contemporary issues in public policy

When everybody's ideas are shared, they do act as parasites. Some people might be immune to them in the sense that it may not affect them directly, but to a different person it can have an impact on them, negative or positive. As humans, we pursue ideas that we feel are important or that make us happy.

agreed, however its human nature to share and create ideas. Government or american citizens definitely don't consider the effects that our decisions have. But anything potentially could be harmful, such as idea, speech, or actions.  I agree with you though most people might not see ideas as a bad thing, only because there blind any effects. 

Humans are often blinded by ideas, as messr. Dennet pointed out. Ideas definitely aren't innately good or bad, even if the idea is sketch, but rather it's what people do with those ideas and how they capitalize on the emotion the idea incites.

I really liked the point that he brought up when he said that when he say that "we are all responsible for our ideas . . .and there likely missuses". I feel like a lot of people take an idea and blow it out of the water and make the idea go much bigger then intend. We have to watch what we say because someone could take it in a different light.  

I enjoyed the way he spoke about the spread of ideas and evolution of memes. Its relation to the spread of a virus is impressive and accurate in many ways. Viruses are dangerous agents which multiple quickly and can be considerably difficult to exterminate in some cases. The formation of a parasitic pathogen is an interesting comparison because, like an idea or meme, it does not need to ensure the survival of its host to remain in existence. He does a wonderful job of observing the similarities when he includes the fact that ideas, like viruses, do not rely on genetic transmittal for dissemination but rather, exist because we exist. As with any other infectious agent, an idea or a meme can be destructive, and may reverse or undermine our more self-preserving processes. 

I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.

I find it interesting how most of the ideas that spread the most over the internet and through technology are the toxic ideas. The toxic memes establish a prominent position in our mind and that is what many focus on. We are the carriers of these toxic memes, much like the ant is of the fluke parasite.

I really like Daniel Dennett and his movie the four horsemen, this was not his best performance speaking wise and he is definitely not the speaker that Christopher Hitchens was or Sam Harris is.  However, I like this talk, I like that he uses his knowledge of science to help explain the severity of the take over of the mind that these memes have on people just like the parasite he talkes about in the beginning. 

Thoughts as a virus is an interesting way to look at things. However, I personally disagree. At least to me, ideas and thoughts are more of gene than anything. One that you can grow out of, but I feel like it's more accurate to say some of these things are passed down rather than "infected".

The idea that certain ideas can spread and harm certain other people was an interesting one. We all like to think new ideas and progressive though as a good thing, but this TED talk presents a different view on the issue. Personally, I believe that cultures are ever evolving and sometimes new ideas are needed, even if there are growing pains. But these pains can also have a negative effect. A good example would be the Arab Spring in the last few years. Although it is objectively good that harsh dictators are taken out of power, new ideas can create an even more dangerous form of society. As with all of life, there is the good and the bad with this shift. 

We are responsible for what we do with others ideas. We are responsible for the outcomes of how we implement the idea. He talks about the spreading of toxic ideas (memes) on a worldly scale but we can also see this a prevalent theme in politics, especially in this election. The motive of many of these campaign tactics is to see who can spread a toxic meme the fastest. People become wrapped up in this negative exchange which is influencing people (probably in the ways that they intend) for the wrong reasons. Reform is needed in the campaign process to bring things like elections and policy making back to the initial responsibility of government, to protect the people and make a good society for people to flourish. 

I enjoyed that he used the idea of bugs infecting our minds. I personally hate bugs and i think that many of the ideas that are being spread by technology are like bugs, they're bad or harmful. His jokes were also entertaining but i could also relate and understand his message. 

I really liked the comparison between the parasite in the ant and the ideas in a human, as I was watching this video I couldn't help but feel very compelled by his words, I think that his talk was a very accurate description of how things in the mind work. The concept that an idea can be a virus in the brain and take over is scary but true. I hate to make this reference, but I think that Inception is really based on that idea... his wife kills herself because the idea, or virus, says that her world is not real.

Personally, although I found many of his ideas, such as the danger of spreading certain ideas to other cultures, to be intriguing and, in some senses, true, I was very turned off by his flippant treatment of religion as a whole. I think it is simply ignorant and prideful to look at something, like religion, which has been an intrinsic part of humanity since the beginning of human history and which many very smart, well-educated people have held to, and to simply brush it off as an "infection of ideas." He came across, to me, as very disrespectful, narrow minded, and pompous. I think he had a lot of great ideas and he seems like a very smart man, but I think it is simply prideful to so easily disregard religion as a whole. Some of the most intelligent and well-educated people in all of human history have also been some of the most fervently religious, and I feel that Dennett injures his own argument by treating them so flippantly.

He has very strange trasitions between subjects. I like how he connects the infectious fluke to emotions that infectious to humans. Memes are very strange. There are different species, some that can be pronounced and some that can't. Why were memes feared? And why does "meme" now a days mean pictures with funny comments on them? Againt things repeat themselves no matter how much you try to keep them from happening again. I like how he says the way to fight memes is to inform yourself and fix it rather than just be mad about it. Very smart man.

