It says that the robot does not know what those human values are, so it has to maximize them, but it doesn't know what they are. And that avoids this problem of single-minded pursuit of an objective. This uncertainty turns out to be crucial.
Now, in order to be useful to us, it has to have some idea of what we want. It obtains that information primarily by observation of human choices, so our own choices reveal information about what it is that we prefer our lives to be like. So those are the three principles. Let's see how that applies to this question of: "Can you switch the machine off?" as Turing suggested.
So here's a PR2 robot. This is one that we have in our lab, and it has a big red "off" switch right on the back. The question is: Is it going to let you switch it off? If we do it the classical way, we give it the objective of, "Fetch the coffee, I must fetch the coffee, I can't fetch the coffee if I'm dead," so obviously the PR2 has been listening to my talk, and so it says, therefore, "I must disable my 'off' switch, and probably taser all the other people in Starbucks who might interfere with me."
(Laughter)
So this seems to be inevitable, right? This kind of failure mode seems to be inevitable, and it follows from having a concrete, definite objective.
So what happens if the machine is uncertain about the objective? Well, it reasons in a different way. It says, "OK, the human might switch me off, but only if I'm doing something wrong. Well, I don't really know what wrong is, but I know that I don't want to do it." So that's the first and second principles right there. "So I should let the human switch me off." And in fact you can calculate the incentive that the robot has to allow the human to switch it off, and it's directly tied to the degree of uncertainty about the underlying objective.
And then when the machine is switched off, that third principle comes into play. It learns something about the objectives it should be pursuing, because it learns that what it did wasn't right. In fact, we can, with suitable use of Greek symbols, as mathematicians usually do, we can actually prove a theorem that says that such a robot is provably beneficial to the human. You are provably better off with a machine that's designed in this way than without it. So this is a very simple example, but this is the first step in what we're trying to do with human-compatible AI.
Now, this third principle, I think is the one that you're probably scratching your head over. You're probably thinking, "Well, you know, I behave badly. I don't want my robot to behave like me. I sneak down in the middle of the night and take stuff from the fridge. I do this and that." There's all kinds of things you don't want the robot doing. But in fact, it doesn't quite work that way. Just because you behave badly doesn't mean the robot is going to copy your behavior. It's going to understand your motivations and maybe help you resist them, if appropriate. But it's still difficult. What we're trying to do, in fact, is to allow machines to predict for any person and for any possible life that they could live, and the lives of everybody else: Which would they prefer? And there are many, many difficulties involved in doing this; I don't expect that this is going to get solved very quickly. The real difficulties, in fact, are us.
As I have already mentioned, we behave badly. In fact, some of us are downright nasty. Now the robot, as I said, doesn't have to copy the behavior. The robot does not have any objective of its own. It's purely altruistic. And it's not designed just to satisfy the desires of one person, the user, but in fact it has to respect the preferences of everybody. So it can deal with a certain amount of nastiness, and it can even understand that your nastiness, for example, you may take bribes as a passport official because you need to feed your family and send your kids to school. It can understand that; it doesn't mean it's going to steal. In fact, it'll just help you send your kids to school.
We are also computationally limited. Lee Sedol is a brilliant Go player, but he still lost. So if we look at his actions, he took an action that lost the game. That doesn't mean he wanted to lose. So to understand his behavior, we actually have to invert through a model of human cognition that includes our computational limitations — a very complicated model. But it's still something that we can work on understanding.
Probably the most difficult part, from my point of view as an AI researcher, is the fact that there are lots of us, and so the machine has to somehow trade off, weigh up the preferences of many different people, and there are different ways to do that. Economists, sociologists, moral philosophers have understood that, and we are actively looking for collaboration.
Let's have a look and see what happens when you get that wrong. So you can have a conversation, for example, with your intelligent personal assistant that might be available in a few years' time. Think of a Siri on steroids. So Siri says, "Your wife called to remind you about dinner tonight." And of course, you've forgotten. "What? What dinner? What are you talking about?"
"Uh, your 20th anniversary at 7pm."
"I can't do that. I'm meeting with the secretary-general at 7:30. How could this have happened?"
"Well, I did warn you, but you overrode my recommendation."
"Well, what am I going to do? I can't just tell him I'm too busy."
"Don't worry. I arranged for his plane to be delayed."
(Laughter)
"Some kind of computer malfunction."
(Laughter)
"Really? You can do that?"
"He sends his profound apologies and looks forward to meeting you for lunch tomorrow."
(Laughter)
So the values here — there's a slight mistake going on. This is clearly following my wife's values which is "Happy wife, happy life."
