TED describes itself as a “group of remarkable people that gather to exchange ideas of incalculable value”. Its lectures cover a broad set of topics including science, arts, politics, global issues, architecture, music and more.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29

They podcast bits from their conferences (you can get them through: the TED website, YouTube and iTunes ) which is great because they have all sorts of great speakers.

The bit I’m really interested is part that was brought to my attention which is the video by Sir Ken Robinson

 

 

 

Source: TED

He talks about educating the creativity out of children and how the education system is really only there to fulfil the needs of one specific set of people, which was originally the industrialists. This is of course true of most things, that is that they are only there to serve the purpose of one set of people usually to the detriment of another group. For example the fact that

History is always written by the victor

This is demonstrated by the view held by the majority of people that the USSR was wholly to blame for the Cold War. This is of course is not true and there are equally as many points that can be made on the subject of how the USA was responsible.
(OK so this example is a bit abstract and off subject, but it is supposed to demonstrate the fact that things are often one sided and ignore the other possibilities)

Many would argue that this is a necessary evil and that there will always be those things that will suffer and those which are advanced on the back of this. For example if we did encourage dance in the curriculum would the academic subjects suffer, and if they did (as is likely to happen as there are only so many teaching hours available, something has to give) is this not just unfair on those who are academically gifted.

However this is not the point of Robinson’s argument. His point is that we in fact are not giving any of the children a chance as we, as a race, are stifling the natural creative urge present in everyone. It is not about whether or not people are good dancers but that they are not willing to find out as they are too scared of being judged or because dancing is unimportant.

So the problem is not at all fixed by making everyone dance instead of focusing on academic subjects however. The only way to fix the problem is to allow students to do everything available and encourage them in all of these until they naturally make their own decisions.

This can however create it’s own problem in that you have to decide the point at which you face these children with the hash social realities; that while they may enjoy dancing they do have to do their maths and languages and have a basic understanding of them as this is what society requires and we are not going to change this overnight. Further the problem that if you don’t do this will you end up with a situation like that with ‘new maths’ in the UK (which has ended up with much of a generation requiring tuition as adults) where people do not have the skills required.

Of course the balance is what is key, you must be able to expose people to these social norms without crushing their ability to be creative. This has a lot to do with how people are taught and more importantly the extra circular activities made available to them. What has to be established along with this is that it is expected that people take part in at least one activity, be that sport, community service or charity work of some kind, scouts or cadets, drama or whatever. The problem is that these activities are not always available, whether that be at school or elsewhere or their parents work makes it impossible to go and this surely must be where the problem lies.

These are also the problems hardest to solve, along with those problems of money (especially the amount allocated to state schools). We can however make organising these activities easier by reducing the amount of red tape surrounding doing anything with children.

In the UK you have to be CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked before working with children. For those of you not aware of the issues surrounding this:
Although this may seem like a very good idea ther are problems, for each activity you do you have to separately checked and you can be banned from working with children for many reasons (unrelated to children); that is not to say that I think the idea should be scraped (it shouldn’t), merely better executed.

This has led to many people who may have previously organised activities not bothering due to the added hassle not only caused by this but by endless risk assessments and health and safety. Again these seem like good ideas but when for example you have to have a certificate to step more than two steps up a ladder it can start to get annoying.

There are again two sides to this. In the position of the parent giving the care of their child over to someone else you feel reassured an have peace of mind knowing that there have been checks done and that the risk has been minimised at all points. However in the position of the volunteer organising the activity on top of their normal working week this may well be enough to mean you do have enough time (or patience) to organise the activity.

Now obviously the parents side has won out (quite rightly I think most would say, it is certainly true that their are far more arguments in favour of the parent position). But it does raise a difficult question, on this basis whose job is it to provide children with activities that nurture both their creative and academic traits? Is it schools which require more resources and flexibility allowing them to do what they want or parents working to provide as best they can for their child.

It would certainly seem that although parents have an important role to play schools, seeing children all day five days a week, are often in a better position. Immediately we hit another and possibly the biggest problem with the whole system. Who decides what children are taught (and therefore how much emphasis there is on more creative subjects)?

There are several groups:

• Parents – All parents want some different for their children but children have to go to schools and as much as the teaching should be tailored individually to each student for teaching to work they must all be work from the base.
• Teachers – Although most would say they are the best people to educate children what qualifies them above anyone else to decide what children should and shouldn’t be taught
• Politicians – This is the way it is at the moment (in the UK they decide the National Curriculum) but again they, really, are no more qualified.

