Thursday, June 12, 2014

HEALTH/GralInt-Una argentina creó una retina con células madre

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

































Una argentina creó una retina con células madre



La científica Valeria Canto-Soler lidera un equipo en Estados Unidos.


Su logro puede servir para luchar contra la ceguera.














Una científica argentina, que dirige a un grupo de investigadores en la Universidad Johns Hopkins de los Estados Unidos, creó por primera vez una retina del ojo en miniatura en el laboratorio a partir de células madre pluripotentes inducidas. Un logro que podría servir para probar medicamentos antes de dárselos a los pacientes afectados por enfermedades oculares o para hacer implantes.

La investigadora es Valeria Canto-Soler, que nació en Mendoza, se graduó en biología en la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, se doctoró en ciencias biomédicas en la Universidad Austral en Buenos Aires y se fue a los Estados Unidos en 2002 para hacer un postdoctorado. En 2008, fue nombrada profesora en la universidad y empezó a desarrollar una línea de investigación con las células madre para los problemas de visión, y ahora tuvo un gran éxito que fue publicado ayer por la revista especializada Nature Communications.

En diálogo con Clarín por teléfono, Canto-Soler -que dirige un equipo integrado por 10 investigadores- contó: “Tomamos células de la piel de adultos y del cordón umbilical, las reprogramamos y las convertirmos en células madre pluripotente inducidas, conocidas como IPS por su sigla en inglés”. Después, desarrolló un sistema nuevo y muy simple que permitió que las células IPS se diferenciaran para formar una retina en miniatura, tal como ocurre durante el desarrollo de un embrión humano. La retina en miniatura tiene células fotorreceptores que pueden detectar y responder ante los impulsos de luz. “La respuesta de los fotoreceptores a la luz es el primer paso necesario para la formacion de una imagen visual”, acotó la científica.

No es la primera vez que se generan retinas tridimensionales a partir de células madre. Se habían hecho en Japón. Pero sí es la primera vez que se consigue una retina con las células madre pluripotentes inducidas. “Este resultado -señaló- abre la posibilidad de producir retinas hermanas de las dañadas en las personas para luego probar tratamientos en el laboratorio. Esto se sumaría a la tendencia hacia una medicina más personalizada. También, se podrían hacer trasplantes de esas retinas, pero aún necesitamos más de cinco años de investigación”.










Fuente: www.clarin.com

Friday, June 6, 2014

EDUC/GralInt- 14 Google Glass Innovative Use Cases in Education-15 slides

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



14 Google Glass Innovative Use Cases in Education












































Source: www.slideshare.net

Monday, June 2, 2014

2 de Junio- Día del Bombero Voluntario- ¡Feliz Día!

The following information is used for educational purposes only.



2 de JUNIO- DÍA DEL BOMBERO VOLUNTARIO






































































































































































































































































Fuente: Google Images

Sunday, May 25, 2014

SOC/GralInt-¿Dónde queda el Primer Mundo? El nuevo ránking de países admirados

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





Sociedad


¿Dónde queda el Primer Mundo? El nuevo ránking de países admirados



A medida que las crisis económicas y la desprotección estatal van minando la calidad de vida de los países hasta ahora considerados desarrollados, la equidad, la tolerancia a la diversidad, la felicidad, la estabilidad política y una educación de calidad colocan en los primeros lugares del listado de naciones modelo a Nueva Zelanda, Canadá, Noruega, Finlandia y Australia. Retrato de un planeta en el que el norte parece estar por todas partes


Por Hinde Pomeraniec | Para LA NACION






















Ilustración: Martín Balcala






Mafalda está en su cama, bajo las frazadas. No parece tener ánimo para levantarse. Entonces, lanza su discurso al aire: "Buen día, ¿qué mundo tenemos hoy: el primero, el segundo o el tercero? No, esperen. Mejor vayan a echar un vistazo, y si hay libertad, justicia y esas cosas, me despiertan, sea el número de mundo que sea, ¿estamos?".

Al igual que Mafalda hace más de cuarenta años, la mayoría de las personas nos preguntamos dónde queda ese lugar en el mundo en donde las cosas funcionan y la gente vive feliz, en un marco de equidad y justicia. En donde las oportunidades florecen y sus habitantes, más allá de sus ideas, tiran para un mismo lado y logran transformar esa cohesión social en crecimiento económico. En donde la educación y la salud son bienes esenciales y las minorías son respetadas. Y en donde el Estado es ese árbitro que asegura la equidad y los derechos de todos, y para eso regula, pero sin avasallar la intimidad ni vulnerar las libertades individuales.

A lo largo de la historia, ese mundo feliz o ideal tuvo diversos referentes. En el momento en que Mafalda no podía salir de la cama, la Guerra Fría promovía los conceptos de Primer Mundo y Tercer Mundo. A casi 25 años de la caída del Muro de Berlín, esos conceptos están desgastados y el modelo al que miran todos ya no es el mismo.