(Laughter)
It could go the other way. You could come home after a hard day's work, and the computer says, "Long day?"
"Yes, I didn't even have time for lunch."
"You must be very hungry."
"Starving, yeah. Could you make some dinner?"
"There's something I need to tell you."
(Laughter)
"There are humans in South Sudan who are in more urgent need than you."
(Laughter)
"So I'm leaving. Make your own dinner."
(Laughter)
So we have to solve these problems, and I'm looking forward to working on them.
There are reasons for optimism. One reason is, there is a massive amount of data. Because remember — I said they're going to read everything the human race has ever written. Most of what we write about is human beings doing things and other people getting upset about it. So there's a massive amount of data to learn from.
There's also a very strong economic incentive to get this right. So imagine your domestic robot's at home. You're late from work again and the robot has to feed the kids, and the kids are hungry and there's nothing in the fridge. And the robot sees the cat.
(Laughter)
And the robot hasn't quite learned the human value function properly, so it doesn't understand the sentimental value of the cat outweighs the nutritional value of the cat.
(Laughter)
So then what happens? Well, it happens like this: "Deranged robot cooks kitty for family dinner." That one incident would be the end of the domestic robot industry. So there's a huge incentive to get this right long before we reach superintelligent machines.
So to summarize: I'm actually trying to change the definition of AI so that we have provably beneficial machines. And the principles are: machines that are altruistic, that want to achieve only our objectives, but that are uncertain about what those objectives are, and will watch all of us to learn more about what it is that we really want. And hopefully in the process, we will learn to be better people. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: So interesting, Stuart. We're going to stand here a bit because I think they're setting up for our next speaker.
A couple of questions. So the idea of programming in ignorance seems intuitively really powerful. As you get to superintelligence, what's going to stop a robot reading literature and discovering this idea that knowledge is actually better than ignorance and still just shifting its own goals and rewriting that programming?
Stuart Russell: Yes, so we want it to learn more, as I said, about our objectives. It'll only become more certain as it becomes more correct, so the evidence is there and it's going to be designed to interpret it correctly. It will understand, for example, that books are very biased in the evidence they contain. They only talk about kings and princes and elite white male people doing stuff. So it's a complicated problem, but as it learns more about our objectives it will become more and more useful to us.
CA: And you couldn't just boil it down to one law, you know, hardwired in: "if any human ever tries to switch me off, I comply. I comply."
SR: Absolutely not. That would be a terrible idea. So imagine that you have a self-driving car and you want to send your five-year-old off to preschool. Do you want your five-year-old to be able to switch off the car while it's driving along? Probably not. So it needs to understand how rational and sensible the person is. The more rational the person, the more willing you are to be switched off. If the person is completely random or even malicious, then you're less willing to be switched off.
CA: All right. Stuart, can I just say, I really, really hope you figure this out for us. Thank you so much for that talk. That was amazing.
SR: Thank you.
(Applause)
Saturday, May 13, 2017
MUS/DAN/GINT-Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Reinterpreted - English National Ballet (Full Performance)
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Reinterpreted - English National Ballet (Full Performance)
Queen Official
Published on Dec 17, 2015
Queen + Adam Lambert North American Summer Tour 2017. Tour dates and tickets @ https://queenofficial.lnk.to/live-2017
Subscribe to the official Queen channel Here http://bit.ly/Subscribe2Queen
Subscribe to the Official Queen Channel Here http://bit.ly/Subscribe2Queen
English National Ballet
Dancers
Erina Takahashi, Lead Principal at English National Ballet.
James Forbat, First Soloist at English National Ballet
Choreographer
James Streeter, Soloist at English National Ballet
Source: www.youtube.com
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Reinterpreted - English National Ballet (Full Performance)
Queen Official
Published on Dec 17, 2015
Queen + Adam Lambert North American Summer Tour 2017. Tour dates and tickets @ https://queenofficial.lnk.to/live-2017
Subscribe to the official Queen channel Here http://bit.ly/Subscribe2Queen
Subscribe to the Official Queen Channel Here http://bit.ly/Subscribe2Queen
English National Ballet
Dancers
Erina Takahashi, Lead Principal at English National Ballet.
