Rachel Armstrong: Creating Repairing Our World Through The Most-Efficient Method of All

     When one thinks of the process of architecture, what are the first thoughts that come to mind? Drafting, planning, aggregation, appealing to the client, and the overall building of the structure, for these would seem to be the likeliest transcendence of events in creating a finished architectural product, correct? Well, what if before every previous event likely to happen, one was enlightened to a new breakthrough technology that would ultimately change the thought process of architecture entirely? That is exactly the idea that Berkley School of Architecture designer, Rachel Armstrong presented to her audience at her TED talk in Oxford, England. Her idea is, that carefully engineered micro-"organisms" called ProtoCells, which do not actually contain DNA (therefore not truly being considered an organism) can be used to change the field of architecture forever. Developed by her and a colleague at Berkley, these cells are created through a careful process of genetic engineering contain within themselves their own unique traits of moving, changing, and interacting with the environment, all in an entirely holistic manner. These creations of "almost-alive" inert mass are designed specifically to react to conditions in the outside world as various factors change on a regular basis. They can move, change shape, molt, and even collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transform it into carbonate, or solid carbon. Pertaining to the architectural aspect, this material has the ability to undergo complex chemical transformations that allow it to "grow" into materials such as sandstone or other common physical materials.  Her idea, encompassing both the modernity of genetics and the power of originative, anti-sequential thinking is, that if proven pragmatic by further scientific research, is sure to rock the architectural world for decades. In the hopes of Armstrong, this new material is to be used to create a more stabilized base of the city of Venice, rather than allow the city's current wooden base to rot into oblivion, ultimately reducing it to a pile of non-eloquent material.

In her TED talk, Rachel Armstrong provided the audience with an excellent presentation of ideas using clear, concise, understandable facts. One particular flaw in her talk, however, was tat it only lasted a little over seven minutes long, and in a critical eye this is far too short to fully explain an idea. Aside from the length, one other mistake that Rachel made was her inability to express detail and further information on her idea, and led the viewer to get an overall sense of unpreparedness in her work, especially with how the ProtoCells are made, how they work, and what they actually look like in action. This made the viewer get a feeling that the technology that she was presenting was still a work in progress, and wasn't ready yet to be unveiled to the public. In a broad sense though, her presentation was informative and thought-provoking, and it is an idea that can be processed and used in many different ways by many different, giving it the label of being an idea worth spreading.

The interesting thing about this new breakthrough, is that it is something that can be used in almost any situation in our world, whether it be construction, architecture, repair work, visualization, or any other type of action that involves using a physical medium. In schools, this technology can be used to create a more energy-efficient means of building and repair in newer classrooms, artwork, or any other physical manifestation. The self-creating material would also make this new invention a perfect medium for the first step in creating buildings, for it would allow the builder to sculpt a design from the cells without harming the environment or putting people's train-of-thought through a hellish, time consuming task of creating a building from scratch. This outdated method produces buildings only by means of outside-materials unnatural to the ecosystem being incorporated into a structure that only reflects the boring attitude of the people put in charge of designing it. Instead, one could work their creativity on the building as it is being erected, making it more and more holistic to the environment surrounding it, rather than being apart from the natural flow of energy in that particular region. This idea is one that may not have a major significance in the sense of being a world-issue, but it does challenge the lifeless conformity of today's building codes, and it may be the starting-point to an entire new world only dreamed about by architects for this world of infinity possibility is seeming closer than ever.

Blog 7: Renew Your Vows With the World Through the Internet

Throughout the time-span of roughly past decade or so, Eli Pariser has been noticing a distinct change in the inner-gear system of the internet in which many social, economic, and entertainment networks rely on. What he has noticed, is that more and more of these public and social networks are participating in this "filter bubble" movement which leaves users in a sort-of digital purlieu. A filter bubble is, as Pariser puts it, "[It] is like your own personal unique universe of information that you live-in online... [but] the thing is, you don't decide what gets in". Given this situation, one may notice that by using a technique such as this, a potential amount of unseen "filtered" information will simply become edited-out by an "algorithmic gatekeeper". Whether one is doing homework, research, looking fro inspiration, or simply relaxing and being entertained, this ambiguous method of personal filtering is sure to have some sort of effect on what this person sees and does. The main idea behind this phenomenon is, for Pariser, to create the web for what it can be, rather than trapping people in a "web of one".