El fundamentalismo capitalista también tuvo su caída del Muro con la crisis financiera y económica iniciada en 2008 y cuando se piensa en desarrollo, las aspiraciones y los índices ahora señalan hacia Canadá, Nueva Zelanda o algunos países del norte de Europa, como Finlandia o Noruega, que publicaciones como The Economist ya llaman "el próximo supermodelo". Es más, por estos días, Estados Unidos ya no parece ser modelo ni siquiera para los propios norteamericanos, quienes atraviesan una etapa de reflexión sombría acerca de sus deudas internas y de lo que muchos califican ya como "escandalosa inequidad".

"El fin de la Guerra Fría y el aceleramiento de los procesos globales de los 90 borraron un montón de fronteras convencionales y divisiones clásicas como Este-Oeste, Primero y Tercer Mundo y muchas categorías dejaron de tener sentido. Hoy, hay otro modo de aproximarse a lo que se considera un mejor modo de vida en algunos pocos países que siguen reuniendo condiciones del viejo Estado de bienestar", explica Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, director del Departamento de Ciencia Política y Estudios Internacionales de la Universidad Di Tella. "Países que eran grandes referentes, como Holanda, Francia, Italia o Gran Bretaña, se han ido desdibujando; sus Estados de bienestar fueron desmantelados en los últimos años como producto de las graves crisis. Hay menos Estado y graves problemas en salud y educación. Sólo quedan pequeños nichos en el mundo nórdico, fundamentalmente Noruega y Finlandia."

Para el sociólogo Gabriel Puricelli, del Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas (LPP), ese paradigma del Estado de bienestar y respeto por las libertades individuales que viene crujiendo en tantos países y aparece ahora tan valorado "le debe mucho al consenso socialdemócrata de los años de la posguerra. Se perfeccionó con los movimientos sociales, lo que lo llevó a construir un paradigma más contemporáneo, pero no puede explicarse sin aquel consenso social que nació luego de la Segunda Guerra".

"No somos los número 1"

Hace algunas semanas, el columnista de The New York Times Nicolas Kristof lagrimeaba ante la evidencia. "No somos los N° 1", se llamaba su nota, en la que daba cuenta de que las cosas no son como en los tiempos en que su país era visto, fronteras adentro y afuera, como el más rico, poderoso y bendecido de la tierra. Kristof repasaba los datos que arrojó un exhaustivo relevamiento conocido como Social Progress Index, un estudio (curiosamente dirigido por un republicano) de 132 países, similar a los que hace Naciones Unidas en materia de necesidades básicas, bienestar y oportunidades, y que incluye instancias como acceso a la salud, la vivienda y la educación, como también seguridad personal y respeto por los derechos humanos y el medio ambiente ( http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi ).

En ese estudio, Estados Unidos se ubica en el puesto 16, ya sorprendente de por sí, pero en algunos ítems como salud queda relegado al 70, al 31 en seguridad y al 39 en educación básica. Las cifras son contundentes: el puesto en el rubro comunicaciones es el 23: sí, señor, en el país de Silicon Valley, uno de cada cinco estadounidenses no tiene acceso a Internet. Nueva Zelanda, Suiza, Islandia y Holanda ocupan los primeros puestos del Social Progress Index. Noruega ocupa el quinto y le siguen Suecia, Canadá, Finlandia y Dinamarca. La Argentina está en el puesto 58.

Estas cifras coinciden con lo que puede leerse en los medios mainstream de países desarrollados en crisis, en los que abundan historias sobre la riqueza petrolera y la austeridad noruega, la salida de Islandia del abismo financiero, las notables escuelas finlandesas y la igualdad de género en Suecia. Junto con el ascenso de estos nuevos "milagros", está el abrumado lamento de los ángeles caídos del mapa ideal.

"En Estados Unidos hoy hay 46 millones de pobres: más de una Argentina de pobres adentro; los indicadores son malos, la brecha entre ricos y pobres se está ensanchando", detalla Federico Merke, profesor del Departamento de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de San Andrés, quien entiende también que el concepto de Primer Mundo está "desdibujado" y prefiere pensar esas categorías como "relacionales", es decir, un país puede ser Primer Mundo en relación con otro y así también un país primermundista supuestamente puede albergar un Tercer Mundo, algo que se hizo explícito en 2005 durante la catástrofe del huracán Katrina, cuando los estados más pobres del sur de Estados Unidos quedaron a la deriva ante las escandalizadas cámaras de televisión, que transmitían imágenes más propias de Ruanda que de la primera potencia mundial.

