Education for a Sustainable Future

,    »  -   70 Comments
511
5.60
12345678910
Ratings: 5.60/10 from 20 users.

Storyline

Education for a Sustainable FutureEducation For A Sustainable Future presents information on how today's practices in schools are socially unsustainable.

The documentary film critically analyses what is considered socially relevant in a new education system which brings out the most potential in all of humanity whilst also detailing specific educational methods from a wide range of sources on how to nurture social skills, critical thinking techniques and a larger variety of important practices to positively reinforce from our earliest years onwards.

It must be recognised that a sustainable education is one of the most critical components of any advanced society.

The views expressed in this documentary are not necessarily shared by the originators of source material presented.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • bloya

    34:06 - "chemical free" plants... haha.I would like to know this guys definition of a "chemical". To give my view on the video. Its got a few interesting views (little obvious at times). However, its tone and music may put you to sleep... So grab a pillow!

  • lakhotason

    ...and when up popped ol' Jacque "Venus Project" Fresco my suspicions were no longer mere suspicions...

  • over the edge

    while this doc has some good ideas and i agree that the education system needs improvement. i couldn't help but feel that there was a connect with the venus project (at least in principle) . and then the "conclusions" section came up. i am all for sustainability, environmentally responsible actions and the well being of the world as a whole. but (there had to be a but) we need implementable ideas for now and the removal if the monetary systems, dissolution of countries and borders, resources owned by all and a robot work force are all at the very least a long way off if not impossible. while long term goals are needed these ideas will not provide any answers in time. this utopia would be great but until someone can reasonably answer one question for me i see it as impossible. what if the countries with the most to lose by the implementation of these ideas (most remaining resources) do not wish to join this one world ? do we force them? take away the resources? for example if Canada. Brazil,and Saudi Arabia decide with the support of their population not to join what do you do? there goes a huge percentage of the water,oil. land mass and other resources to a relatively small population and the whole model falls apart. now i am not claiming these areas would not follow along just a what if. the problem is there would be countries that would say no and logic would point to countries (people) with the most to lose.

  • ProudinUS

    You know what I witnessed on live national TV last week? I saw this Republican canidate Santoum or Santorium...whatever his his name is, give a speech where he said that higher education shouldn't be pushed whatsoever. He thinks that kids should grow up like I did..quit school and learn a trade on the job. Now it hasn't been to bad along the way but with my limited education I don't think I'm going to be the one to find a cure for cancer or get us back up into space. I wish I could go finish school

    By they way, does anyone know much about the Morman religion?

  • PavolvsBitch

    the education 'system' needs demolition. we are trained to be dumb and dumber the more we apply compulsory education; it's how we got into this mess and cannot even think straight enough to get out of it.

    this 'sustainable' meme is spun through Agenda 21 and it is starkly exposed as a fraud if one has enough critical reasoning ability to check out the sources of support those preaching the doctrine draw from.

    all the other 'utopian' memes; dissolution of borders, open borders and the issues below forever bounced about in mainstream are the result of a lifetime of programming; we've all been there, most are still stuck.

    listen to Alan Watt on cutting through the matrix about the big picture, the puzzle pieces of contradiction are rapidly forming.

    anyone examining with eyes wide open the ruthless 'kiddieCultism' in sexualising our infants,overwhelming and traumatising their senses through cartoons, programmes and of course 'little bunny' pre-playschools MUST surely see the crime in having children imprisoned for their entire developmental cycle into intense socialisation programming with change agents as their 'teachers' - programmers.

    The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America and Education 2000 should answer the questions on what education is and what it is for. Provided we are able to follow instructions (without question) that's all the education we need.

  • PavolvsBitch

    Lucifer projections. So many are soothed by warm fuzzies as they stumble towards the slaughterhouse. The visions of the VP are not for the benefit of those dreaming newage airheads nor their more militant activist peers. It's interesting to watch how they explain the plan for our extermination and how wonderful everything will be for those 'in the know' who themselves, are being deceived.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    Please dont watch this documentary. Some college idiot's just prepared a speech or a thesis and superimposed on a video. Plus its so 70's.
    Rubbish I say.

  • Space_Cadet_1952

    Not as stupifying as the narrator on 'Quantum Communication'. Mr Prozak himself :-S

  • lakhotason

    When you plead with others do not watch you've only piqued interest to watch.

