Thursday, March 24, 2016

¡FELICES PASCUAS!-HAPPY EASTER!

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



Que estas Pascuas traigan a todos las personas de buen corazón una sobredosis de:



PAZ

AMOR

SOLIDARIDAD

CARIDAD

UNIDAD

ALEGRIA

SERENIDAD



por /by C.M.












Viernes Santo: En este Viernes Santo pidámosle al Espíritu Santo que

nos forme de nuevo en el seno de María, para renacer a una vida mejor,

transformados, embellecidos, y liberados de TODO lo que arruina nuestra existencia.

De esta manera, él nos hará nacer de nuevo, más parecidos a Jesús.




Fuente: Los 5 minutos del Espíritu Santo por V.M.F.
























































































































Fuente/Source: Google Images

Sunday, March 13, 2016

ENV/GralInt-TED Talks-Travis Kalanick: Uber's plan to get more people into fewer cars

The following information is used for educational purposes only.






Filmed February 2016 at TED2016


Travis Kalanick: Uber's plan to get more people into fewer cars



Uber didn't start out with grand ambitions to cut congestion and pollution. But as the company took off, co-founder Travis Kalanick wondered if there was a way to get people using Uber along the same routes to share rides, reducing costs and carbon footprint along the way. The result: uberPOOL, the company's carpooling service, which in its first eight months took 7.9 million miles off the roads and 1,400 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the air in Los Angeles. Now, Kalanick says carpooling could work for commuters in the suburbs, too. "With the technology in our pockets today, and a little smart regulation," he says, "we can turn every car into a shared car, and we can reclaim our cities starting today."




















































Transcript:




Today I wanted to -- well, this morning -- I want to talk about the future of human-driven transportation; about how we can cut congestion, pollution and parking by getting more people into fewer cars; and how we can do it with the technology that's in our pockets. And yes, I'm talking about smartphones ... not self-driving cars.
But to get started we've got to go back over 100 years. Because it turns out there was an Uber way before Uber. And if it had survived, the future of transportation would probably already be here.
So let me introduce you to the jitney. In 1914 it was created or invented by a guy named LP Draper. He was a car salesman from LA, and he had an idea. Well, he was cruising around downtown Los Angeles, my hometown, and he saw trolleys with long lines of people trying to get to where they wanted to go. He said, well, why don't I just put a sign on my car that takes people wherever they want to go for a jitney -- that was slang for a nickel.
And so people jumped on board, and not just in Los Angeles but across the country. And within one year, by 1915, there were 50,000 rides per day in Seattle, 45,000 rides per day in Kansas and 150,000 rides per day in Los Angeles. To give you some perspective, Uber in Los Angeles is doing 157,000 rides per day, today ... 100 years later.
And so these are the trolley guys, the existing transportation monopoly at the time. They were clearly not happy about the jitney juggernaut. And so they got to work and they went to cities across the country and got regulations put in place to slow down the growth of the jitney.
And there were all kinds of regulations. There were licenses -- often they were pricey. In some cities, if you were a jitney driver, you were required to be in the jitney for 16 hours a day. In other cities, they required two jitney drivers for one jitney. But there was a really interesting regulation which was they had to put a backseat light -- install it in every Jitney -- to stop a new pernicious innovation which they called spooning.
(Laughter)
All right. So what happened? Well, within a year this thing had taken off. But the jitney, by 1919, was regulated completely out of existence.
That's unfortunate ... because, well, when you can't share a car, then you have to own one. And car ownership skyrocketed and it's no wonder that by 2007, there was a car for every man, woman and child in the United States. And that phenomenon had gone global. In China by 2011, there were more car sales happening in China than in the US.
Now, all this private ownership of course had a public cost. In the US, we spend 7 billion hours a year, wasted, sitting in traffic. 160 billion dollars in lost productivity, of course also sitting in traffic, and one-fifth of all of our carbon footprint is spewed out in the air by those cars that we're sitting in.
Now, that's only four percent of our problem though. Because if you have to own a car then that means 96 percent of the time your car is sitting idle. And so, up to 30 percent of our land and our space is used storing these hunks of steel. We even have skyscrapers built for cars. That's the world we live in today.
Now, cities have been dealing with this problem for decades. It's called mass transit. And even in a city like New York City, one of the most densely populated in the world and one of the most sophisticated mass transit systems in the world, there are still 2.5 million cars that go over those bridges every day. Why is that? Well, it's because mass transit hasn't yet figured out how to get to everybody's doorstep. And so back in San Francisco, where I live, the situation's much worse, in fact, much worse around the world.
And so the beginning of Uber in 2010 was -- well, we just wanted to push a button and get a ride. We didn't have any grand ambitions. But it just turned out that lots of people wanted to push a button and get a ride, and ultimately what we started to see was a lot of duplicate rides. We saw a lot of people pushing the same button at the same time going essentially to the same place.
And so we started thinking about, well, how do we make those two trips and turn them into one. Because if we did, that ride would be a lot cheaper -- up to 50 percent cheaper -- and of course for the city you've got a lot more people and a lot fewer cars.
And so the big question for us was: would it work? Could you have a cheaper ride cheap enough that people would be willing to share it? And the answer, fortunately, is a resounding yes.
In San Francisco, before uberPOOL, we had -- well, everybody would take their car wherever the heck they wanted. And the bright colors is where we have the most cars. And once we introduced uberPOOL, well, you see there's not as many bright colors. More people getting around the city in fewer cars, taking cars off the road. It looks like uberPOOL is working.
And so we rolled it out in Los Angeles eight months ago. And since then, we've taken 7.9 million miles off the roads and we've taken 1.4 thousand metric tons of CO2 out of the air. But the part that I'm really --
(Applause)
But my favorite statistic -- remember, I'm from LA, I spent years of my life sitting behind the wheel, going, "How do we fix this?" -- my favorite part is that eight months later, we have added 100,000 new people that are carpooling every week.
Now, in China everything is supersized, and so we're doing 15 million uberPOOL trips per month, that's 500,000 per day. And of course we're seeing that exponential growth happen. In fact, we're seeing it in LA, too. And when I talk to my team, we don't talk about, "Hey, well, 100,000 people carpooling every week and we're done." How do we get that to a million? And in China, well, that could be several million.
And so uberPOOL is a very great solution for urban carpooling. But what about the suburbs?
This is the street where I grew up in Los Angeles, it's actually a suburb called Northridge, California, and, well -- look, those mailboxes, they kind of just go on forever. And every morning at about the same time, cars roll of out their driveway, most of them, one person in the car, and they go to work, they go to their place of work. So the question for us is: well, how do we turn all of these commuter cars -- and literally there's tens of millions of them -- how do we turn all these commuter cars into shared cars?
08:24
Well, we have something for this that we recently launched called uberCOMMUTE. You get up in the morning, get ready for work, get your coffee, go to your car and you light up the Uber app, and all of a sudden, you become an Uber driver. And we'll match you up with one of your neighbors on your way to work and it's a really great thing.
08:46
There's just one hitch ... it's called regulation. So 54 cents a mile, what is that? Well, that is what the US government has determined that the cost of owning a car is per mile. You can pick up anybody in the United States and take them wherever they want to go at a moment's notice, for 54 cents a mile or less. But if you charge 60 cents a mile, you're a criminal. But what if for 60 cents a mile we could get half a million more people carpooling in Los Angeles? And what if at 60 cents a mile we could get 50 million people carpooling in the United States? If we could, it's obviously something we should do.
And so it goes back to the lesson of the jitney. If by 1915 this thing was taking off, imagine without the regulations that happened, if that thing could just keep going. How would our cities be different today? Would we have parks in the place of parking lots? Well, we lost that chance. But technology has given us another opportunity.
Now, I'm as excited as anybody else about self-driving cars but do we have to really wait five, 10 or even 20 years to make our new cities a reality? With the technology in our pockets today, and a little smart regulation, we can turn every car into a shared car, and we can reclaim our cities starting today.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: Travis, thank you.
Travis Kalanick: Thank you.