Por estos días, abundan las malas noticias para los estadounidenses, ya que una investigación determinó que la clase media norteamericana ya no es la más rica en el mundo, sino que se ve superada por la canadiense y también por la de algunos países europeos, pese a que los estadounidenses trabajan en promedio varias horas más por semana. Canadá, precisamente, es uno de los países con mejores registros de desarrollo humano y aparece con frecuencia en el imaginario de los que sueñan con vivir en un país previsible en su oferta de bienestar y pensado para todos. Todavía resuenan las palabras del ex embajador de Canadá Yves Gagnon, cuando en su discurso de despedida se mostró orgulloso por el hecho de que los medios se ocupan poco de su país. Como ejemplo, citó que durante los años de su estadía en la Argentina, en Canadá habían caído tres gobiernos y, sin embargo, nada de eso había sido noticia en los diarios.

El sueño americano implosiona con datos obscenos. Mientras el presidente Obama no consigue apoyo para poder financiar la universalidad del prejardín de infantes, el 1% más alto de la pirámide gana más que todo el resto y ya lo empiezan a ver con malos ojos incluso los propios impulsores de la meritocracia. El Nobel Joseph Stiglitz colabora derribando mitos al señalar en sus discursos que no sólo la inequidad va en aumento, sino que incluso la igualdad de oportunidades -el mayor de los valores para esa sociedad- no es una realidad en Estados Unidos.

Regreso al centro

El economista y escritor chileno Sebastián Edwards tiene la experiencia para intentar una disección de los problemas que hoy enfrenta ese país, ya que vive allí hace muchos años. Cuando habla de desarrollo, Edwards prefiere la categoría de "modernidad" en lugar de Primer Mundo. "Estados Unidos es un país capitalista y moderno, lleno de contradicciones, con un enorme respeto por los individuos y las minorías y con un nivel creciente de desigualdad? una contradicción total", dice. "Entre las cosas buenas: tiene un presidente negro, una latina de origen pobre en la Corte Suprema, un negro también de origen pobre en la Corte, las mejores universidades del mundo y enorme respeto por la libertad de prensa. Cosas malas: un montón de pobres, una distribución del ingreso que empeora, fanatismo religioso en muchos estados, invasión de países sin razón... De todos modos, lo importante es que los excesos en Estados Unidos tienden a corregirse y el país vuelve al centro moral y político. Sucedió con Roosevelt (con los dos), con Kennedy y Johnson, con Clinton. Mira a Thomas Piketty: su libro había pasado sin pena ni gloria en Francia... aquí se transformó en una superestrella y va a tener una influencia colosal. Nada de esto pasa en Francia, donde no hay ni negros ni magrebíes en la Corte Suprema y apenas si los hay en el Parlamento."

La inequidad es el signo de los tiempos o al menos es el tema sobre el cual gira la preocupación de políticos e intelectuales. En el caso de Europa, señala Tokatlian, la desigualdad en términos del ingreso es la mayor desde los años 70. "La India y China resolvieron muchísimo para millones de habitantes, pero siguen siendo dos sociedades profundamente inequitativas. América latina sigue siendo la región más desigual", explica y trata de encontrar la llave del éxito de países como Noruega y Finlandia. "Demográficamente pequeños, el secreto parece residir en que la brecha entre ricos y pobres allí es mucho menor, hay gran cohesión social y aparecen como arcas de Noé en donde todos se sienten parte de un proyecto", sintetiza.

Interesante resulta la mirada de un sociólogo argentino radicado en Noruega. "Los países escandinavos tienen altos niveles de educación y desarrollo humano. Sin embargo, esos niveles no son muy distintos de los de las clases medias urbanas latinoamericanas", asegura Fabián Mosenson, docente de la Universidad de Oslo. Y agrega: "Si el nivel de educación se mide en graduados por habitantes, van primeros. Pero lo que se conoce menos es el contenido de esa formación. Y, en ese sentido, en humanidades, el típico producto de la cafetería de Puan o de Marcelo T. de Alvear no tiene mucho que envidiar a un graduado de la Universidad de Oslo o la de Estocolmo. Sí son más envidiables las instalaciones y los recursos financieros y económicos públicos".

Mosenson habla de lo público, y ahí aparecen entonces otros conceptos clave, el de Estado y el de la equidad. "Lo que todos pueden apreciar, sobre todo los que venimos de países como los nuestros, es la enorme diferencia de la relación del Estado con los ciudadanos y de la percepción que los ciudadanos tienen del Estado. No hay favores ni conocidos ni amigos para acelerar un trámite. En las cárceles, a los internos se los considera seres humanos y así son tratados. Los medios de transporte funcionan. La frase del alcalde de Bogotá, Gustavo Petro -«Un país desarrollado no es un lugar donde los pobres tienen coches, sino uno donde los ricos usan transporte público»- es rigurosamente cierta. Al mismo tiempo, las clases acomodadas hacen muchas más tareas domésticas que sus pares latinoamericanos. No es raro encontrarse con el ministro de Economía haciendo las compras. Tampoco está bien visto contratar personal doméstico."