James Forbat, First Soloist at English National Ballet
Choreographer
James Streeter, Soloist at English National Ballet
Source: www.youtube.com
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
POL/GINT-Un conflicto político que requiere una solución política
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Un conflicto político que requiere una solución política
Joaquín Morales Solá
LA NACION
10 DE MAYO DE 2017
La estridencia política no es una buena aliada del sentido común. Por lo general, le abre las puertas al uso político de cuestiones muy sensibles o a la desesperación por hacerse de alguna bandera. Son las situaciones que provocó la decisión de la Corte Suprema de beneficiar con la ley del "dos por uno" a un condenado por delitos de lesa humanidad. La primera reacción de la oposición fue endilgarle al Gobierno una autoría intelectual que no tiene. Otra secuela fue la decisión del fiscal Guillermo Marijuan de imputar a los tres jueces de la Corte que conformaron la mayoría del tribunal por haber violado un "contrato social". Importa más, como se ve, el triunfo oportunista de la política o la obtención de algún impreciso pergamino sobre la causa de los derechos humanos. La cuestión de fondo quedó relegada a la insignificancia.
La deducción de que el Gobierno estuvo detrás de todo es sólo eso: una deducción. Fue construida a partir de algunos datos ciertos y comprobables. Dos de los jueces que firmaron la sentencia triunfante, Horacio Rosatti y Carlos Rosenkrantz, fueron elegidos y nombrados por la administración de Mauricio Macri. Peor: el Gobierno intentó designarlos definitivamente antes de que contaran con el acuerdo del Senado, decisión que debió enmendar luego para respetar la disposición constitucional. La tercera jueza, Elena Highton de Nolasco, seguirá siendo miembro de la Corte Suprema después de cumplir los 75 años, en diciembre, porque el Gobierno no apeló una cautelar que le permite continuar en el cargo. La cautelar sucedió antes de que la Corte, con la abstención de Highton de Nolasco, dispusiera que los jueces deben respetar la Constitución y jubilarse a los 75 años. Es un caso extraño: Highton de Nolasco está dispuesta a desafiar la decisión de sus propios colegas en el máximo tribunal de justicia del país. ¿Cómo pedirles después a los argentinos comunes y corrientes que respeten las leyes y a la Justicia?
Es probable, por otro lado, que el Gobierno esté interesado en resolver algunos casos de presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que son muy ancianos o están muy enfermos. Desde ya, nunca hubiera elegido como solución la aplicación de una ley muy controvertida. La ley del "dos por uno" surgió en 1994 después de varios motines en cárceles hacinadas de presos comunes. Los resultados enseñan de nuevo que no hay peor decisión de un gobierno que la que se deja llevar por el clamor pasajero de colectivos sociales o de mayorías efímeras. Es una ley fundamentalmente injusta, porque relega las disposiciones del Código Penal y las decisiones de jueces de varias instancias. La ley es aplicable para los presos con prisión preventiva, pero sus consecuencias se extienden más allá de la condena firme. Los años de prisión preventiva son computados luego para el cumplimiento de la sentencia definitiva. Además, no resolvió ningún problema: antes, durante y después de la vigencia de la ley, más de la mitad de los presos estaban (y están) en prisión preventiva.
La supuesta autoría del Gobierno debe verse también con el conocimiento de la relación del macrismo con esos jueces que firmaron la sentencia mayoritaria. El Gobierno es especialmente crítico del juez Rosatti, sobre todo después de que éste firmó la resolución de la Corte sobre los aumentos de las tarifas del gas. La Corte le ordenó en su momento a la administración que hiciera audiencias públicas y que aplicara los aumentos de forma gradual. Desde ese momento, hay en el Gobierno cierta sensación, que nunca se dice, de que un pensamiento "populista" anida en el máximo tribunal de Justicia del país. Es improbable que ahora le haya pedido a Rosatti (y que éste haya accedido) un favor relacionado con los derechos humanos. El caso de Highton de Nolasco es más sencillo. El Gobierno decidió conservarla en el cargo porque ya el peronismo (que tiene la llave de los acuerdos en el Senado) le había anticipado que llenaría con un jurista de su partido la próxima vacante en la Corte Suprema. No existe una relación estrecha ni permanente del macrismo con la jueza como para pedirle semejante concesión. Rosenkrantz podría ser el juez con más vínculos con el Gobierno, pero él ha hecho de su independencia una cuestión casi sagrada. Es cierto, también, que es el juez de la Corte que más interés ha puesto en los presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que son muy viejos o están muy enfermos. De tal examen no puede surgir, sea como fuere, una mayoría de la Corte dirigida por el Gobierno.
En breve sesionará en la Argentina la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) por invitación del gobierno de Macri. La comisión supervisará las condiciones de encarcelada de Milagro Sala. ¿Por qué el Gobierno le agregaría justo ahora un tema nuevo y siempre sensible a esos organismos internacionales? De hecho, ya el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos instó a la Corte a respetar los estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos, que consideran que los delitos de lesa humanidad no son equiparables con los delitos comunes. Ocurrió antes de que hubiera transcurrido una semana del fallo de la Corte. Sea por la influencia de figuras argentinas en esos organismos o por la sensibilidad del tema, lo cierto es que nunca antes la ONU reaccionó tan rápido por un tema argentino. Y hubo asuntos de sobra en tiempos de Cristina Kirchner, como la persecución y difamación de opositores y periodistas.