CA: You know -- I mean the company you've built is absolutely astounding. You only just talked about a small part of it here -- a powerful part -- the idea of turning cars into public transport like that, it's cool. But I've got a couple other questions because I know they're out there on people's minds.
So first of all, last week I think it was, I switched on my phone and tried to book an Uber and I couldn't find the app. You had this very radical, very bold, brave redesign.
TK: Sure.
CA: How did it go? Did you notice other people not finding the app that day? Are you going to win people over for this redesign?
TK: Well, first I should probably just say, well, what we were trying to accomplish. And I think if you know a little bit about our history, it makes a lot more sense. Which is, when we first got started, it was just black cars. It was literally you push a button and get an S-Class. And so what we did was almost what I would call an immature version of a luxury brand that looked like a badge on a luxury car.
And as we've gone worldwide and gone from S-Classes to auto rickshaws in India, it became something that was important for us to be more accessible, to be more hyperlocal, to be about the cities we were in and that's what you see with the patterns and colors. And to be more iconic, because a U doesn't mean anything in Sanskrit, and a U doesn't mean anything in Mandarin. And so that was a little bit what it was about.
Now, when you first roll out something like that, I mean, your hands are sweating, you've got -- you know, you're a little worried. What we saw is a lot of people -- actually, at the beginning, we saw a lot more people opening the app because they were curious what they would find when they opened it. And our numbers were slightly up from what we expected.
CA: OK, that's cool.
Now, so you, yourself, are something of an enigma, I would say. Your supporters and investors, who have been with you the whole way, believe that the only chance of sort of taking on the powerful, entrenched interests of taxi industry and so forth, is to have someone who is a fierce, relentless competitor, which you've certainly proved to be.
Some people feel you've almost taken that culture too far, and you know -- like a year or two ago there was a huge controversy where a lot of women got upset. How did it feel like inside the company during that period? Did you notice a loss of business? Did you learn anything from that?
TK: Well, look, I think -- I've been an entrepreneur since I've been in high school and you have -- In various different ways an entrepreneur will see hard times and for us, it was about a year and a half ago, and for us it was hard times, too.
Now, inside, we felt like -- I guess at the end of the day we felt like we were good people doing good work, but on the outside that wasn't evident. And so there was a lot that we had to do to sort of -- We'd gone from a very small company -- I mean if you go literally two and a half years ago, our company was 400 people, and today it's 6,500. And so when you go through that growth, you have to sort of cement your cultural values and talk about them all of the time. And make sure that people are constantly checking to say, "Are we good people doing good work?" And if you check those boxes, the next part of that is making sure you're telling your story. And I think we learned a lot of lessons but I think at the end of it we came out stronger. But it was certainly a difficult period.
CA: It seems to me, everywhere you turn, you're facing people who occasionally give you a hard time. Some Uber drivers in New York and elsewhere are mad as hell now because you changed the fees and they can barely -- they claim -- barely afford the deal anymore.
How -- You know, you said that you started this originally -- just the coolness of pressing a button and summoning a ride. This thing's taken off, you're affecting the whole global economy, basically, at this point. You're being forced to be, whether you want it or not, a kind of global visionary who's changing the world. I mean -- who are you? Do you want that? Are you ready to go with that and be what that takes?
TK: Well, there's a few things packed in that question, so --
(Laughter)
First is on the pricing side -- I mean, keep in mind, right? UberX, when we first started, was literally 10 or 15 percent cheaper than our black car product. It's now in many cities, half the price of a taxi. And we have all the data to show that the divers are making more per hour than they would as taxi drivers.
What happens is when the price goes down, people are more likely to take Uber at different times of the day than they otherwise would have, and they're more likely to use it in places they wouldn't have before. And what that means for a driver is wherever he or she drops somebody off, they're much more likely to get a pickup and get back in. And so what that means is more trips per hour, more minutes of the hour where they're productive and actually, earnings come up.
And we have cities where we've done literally five or six price cuts and have seen those price cuts go up over time. So even in New York -- We have a blog post we call "4 Septembers" -- compare the earnings September after September after September. Same month every year. And we see the earnings going up over time as the price comes down. And there's a perfect price point -- you can't go down forever. And in those places where we bring the price down but we don't see those earnings pop, we bring the prices back up.
So that addresses that first part. And then the enigma and all of this -- I mean, the kind of entrepreneur I am is one that gets really excited about solving hard problems. And the way I like to describe it is it's kind of like a math professor. You know? If a math professor doesn't have hard problems to solve, that's a really sad math professor. And so at Uber we like the hard problems and we like getting excited about those and solving them. But we don't want just any math problem, we want the hardest ones that we can possibly find, and we want the one that if you solve it, there's a little bit of a wow factor.
CA: In a couple years' time -- say five years' time, I don't know when -- you roll out your incredible self-driving cars, at probably a lower cost than you currently pay for an Uber ride. What do you say to your army of a million drivers plus at that time?
TK: Explain that again -- at which time?
CA: At the time when self-driving cars are coming --
TK: Sure, sure, sure. Sorry, I missed that.
CA: What do you say to a driver? TK: Well, look, I think the first part is it's going to take -- it's likely going to take a lot longer than I think some of the hype or media might expect. That's part one.
Part two is it's going to also take -- there's going to be a long transition. These cars will work in certain places and not in others.
For us it's an interesting challenge, right? Because, well -- Google's been investing in this since 2007, Tesla's going to be doing it, Apple's going to be doing it, the manufacturers are going to be doing it. This is a world that's going to exist, and for good reason. A million people die a year in cars. And we already looked at the billions or even trillions of hours worldwide that people are spending sitting in them, driving frustrated, anxious. And think about the quality of life that improves when you give people their time back and it's not so anxiety-ridden. So I think there's a lot of good.
And so the way we think about it is that it's a challenge, but one for optimistic leadership, Where instead of resisting -- resisting technology, maybe like the taxi industry, or the trolley industry -- we have to embrace it or be a part of the future.
But how do we optimistically lead through it? Are there ways to partner with cities? Are there ways to have education systems, vocational training, etc., for that transition period. It will take a lot longer than I think we all expect, especially that transition period. But it is a world that's going to exist, and it is going to be a better world.
CA: Travis, what you're building is absolutely incredible and I'm hugely grateful to you for coming to TED and sharing so openly.
Thank you so much. TK: Thank you very much.
(Applause)