El sociólogo es bastante crítico en relación con la mirada que asegura que los países nórdicos son ejemplos de armonía e integración social. "Salvo Canadá o Nueva Zelanda, el resto de los países que «ranquean» alto en los índices de desarrollo humano fueron sociedades de emigración", explica. "Hay casi cinco millones de descendientes de noruegos en Estados Unidos, casi la misma población que Noruega tiene hoy. Esto significa que los que se quedaron son tal vez los menos aventureros. Con esto se construye una sociedad homogénea y conservadora. Lo positivo es el alto grado de integración social. Pero también puede ser problemático: no hay demasiada ductilidad para lidiar con la diferencia, y por eso se puede observar una tendencia a la guetificación en barrios «étnicos» y educación semisegregada", concluye.

Nos lo decimos hace mucho, pero insistimos: aunque no existe el mundo ideal, el deseo siempre va detrás de lo que falta. En general, las cifras indican que la pobreza mundial se reduce, pero, sin embargo, ahora que todo lo vemos, pareciera que cada vez hay más pobres cuando lo que hay es cada vez mayores diferencias entre los que más y menos tienen. Mientras los índices que miden la felicidad ubican a países no desarrollados entre los que lideran el ranking, las embajadas más visitadas en todo el mundo por personas que buscan emigrar de una mala realidad económica en sus países de origen son otras, en general, siempre los mismas. Y es que ahí se va en busca de trabajo más que de sonrisas. Es Merke quien recuerda la "paradoja de Easterlin", el economista norteamericano cuyo discutido hallazgo fue que no existe relación lineal entre mayores ingresos y la felicidad: "La gente se acostumbra a lo que tiene; quien gana la lotería, en diez años se acostumbró y ya es otra cosa", explica.

Quien sube un escalón quiere subir otro. Es aquel concepto del teórico italiano Norberto Bobbio, el "mínimo civilizatorio", lo que se pone en juego, aquel reclamo que hacen los ciudadanos a las instituciones bajo el imperio de sus necesidades, que, naturalmente, van cambiando. Y están las secretas aspiraciones que siempre impone el deseo ante lo que nos falta. Por ejemplo, el dinero. Por ejemplo, la ilusión.






Fuente: www.lanacion.com.ar

GralInt-TED Talks-Andrew Solomon: How the worst moments in our lives make us who we are

The following information is used for educational purposes only.







Andrew Solomon:

How the worst moments in our lives make us who we are


TED2014 · Filmed Mar 2014





Writer Andrew Solomon has spent his career telling stories of the hardships of others. Now he turns inward, bringing us into a childhood of adversity, while also spinning tales of the courageous people he's met in the years since. In a moving, heartfelt and at times downright funny talk, Solomon gives a powerful call to action to forge meaning from our biggest struggles.


































































Transcript:




As a student of adversity, I've been struck over the years by how some people with major challenges seem to draw strength from them, and I've heard the popular wisdom that that has to do with finding meaning. And for a long time, I thought the meaning was out there, some great truth waiting to be found.
But over time, I've come to feel that the truth is irrelevant. We call it finding meaning, but we might better call it forging meaning.
My last book was about how families manage to deal with various kinds of challenging or unusual offspring, and one of the mothers I interviewed, who had two children with multiple severe disabilities, said to me, "People always give us these little sayings like, 'God doesn't give you any more than you can handle,' but children like ours are not preordained as a gift. They're a gift because that's what we have chosen."
We make those choices all our lives. When I was in second grade, Bobby Finkel had a birthday party and invited everyone in our class but me. My mother assumed there had been some sort of error, and she called Mrs. Finkel, who said that Bobby didn't like me and didn't want me at his party. And that day, my mom took me to the zoo and out for a hot fudge sundae. When I was in seventh grade, one of the kids on my school bus nicknamed me "Percy" as a shorthand for my demeanor, and sometimes, he and his cohort would chant that provocation the entire school bus ride, 45 minutes up, 45 minutes back, "Percy! Percy! Percy! Percy!" When I was in eighth grade, our science teacher told us that all male homosexuals develop fecal incontinence because of the trauma to their anal sphincter. And I graduated high school without ever going to the cafeteria, where I would have sat with the girls and been laughed at for doing so, or sat with the boys and been laughed at for being a boy who should be sitting with the girls.
I survived that childhood through a mix of avoidance and endurance. What I didn't know then, and do know now, is that avoidance and endurance can be the entryway to forging meaning. After you've forged meaning, you need to incorporate that meaning into a new identity. You need to take the traumas and make them part of who you've come to be, and you need to fold the worst events of your life into a narrative of triumph, evincing a better self in response to things that hurt.
One of the other mothers I interviewed when I was working on my book had been raped as an adolescent, and had a child following that rape, which had thrown away her career plans and damaged all of her emotional relationships. But when I met her, she was 50, and I said to her, "Do you often think about the man who raped you?" And she said, "I used to think about him with anger, but now only with pity." And I thought she meant pity because he was so unevolved as to have done this terrible thing. And I said, "Pity?" And she said, "Yes, because he has a beautiful daughter and two beautiful grandchildren and he doesn't know that, and I do. So as it turns out, I'm the lucky one."
Some of our struggles are things we're born to: our gender, our sexuality, our race, our disability. And some are things that happen to us: being a political prisoner, being a rape victim, being a Katrina survivor. Identity involves entering a community to draw strength from that community, and to give strength there too. It involves substituting "and" for "but" -- not "I am here but I have cancer," but rather, "I have cancer and I am here."
When we're ashamed, we can't tell our stories, and stories are the foundation of identity. Forge meaning, build identity, forge meaning and build identity. That became my mantra. Forging meaning is about changing yourself. Building identity is about changing the world. All of us with stigmatized identities face this question daily: how much to accommodate society by constraining ourselves, and how much to break the limits of what constitutes a valid life? Forging meaning and building identity does not make what was wrong right. It only makes what was wrong precious.
In January of this year, I went to Myanmar to interview political prisoners, and I was surprised to find them less bitter than I'd anticipated. Most of them had knowingly committed the offenses that landed them in prison, and they had walked in with their heads held high, and they walked out with their heads still held high, many years later. Dr. Ma Thida, a leading human rights activist who had nearly died in prison and had spent many years in solitary confinement, told me she was grateful to her jailers for the time she had had to think, for the wisdom she had gained, for the chance to hone her meditation skills. She had sought meaning and made her travail into a crucial identity. But if the people I met were less bitter than I'd anticipated about being in prison, they were also less thrilled than I'd expected about the reform process going on in their country. Ma Thida said, "We Burmese are noted for our tremendous grace under pressure, but we also have grievance under glamour," she said, "and the fact that there have been these shifts and changes doesn't erase the continuing problems in our society that we learned to see so well while we were in prison."
And I understood her to being saying that concessions confer only a little humanity, where full humanity is due, that crumbs are not the same as a place at the table, which is to say you can forge meaning and build identity and still be mad as hell.
I've never been raped, and I've never been in anything remotely approaching a Burmese prison, but as a gay American, I've experienced prejudice and even hatred, and I've forged meaning and I've built identity, which is a move I learned from people who had experienced far worse privation than I've ever known. In my own adolescence, I went to extreme lengths to try to be straight. I enrolled myself in something called sexual surrogacy therapy, in which people I was encouraged to call doctors prescribed what I was encouraged to call exercises with women I was encouraged to call surrogates, who were not exactly prostitutes but who were also not exactly anything else. (Laughter) My particular favorite was a blonde woman from the Deep South who eventually admitted to me that she was really a necrophiliac and had taken this job after she got in trouble down at the morgue. (Laughter)
These experiences eventually allowed me to have some happy physical relationships with women, for which I'm grateful, but I was at war with myself, and I dug terrible wounds into my own psyche.
We don't seek the painful experiences that hew our identities, but we seek our identities in the wake of painful experiences. We cannot bear a pointless torment, but we can endure great pain if we believe that it's purposeful. Ease makes less of an impression on us than struggle. We could have been ourselves without our delights, but not without the misfortunes that drive our search for meaning. "Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities," St. Paul wrote in Second Corinthians, "for when I am weak, then I am strong."
In 1988, I went to Moscow to interview artists of the Soviet underground, and I expected their work to be dissident and political. But the radicalism in their work actually lay in reinserting humanity into a society that was annihilating humanity itself, as, in some senses, Russian society is now doing again. One of the artists I met said to me, "We were in training to be not artists but angels."