Pariser's speaking style, as one may have noticed already, junctions the use of these informative facts with a certain type of metaphoric stereotyping of related themes. Along with corresponding visuals that enhance the understanding of his ideas, this technique creates an interesting and enthralling theme of conversation and opens the doors of creativity for any person who may be watching and wondering, "What can I do to prevent this fate from affecting me?" Pariser's presentation was specifically put-together in a way that chronologically lays-out his ideas in a problem-possible solution-problem method which further deepens the audience's involvement and understanding on the subject. He remained calm and clear-headed throughout his entire speech, rarely pausing to think or remember an idea or topic, which greatly increased his expression of profession to the viewer. One mistake with his discussion, however, is that he merely cracked-open the door of "what can be done", possibly leaving viewers in a position to guess. A minor mistake though, considering the gravity of his well put-together presentation and his clear mental process on the topic. Overall, he presented himself and his ideas very professionally presented an idea to the world that is worth spreading without a doubt.

In the sense of the audience, what makes this discussion so riveting and so easily-relateable is the fact that most people who are watching his TED talk are targets for exposure to various search engines and social networks regularly (partially because in order to watch TED talks one must have access to some kind of technology with internet access in the first place) and these types of networks are extremely hard to miss while surfing the web. One way around this, is to simply be more accurate on a search for something in particular, for example instead of searching "news on Osama Bin Laden", search "recent events and actions leading to the death of Osama Bin Laden". This will eliminate the ability of these various algorithms to "personalize" your search due to a lack in misinterpretation of what the user is looking for. As well as being very easy to do, this technique is something that anyone who uses the internet can do. Another option exists, however, for those who refuse to be forced into a highly technical and specific slump, and that is to stray away from the traditional method of internet search engines (Google, yahoo, Bing, etc.) and move over to a lesser-known search engine, otherwise known as your "vortex", as described in this video, to think and know exactly what needs to search for. Once a clear knowledge is known as to what needs to be searched for, all that person would need to do is search it, and then filter through results a little to find what they are looking for. Either way one chooses to search the web, they will find themselves breaking past the box of "personalized results" and into the vicinity of what matters to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkxfOY0_BZc *Abraham Hicks - The Most Powerful Search Engine*

Pirates, Supreheros, and Time-Travelers Alike

Pirates; the essence of terror on the world's oceans, superheroes; the light at the end of the tunnel for evil-doers and all all their perilous schemes, time-travelers; the ones who get to experience it all before time runs - **rewind** - the ones who get to experience it all, and small tutor buildings for kids of all ages; A place where, hold on... where did that one come from? What does a simple school have to do with the other three? In a world belonging to Dave Eggers, it has everything to do with them. In his TED talk, Dave Eggers explains to the audience a very unique new place for students to go to after school, a place that he simply calls "826 Valencia". There, he owns and operates a pirate store, which sells whatever any one needs or wants that relates to pirates. "Why is this tutor building also home to a pirate store?" One may ask; Well, in order to keep-up on rent and keep the ownership rights to the building, the owner, in this case Eggers, must sell retail merchandise, so there you have it. Aside from this novelty shop, the real magic occurs in the back, where a fully-staffed tutor center is available, for free, to any kid who wishes to get an edge on their homework, talk to experienced adults about school, or simply relax and get some extra help on their work. At first, however, his help center was not very successful. After opening, him and his group of professors and friends waited for weeks for people to come in, but became discouraged when people did not come. Dave, however, stated that he became informed of a possible "trust gap", because after all he was operating behind the confines of a pirate supply store. After realizing this, he urges his friend, a Mexico City teacher, to move out to his center in San Fransisco to help patch this gap. Her knowledge and connectivity to teachers and students helped fix his problem and urged more kids to come, eventually reaching it's capacity on an average basis. In his discussion, Eggers, being the spontaneous, random writer that he is, expresses his excitement for his tutor center in a very obvious way. He speaks in a realistic, pleasant tone, and is clearly passionate about his work with his center. He stated that his goal is to allow each student a 1:1 ratio, or allow each one of them one-on-one help as much as possible, claiming that their academic performance will raise faster, and their grades could be at least one grade higher. Along with this goal, Dave also put forth the idea that if every community were to have a center such as his, the kids would be happier and healthier, improving the condition of the world from the base up, one community at a time. I believe that students can so easily relate to his ideas, simply because they are the ones that are in school, the ones that are studying, and the ones that, although maybe not admittedly, could use the extra help. I also believe that these centers, if placed in the right areas and staffed with the right type of people, could create an entire new dimension on education, and empower young minds to attain a will to learn and become more intelligent each and every chance they get, rather than using the outdated "feed and regurgitate" method currently used in schools to unwillingly digest and retain information. Alike Dan Pink's work on the elation of various drive methods that people use to work and live by a day-to-day basis, these centers would create an ideal environment for students to begin constructing a base of intrinsic motivation, or the motivation to do things for your own self-gratitude and achievement. In total, I believe that the idea of students having a self-motivated, unignominious environment to go to and study, while harmoniously building a whole new love for learning and school is an idea so extraordinary and utopian that it could almost be unreal, yet, in actuality, it is an idea posed by and proven to work by a man who also owns and operates a pirate supply store, which should give a clue to any skeptic out there that these tutor centers are more than just an idea, they are100% possible centers of progression.