HEALTH/DGN/GralInt-TED Talks-Mileha Soneji: Simple hacks for life with Parkinson's

The following information is used for educational purposes only.






Filmed February 2015 at TEDxDelft

Mileha Soneji: Simple hacks for life with Parkinson's





Simple solutions are often best, even when dealing with something as complicated as Parkinson's. In this inspiring talk, Mileha Soneji shares accessible designs that make the everyday tasks of those living with Parkinson's a bit easier. "Technology is not always it," she says. "What we need are human-centered solutions."










































Transcript:


In India, we have these huge families. I bet a lot of you all must have heard about it. Which means that there are a lot of family events. So as a child, my parents used to drag me to these family events.
But the one thing that I always looked forward to was playing around with my cousins. And there was always this one uncle who used to be there, always ready, jumping around with us, having games for us, making us kids have the time of our lives. This man was extremely successful: he was confident and powerful. But then I saw this hale and hearty person deteriorate in health. He was diagnosed with Parkinson's.
Parkinson's is a disease that causes degeneration of the nervous system, which means that this person who used to be independent suddenly finds tasks like drinking coffee, because of tremors, much more difficult. My uncle started using a walker to walk, and to take a turn, he literally had to take one step at a time, like this, and it took forever. So this person, who used to be the center of attention in every family gathering, was suddenly hiding behind people. He was hiding from the pitiful look in people's eyes.
And he's not the only one in the world. Every year, 60,000 people are newly diagnosed with Parkinson's, and this number is only rising. As designers, we dream that our designs solve these multifaceted problems, one solution that solves it all, but it need not always be like that. You can also target simple problems and create small solutions for them and eventually make a big impact. So my aim here was to not cure Parkinson's, but to make their everyday tasks much more simple, and then make an impact.
Well, the first thing I targeted was tremors, right? My uncle told me that he had stopped drinking coffee or tea in public just out of embarrassment, so, well, I designed the no-spill cup. It works just purely on its form. The curve on top deflects the liquid back inside every time they have tremors, and this keeps the liquid inside compared to a normal cup. But the key here is that it is not tagged as a Parkinson's patient product. It looks like a cup that could be used by you, me, any clumsy person, and that makes it much more comforting for them to use, to blend in. So, well, one problem solved, many more to go.
All this while, I was interviewing him, questioning him, and then I realized that I was getting very superficial information, or just answers to my questions. But I really needed to dig deeper to get a new perspective. So I thought, well, let's observe him in his daily tasks, while he's eating, while he's watching TV. And then, when I was actually observing him walking to his dining table, it struck me, this man who finds it so difficult to walk on flat land, how does he climb a staircase? Because in India we do not have a fancy rail that takes you up a staircase like in the developed countries. One actually has to climb the stairs. So he told me, "Well, let me show you how I do it." Let's take a look at what I saw.
So he took really long to reach this position, and then all this while, I'm thinking, "Oh my God, is he really going to do it? Is he really, really going to do it without his walker?" And then ...
(Laughter)
And the turns, he took them so easily.
So -- shocked? Well, I was too. So this person who could not walk on flat land was suddenly a pro at climbing stairs.
On researching this, I realized that it's because it's a continuous motion. There's this other man who also suffers from the same symptoms and uses a walker, but the moment he's put on a cycle, all his symptoms vanish, because it is a continuous motion. So the key for me was to translate this feeling of walking on a staircase back to flat land. And a lot of ideas were tested and tried on him, but the one that finally worked was this one. Let's take a look.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
He walked faster, right?
(Applause)
I call this the staircase illusion, and actually when the staircase illusion abruptly ended, he froze, and this is called freezing of gait. So it happens a lot, so why not have a staircase illusion flowing through all their rooms, making them feel much more confident? You know, technology is not always it. What we need are human-centered solutions. I could have easily made it into a projection, or a Google Glass, or something like that. But I stuck to simple print on the floor. This print could be taken into hospitals to make them feel much more welcome.
What I wish to do is make every Parkinson's patient feel like my uncle felt that day. He told me that I made him feel like his old self again.
"Smart" in today's world has become synonymous to high tech, and the world is only getting smarter and smarter day by day. But why can't smart be something that's simple and yet effective? All we need is a little bit of empathy and some curiosity, to go out there, observe. But let's not stop at that. Let's find these complex problems. Don't be scared of them. Break them, boil them down into much smaller problems, and then find simple solutions for them. Test these solutions, fail if needed, but with newer insights to make it better. Imagine what we all could do if we all came up with simple solutions. What would the world be like if we combined all our simple solutions? Let's make a smarter world, but with simplicity.
Thank you.
(Applause)

Monday, February 22, 2016

GralInt-"No te rindas" por Mario Benedetti

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





No te rindas


Mario Benedetti


No te rindas, aun estas a tiempo
de alcanzar y comenzar de nuevo,
aceptar tus sombras, enterrar tus miedos,
liberar el lastre, retomar el vuelo.