In 1991, I went back to see the artists I'd been writing about, and I was with them during the putsch that ended the Soviet Union, and they were among the chief organizers of the resistance to that putsch. And on the third day of the putsch, one of them suggested we walk up to Smolenskaya. And we went there, and we arranged ourselves in front of one of the barricades, and a little while later, a column of tanks rolled up, and the soldier on the front tank said, "We have unconditional orders to destroy this barricade. If you get out of the way, we don't need to hurt you, but if you won't move, we'll have no choice but to run you down." And the artists I was with said, "Give us just a minute. Give us just a minute to tell you why we're here." And the soldier folded his arms, and the artist launched into a Jeffersonian panegyric to democracy such as those of us who live in a Jeffersonian democracy would be hard-pressed to present. And they went on and on, and the soldier watched, and then he sat there for a full minute after they were finished and looked at us so bedraggled in the rain, and said, "What you have said is true, and we must bow to the will of the people. If you'll clear enough space for us to turn around, we'll go back the way we came." And that's what they did. Sometimes, forging meaning can give you the vocabulary you need to fight for your ultimate freedom.
Russia awakened me to the lemonade notion that oppression breeds the power to oppose it, and I gradually understood that as the cornerstone of identity. It took identity to rescue me from sadness. The gay rights movement posits a world in which my aberrances are a victory. Identity politics always works on two fronts: to give pride to people who have a given condition or characteristic, and to cause the outside world to treat such people more gently and more kindly. Those are two totally separate enterprises, but progress in each sphere reverberates in the other. Identity politics can be narcissistic. People extol a difference only because it's theirs. People narrow the world and function in discrete groups without empathy for one another. But properly understood and wisely practiced, identity politics should expand our idea of what it is to be human. Identity itself should be not a smug label or a gold medal but a revolution.
I would have had an easier life if I were straight, but I would not be me, and I now like being myself better than the idea of being someone else, someone who, to be honest, I have neither the option of being nor the ability fully to imagine. But if you banish the dragons, you banish the heroes, and we become attached to the heroic strain in our own lives. I've sometimes wondered whether I could have ceased to hate that part of myself without gay pride's technicolor fiesta, of which this speech is one manifestation. I used to think I would know myself to be mature when I could simply be gay without emphasis, but the self-loathing of that period left a void, and celebration needs to fill and overflow it, and even if I repay my private debt of melancholy, there's still an outer world of homophobia that it will take decades to address. Someday, being gay will be a simple fact, free of party hats and blame, but not yet. A friend of mine who thought gay pride was getting very carried away with itself, once suggested that we organize Gay Humility Week. (Laughter) (Applause) It's a great idea, but its time has not yet come. (Laughter) And neutrality, which seems to lie halfway between despair and celebration, is actually the endgame.
In 29 states in the U.S., I could legally be fired or denied housing for being gay. In Russia, the anti-propaganda law has led to people being beaten in the streets. Twenty-seven African countries have passed laws against sodomy, and in Nigeria, gay people can legally be stoned to death, and lynchings have become common. In Saudi Arabia recently, two men who had been caught in carnal acts, were sentenced to 7,000 lashes each, and are now permanently disabled as a result. So who can forge meaning and build identity? Gay rights are not primarily marriage rights, and for the millions who live in unaccepting places with no resources, dignity remains elusive. I am lucky to have forged meaning and built identity, but that's still a rare privilege, and gay people deserve more collectively than the crumbs of justice.
And yet, every step forward is so sweet. In 2007, six years after we met, my partner and I decided to get married. Meeting John had been the discovery of great happiness and also the elimination of great unhappiness, and sometimes, I was so occupied with the disappearance of all that pain that I forgot about the joy, which was at first the less remarkable part of it to me. Marrying was a way to declare our love as more a presence than an absence.
Marriage soon led us to children, and that meant new meanings and new identities, ours and theirs. I want my children to be happy, and I love them most achingly when they are sad. As a gay father, I can teach them to own what is wrong in their lives, but I believe that if I succeed in sheltering them from adversity, I will have failed as a parent. A Buddhist scholar I know once explained to me that Westerners mistakenly think that nirvana is what arrives when all your woe is behind you and you have only bliss to look forward to. But he said that would not be nirvana, because your bliss in the present would always be shadowed by the joy from the past. Nirvana, he said, is what you arrive at when you have only bliss to look forward to and find in what looked like sorrows the seedlings of your joy. And I sometimes wonder whether I could have found such fulfillment in marriage and children if they'd come more readily, if I'd been straight in my youth or were young now, in either of which cases this might be easier. Perhaps I could. Perhaps all the complex imagining I've done could have been applied to other topics. But if seeking meaning matters more than finding meaning, the question is not whether I'd be happier for having been bullied, but whether assigning meaning to those experiences has made me a better father. I tend to find the ecstasy hidden in ordinary joys, because I did not expect those joys to be ordinary to me.
I know many heterosexuals who have equally happy marriages and families, but gay marriage is so breathtakingly fresh, and gay families so exhilaratingly new, and I found meaning in that surprise.
In October, it was my 50th birthday, and my family organized a party for me, and in the middle of it, my son said to my husband that he wanted to make a speech, and John said, "George, you can't make a speech. You're four." (Laughter) "Only Grandpa and Uncle David and I are going to make speeches tonight." But George insisted and insisted, and finally, John took him up to the microphone, and George said very loudly, "Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please." And everyone turned around, startled. And George said, "I'm glad it's Daddy's birthday. I'm glad we all get cake. And daddy, if you were little, I'd be your friend."
And I thought — Thank you. I thought that I was indebted even to Bobby Finkel, because all those earlier experiences were what had propelled me to this moment, and I was finally unconditionally grateful for a life I'd once have done anything to change.
The gay activist Harvey Milk was once asked by a younger gay man what he could do to help the movement, and Harvey Milk said, "Go out and tell someone." There's always somebody who wants to confiscate our humanity, and there are always stories that restore it. If we live out loud, we can trounce the hatred and expand everyone's lives.
Forge meaning. Build identity. Forge meaning. Build identity. And then invite the world to share your joy.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Thank you. (Applause)
Thank you. (Applause)
Thank you. (Applause)