Can We Train Ourselves to Break Out of The Box of Evolution?

     An interesting question, "Can We Train Ourselves to Break Out of The Box of Evolution?" If humans were able to achieve this feat, then what would be the need for any planning whatsoever in life? In Richard Dawkins' TED talk, he uses an aggregation of multiple scientist's studies and experiments such as Einstein's theory of quantum mechanics and the theory established by Steve Grand that humans are more like a wave rather than a permanent thing, to formulate a radical new idea on the topic of matter, and ultimately talk about what in the physical universe can be characterized as being "real". In his discussion, he brings up a new idea about waves (electromagnetic, thermal, microwaves, light, gamma waves, etc.) and physical matter such as this computer or a person's body. This idea is that is that there exists no difference between the two in the sense that both are credibly "real" and both abide by the aspects of physical laws. Another main point made in his discussion is the thought that there are some things in this universe that are so queer and incoherent, that humans, not even the most pristine of scientific minds, can even begin to comprehend the gravity of such notions. He goes into minor detail about as humans, along with other living creatures conscious minds grow and expand as their bloodlines continue to excel, their viewpoints on what is and what isn't possible will continue to change, whether that change is an increase of a decrease in possibility. Dawkins made a comment that carries much thought in today's science community, his conception was, that if people in the 17th century believed it possible to travel the cosmos, then would it be plausible that people today would be flying around the universe in highly efficient space explorers? Maybe so, but humans will never know, unless we create our own ability to travel through time (what has actually been gaining popularity as an idea, according to sciindustry.com*) What I take from this discussion is that there really is no limit to what can be achieved by human minds. Once an idea so immense and revolutionary such as time travel, or the belief that we actually can travel through space like something out of Star Wars is thought-of and expanded on, then who is to say it can't be physically done? The answer to that question, however, lies in one's own evolved sense of reality. If that limitation, that road block between higher-level thinking and current meaningless reality is broken, then anything can truly be possible. Aside from these revolutionary ideas, one main credibility in this idea is due to Richard Dawkins' technique if hard-driving scientific phrasing. Rather than previously viewed speakers and their techniques of incorporating humor into their talks, Dawkins persisted through his discussion, making many references to previous scientists and their works, playing upon the mentality that science is a sort-of work in progress, and that by reveling into new discoveries in the field of science, one is merely adding to the grand scheme of discoveries, formulas, laws, and theories of science, including themself. Dawkins, rather than adding new discoveries to the science community, however, he approached it from a different aspect; By connecting multiple ideas into one big picture. Quite relative to Mrs. Smith's classes studies on the right-brain, if I say so myself. In the sense of school, this idea actually has more preponderance than one may think. First, if students, as well as teachers were to manage to master the technique of "thinking outside of the revolutionary box", then the content and learning each received from school would have the power to excel without limitation. Second, more in relation to life rather than school, if one were to learn how to climb this greatly metaphorical ladder off the beaten path with their new ideas and insights, then one would have the power to master other crucial arts in life (discussed by Dan Pink's "A Whole New Mind") such as symphony, empathy, design, happiness, and overall a larger sense of play in life, turning mundane tasks into involving acts of self/social defining animation. Pertaining to the world, this 'big-picture" idealism of this TED talk encompasses elements from both school and life related applications, but on a much larger scale. The idea of breaking from the norm and creating and connecting all new perceptions and connections with global human knowledge, could be the possible missing link between humans flourishing rather than consummating. Imagine for eleven seconds; Each and every human being on Earth, all containing a clear mind and soul, working together to tackle some of the most prevalent, yet ignored problems on Earth, all in favor of the well-being of everyone else as well as the planet. Good thought- huh? To conclude, Richard Dawkins TED talk on the idea of people learning to break free from the box of  current evolution has more gravity pertaining to the world than is visible at first. Like any other major idea relating to global-well-being, all it takes is a little digging, a lot of drive, and a multitude of creative perceptions.