No te rindas que la vida es eso,
continuar el viaje,
perseguir tus sueños,
destrabar el tiempo,
correr los escombros y destapar el cielo.

No te rindas, por favor no cedas,
aunque el frio queme,
aunque el miedo muerda,
aunque el sol se esconda y se calle el viento,
aun hay fuego en tu alma,
aun hay vida en tus sueños,
porque la vida es tuya y tuyo tambien el deseo,
porque lo has querido y porque te quiero.

Porque existe el vino y el amor, es cierto,
porque no hay heridas que no cure el tiempo,
abrir las puertas quitar los cerrojos,
abandonar las murallas que te protegieron.

Vivir la vida y aceptar el reto,
recuperar la risa, ensayar el canto,
bajar la guardia y extender las manos,
desplegar las alas e intentar de nuevo,
celebrar la vida y retomar los cielos,

No te rindas por favor no cedas,
aunque el frio queme,
aunque el miedo muerda,
aunque el sol se ponga y se calle el viento,
aun hay fuego en tu alma,
aun hay vida en tus sueños,
porque cada dia es un comienzo,
porque esta es la hora y el mejor momento,
porque no estas sola,
porque yo te quiero.







Gracias, E.S..C.M.



Fuente: http://www.textosypretextos.com.ar/no-te-rindas

Saturday, February 13, 2016

ECON/BUS/GralInt-TED Talks-Dambisa Moyo: Economic growth has stalled. Let's fix it

The following information is used for educational purposes only.




Filmed December 2015 at TEDGlobal>Geneva

Dambisa Moyo: Economic growth has stalled. Let's fix it


Economic growth is the defining challenge of our time; without it, political and social instability rises, human progress stagnates and societies grow dimmer. But, says economist Dambisa Moyo, dogmatic capitalism isn't creating the growth we need. As she shows, in both state-sponsored and market-driven models, capitalism is failing to solve social ills, fostering corruption and creating income inequality. Moyo surveys the current economic landscape and suggests that we have to start thinking about capitalism as a spectrum so we can blend the best of different models together to foster growth.























































Transcript:




Our ability to create and sustain economic growth is the defining challenge of our time.
Of course there are other challenges -- health care, disease burdens and pandemics, environmental challenges and, of course, radicalized terrorism. However, to the extent that we can actually solve the economic growth challenge, it will take us a long way to solving the challenges that I've just elucidated.
More importantly, unless and until we solve economic growth and create sustainable, long-term economic growth, we'll be unable to address the seemingly intractable challenges that continue to pervade the globe today, whether it's health care, education or economic development.
The fundamental question is this: How are we going to create economic growth in advanced and developed economies like the United States and across Europe at a time when they continue to struggle to create economic growth after the financial crisis?
They continue to underperform and to see an erosion in the three key drivers of economic growth: capital, labor and productivity. In particular, these developed economies continue to see debts and deficits, the decline and erosion of both the quality and quantity of labor and they also see productivity stalling.
In a similar vein, how are we going to create economic growth in the emerging markets, where 90 percent of the world's population lives and where, on average, 70 percent of the population is under the age of 25? In these countries, it is essential that they grow at a minimum of seven percent a year in order to put a dent in poverty and to double per capita incomes in one generation. And yet today, the largest emerging economies -- countries with at least 50 million people -- continue to struggle to reach that seven percent magic mark. Worse than that, countries like India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and even China are falling below that seven percent number and, in many cases, actually regressing.
Economic growth matters. With economic growth, countries and societies enter into a virtuous cycle of upward mobility, opportunity and improved living standards. Without growth, countries contract and atrophy, not just in the annals of economic statistics but also in the meaning of life and how lives are lived. Economic growth matters powerfully for the individual. If growth wanes, the risk to human progress and the risk of political and social instability rises, and societies become dimmer, coarser and smaller.
The context matters. And countries in emerging markets do not need to grow at the same rates as developed countries.
Now, I know some of you in this room find this to be a risky proposition. There are some people here who will turn around and be quite disillusioned by what's happened around the world and basically ascribe that to economic growth. You worry about the overpopulation of the planet. And looking at the UN's recent statistics and projections that the world will have 11 billion people on the planet before it plateaus in 2100, you're concerned about what that does to natural resources -- arable land, potable water, energy and minerals. You are also concerned about the degradation of the environment. And you worry about how man, embodied in the corporate globalist, has become greedy and corrupt.
But I'm here to tell you today that economic growth has been the backbone of changes in living standards of millions of people around the world. And more importantly, it's not just economic growth that has been driven by capitalism.
The definition of capitalism, very simply put, is that the factors of production, such as trade and industry, capital and labor, are left in the hands of the private sector and not the state.
It's really essential here that we understand that fundamentally the critique is not for economic growth per se but what has happened to capitalism. And to the extent that we need to create economic growth over the long term, we're going to have to pursue it with a better form of economic stance.
Economic growth needs capitalism, but it needs it to work properly. And as I mentioned a moment ago, the core of the capitalist system has been defined by private actors. And even this, however, is a very simplistic dichotomy. Capitalism: good; non-capitalism: bad. When in practical experience, capitalism is much more of a spectrum. And we have countries such as China, which have practiced more state capitalism, and we have countries like the Unites States which are more market capitalist.
Our efforts to critique the capitalist system, however, have tended to focus on countries like China that are in fact not blatantly market capitalism.
However, there is a real reason and real concern for us to now focus our attentions on purer forms of capitalism, particularly those embodied by the United States. This is really important because this type of capitalism has increasingly been afforded the critique that it is now fostering corruption and, worse still, it's increasing income inequality -- the idea that the few are benefiting at the expense of the many.
The two really critical questions that we need to address is how can we fix capitalism so that it can help create economic growth but at the same time can help to address social ills.
In order to think about that framing, we have to ask ourselves, how does capitalism work today? Very simplistically, capitalism is set on the basis of an individual utility maximizer -- a selfish individual who goes after what he or she wants. And only after they've maximized their utility do they then decide it's important to provide support to other social contracts. Of course, in this system governments do tax, and they use part of their revenues to fund social programs, recognizing that government's role is not just regulation but also to be arbiter of social goods. But nevertheless, this framework -- this two-stage framework -- is the basis from which we must now start to think about how we can improve the capitalist model.
I would argue that there are two sides to this challenge. First of all, we can draw on the right-wing policies to see what could be beneficial for us to think about how we can improve capitalism.
In particular, right-leaning policies have tended to focus on things like conditional transfers, where we pay and reward people for doing the things that we actually think can help enhance economic growth. For example, sending children to school, parents could earn money for that, or getting their children inoculated or immunized, parents could get paid for doing that.
Now, quite apart from the debate on whether or not we should be paying people to do what we think they should do anyway, the fact of the matter is that pay for performance has actually yielded some positive results in places like Mexico, in Brazil and also in pilot programs in New York.
But there are also benefits and significant changes underway on left-leaning policies. Arguments that government should expand its role and responsibility so that it's not so narrowly defined and that government should be much more of an arbiter of the factors of production have become commonplace with the success of China. But also we've started to have debates about how the role of the private sector should move away from just being a profit motive and really be more engaged in the delivery of social programs. Things like the corporate social responsibility programs, albeit small in scale, are moving in that right direction. Of course, left-leaning policies have also tended to blur the lines between government, NGOs and private sector.
Two very good examples of this are the 19th-century United States, when the infrastructure rollout was really about public-private partnerships. More recently, of course, the advent of the Internet has also proven to the world that public and private can work together for the betterment of society.
My fundamental message to you is this: We cannot continue to try and solve the world economic growth challenges by being dogmatic and being unnecessarily ideological. In order to create sustainable, long-term economic growth and solve the challenges and social ills that continue to plague the world today, we're going to have to be more broad-minded about what might work.
Ultimately, we have to recognize that ideology is the enemy of growth.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Bruno Giussani: I want to ask a couple of questions, Dambisa, because one could react to your last sentence by saying growth is also an ideology, it's possibly the dominant ideology of our times. What do you say to those who react that way?
DM: Well, I think that that's completely legitimate, and I think that we're already having that discussion. There's a lot of work going on around happiness and other metrics being used for measuring people's success and improvements in living standards. And so I think that we should be open to what could deliver improvements in people's living standards and continue to reduce poverty around the world.
BG: So you're basically pleading for rehabilitating growth, but the only way for that happen without compromising the capacity of the earth, to take us on a long journey, is for economic growth somehow to decouple from the underlying use of resources. Do you see that happening?
DM: Well, I think that I'm more optimistic about human ability and ingenuity. I think if we start to constrain ourselves using the finite, scarce and depleting resources that we know today, we could get quite negative and quite concerned about the way the world is.
However, we've seen the Club of Rome, we've seen previous claims that the world would be running out of resources, and it's not to argue that those things are not valid. But I think, with ingenuity we could see desalination, I think we could reinvest in energy, so that we can actually get better outcomes. And so in that sense, I'm much more optimistic about what humans can do.
BG: The thing that strikes me about your proposals for rehabilitating growth and taking a different direction is that you're kind of suggesting to fix capitalism with more capitalism -- with putting a price tag on good behavior as incentive or developing a bigger role for business in social issues. Is that what you're suggesting?
DM: I'm suggesting we have to be open-minded. I think it is absolutely the case that traditional models of economic growth are not working the way we would like them to. And I think it's no accident that today the largest economy in the world, the United States, has democracy, liberal democracy, as it's core political stance and it has free market capitalism -- to the extent that it is free -- free market capitalism as its economic stance. The second largest economy is China. It has deprioritized democracy and it has state capitalism, which is a completely different model. These two countries, completely different political models and completely different economic models, and yet they have the same income inequality number measured as a Gini coefficient.
I think those are the debates we should have, because it's not clear at all what model we should be adopting, and I think there needs to be much more discourse and much more humility about what we know and what we don't know.
BG: One last question. The COP21 is going on in Paris. If you could send a tweet to all the heads of state and heads of delegations there, what would you say?
DM: Again, I would be very much about being open-minded. As you're aware, the issues around the environmental concerns have been on the agenda many times now -- in Copenhagen, '72 in Stockholm -- and we keep revisiting these issues partly because there is not a fundamental agreement, in fact there's a schism between what the developed countries believe and want and what emerging market countries want. Emerging market countries need to continue to create economic growth so that we don't have political uncertainty in the those countries. Developed countries recognize that they have a real, important responsibility not only just to manage their CO2 emissions and some of the degradation that they're contributing to the world, but also as trendsetters in R&D. And so they have to come to the table as well. But in essence, it cannot be a situation where we start ascribing policies to the emerging markets without developed countries themselves also taking quite a swipe at what they're doing both in demand and supply in developed markets.
BG: Dambisa, thank you for coming to TED. DM: Thank you very much.
(Applause)

ENV/GralInt-TED Talks-Mike Velings: The case for fish farming

The following information is used for educational purposes only.




Filmed October 2015 at Mission Blue II


Mike Velings: The case for fish farming



We're headed towards a global food crisis: Nearly 3 billion people depend on the ocean for food, and at our current rate we already take more fish from the ocean than it can naturally replace. In this fact-packed, eye-opening talk, entrepreneur and conservationist Mike Velings proposes a solution: Aquaculture, or fish farming. "We must start using the ocean as farmers instead of hunters," he says, echoing Jacques Cousteau. "The day will come where people will demand farmed fish on their plates that's farmed well and farmed healthy — and refuse anything less."











































Transcript:




So I come from the tallest people on the planet -- the Dutch. It hasn't always been this way. In fact, all across the globe, people have been gaining height. In the last 150 years, in developed countries, on average, we have gotten 10 centimeters taller. And scientists have a lot of theories about why this is, but almost all of them involve nutrition, namely the increase of dairy and meat.
In the last 50 years, global meat consumption has more than quadrupled, from 71 million tons to 310 million tons. Something similar has been going on with milk and eggs. In every society where incomes have risen, so has protein consumption. And we know that globally, we are getting richer. And as the middle class is on the rise, so is our global population, from 7 billion of us today to 9.7 billion by 2050, which means that by 2050, we are going to need at least 70 percent more protein than what is available to humankind today. And the latest prediction of the UN puts that population number, by the end of this century, at 11 billion, which means that we are going to need a lot more protein.
This challenge is staggering -- so much so, that recently, a team at Anglia Ruskin Global Sustainability Institute suggested that if we don't change our global policies and food production systems, our societies might actually collapse in the next 30 years.
01:35
Currently, our ocean serves as the main source of animal protein. Over 2.6 billion people depend on it every single day. At the same time, our global fisheries are two-and-a-half times larger than what our oceans can sustainably support, meaning that humans take far more fish from the ocean than the oceans can naturally replace.
WWF recently published a report showing that just in the last 40 years, our global marine life has been slashed in half. And another recent report suggests that of our largest predatory species, such as swordfish and bluefin tuna, over 90 percent has disappeared since the 1950s.
And there are a lot of great, sustainable fishing initiatives across the planet working towards better practices and better-managed fisheries. But ultimately, all of these initiatives are working towards keeping current catch constant. It's unlikely, even with the best-managed fisheries, that we are going to be able to take much more from the ocean than we do today.
We have to stop plundering our oceans the way we have. We need to alleviate the pressure on it. And we are at a point where if we push much harder for more produce, we might face total collapse. Our current systems are not going to feed a growing global population.
So how do we fix this? What's the world going to look like in just 35 short years when there's 2.7 billion more of us sharing the same resources? We could all become vegan. Sounds like a great idea, but it's not realistic and it's impossibly hard to mandate globally.
People are eating animal protein whether we like it or not. And suppose we fail to change our ways and continue on the current path, failing to meet demands.
The World Health Organization recently reported that 800 million people are suffering from malnutrition and food shortage, which is due to that same growing, global population and the declining access to resources like water, energy and land. It takes very little imagination to picture a world of global unrest, riots and further malnutrition. People are hungry, and we are running dangerously low on natural resources. For so, so many reasons, we need to change our global food production systems.
We must do better and there is a solution. And that solution lies in aquaculture -- the farming of fish, plants like seaweed, shellfish and crustaceans. As the great ocean hero Jacques Cousteau once said, "We must start using the ocean as farmers instead of hunters. That's what civilization is all about -- farming instead of hunting." Fish is the last food that we hunt.
And why is it that we keep hearing phrases like, "Life's too short for farmed fish," or, "Wild-caught, of course!" over fish that we know virtually nothing about? We don't know what it ate during its lifetime, and we don't know what pollution it encounters. And if it was a large predatory species, it might have gone through the coast of Fukushima yesterday. We don't know. Very few people realize the traceability in fisheries never goes beyond the hunter that caught the wild animal.
But let's back up for a second and talk about why fish is the best food choice. It's healthy, it prevents heart disease, it provides key amino acids and key fatty acids like Omega-3s, which is very different from almost any other type of meat. And aside from being healthy, it's also a lot more exciting and diverse.
Think about it -- most animal farming is pretty monotonous. Cow is cow, sheep is sheep, pig's pig, and poultry -- turkey, duck, chicken -- pretty much sums it up. And then there's 500 species of fish being farmed currently. not that Western supermarkets reflect that on their shelves, but that's beside that point.
And you can farm fish in a very healthy manner that's good for us, good for the planet and good for the fish. I know I sound fish-obsessed --
(Laughter)
Let me explain: My brilliant partner and wife, Amy Novograntz, and I got involved in aquaculture a couple of years ago. We were inspired by Sylvia Earle, who won the TED Prize in 2009. We actually met on Mission Blue I in the Galapagos. Amy was there as the TED Prize Director; me, an entrepreneur from the Netherlands and concerned citizen, love to dive, passion for the oceans.
Mission Blue truly changed our lives. We fell in love, got married and we came away really inspired, thinking we really want to do something about ocean conservation -- something that was meant to last, that could make a real difference and something that we could do together.
Little did we expect that that would lead us to fish farming. But a few months after we got off the boat, we got to a meeting at Conservation International, where the Director General of WorldFish was talking about aquaculture, asking a room full of environmentalists to stop turning from it, realize what was going on and to really get involved because aquaculture has the potential to be just what our oceans and populations need.
We were stunned when we heard the stats that we didn't know more about this industry already and excited about the chance to help get it right.
And to talk about stats -- right now, the amount of fish consumed globally, wild catch and farmed combined, is twice the tonnage of the total amount of beef produced on planet earth last year. Every single fishing vessel combined, small and large, across the globe, together produce about 65 million tons of wild-caught seafood for human consumption.
Aquaculture this year, for the first time in history, actually produces more than what we catch from the wild.
But now this: Demand is going to go up. In the next 35 years, we are going to need an additional 85 million tons to meet demand, which is one-and-a-half times as much, almost, as what we catch globally out of our oceans. An enormous number.
It's safe to assume that that's not going to come from the ocean. It needs to come from farming. And talk about farming -- for farming you need resources. As a human needs to eat to grow and stay alive, so does an animal. A cow needs to eat eight to nine pounds of feed and drink almost 8,000 liters of water to create just one pound of meat. Experts agree that it's impossible to farm cows for every inhabitant on this planet. We just don't have enough feed or water.
And we can't keep cutting down rain forests for it. And fresh water -- planet earth has a very limited supply. We need something more efficient to keep humankind alive on this planet.
And now let's compare that with fish farming. You can farm one pound of fish with just one pound of feed, and depending on species, even less. And why is that? Well, that's because fish, first of all, float. They don't need to stand around all day resisting gravity like we do. And most fish are cold-blooded -- they don't need to heat themselves. Fish chills.
(Laughter)
And it needs very little water, which is counterintuitive, but as we say, it swims in it but it hardly drinks it. Fish are the most resource-efficient animal protein available to humankind, aside from insects.
How much we've learned since. For example, on top of that 65 million tons that's annually caught for human consumption, there's an additional 30 million tons caught for animal feed, mostly sardines and anchovies for the aquaculture industry that's turned into fish meal and fish oil.
This is madness. Sixty-five percent of these fisheries, globally, are badly managed. Some of the worst issues of our time are connected to it. It's destroying our oceans. The worst slavery issues imaginable are connected to it. Recently, an article came out of Stanford saying that if 50 percent of the world's aquaculture industry would stop using fish meal, our oceans would be saved. Now think about that for a minute.
Now, we know that the oceans have far more problems -- they have pollution, there's acidification, coral reef destruction and so on. But it underlines the impact of our fisheries, and it underlines how interconnected everything is. Fisheries, aquaculture, deforestation, climate change, food security and so on.
In the search for alternatives, the industry, on a massive scale, has reverted to plant-based alternatives like soy, industrial chicken waste, blood meal from slaughterhouses and so on.
And we understand where these choices come from, but this is not the right approach. It's not sustainable, it's not healthy. Have you ever seen a chicken at the bottom of the ocean? Of course not. If you feed salmon soy with nothing else, it literally explodes. Salmon is a carnivore, it has no way to digest soy.
Now, fish farming is by far the best animal farming available to humankind. But it's had a really bad reputation. There's been excessive use of chemicals, there's been virus and disease transfered to wild populations, ecosystem destruction and pollution, escaped fish breeding with wild populations, altering the overall genetic pool, and then of course, as just mentioned, the unsustainable feed ingredients.
How blessed were the days when we could just enjoy food that was on our plate, whatever it was. Once you know, you know. You can't go back. It's not fun. We really need a transparent food system that we can trust, that produces healthy food.
But the good news is that decades of development and research have led to a lot of new technologies and knowledge that allow us to do a lot better. We can now farm fish without any of these issues.
I think of agriculture before the green revolution -- we are at aquaculture and the blue revolution. New technologies means that we can now produce a feed that's perfectly natural, with a minimal footprint that consists of microbes, insects, seaweeds and micro-algae. Healthy for the people, healthy for the fish, healthy for the planet.
Microbes, for example, can be a perfect alternative for high-grade fish meal -- at scale.
Insects are the -- well, first of all, the perfect recycling because they're grown on food waste; but second, think of fly-fishing, and you know how logical it actually is to use it as fish feed. You don't need large tracts of land for it and you don't need to cut down rain forests for it. And microbes and insects are actually net water producers.
This revolution is starting as we speak, it just needs scale. We can now farm far more species than ever before in controlled, natural conditions, creating happy fish.
I imagine, for example, a closed system that's performing more efficiently than insect farming, where you can produce healthy, happy, delicious fish with little or no effluent, almost no energy and almost no water and a natural feed with a minimal footprint. Or a system where you grow up to 10 species next to each other -- off of each other, mimicking nature. You need very little feed, very little footprint. I think of seaweed growing off the effluent of fish, for example.
There's great technologies popping up all over the globe. From alternatives to battle disease so we don't need antibiotics and chemicals anymore, to automated feeders that feel when the fish are hungry, so we can save on feed and create less pollution. Software systems that gather data across farms, so we can improve farm practices.
There's really cool stuff happening all over the globe. And make no mistake -- all of these things are possible at a cost that's competitive to what a farmer spends today. Tomorrow, there will be no excuse for anyone to not do the right thing.
So somebody needs to connect the dots and give these developments a big kick in the butt. And that's what we've been working on the last couple of years, and that's what we need to be working on together -- rethinking everything from the ground up, with a holistic view across the value chain, connecting all these things across the globe, alongside great entrepreneurs that are willing to share a collective vision.
Now is the time to create change in this industry and to push it into a sustainable direction. This industry is still young, much of its growth is still ahead. It's a big task, but not as far-fetched as you might think. It's possible.
So we need to take pressure off the ocean. We want to eat good and healthy. And if we eat an animal, it needs to be one that had a happy and healthy life.
We need to have a meal that we can trust, live long lives. And this is not just for people in San Francisco or Northern Europe -- this is for all of us. Even in the poorest countries, it's not just about money. People prefer something fresh and healthy that they can trust over something that comes from far away that they know nothing about. We're all the same.
The day will come where people will realize -- no, demand -- farmed fish on their plate that's farmed well and that's farmed healthy -- and refuse anything less.
You can help speed this up. Ask questions when you order seafood. Where does my fish come from? Who raised it, and what did it eat? Information about where your fish comes from and how it was produced needs to be much more readily available. And consumers need to put pressure on the aquaculture industry to do the right thing.
So every time you order, ask for detail and show that you really care about what you eat and what's been given to you. And eventually, they will listen. And all of us will benefit.
Thank you.
(Applause)