WHUNG/GralInt-TED Talks-Jackie Savitz: Save the oceans, feed the world!

The following information is used for educational purposes only.





Jackie Savitz:

Save the oceans, feed the world!



TEDxMidAtlantic 2013 · Filmed Oct 2013





What's a marine biologist doing talking about world hunger? Well, says Jackie Savitz, fixing the world's oceans might just help to feed the planet's billion hungriest people. In an eye-opening talk, Savitz tells us what’s really going on in our global fisheries right now — it’s not good — and offers smart suggestions of how we can help them heal, while making more food for all.





























































Transcript:



You may be wondering why a marine biologist from Oceana would come here today to talk to you about world hunger. I'm here today because saving the oceans is more than an ecological desire. It's more than a thing we're doing because we want to create jobs for fishermen or preserve fishermen's jobs. It's more than an economic pursuit. Saving the oceans can feed the world. Let me show you how.
As you know, there are already more than a billion hungry people on this planet. We're expecting that problem to get worse as world population grows to nine billion or 10 billion by midcentury, and we can expect to have greater pressure on our food resources. And this is a big concern, especially considering where we are now. Now we know that our arable land per capita is already on the decline in both developed and developing countries. We know that we're headed for climate change, which is going to change rainfall patterns, making some areas drier, as you can see in orange, and others wetter, in blue, causing droughts in our breadbaskets, in places like the Midwest and Central Europe, and floods in others. It's going to make it harder for the land to help us solve the hunger problem. And that's why the oceans need to be their most abundant, so that the oceans can provide us as much food as possible.
And that's something the oceans have been doing for us for a long time. As far back as we can go, we've seen an increase in the amount of food we've been able to harvest from our oceans. It just seemed like it was continuing to increase, until about 1980, when we started to see a decline. You've heard of peak oil. Maybe this is peak fish. I hope not. I'm going to come back to that. But you can see about an 18-percent decline in the amount of fish we've gotten in our world catch since 1980. And this is a big problem. It's continuing. This red line is continuing to go down.
But we know how to turn it around, and that's what I'm going to talk about today. We know how to turn that curve back upwards. This doesn't have to be peak fish. If we do a few simple things in targeted places, we can bring our fisheries back and use them to feed people.
First we want to know where the fish are, so let's look where the fish are. It turns out the fish, conveniently, are located for the most part in our coastal areas of the countries, in coastal zones, and these are areas that national jurisdictions have control over, and they can manage their fisheries in these coastal areas. Coastal countries tend to have jurisdictions that go out about 200 nautical miles, in areas that are called exclusive economic zones, and this is a good thing that they can control their fisheries in these areas, because the high seas, which are the darker areas on this map, the high seas, it's a lot harder to control things, because it has to be done internationally. You get into international agreements, and if any of you are tracking the climate change agreement, you know this can be a very slow, frustrating, tedious process. And so controlling things nationally is a great thing to be able to do.
How many fish are actually in these coastal areas compared to the high seas? Well, you can see here about seven times as many fish in the coastal areas than there are in the high seas, so this is a perfect place for us to be focusing, because we can actually get a lot done. We can restore a lot of our fisheries if we focus in these coastal areas.
But how many of these countries do we have to work in? There's something like 80 coastal countries. Do we have to fix fisheries management in all of those countries? So we asked ourselves, how many countries do we need to focus on, keeping in mind that the European Union conveniently manages its fisheries through a common fisheries policy? So if we got good fisheries management in the European Union and, say, nine other countries, how much of our fisheries would we be covering? Turns out, European Union plus nine countries covers about two thirds of the world's fish catch. If we took it up to 24 countries plus the European Union, we would up to 90 percent, almost all of the world's fish catch. So we think we can work in a limited number of places to make the fisheries come back. But what do we have to do in these places? Well, based on our work in the United States and elsewhere, we know that there are three key things we have to do to bring fisheries back, and they are: We need to set quotas or limits on how much we take; we need to reduce bycatch, which is the accidental catching and killing of fish that we're not targeting, and it's very wasteful; and three, we need to protect habitats, the nursery areas, the spawning areas that these fish need to grow and reproduce successfully so that they can rebuild their populations. If we do those three things, we know the fisheries will come back.