  • Malchik

    Yeah? Well, I'm watching it to spite you.

  • lakhotason

    See what I mean. Malchik doesn't belie my thoughts.

  • CapnCanard

    This doc is not bad, unless of course you cling to past methodologies/ideologies. Sorry. I guess from my perspective we are reaching a climax in human population, economic disparities, educational disparities, peak oil and resource depletion, digital technology, internet technology, cell phones, facebook, google, twitter, all mixed in with highly mobile populations who are wired into multiple sources of information. And this information is easy to understand without a great deal of formal education. For my money this is likely to cause some benefits with attendant PROBLEMS as well. It is strange but Terence McKenna's old Timewave Zero may be of interest to help decipher it all. Will all growth flatline? Or is it population that crashes? Or food production? Or lack of oil inspires us to overthrow the Lords of Oil? Or ...? Wow, there are many ways it could manifest. Then again, things may not change much at all. I heard people claim shared consciousness and other crazy stuff that sounded like nonsense. but if there is a large population of people who are wired and easily communicating with one another without their gov't s permission then I see much of this stuff as being unstoppable. Like a tsunami... I guess it remains to be seen. But how it manifests is a curious speculation.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HCCWKGUOVIU7SOI7OL2VZLQT3E Alexander

    there is only one problem with this world and us humans and that is (over)population, until we sort that out (say until we hit 1 000 000 000 again) we are destined to destroy the planet, and there are no other planets

  • CapnCanard

    yes, but that one problem actually creates the other problems until it is all a massive mudslide flowing downhill taking out everything in it's path. I like to illustrate it all to open eyes beyond the idea of over population. If people think of only over population then they are stopped dead in their tracks imagining that the problem isn't so bad

  • AnalogousGumdropDecoder

    "Sustainable" is an adjective.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ES5YFURR5VOTKTGHD4PIVYXPVI John

    This film is based mostly on old outdated ideas regarding education. It is obviously an old film. Many of the issues raised in the film are by now well understood and some have been resolved. In this current decade educators face different problems -- and a whole different kind of student -- than back in the day when this video was made. Today's students have been trained by television to pay attention only for about twelve minutes at a time (commercials). Video games have taught children to always expect instant gratification. We have a huge and pervasive mass media that leads our children into believing that commercialism and consumerism are the be all and end all of life. Our children are not socialized to place any value on getting a good education. As a teacher I can tell you that there are some good students coming through the system who are motivated and have a desire to learn. But, sadly, most students simply spend twelve years going through the motions. And it serves no meaningful purpose to blame the teachers. If a student has no desire to learn, and is preoccupied with materialism to nearly pathological levels, then it doesn't matter how hard the teacher works to teach and motivate that student. If the classroom is the only place in society where a student is being mentored and encouraged to learn, then it will simply not be enough. Teachers can't possibly solve this problem alone. This is the social issue of time. It's not a teacher problem.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    Education without spiritualism is nothing. God exists even if you dont like it. We have to teach our children the balance between belief and scientific fact. If you leave God out of the fomula He will also ignore you. Mankind will blame all sorts of things and itself and humans have been inherently designed to be non self reliant. Hence, God.
    When you teach spiritualism you are teaching good virtue over bad such as patience, sharing etc over greed, malice etc.
    Now some say you can teach virtue without teaching about God. Well, majority of people in this world and their children believe in God. We have tried science and technology and we have failed....
    am i sounding gibberish?

  • over the edge

    @kist
    to answer your question yes you are

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Asher/100003297927387 John Asher

    The brain has over 100 billion neurons all connected in different ways that enables us to function as living organisms. There is no such thing as spiritualism. However, there is such a thing as information. Information gained through our fives senses is collected in this dense neural network we call the brain. When our senses catalog information, say you hearing a bird chirp, a collection of neurons store that information picked up through your ears. We know exactly what the brain is and it has nothing to do with this thing people refer to as spiritualism. We are the living equivalent of computers.

  • http://twitter.com/jcollins531 josh

    There are plenty of humans that are self-reliant. Spiritualism and God's existence are two different subjects. Buddhists are spiritual yet they don't have a God. And finally, your argument from popularity has no meaning to someone that is self-reliant, if everyone wanted to jump off a cliff would you?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    My point is there is just too much greed and materialism and the only way to slow this down or stop it completely is asking people to be happy with they have. Everything else seems to have failed to achieve and maybe we need to go back to basics??