Tuesday, February 9, 2016

HEALTH/GralInt-El inmenso barco hospital que les devuelve la sonrisa a los chicos

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



El inmenso barco hospital que les devuelve la sonrisa a los chicos


Crónicas del nuevo milenio: Médicos solidarios.Ariel Cukierkorn















































Gentileza Ariel Cukierkorn/Diego Steinberg

































Médico, cirujano plástico, argentino. ¿Qué hace Diego Steinberg en el atardecer de Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, a bordo de un helicóptero de la Marina de Estados Unidos? El salvavidas le aprieta el cuerpo, las antiparras se le empañan y los auriculares sólo le permiten escuchar su propia respiración. De entre la niebla del océano Atlántico emerge de pronto una enorme ballena blanca con cruces rojas, el USNS Comfort. El bólido pisa cubierta, las hélices no dejan de girar y Steinberg se dispone a participar de una de las experiencias más intensas y gratificantes de su carrera, esos episodios en que la medicina y la ciencia transforman la vida a quienes más lo necesitan.
Se trata de su sexto trabajo voluntario para Operation Smile, una fundación con sede en Virginia Beach, Estados Unidos, que presta cirugías gratuitas a niños con malformaciones congénitas de labio leporino y paladar hendido. Después de haber formado parte en tres misiones en México, una en Honduras y otra en China, que esta vez el escenario sea el barco hospital más grande del mundo la convierte en un capítulo especial. Niños de distintas regiones de Nicaragua, que en muchos casos apenas si tienen para cubrir las necesidades básicas, son operados por cirujanos de primer nivel mundial, en instalaciones que sólo se ven en las películas. El resultado inmediato: una sonrisa sin pudores y un futuro más saludable.
El trayecto hasta Puerto Cabezas no es un viaje de placer. Previa escala en Miami, Steinberg aterriza en el aeropuerto Sandino, de Managua. Allí aborda una avioneta Cessna Caravan de la aerolínea Costeña, con capacidad para 12 personas, pero no para su valija. Por una hora y media se sienta detrás del piloto, quien no disimula los ronquidos en algunos lapsos del vuelo que bordea el litoral de Nicaragua rumbo norte.
Puerto Cabezas remite a la película La Costa Mosquito, en la que Harrison Ford traslada a su familia a Honduras, en busca de una vida utópica fuera de la civilización. De población en gran mayoría indígena, en este paraje de Nicaragua la economía en base a la pesca y la actividad forestal sólo alcanza para la subsistencia, los habitantes viven en condiciones precarias y hablan en la lengua miskitu, de nula similitud con el castellano.
No por casualidad Operation Smile eligió este punto como una de sus paradas para esta misión. La fisura labio alvéolo palatina en los niños, uno de los campos en los que Steinberg trabaja durante su agenda habitual en el Hospital Austral de la Argentina, se explica entre otras razones por los grupos étnicos. Entre poblaciones indígenas americanas y asiáticas, hay 1 caso entre 500, mientras que entre los caucásicos la proporción se reduce a 1 entre 750. Esa malformación física deriva en problemas estéticos y funcionales, que afectan la alimentación y la comunicación. Para esta misión en el barco se toman 70 casos primarios.
Sin importar el origen o la condición socioeconómica, el USNS Comfort genera asombro en quien lo tenga enfrente. Concebido en 1975 como un barco petrolero, sus 272 metros de longitud (eslora) y 32 metros de altura albergan ahora 12 quirófanos, 80 salas de terapia intensiva, 1000 camas de internación común, equipos de rayos x y tomografía computada de última generación, entre otras prestaciones.
Junto al Mercy, su buque gemelo que opera en las costas del Pacífico, el Comfort cubre parte de los objetivos humanitarios del Comando Sur de la Marina de Estados Unidos. Los 38 voluntarios de la Operation Smile, profesionales de Estados Unidos, Italia, Inglaterra, Suecia, Australia y Canadá, se adaptan por una semana a la dinámica de este micromundo permanente de 1.000 tripulantes.
Como en todo escenario militar, los horarios son estrictos. De 5 a 7, desayuno. De 10 a 13, almuerzo. De 16 a 19, cena. De 23 a 24, una comida “refuerzo”. Steinberg no tarda en encontrar un cómplice italiano, Domenico Scopelliti, para alterar un poco las reglas. “¿A quién se le ocurre cenar a las 4 de la tarde?”, se preguntan, mientras despliegan con disimulo una horma de queso parmesano que se erige como la perla culinaria de la travesía.
A las 5.45 suena el despertador para los médicos y, luego de un típico desayuno americano, el deber llama. El equipo se junta en la Holding Area y el coordinador clínico reparte los casos. Para cualquier cirujano, la tijera y el bisturí son como la extensión de sus dedos. Por una vez, Steinberg no necesita transportar más que sus lupas, el frontoluz y sus pañuelos de Buzz Lightyear y El Hombre Araña, para cubrirse la cabeza con una empatía inmediata con los chicos. El instrumental que aporta Operation Smile está a tono con los cirujanos que participan de las misiones: un lujo.
Más allá del prestigio de cada médico, los egos no suben al barco. Durante cada jornada se genera un espíritu único de acción y colaboración. Como la mayoría de los cirujanos argentinos, Steinberg está acostumbrado a un ritmo exigente, pero la energía de Operation Smile le permite completar, en una sola jornada, cinco intervenciones de labio, paladar y nariz. Tampoco forman parte de su rutina laboral en nuestro país la posibilidad de compartir experiencias directas con colegas como el inglés Norman Waterhouse y el italiano Roberto Brusati.
Los chicos nicaragüenses perciben la buena sintonía. “¡Qué divertido el viaje en el helicóptero! Cuando sea grande quiero ser doctora, como tú”, dice Naria G.R., de 7 años, proveniente de un pueblito a tres horas de Puerto Cabezas. Steinberg pone manos a la obra para solucionarle su labio hendido unilateral primario. Las alegrías duran poco, hasta el próximo paciente.
Pero el plan de descanso no es para desdeñar: reciben la brisa caliente del Caribe y el cielo más estrellado del planeta.
Un marine estadounidense patrulla la cubierta. De unos 25 años, aspecto de modelo publicitario, estudia el horizonte con los binoculares. “Hmmm, esa luz allí lejos no me gusta nada. Tendré que avisarle al capitán”, dice, con la seriedad de quien ensaya para una próxima vigilia en Afganistán u otra zona de conflicto.
El doctor Waterhouse rompe el mínimo momento de tensión con historias cotidianas de su vida en Londres y con intimidades del extinguido romance de su hija Suki, modelo, con el actor Bradley Cooper. La charla se extiende hasta que los cuerpos ya están listos para el descanso. A los cirujanos no los espera una habitación privada con televisor, sino una cama sencilla en una cucheta triple. Suficiente para caer rendidos hasta la mañana siguiente y otro día a puro trabajo en el quirófano.
La tarea de Steinberg en el USNS Comfort se cierra cinco días después, con la cirugía de Abner O. En total, 17 chicos, que entraron como pacientes con malformaciones faciales y vuelven a su casa con la seguridad de que podrán afrontar la vida con menos trabas, aunque con un camino de esfuerzo por delante. Tras la cirugía y, en la medida de sus posibilidades, siguen con la supervisión permanente de fonoaudiólogos, odontólogos, pediatras y otorrinolaringólogos.
Ya de vuelta en tierra en Puerto Cabezas, los médicos tienen el tiempo y el espacio para conocer más de cerca a los chicos y sus familias. Steinberg comparte un rato con Jaimito Henríquez Martínez y su padre, quien, más allá de agradecerle, quiere hablar del tópico universal cuando se tiene a un argentino enfrente: Lionel Messi.
El barco hospital zarpa hacia nuevos rumbos, objetivos estratégicos en Panamá, Barbados y Guantánamo. Con la ilusión de que la Argentina se sume a los otros 70 países cubiertos por Operation Smile, Steinberg proyecta cuál será su próxima misión.








Fuente: www.clarin.com

GRACIAS, MESSI, EL ÚNICO

The following information is used for educational purposes only. https://youtu.be/Vo7htEsYT98?si=CXwieM1_6Rx2Q2yS                           ...