Borrador de acuerdo
Ayer, el Gobierno propuso al Congreso un proyecto de ley por el que limitaría seriamente los alcances de la jurisprudencia de la Corte. El borrador, que está siendo negociado con la oposición, señala que sólo podrán ser beneficiados por el "dos por uno" los presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que estuvieron con prisión preventiva entre 1994 y 2001, cuando rigió esa ley derogada después. Es decir: no habrá ningún beneficiado, porque entonces estaban vigentes las leyes de obediencia debida y de punto final y los indultos. Ningún militar estaba entonces bajo persecución judicial.
Rozando otro extremo jurídico, el fiscal Marijuan imputó a los jueces Highton de Nolasco, Rosatti y Rosenkrantz por el presunto delito de prevaricato. Es una denuncia del extravagante abogado Marcelo Parrilli, que en su momento le pidió a Dios "un rifle sanitario" para sacar del medio a Jorge Lanata. Marijuan se respalda en un "contrato social" sobre el tema de los derechos humanos para imputar a los jueces. No aclaró a qué contrato se refiere ni dónde está guardado su original. ¿O, acaso, es el propio fiscal el que se atribuye la representación de la sociedad y de su contrato?
Regresemos al sentido común. ¿La decisión de la mayoría de la Corte es discutible? Sí, desde ya. ¿Esa mayoría pudo haber cometido un error? Sí, desde luego. Pero hay un largo trecho entre lo discutible o el error y el delito penal que supone Marijuan. Esos jueces simplemente interpretaron las leyes en el uso legítimo de sus atribuciones. El conflicto de ahora es político y requiere, por lo tanto, una solución política.
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Un conflicto político que requiere una solución política
Joaquín Morales Solá
LA NACION
10 DE MAYO DE 2017
La estridencia política no es una buena aliada del sentido común. Por lo general, le abre las puertas al uso político de cuestiones muy sensibles o a la desesperación por hacerse de alguna bandera. Son las situaciones que provocó la decisión de la Corte Suprema de beneficiar con la ley del "dos por uno" a un condenado por delitos de lesa humanidad. La primera reacción de la oposición fue endilgarle al Gobierno una autoría intelectual que no tiene. Otra secuela fue la decisión del fiscal Guillermo Marijuan de imputar a los tres jueces de la Corte que conformaron la mayoría del tribunal por haber violado un "contrato social". Importa más, como se ve, el triunfo oportunista de la política o la obtención de algún impreciso pergamino sobre la causa de los derechos humanos. La cuestión de fondo quedó relegada a la insignificancia.
La deducción de que el Gobierno estuvo detrás de todo es sólo eso: una deducción. Fue construida a partir de algunos datos ciertos y comprobables. Dos de los jueces que firmaron la sentencia triunfante, Horacio Rosatti y Carlos Rosenkrantz, fueron elegidos y nombrados por la administración de Mauricio Macri. Peor: el Gobierno intentó designarlos definitivamente antes de que contaran con el acuerdo del Senado, decisión que debió enmendar luego para respetar la disposición constitucional. La tercera jueza, Elena Highton de Nolasco, seguirá siendo miembro de la Corte Suprema después de cumplir los 75 años, en diciembre, porque el Gobierno no apeló una cautelar que le permite continuar en el cargo. La cautelar sucedió antes de que la Corte, con la abstención de Highton de Nolasco, dispusiera que los jueces deben respetar la Constitución y jubilarse a los 75 años. Es un caso extraño: Highton de Nolasco está dispuesta a desafiar la decisión de sus propios colegas en el máximo tribunal de justicia del país. ¿Cómo pedirles después a los argentinos comunes y corrientes que respeten las leyes y a la Justicia?
Es probable, por otro lado, que el Gobierno esté interesado en resolver algunos casos de presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que son muy ancianos o están muy enfermos. Desde ya, nunca hubiera elegido como solución la aplicación de una ley muy controvertida. La ley del "dos por uno" surgió en 1994 después de varios motines en cárceles hacinadas de presos comunes. Los resultados enseñan de nuevo que no hay peor decisión de un gobierno que la que se deja llevar por el clamor pasajero de colectivos sociales o de mayorías efímeras. Es una ley fundamentalmente injusta, porque relega las disposiciones del Código Penal y las decisiones de jueces de varias instancias. La ley es aplicable para los presos con prisión preventiva, pero sus consecuencias se extienden más allá de la condena firme. Los años de prisión preventiva son computados luego para el cumplimiento de la sentencia definitiva. Además, no resolvió ningún problema: antes, durante y después de la vigencia de la ley, más de la mitad de los presos estaban (y están) en prisión preventiva.