Any and all of these groups need to take many things into account and consult many different groups including all of those above (yes, and the politicians they do hold the purse strings).

So this leaves us with no real answers really just question:

How do we teach children those things they need to know (to ‘fit’ social norms) whilst still encouraging creativity (throughout their life) and who are the best people to decide how this should be done? Discuss.

Anyway on to some actual content…

Earlier (whilst fixing the problem with wordpress) I was listening to some old episodes of one of my podcast (Anarchy X – 120) and I finally got my act together and had a look at some of the things that they regularly talk about I had a look at Who Killed The Electric Car ? (Wikipedia) (Official site).

This happens to be one of their favorite subjects, supression of new specifically electric car related technology by the oil industry, and something that when you think about it seems quite plausible, but not only that it seems likely. I still need to get a copy of the film and watch it (hopefully providing more verifiable facts) and so I’ll be able to talk more (and get angry) this with the addition of more facts and figures.

The site however lead me on to something more interesting (and something that Anarchy X have talked about before) which is plug-in hybrids. Now here I have to educate (for those of you who don’t know), a plug-in is different from a normal hybrid, the difference being that a plug-in hybrid can be charged from a normal power outlet (plug), where as a normal hybrid can only be charged by the engine and brakes of the car whilst it is running. This means that a plug-in hybrid has the capacity to drive many more miles of your journey than a normal hybrid especially if you for example are travelling to work where you could plug in your car.

Now for those of you that want to know more I have various places for you to go and look:

As always wikipedia

Now there are those out there I hear crying “but anyone could have written it”. Normally I would agree with you and suggest caution when looking at any straight facts that it presents without proof. However this particular article seems very well referenced giving you a third party to verify the data.

My favorite part of the article is right at the end and presents an interesting look into the under hand ways in which the oil industry (and the closely allied car industry in the US) work.

“Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries

 

In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics’s battery development and manufacturing, including patents and trade secrets controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, TexacoCobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.^[64] purchased GM’s share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was changed to According to author and San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association president Sherry Boschert, large-format NiMH batteries had been commercially viable but Cobasys refused to sell or license them to small companies and individuals. For years, Cobasys had only accommodated very large orders, and at that time the major auto makers capable of placing such orders showed little interest in NiMH batteries.”

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid#Patent_encumbrance_of_NiMH_batteries

 

Next Plug-In America

This site contains a wealth of information, even if your not in the US it is well worth a look.There are two things that I’d like to pull out from the site:

Firstly, that Toyota (who have been producing normal hybrids for a while) are now testing a plug-in Prius in California and Japan. Seeing this main stream is good news and a step in the right direction.
Toyota Press Release L.A. Times Article (PDF)
(This article is also at the top of the Plug-in America homepage at the time of writing)

Secondly, a graph

Source: Plug-In America

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/driving_habits_graph.jpg

This graph clearly shows that most people don’t drive far in a day meaning that many of these people would be able to completely run their cars on battery almost every day. This means that it would make a significant difference to greenhouse gas emissions.

Lastly, Google.org / RechargeIT.org

This is part of a charitable organization setup by Google (I wont go into what for, find that out for yourself). This contains the answers to some interesting questions.

The site states:

 

 

“Did you know…

Electric miles emit about half as much CO2 as gasoline miles on the national power grid.”

Source: RechargeIT

http://www.google.org/recharge/index.html

This is an interesting statement and is then followed up by this in the FAQ section (which is worth a read if you have any questions):

“4. Will plug-in hybrids require the construction of new power plants?
Actually, studies have shown that our current electricity grid could power three quarters of the nation’s 217 million passenger vehicles. ”

Source: RechargeIT

http://www.google.org/recharge/faq.html

The other great page is this one not only does it give a comparison between the two types of car they are testing you can also select each car individually and see the raw data by date. Not only does this offer proof of the worthiness of plug-in hybrids but also offers verifiable data and also the raw data so that it may be interpreted by the reader.

There is much more on all of these sites and many more sites out there these are just the few that I have had the opportunity to look at and write about so if you think there is more that is worthy of inclusion or you disagree with me and have bothered to write an opposing argument then email me: thesender@thesender .co.uk.

By the way if you disagree and you can be bothered to write a coherent argument of any kind (i.e. you want to hurl abuse) don’t email me, I don’t care.