One thing that I really found interesting was when he said that people take ideas out of context. He said that people have to watch what they say because others might twist them into something completely opposite. An example of this would be my English class. In class we analyze book after book and sometimes it makes me wonder what if the author only meant what was said and not some analyzed piece that we came up with.

Dennet's TED Talk about comparing developing memes to viruses are interesting. However, I disagree because people today are exposed to media information and this creates new cultures and ideas. Sure they "retire" old customs, but life changes and with today's technology,

(cont.) ...the pace is much faster and more accesible than ever before.

I like that simple analogy to get across a pretty important point. We have now, with globalization, a pretty small world. Ideas are rubbing next to each other more and more. We see that now with the Middle Eastern ideas and ideologies and our ideologies of 'free' in the West. We have to be cognizant of how we approach these other cultures and societies because if we are not then we will continue to have the problems that we have today. Hopefully people will start to look more openly at other cultures and religions. To do that maybe we need to look at our own beliefs, we think that what we believe in is the right thing, maybe it is, but maybe it isn't. We can't just be critical of someone else just because they believe or live by a different code.  

A meme is only dangerous because another meme told us. In his philosophy we as humans don't have independent thoughts but they are moldered together through life and experience. This is just a simple idea of norms and values.

I liked how he combined his philosophical ideas with science. I liked how he related sickness with ideas. He brought up a good point, technology does spread ideas more, either good or bad.  The 'toxic' ideas do wipe out a lot of important things, like culture and tradition depending on what information is being presented. I agree completely with Dan Dennett.

I thought that this TED Talk was very interesting. Dan is basically stating that we as humans are easily influenced from other ideas. We sometimes are influenced by toxic ideas that can hurt us. We need to change this and spread encouraging ideas instead. 

I completely agree that we should be spreading encouraging ideas instead of degrading ones. Relating this to the political adds we were seeing so much of a few weeks ago, we need to focus on the positives more.

The graph on the right has more emotional appeal to the suicides. Especially indicating where they have jumped from. It's saddening to know that most of these people jump towards the city and the center. I agree that there should be safety regulations to end this tragic statistic.

This is an interesting way to get attention. Though, it does evoke feelings of hostility toward and within that country. Perhaps insulting the nation as a whole would help the defense of the cause, but perhaps it would not. It is like what was said earlier, these can be dangerous topics which need to be presented in clever and informative way. 

Athenian principals stress policy that is good for democracy, thinking that it will always lead to what is best for the community. Not all nations can work under a typical Athenian democracy though. First of all, Athens was a CITY not a country; the reason why its members were so involved was because they had public meetings in courthouses in which all citizens were allowed to argue and vote and have a say in the city's political agenda. It would be impossible to have something this engaging on a national level, in which every citizen is expected to participate, or else not bother to complain.  Secondly, not all residents of Athens were citizens, and if you were not a citizen (born in Athens and not a foreigner) then you had no say in the politics of Athens. So Athenian democracy did not look out for the best of its community because its community was much larger than those who had a say in its politics; it looked out for its male citizens and the democracy that upheld that type of government.  Thirdly, Athenian citizens were expected to bring a well-formed argument for their proposals to the table if they wanted to be even barely considered in the courts. So yes, you DID have to know your stuff and your opinion WAS discounted if you didn't, because you had no place giving opinions in things you weren't very well educated in. And even then, those who could convince and sway the most people to their side were the ones who had their agendas voted for, even if, on occasion, those agendas were not to the benefit of the "community" of Athens. In fact, Athenian democracy oftentimes lead to the detriment of the city, when people who should have had no say in its policy were allowed to influence and effect change if they could argue well enough. So before we go on putting one version of democracy on a pedestal above another, let's remember there are flaws in every version of every type of government, and not one has proven to be even remotely ideal yet. 

This is ridiculous. Healthcare should not be that expensive especially for a town like McAllen, Texas. The government needs to step in in and figure a way to reduce healthcare costs.

Yes this is rdiculous becuase teh government is spending so much money on health care for its people. But why don't we stop to think about what would happen if health care wasn't provided by the government, people wouldn't be able to provide medicare for themselves, let alone their families or even be able to support their families

I completely agree, healthcare providers should be compassionate and care for their patients. As a prospective healthcare provider, I hope my generation would serve the public not for monetary gain, but the satisfaction of being able to help those in need the most. Some doctors I've had appointments with just diagnose me, or say there isn't anything wrong and leave the room. Doctors and nurses should have the ability to empathize their patients. Patients are people too, not a lab subject.

Today, healthcare providers seem to want to benefit for monetary gain. As a prospective healthcare provider, I hope my generation will treat their patients with respect and do the best of their ability to treat them. From personal experience, I went through many doctor's appointments with different doctors and I saw a repeating pattern. It's rare to find that good doctor who empathizes their patients and cares about their well-being; not a checklist off a number. Not only a professional relationship, but there should be a personal level too.

The culture of poverty, in my opinion, is anything but a defense mechanism.  A lot of people who live with poverty do not have the choice or the ability to get themselves out of it. Most people do not choose to live in poverty. People especially do not choose to live in poverty to purposely show inequality.