La supuesta autoría del Gobierno debe verse también con el conocimiento de la relación del macrismo con esos jueces que firmaron la sentencia mayoritaria. El Gobierno es especialmente crítico del juez Rosatti, sobre todo después de que éste firmó la resolución de la Corte sobre los aumentos de las tarifas del gas. La Corte le ordenó en su momento a la administración que hiciera audiencias públicas y que aplicara los aumentos de forma gradual. Desde ese momento, hay en el Gobierno cierta sensación, que nunca se dice, de que un pensamiento "populista" anida en el máximo tribunal de Justicia del país. Es improbable que ahora le haya pedido a Rosatti (y que éste haya accedido) un favor relacionado con los derechos humanos. El caso de Highton de Nolasco es más sencillo. El Gobierno decidió conservarla en el cargo porque ya el peronismo (que tiene la llave de los acuerdos en el Senado) le había anticipado que llenaría con un jurista de su partido la próxima vacante en la Corte Suprema. No existe una relación estrecha ni permanente del macrismo con la jueza como para pedirle semejante concesión. Rosenkrantz podría ser el juez con más vínculos con el Gobierno, pero él ha hecho de su independencia una cuestión casi sagrada. Es cierto, también, que es el juez de la Corte que más interés ha puesto en los presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que son muy viejos o están muy enfermos. De tal examen no puede surgir, sea como fuere, una mayoría de la Corte dirigida por el Gobierno.
En breve sesionará en la Argentina la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) por invitación del gobierno de Macri. La comisión supervisará las condiciones de encarcelada de Milagro Sala. ¿Por qué el Gobierno le agregaría justo ahora un tema nuevo y siempre sensible a esos organismos internacionales? De hecho, ya el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos instó a la Corte a respetar los estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos, que consideran que los delitos de lesa humanidad no son equiparables con los delitos comunes. Ocurrió antes de que hubiera transcurrido una semana del fallo de la Corte. Sea por la influencia de figuras argentinas en esos organismos o por la sensibilidad del tema, lo cierto es que nunca antes la ONU reaccionó tan rápido por un tema argentino. Y hubo asuntos de sobra en tiempos de Cristina Kirchner, como la persecución y difamación de opositores y periodistas.
Borrador de acuerdo
Ayer, el Gobierno propuso al Congreso un proyecto de ley por el que limitaría seriamente los alcances de la jurisprudencia de la Corte. El borrador, que está siendo negociado con la oposición, señala que sólo podrán ser beneficiados por el "dos por uno" los presos por delitos de lesa humanidad que estuvieron con prisión preventiva entre 1994 y 2001, cuando rigió esa ley derogada después. Es decir: no habrá ningún beneficiado, porque entonces estaban vigentes las leyes de obediencia debida y de punto final y los indultos. Ningún militar estaba entonces bajo persecución judicial.
Rozando otro extremo jurídico, el fiscal Marijuan imputó a los jueces Highton de Nolasco, Rosatti y Rosenkrantz por el presunto delito de prevaricato. Es una denuncia del extravagante abogado Marcelo Parrilli, que en su momento le pidió a Dios "un rifle sanitario" para sacar del medio a Jorge Lanata. Marijuan se respalda en un "contrato social" sobre el tema de los derechos humanos para imputar a los jueces. No aclaró a qué contrato se refiere ni dónde está guardado su original. ¿O, acaso, es el propio fiscal el que se atribuye la representación de la sociedad y de su contrato?
Regresemos al sentido común. ¿La decisión de la mayoría de la Corte es discutible? Sí, desde ya. ¿Esa mayoría pudo haber cometido un error? Sí, desde luego. Pero hay un largo trecho entre lo discutible o el error y el delito penal que supone Marijuan. Esos jueces simplemente interpretaron las leyes en el uso legítimo de sus atribuciones. El conflicto de ahora es político y requiere, por lo tanto, una solución política.
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Monday, May 8, 2017
GINT-Los jóvenes y el creciente consumo de drogas
The following information is used for educational purposes only.