*http://sciindustry.com/time-travel.html

It's A Small World, So Who Is To Say Power Can't Go To The People?

Go back ten years ago. It's a warm summer night, and you are sitting at home hanging out with your friends. All the sudden, every electronic device (lights, television, speakers, radios, ect.) shuts off. You decide to wait it out for q couple of minutes to make sure it's not just some small glitch, nothing. You and your friends start to get worried, so you start talking about what it might be, in hope of coming to a conclusion. Sitting in the dark, everyone's minds begin to wander. You may have the idea that some kind of citywide powersaver operation is in effect, or even that someone broke into your house and shut off the lights. Now, fast forward to ten years later. You are in the same situation, the power goes out and visibility is at ground zero. Instead of fretting and worrying, attempting to come to some kind of sustainable conclusion, you simply pull-out your laptop, log onto Facebook or google (or reall any other social network)and begin your search within answers. Instead of just imagining p some crazy random situation, you see the answers pop-up in front of you like the flick of a switch. This is what is great about modern technology, when used in the right ways, by the right people, in the right way, an alchemy of human engineering is possible. In Clay Shirky's TED talk, this is exactly what point he is trying to get across to people. Rather than becoming reliant on biased television news stations and primitive radio broadcasting to get your information, why not take it into yours, as well as other people's hands and write about what you know? Besides being able to see what other people know and think, you are able to help other people by sharing your expressions and feelings. In his presentation, Clay Shirky put this idealism forward using a unique technique of blending hard facts and ideas, with humor and satire. Opening with an example from Africa, Shirky talked about how one woman organized and operated a blog website on current events relating to the recent election and outbreaks of violence across the country. He added that a's more and more information began flooding in, the woman became overwhelmed, so a group of people volunteered to help her out. Within a short period of time, this idea has spread to become a nationwide trend. He explained how one idea such as that has the power to spread across large groups of people, and effect massive areas of the world. He then broke the serious atmosphere of this topic by slyly attaching a picture of a 'lawl cat', a random picture of a cat with a misspelled caption, into his presentation. Although meaningless at first, he brilliantly redirects his argument back to the main topic, by stating that although a dumb and meaningless idea, it is still something creative, started by people, and has spread to a relatively large group of followers. Shirky claims that this new idealism is the mindset of the future, and that it will begin to take hold of a new, modernistic society. In terms of school, this revolutionary idea has a large area to grow and expand on, and ultimately become a new form for learning to take place in. In classrooms, instead of simply learning amongst fellow classmates, a class could blog and connect with other classes around the world, and communicate face-to-face about new ideas. In the business world, this system of global communication could easily do wonders with both company profits and worker satisfaction. Workers could communicate with other workers in other companies (in a friend sense, of course. Corporate competition should be left to the business meets) and talk to each other, gaining new knowledge and tactics to attack their projects with a new keen eye. In a profit sense, businesses could extend their margin of idea sources outside of the baseline, and out to the more creative, "Earth-bound" public opinions, giving the businesses with the greatest public recognition the biggest edge on their competitors. To conclude, I believe a metaphor can sum-up what one should take away from this new system of global knowledge, and that metaphor is that two minds are greater than one.

I May Want the Carrot, I May Not Want the Stick, But What If I don't Want Either?