  • BetsMcGee

    I am not going to debate the existence of god, your faith is none of my business, but i am going to address this statement

    "when you teach spiritualism you are teaching good virtue over bad such as patience, sharing etc over greed, malice etc."

    I hear this assumption that people of faith are more moral spouted as truth quite often, It is just another logical fallacy. If atheist are supposed to be decidedly more immoral or at least amoral, it would be a given that they would commit more crimes .

    Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted a survey in 1997 of the religious affiliation of those in prison and released the following numbers.

    Catholic 29267 39.164% Protestant 26162 35.008%
    Muslim 5435 7.273% American Indian 2408 3.222%
    Nation 1734 2.320% Rasta 1485 1.987% Jewish 1325 1.773% Church of Christ 1303 1.744% Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
    Moorish 1066 1.426% Buddhist 882 1.180%
    Jehovah Witness 665 0.890% Adventist 621 0.831%
    Orthodox 375 0.502% Mormon 298 0.399%
    Scientology 190 0.254% [ATHEIST 156 0.209% ]
    Hindu 119 0.159% Santeria 117 0.157% Sikh 14 0.019%
    Bahai 9 0.012% Krishna 7 0.009%
    crime is committed because of many social issues: poverty, parenting, economics, demographics, geography, etc. It’s a deep issue with a lot of sides. but belief or non belief in god isn't one of them, unless you count those nut-jobs that say god told them to do it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ES5YFURR5VOTKTGHD4PIVYXPVI John

    Kist, you have a right to teach your children what you believe. And I will fight to protect YOUR right to do so! But we have a right to teach our children what we believe, too. We don't believe there is a God, and we live an honest, moral, wholesome and happy life. Now, will you fight to protect MY rights? There are over 37,000,000 adult atheists in the U.S. (and we are the fastest growing demographic in the U.S.) And 99% of Atheists live honest, moral, wholesome lives. Study after study over the last 40 years, by many different organizations, demonstrates that atheists are less likely to commit crime/go to prison, less likely to have a mental illness, less likely to be addicted to alcohol or drugs -- and more likely to graduate from university, more likely to stay married (lower divorce rate). Kist, you have your beliefs, faith and imagination. We atheists have our logic, reason, critical thinking, facts, evidence, research, and reality. Keep YOUR religion out of OUR schools.

  • markq_99

    We've tried 'God' for over 5,000 years and what has it gotten us?

    And science was forbidden for most of that time.
    Leave God at your doorstep. We do not need faith involved in education. We do NOT need your idea of 'God' in the classroom. Too many times, I hear 'God' people saying that earthquakes were caused by sinners. Caused by the 'liberals', caused by the 'illegals', and not once has someone said that God holds the responsibility.

    What God wants; God gets!

    God help us all!

  • Brat Rascal

    Hear, hear.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    The past, well most of it, has been better than the future.
    We have all the know how and everything now but nothing really and we have destroyed our planet. Something is definitely gone wrong somewhere.
    My 2 cents is the atheists in power who have nothing to loose in the afterlife, which of course they don't believe in anyway, pretending to be all good but making the world worse off and of course enslaving them.
    Check out the doc : "why is there poverty in the world?"
    Hey if there is no afterlife why should we do good? and dont tell me its survival coz then you are responsible for all the poverty, as above, in the world. Coz survival is about infringing others rights. Right?

  • markq_99

    atheists in power???

    Perhaps you need to look deeper.

  • over the edge

    @kist
    you stated"Coz survival is about infringing others rights. Right?"and "if there is no afterlife why should we do good?" might i suggest watching "Nice Guys Finish First" right here on TDF. it might answer some questions for you.