Los jóvenes y el creciente consumo de drogas
Los resultados de un estudio del Observatorio Social de la UCA revelan no sólo los estragos que produce el narcotráfico, sino también la incapacidad oficial para atacarlo
08 DE MAYO DE 2017
El consumo de drogas y otras sustancias se ha incrementado de manera preocupante a lo largo y a lo ancho del país. Allí donde se las comercializa la delincuencia se dispara, el abandono escolar se incrementa y la salud de los ciudadanos, en especial la de los jóvenes, se deteriora aceleradamente. En este sentido, un reciente y completo trabajo de investigación del Observatorio de la Deuda Social, dependiente de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA), pone de relieve la grave situación por la que se atraviesa, haciendo hincapié, de manera especial, en la venta de drogas, el consumo de estupefacientes y las adicciones en jóvenes que habitan en barrios vulnerables.
El estudio señala que "el creciente aumento en el consumo de sustancias psicoactivas se vio favorecido por la ausencia de políticas coordinadas y efectivas de prevención, protección, intervención, contención y tratamiento" y que "las pocas respuestas reactivas nacen de organizaciones no gubernamentales o de entidades privadas, siendo por lo mismo insuficiente para abordar una problemática por demás compleja".
La Iglesia ha demostrado reiteradamente su preocupación por el daño que provocan el consumo de sustancias y la violencia asociada al tráfico ilegal a nivel general y, particularmente, entre las poblaciones más carecientes.
Según ese estudio, el 22,1% de los jóvenes de entre 17 y 25 años que viven en asentamientos informales del conurbano bonaerense consume sustancias ilegales, al menos mensualmente. La mayor vulnerabilidad de esa franja etaria frente a este flagelo está dada por su particular contexto de exclusión social y por la notoria ausencia del Estado.
El 43,7% de los que participaron de la encuesta reconoció haber consumido drogas alguna vez en su vida. El 27,3% dijo haberlo hecho en el último año, mientras que el 22,1%, al menos una vez durante los 30 días previos a ser consultado. En tanto, el 36% de los jóvenes que consumieron sustancias ilegales dentro de los últimos 12 meses dijo haberlo hecho con una frecuencia semanal.
Considerando el sexo, el informe arroja que son los varones los más vulnerables al uso de drogas. Y establece que, dentro de ese grupo, incluso lo son todavía más aquellos que no estudian ni trabajan, los que no completaron el secundario y los que tienen responsabilidades que cumplir dentro de su familia desde temprana edad.
En términos porcentuales, se trata del 46,7% de los encuestados de entre 17 y 20 años que conforman ese grupo los que aseguraron haber consumido en los últimos 365 días, por lo menos, una vez por semana. En el caso de las mujeres, se trata de un porcentaje mucho menor: 13,7%.
La sustancia ilegal más consumida es la marihuana: el 47,7% la probó alguna vez, el 27,3% lo hizo durante el año último y el 21,4%, durante los últimos 30 días. En segundo orden de importancia en cuanto al consumo aparece la cocaína, con una prevalencia del 17% -10,1% anual y 6,1% mensual-, seguida por la pasta base o el paco, que provoca un nivel de adicción mucho mayor: si bien el 2,9% de los encuestados reconoció haberlo probado alguna vez, el 1,7% confió que lo usó durante el último año y el 1,5% sostuvo haberlo fumado en el último mes.
Más allá de la problemática de las drogas ilícitas, existe otro consumo que preocupa sobremanera. Se trata de la ingestión de alcohol entre los jóvenes de zonas más vulnerables. El consumo de las llamadas drogas lícitas debe ser igualmente atacado, porque existen suficientes constancias científicas de que son la puerta de ingreso al consumo de sustancias ilegales. Según el informe de la UCA, el 80,3% de los encuestados dijo haber bebido alcohol alguna vez, mientras que el 57,4% afirmó beberlo con una frecuencia mensual, y el 35,6%, varias veces a la semana. Otro dato alarmante es que el 11,3% haya admitido sufrir un "consumo problemático", es decir, cuando comienza a desarrollarse dependencia de esas sustancias.
No es una novedad el deterioro de la calidad de vida de muchísimos jóvenes que habitan en el conurbano bonaerense, en barrios asentados en lugares donde no está garantizada ni siquiera la satisfacción de las necesidades más básicas. Los chicos que viven en ese tipo de hogares representan el 50,7% del total y el 50,6% se encuentra bajo la línea de pobreza. Por otro lado, sólo uno de cada tres pudo terminar el nivel secundario de enseñanza, mientras que un escaso 7,4% pudo acceder a niveles superiores de educación.
Resulta tan lamentable como preocupante que el 68,3% de los consultados revelara que la policía sabe del tráfico de drogas en su barrio, pero que no interviene como se espera que lo haga, no sólo para detectar y poner ante la Justicia a quienes cometen ese delito, sino para evitar que más chicos sigan siendo diariamente víctimas de este mortal comercio ilegal.