Sitting amongst a jury of my peers attentively listening to the case being made by the defendant, I quietly thought to myself what to believe and what to dismiss. The case being pushed was a hard one, one that clearly must have required much preparation and intellect in order to conjure. Now what scenario would one think that I am describing to them, if they couldn't already tell by the title? Now my answer, being a surprise to many, but only a mere recollection to most, is the case that was argued so thoroughly, by a man so insightful as Dan Pink. His TED talk, was one based upon the quote, "There is a mismatch between what science knows, and what business does". In this discussion, or as he put it, "case", there existed a thought-provoking arrangement of ideas based around the teaching that business as we know it today, is too reliant on "carrot and stick", or, reward and punishment (carrots being the rewards and sticks being the punishments) motivational techniques to make workers work well and stay on task. He argued that instead of this primitive, industrial-age way of thinking, companies and businesses should focus on another type of motivation that he calls intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is similar to another type of intrinsic motivation, the desire to survive, but has a different aspect about it; It is the desire to survive prosperously and meaningfully. For example, instead of merely going to work every day, it is the act of someone going to work every day while smiling, getting their work done efficiently and productively, and doing so all under the pledge that it is work with no extrinsic motivational pushes (carrots and sticks). Does this sound at all like a drugged-up, zombie-like way of working? I mean, people just don't do that on an average basis, they must be under the influence of some type of drug, right? Wrong; That is the beauty of Pink's way of telling his side of the story, he is able to make sense of all of his beliefs and put it into an easily recognizable format. While doing so, he is actually, although it may not seem like it at first, telling an entire army of motivation 2.0 (carrots and sticks) thinkers that they are wrong, and will never be right. That is, as long as they wish to progress in any shape or form. The idea is simple, people doing work that they know in their minds and souls will benefit others, under the notion that it has meaning and actually represents something in their lives, rather than the left-brained thinking jobs such as software programmers and designers that can easily be automated and outsourced. This new idealism of work, to look at it in a future sense, is too meaningful for boring soulless computers and far too complex for foreigners equipped with their own personal "carrot blinders", blocking their path to any creative solution. What this speech meant to me, and I'm sure to anyone else who may have had an encounter with this powerful new idea, is that there truly is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does, and this mismatch must be repaired before any type of social, economical, or contemporary progression can occur. It is up to the youth of the world, the future leaders of the world, to realize this fate and act upon it before it's too late. This would require many new ways of thinking, one of which being schools doing what many may call "lessening-up" on stresses put onto their youth; Because really, what more is stress than the result of the inefficiency of extrinsic motivation? The truth is, practicing meaningful, self-sustainable acts of intrinsic motivation will increase productivity and will decrease stress in anyone and everyone who is willing to take-on the challenge of discovering themselves, as well as creating a new meaning for life.

If This Guy Can Swallow a Sword, Then Africa Can Become a Country of Wealth With Ease

As I was watching Hans Hosling's TED talk presentation on the topic of poverty, economy, and health, I found myself deeply satisfied with his way of professional and well thought-out presentation skills. He started his talk with a chart showing the relationship between the average birth amounts per country, versus the average length of life per country. Intriguingly enough, from the year 1950, there existed two "clumps" of data on the opposite ends of the chart depicting a relationship between the countries with the most technological development such as America, to the less modernized countries, such as Africa. From this time to to the year 2003 however, this polar opposite relationship moves greatly towards the upper, more longer-living side of the chart. Aside from this data, I found it very interesting to the fact that, on another graph depicting the relationship between mortality rate in infants and wealth per capita, as the U.S. progressed further in time, it held a strong hold  to the wealth side of  the chart while the mortality rate side stayed relatively higher than other countries. A statement on a capitalist society? Maybe so, but every one person has their own opinions, and sometimes those opinions aren't as readily accepted by others as one may think. Reflecting back upon Hans' presentation, one will see that all of the information that I found personally intriguing, along with much more, is presented very effectively. This man is truly one of the most inertly extravagant thinkers that I have seen speak about the world we live in. Not only due to his professional attitude and presentation techniques, but also due to his ability to speak fluently and rationally without pausing or breaking amidst his presentation. The hard-hitting ideas provoked by him were impressive, and to have to think about them can literally boggle one's mind. He was also able to tap-in to the audience's humorous side, only further keeping his audience interested and attentive. Aside from all of his presentation of global statistics, which could, if looked upon with the right mind could change the world, he did something to further prove his point that the seemingly impossible is indeed possible. At the end of the show, he ripped-his shirt off, was given a sword, and swallowed in in front of the entire TED audience.

Crazy, right? Although it may be a little bit of a cliche way of proving a point, it definitely impressed the audience. What I, and what I think everyone else who watches this video should take from it, is that human existence has been proven throughout time to be successful and revolutionary, and just recently it has come to a point of almost absolute success. Take a look at Africa, fifty years ago, one would describe the country of having medieval-like traits, to being a country flourishing, (in the sense that mostly anything is flourishing compared to medieval times) and in many cases, educated. It's like a dried-out, unused clay mound thrown under a desk, amidst world of carefully crafted clay statues. Then, in the past fifty years, that clay statue was found, moistened, and crafted by an apprentice statue-maker. Still not much compared to the beautiful artwork of the modern world, but at least it's something now. It just goes to show anyone, when something is labeled "impossible" what they are really saying is that it's going to take a lot of work to accomplish. The point is, though, that any problem in this world can be solved by human creativity and will, all it takes is the correct form of determination.