  • Sieben Stern

    hey atheists have imagination too! we just know it's contained in our brains XD

  • Sieben Stern

    Who was it that asked people to define the word 'spiritual'? the moment you used it you were gibberish to me.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    Thats a nice documentary, thanks... and so is "How darwin killed God". Mankind has never been at more crossroads than in the past 100 years. Choice is not about progress only but about discovery. Evolution is one touchy matter which "denialists" keep bombarding our children in schools,with too. Maybe that then needs to stop too.
    And oh by the way, If any American thinks he or she is living a decent whole wholesome life, then I say think again coz America especially in the last decade has spread more chaos and problems in the rest of the world that even the "contented" population is begining to think again about everything.
    Imagine so much rubbish being spewed out of the media about Islam but still its gets stronger and stronger. Choice people, choice.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IEPHQHVRG5WSZ6AVZOFMGUJMLI kist

    Sorry an after thought. An atheist is taught to charge interest on money borrowed, lent to someone. A spiritualist will say no to interest and borrow lend coz he will be rewarded in afterlife.If an atheist does this it is purely out of ego or survival. Surely, what else for?

  • BetsMcGee

    "An atheist is taught to charge interest on money borrowed, lent to someone."

    Yes in grade school while all the spiritual kids are distracted with coloring in Christmas trees, painting Easter eggs and the like. us atheist kids are ushered quietly out to secret classes where we watch corporate videos on the joys of charging Interest and play monopoly.

  • BetsMcGee

    "My 2 cents is the atheists in power who have nothing to loose in the afterlife, which of course they don't believe in anyway, pretending to be all good but making the world worse off and of course enslaving them."

    What have you done to prevent Poverty, pollution, disease, homelessness, social inequality? Where were your shoes manufactured? what about your clothes? what type of car do you drive? what stores do you buy from?
    man you have spent a whole day arguing why you and yours are so much better then a whole group of people with heavily opinionated and illogical blanket statements. there is no moral high ground when were all up S**t Creek and your in the same leaky boat as the rest of us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ES5YFURR5VOTKTGHD4PIVYXPVI John

    Kist, your comments reveal your own hatred, venom, complete lack of education, and your desperate need to imagine that your are better than everyone else. And, of course, you are going to "heaven", because you are a good christian. But, sorry, pal -- logic, reason, sanity and facts are simply not on your side. You can have your own "reality", but you can't have your own facts. However, I have to say, I love arguing with people like you, because all I have to do is state my case, sit back, and watch you prove me right.

  • Topi Tuulensuu

    You have the right to teach your children about God and tell them about religion as long as you are willing to accept that some people don't think that God exists and if somehow your children don't find God as appealing as you do you won't abandon them.
    Atheist aren't driven by greed or malice any more than religious people. Ethics and moral values don't come from God, they come from inside us. My parents weren't really religious, we never went to church (expect for weddings and funerals) and we never had any sort of dinner prayers and until 15 or so I tried to believe in God, but after reading the Bible I started to do some research on Atheism (even thou I didn't even know the word). And I have never stolen anything, I've always helped out people around me with their needs and I have no trouble lending money to my siblings when they are in need and only expecting them to pay back when they get back on their feet without any interest rates.
    And when I have children I won't force my atheism on them, I will let them find God if they so wish and I won't judge them nor love them any less.

  • wald0

    Great documentary. I returned to college at age thirty-six and completed four year degree. most of my basics had already been covered when I got my previous degree but, I had to re-take a few things and add a few things due to curriculum changes over the years. One of the first things i noticed was that educational methods had not changed since i was in high school. The world has changed dramtically, the skills needed to live a productive life have changed dramatically, our access to resources and the type of resources available has changed dramatically- but generally education has stayed the same. They still use repetition to aid memorization, never relating the concept they are solving, which is what we encounter constantly in the work place. Everything you produce is subjected to the ancient pass, fail grading technique, which is far to standardized and restricted to correctly assess a persons cognitive abilities.

    When a teacher does try to do something new, something different, they get hit by the administration complaining about following procedure and so forth, not making themselves liable for anything the students may have legal recourse to, etc. It's pathetic. We need to empower teachers to try what they think works, within reason of course. We need to listen to those being educated, within reason also. And most importantly, we need to remove all other concerns other than getting a solid education form the educational process.

    In other words take religion, nationality, patrotism, etc., out of the schools. These things can be taught in other, more personalized environments, like the family home, if they are taught at all. When we start incorporating these things into the educational environment we are presented with all kinds of problems, like the inherent conflicts between science and religion, and the fact that there are many different religious belief systems present in one school. Education has to change if we hope to prepare our future adults for the challenges they face.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=817169517 Taniya Choudhury

    And when a spiritualist doesn't do that, he's motivated by going to heaven, and not what is right. What makes the spiritualist any better?

  • ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    And i guess you know all about what this god is, and what he thinks, and what he wants us to do. He tell you? Did he write a book? Or come down to you and explain the grand plan? How can you teach children about something that no one has seen. No evidence anywhere for its existance. HOW DO YOU TEACH THAT!? Thats making up stories to instill fear in children to not do bad things or you go burn underground forever. But he loves you! Sounds awesome man. Totally far out bro. Tell me, does he look like half evolved apes that can't get off the rock they evolved from and are now destroying? The epic creator of the entire univers, and everything past it(see i can make up stories of things there is no evidence of!), just happens to look like us..... This is why we are screwed. Irrational, blind, zealous faith towards something not real so we the sheeple will stay out of the way of the ones who will destroy us all. Good day to you and have a nice xanax filled life. I mean, really? I bet you are just itching to talk about how we should be teaching kids creationism. Lets scroll up and see!

  • ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    That is not what you said at all. You were doing the internet god is real thing and you know it.

  • ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    Oh i feel bad now. I'm sorry and apologize for my earlier comments. You are just completely unaware and uninformed about everything. Thats not your fault. But you can help yourself my friend. You can inform yourself, discover the true purpose of western religions. Have you ever heard of something called manifest destiny? You should study the history of that word. Might help put some perspective on what was and is reality.

  • wpsmithjr

    Tolerance is a 2-way street. I don't like Bible thumpers pushing religion on me... and I'm getting tired of atheists making fun of Christians and other religious people for what they believe. It's very hypocritical of atheists to make fun of spiritual people when they don't know if what they believe is really true or not either. No one knows for sure. The best explanation that quantum physics has produced is that there was nothing... and then sudden everything in the universe burst out of nothing... as the result of a fluke accident. Really? That's sounds no more realistic than an old man in the sky creating the universe in 7 days.

    Unless you've had a real religious experience that shook you to the bone, you might not understand why someone believes in a higher power... but that's no reason to knock on other people who do. What do you gain from it? If someone is pushing their religion on you, it's one thing to put them in their place... but why seek out forums like this in order to spew hatred and intolerance? It makes atheists seem worse than the religious zealots to me. At least the religious people are trying to save my soul. What are the atheists trying to do?

    Just my 2 cents. It just seems like the biggest debate on so many of these doc's comment sections is the God vs. evolution thing. Why can't we just believe what we want to believe and be left alone? I'm not a religious person... but I respect other people's right to believe in... well... whatever.

  • wald0

    I agree that atheist shouldn't make fun of believers, or anyone else for that matter. However, if you read some of kist's posts it is easy to see why people got upset with them. Proclaiming you are somehow morally superior because you are a christian is insulting to people of other faiths, atheists, etc. Claiming morality is impossible without belief is also insulting, as it insinuates atheists cannot be moral. Usually your post would be completely justified, as I see atheists attack believers on this site constantly, even when they have not been insulting. But, this time Kist is just getting what she asked for in my opinion. Yes, some people have went a little overboard, but so did Kist.

  • danijel vilenica

    First of all there is about 86 billion neurons not over 100 billion. Second, when you say there is no such thing as spiritualisam what exactly do you mean? I ask you, if i recive information that is not from my five senses where does it come from? If you say it just a construction of our neural network how come that people with near death expirience have vivid memories of what happend, when they were dead( brain not working)?

  • danijel vilenica

    Good people are good people. If someone doesnt belive in God that is their choice and it is the same other way around. Atheists are people nothing different then the believers. I am a believer but i dont like the word GOD. Funny isnt it. It is better for me to use a word like the source, or just plaine energy. Word God is to much conected to religions and they have to much blood on their hands and to much money. Everything is energy right? Energy cant be destroyed, only transfered to other forms. Right? So the problem is just plain semantics. If you all belive that people should help others because it is in their own interest- WE ARE ALL GOOD. For all atheists who belive in critical thinkhing read some Walter Russell. Sorry for my english....

  • mrhednoc

    This is the most limited and sorriest excuse for an education either via our weak and flawed institutions or through the ungrounded experiences you've encountered.