La asociación policial con la política también queda reflejada en las respuestas que dieron los jóvenes. El 27,5% dijo que los punteros políticos también son responsables de mantener ese statu quo.
Si bien no pudo "confirmar una relación de causalidad lineal", la UCA encontró que la incidencia del delito aumenta entre quienes consumieron drogas en el último mes, mientras que entre los jóvenes que nunca lo hicieron sólo el 1,8% participó alguna vez en la venta de estupefacientes, el 3,1% robó o asaltó y el 1,4% portó armas en la calle.
Según las autoridades que llevaron adelante la investigación, estos jóvenes no son criminales, sino las víctimas de un proceso que estructuralmente banaliza la condición de exclusión, de marginalidad y de adicción. Es sabido que el consumo de droga debe tratarse como un profundo problema sanitario. No es a las víctimas a las que hay que individualizar ni estigmatizar, sino que urge tomar cartas en el asunto con quienes las llevan a esa situación: los delincuentes que trafican las drogas y quienes les sirven de apoyo y garantía para que puedan seguir delinquiendo porque nada les va a pasar.
Se trata de prevenir, pero también de crear las condiciones que reviertan la desigualdad y fortalezcan aquellos aspectos que hacen vulnerable a la juventud frente a la amenaza permanente que impone el narcotráfico. Para ello será necesario implementar políticas de empleo, mejorar la protección en salud y fortalecer las propuestas de educación, entre otros factores impostergables.
La diversidad y la gravedad de los trastornos que se originan en la sociedad argentina en torno al consumo de sustancias tóxicas en los jóvenes, sobre todo en los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad, requieren el compromiso de todos nosotros como sociedad y la instrumentación de políticas públicas de parte de los gobernantes para poder de una vez por todas y antes de que sea todavía más tarde terminar con este flagelo que destruye el presente y el futuro de las generaciones venideras.
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Los jóvenes y el creciente consumo de drogas
Los resultados de un estudio del Observatorio Social de la UCA revelan no sólo los estragos que produce el narcotráfico, sino también la incapacidad oficial para atacarlo
08 DE MAYO DE 2017
El consumo de drogas y otras sustancias se ha incrementado de manera preocupante a lo largo y a lo ancho del país. Allí donde se las comercializa la delincuencia se dispara, el abandono escolar se incrementa y la salud de los ciudadanos, en especial la de los jóvenes, se deteriora aceleradamente. En este sentido, un reciente y completo trabajo de investigación del Observatorio de la Deuda Social, dependiente de la Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA), pone de relieve la grave situación por la que se atraviesa, haciendo hincapié, de manera especial, en la venta de drogas, el consumo de estupefacientes y las adicciones en jóvenes que habitan en barrios vulnerables.
El estudio señala que "el creciente aumento en el consumo de sustancias psicoactivas se vio favorecido por la ausencia de políticas coordinadas y efectivas de prevención, protección, intervención, contención y tratamiento" y que "las pocas respuestas reactivas nacen de organizaciones no gubernamentales o de entidades privadas, siendo por lo mismo insuficiente para abordar una problemática por demás compleja".
La Iglesia ha demostrado reiteradamente su preocupación por el daño que provocan el consumo de sustancias y la violencia asociada al tráfico ilegal a nivel general y, particularmente, entre las poblaciones más carecientes.
Según ese estudio, el 22,1% de los jóvenes de entre 17 y 25 años que viven en asentamientos informales del conurbano bonaerense consume sustancias ilegales, al menos mensualmente. La mayor vulnerabilidad de esa franja etaria frente a este flagelo está dada por su particular contexto de exclusión social y por la notoria ausencia del Estado.
El 43,7% de los que participaron de la encuesta reconoció haber consumido drogas alguna vez en su vida. El 27,3% dijo haberlo hecho en el último año, mientras que el 22,1%, al menos una vez durante los 30 días previos a ser consultado. En tanto, el 36% de los jóvenes que consumieron sustancias ilegales dentro de los últimos 12 meses dijo haberlo hecho con una frecuencia semanal.
Considerando el sexo, el informe arroja que son los varones los más vulnerables al uso de drogas. Y establece que, dentro de ese grupo, incluso lo son todavía más aquellos que no estudian ni trabajan, los que no completaron el secundario y los que tienen responsabilidades que cumplir dentro de su familia desde temprana edad.