How do we know? We know because we've seen it happening in a lot of different places. This is a slide that shows the herring population in Norway that was crashing since the 1950s. It was coming down, and when Norway set limits, or quotas, on its fishery, what happens? The fishery comes back. This is another example, also happens to be from Norway, of the Norwegian Arctic cod. Same deal. The fishery is crashing. They set limits on discards. Discards are these fish they weren't targeting and they get thrown overboard wastefully. When they set the discard limit, the fishery came back. And it's not just in Norway. We've seen this happening in countries all around the world, time and time again. When these countries step in and they put in sustainable fisheries management policies, the fisheries, which are always crashing, it seems, are starting to come back. So there's a lot of promise here.
What does this mean for the world fish catch? This means that if we take that fishery catch that's on the decline and we could turn it upwards, we could increase it up to 100 million metric tons per year. So we didn't have peak fish yet. We still have an opportunity to not only bring the fish back but to actually get more fish that can feed more people than we currently are now. How many more? Right about now, we can feed about 450 million people a fish meal a day based on the current world fish catch, which, of course, you know is going down, so that number will go down over time if we don't fix it, but if we put fishery management practices like the ones I've described in place in 10 to 25 countries, we could bring that number up and feed as many as 700 million people a year a healthy fish meal.
We should obviously do this just because it's a good thing to deal with the hunger problem, but it's also cost-effective. It turns out fish is the most cost-effective protein on the planet. If you look at how much fish protein you get per dollar invested compared to all of the other animal proteins, obviously, fish is a good business decision. It also doesn't need a lot of land, something that's in short supply, compared to other protein sources. And it doesn't need a lot of fresh water. It uses a lot less fresh water than, for example, cattle, where you have to irrigate a field so that you can grow the food to graze the cattle. It also has a very low carbon footprint. It has a little bit of a carbon footprint because we do have to get out and catch the fish. It takes a little bit of fuel, but as you know, agriculture can have a carbon footprint, and fish has a much smaller one, so it's less polluting. It's already a big part of our diet, but it can be a bigger part of our diet, which is a good thing, because we know that it's healthy for us. It can reduce our risks of cancer, heart disease and obesity. In fact, our CEO Andy Sharpless, who is the originator of this concept, actually, he likes to say fish is the perfect protein. Andy also talks about the fact that our ocean conservation movement really grew out of the land conservation movement, and in land conservation, we have this problem where biodiversity is at war with food production. You have to cut down the biodiverse forest if you want to get the field to grow the corn to feed people with, and so there's a constant push-pull there. There's a constant tough decision that has to be made between two very important things: maintaining biodiversity and feeding people. But in the oceans, we don't have that war. In the oceans, biodiversity is not at war with abundance. In fact, they're aligned. When we do things that produce biodiversity, we actually get more abundance, and that's important so that we can feed people.
Now, there's a catch.
Didn't anyone get that? (Laughter)
Illegal fishing. Illegal fishing undermines the type of sustainable fisheries management I'm talking about. It can be when you catch fish using gears that have been prohibited, when you fish in places where you're not supposed to fish, you catch fish that are the wrong size or the wrong species. Illegal fishing cheats the consumer and it also cheats honest fishermen, and it needs to stop. The way illegal fish get into our market is through seafood fraud. You might have heard about this. It's when fish are labeled as something they're not. Think about the last time you had fish. What were you eating? Are you sure that's what it was? Because we tested 1,300 different fish samples and about a third of them were not what they were labeled to be. Snappers, nine out of 10 snappers were not snapper. Fifty-nine percent of the tuna we tested was mislabeled. And red snapper, we tested 120 samples, and only seven of them were really red snapper, so good luck finding a red snapper.
Seafood has a really complex supply chain, and at every step in this supply chain, there's an opportunity for seafood fraud, unless we have traceability. Traceability is a way where the seafood industry can track the seafood from the boat to the plate to make sure that the consumer can then find out where their seafood came from.
This is a really important thing. It's being done by some in the industry, but not enough, so we're pushing a law in Congress called the SAFE Seafood Act, and I'm very excited today to announce the release of a chef's petition, where 450 chefs have signed a petition calling on Congress to support the SAFE Seafood Act. It has a lot of celebrity chefs you may know -- Anthony Bourdain, Mario Batali, Barton Seaver and others — and they've signed it because they believe that people have a right to know about what they're eating.
(Applause)
Fishermen like it too, so there's a good chance we can get the kind of support we need to get this bill through, and it comes at a critical time, because this is the way we stop seafood fraud, this is the way we curb illegal fishing, and this is the way we make sure that quotas, habitat protection, and bycatch reductions can do the jobs they can do.
We know that we can manage our fisheries sustainably. We know that we can produce healthy meals for hundreds of millions of people that don't use the land, that don't use much water, have a low carbon footprint, and are cost-effective. We know that saving the oceans can feed the world, and we need to start now.
(Applause)
Thank you. (Applause)





GRACIAS, MESSI, EL ÚNICO

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