En términos porcentuales, se trata del 46,7% de los encuestados de entre 17 y 20 años que conforman ese grupo los que aseguraron haber consumido en los últimos 365 días, por lo menos, una vez por semana. En el caso de las mujeres, se trata de un porcentaje mucho menor: 13,7%.
La sustancia ilegal más consumida es la marihuana: el 47,7% la probó alguna vez, el 27,3% lo hizo durante el año último y el 21,4%, durante los últimos 30 días. En segundo orden de importancia en cuanto al consumo aparece la cocaína, con una prevalencia del 17% -10,1% anual y 6,1% mensual-, seguida por la pasta base o el paco, que provoca un nivel de adicción mucho mayor: si bien el 2,9% de los encuestados reconoció haberlo probado alguna vez, el 1,7% confió que lo usó durante el último año y el 1,5% sostuvo haberlo fumado en el último mes.
Más allá de la problemática de las drogas ilícitas, existe otro consumo que preocupa sobremanera. Se trata de la ingestión de alcohol entre los jóvenes de zonas más vulnerables. El consumo de las llamadas drogas lícitas debe ser igualmente atacado, porque existen suficientes constancias científicas de que son la puerta de ingreso al consumo de sustancias ilegales. Según el informe de la UCA, el 80,3% de los encuestados dijo haber bebido alcohol alguna vez, mientras que el 57,4% afirmó beberlo con una frecuencia mensual, y el 35,6%, varias veces a la semana. Otro dato alarmante es que el 11,3% haya admitido sufrir un "consumo problemático", es decir, cuando comienza a desarrollarse dependencia de esas sustancias.
No es una novedad el deterioro de la calidad de vida de muchísimos jóvenes que habitan en el conurbano bonaerense, en barrios asentados en lugares donde no está garantizada ni siquiera la satisfacción de las necesidades más básicas. Los chicos que viven en ese tipo de hogares representan el 50,7% del total y el 50,6% se encuentra bajo la línea de pobreza. Por otro lado, sólo uno de cada tres pudo terminar el nivel secundario de enseñanza, mientras que un escaso 7,4% pudo acceder a niveles superiores de educación.
Resulta tan lamentable como preocupante que el 68,3% de los consultados revelara que la policía sabe del tráfico de drogas en su barrio, pero que no interviene como se espera que lo haga, no sólo para detectar y poner ante la Justicia a quienes cometen ese delito, sino para evitar que más chicos sigan siendo diariamente víctimas de este mortal comercio ilegal.
La asociación policial con la política también queda reflejada en las respuestas que dieron los jóvenes. El 27,5% dijo que los punteros políticos también son responsables de mantener ese statu quo.
Si bien no pudo "confirmar una relación de causalidad lineal", la UCA encontró que la incidencia del delito aumenta entre quienes consumieron drogas en el último mes, mientras que entre los jóvenes que nunca lo hicieron sólo el 1,8% participó alguna vez en la venta de estupefacientes, el 3,1% robó o asaltó y el 1,4% portó armas en la calle.
Según las autoridades que llevaron adelante la investigación, estos jóvenes no son criminales, sino las víctimas de un proceso que estructuralmente banaliza la condición de exclusión, de marginalidad y de adicción. Es sabido que el consumo de droga debe tratarse como un profundo problema sanitario. No es a las víctimas a las que hay que individualizar ni estigmatizar, sino que urge tomar cartas en el asunto con quienes las llevan a esa situación: los delincuentes que trafican las drogas y quienes les sirven de apoyo y garantía para que puedan seguir delinquiendo porque nada les va a pasar.
Se trata de prevenir, pero también de crear las condiciones que reviertan la desigualdad y fortalezcan aquellos aspectos que hacen vulnerable a la juventud frente a la amenaza permanente que impone el narcotráfico. Para ello será necesario implementar políticas de empleo, mejorar la protección en salud y fortalecer las propuestas de educación, entre otros factores impostergables.
La diversidad y la gravedad de los trastornos que se originan en la sociedad argentina en torno al consumo de sustancias tóxicas en los jóvenes, sobre todo en los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad, requieren el compromiso de todos nosotros como sociedad y la instrumentación de políticas públicas de parte de los gobernantes para poder de una vez por todas y antes de que sea todavía más tarde terminar con este flagelo que destruye el presente y el futuro de las generaciones venideras.
Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ChatGPT, una introducción realista, por Ariel Torres
The following information is used for educational purposes only. ChatGPT, una introducción realista ChatGPT parece haber alcanz...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. Transcript: ...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. TED Talks Education | April 2013 Angela Lee Duckworth-Grit.The power ...
-
The following information is used for educational purposes only. ChatGPT, una introducción realista ChatGPT parece haber alcanz...