    What separates humans from machines is a spiritual connection established by the soul we possess. Science only describes the result of the mind at work, it doesn't establish anyone or thing as absolute truth by it's own standards. Same is true for the big bang theory. Science can only say or describe the progression and occurrence of something happening, it doesn't mean that God didn't create it or what ever else it might have been...You are no more relevant or different from that which you disbelieve. Your explanation is of course simple and without connection to the world that shaped your being.
    You sound just as bad as those who claim animals have no rationality...Which of course is the most stupidest thing I've ever heard...Animals have proven their intelligence time and time again and we are just starting to realize it. Even Dawrin's theory of natural selection illustrates the rationality of animals; where by an animal selects their perspective mate based on assumptions and or analysis of that candidate...Thus they would be formulating and opinion that would evidently lead to their decision, thus rationalizing their choice...just look up the definition of Rationality.

    Emotion is a spiritual result, not that of information. You can dispute information, not the human emotion...Your explanation is merely a description of the physical and material experience...Then it stops, goes no where. Things like inspiration, love, hate, envy, bliss, joy, peace, harmony, desire, passion etc. are executions of the spirit in conjunction with the human sensory, not by a mechanical program either by an organic or synthetic entity. In other words a computer can never execute any of the above behaviors or feelings outside of the fact it would have to be programed to emulate that of the human experience. It would be ingenuous without the girth we humans possess, AKA the soul...

  • TheGreatGumb

    I wish I could agree with you and I wish I could just let others believe what they want but unfortunately in many areas religion is an obstacle to progress. I also feel that it is wrong to allow ignorance to continue if you have the ability to stop it. That said I also dissagree with those that push their views on others agressively and feel that alot of people on both sides of this argument end up straight up insulting one another. Ofcourse this solves nothing and sways no ones oppinion and to be honest is just straight up immaturity and this is where i feel the debating most often goes astray

  • avd420

    In an arguement you have two sides. One side is right, one side is wrong, but in the middle, is always evil.

  • avd420

    Actually, neuroscience is showing that inspiration,love, hate, envy,bliss, joy,peace, harmony,desire,passion, etc are complex chemical PHYSICAL processes.

    Yeah we can't prove god didn't create the big bang. You also can'tprove that I'mnot god. It's highly improbable, but according to you, that is OK.

  • Paul So

    "You sound just as bad as those who claim animals have no rationality...Which of course is the most stupidest thing I've ever heard...Animals have proven their intelligence time and time again and we are just starting to realize it. Even Dawrin's theory of natural selection illustrates the rationality of animals; where by an animal selects their perspective mate based on assumptions and or analysis of that candidate"

    No, this argument only distorts Darwin's Natural Selection. Darwin's Natural Selection does not prove or illustrate "rationality" of animals, it simply asserts that organisms have inheritable traits that can either give them advantage or disadvantage in the given environment; if the former then it tends to survive longer enough to pass its traits to it's offsprings; if the latter then it tends to die out to go extinct. There is nothing about this that qualifies as "rationality" if by rationality you mean the capacity to reason by 1) Making Plans 2) Making deliberate decisions 3) to understand. Also, what you are talking about is not Natural Selection, it's called Sexual Selection; Sexual Selections are when males compete each other for females and when females make decisions on which males to mate with based on aesthetic qualities and others. You assume that choosing a mate requires rationality, but this is plainly false. Choosing a mate does not require rationality but requires a congruent instinct that chooses, usually in most cases it's sexual attraction that does this for most species.

    "What separates humans from machines is a spiritual connection established by the soul we possess"

    What separates human beings from machines is that we are biological species acting based on our emotions, reasons, and norms in other words we are agents with interests. Machines, on the other hand, are currently instrumental tools that lack agency or autonomy; They lack interest, they do not form it. Furthermore, what differentiates us from Machines is that we have conscious experiences called Qualia (i.e. colors, sounds, tastes, etc), you can't find that on machines.

    "Science only describes the result of the mind at work, it doesn't establish anyone or thing as absolute truth by it's own standards. Same is true for the big bang theory. Science can only say or describe the progression and occurrence of something happening, it doesn't mean that God didn't create it or what ever else it might have been...You are no more relevant or different from that which you disbelieve."

    No, science does not ONLY describe IT ALSO EXPLAINS THE OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA WITH SCIENTIFIC MODELS THAT ARE TESTABLE WITH RIGOROUS INDUCTIVE METHODS. When science tries to explain the phenomena it creates a hypothesis that tries to explain it but can only be accepted if is coherent model, successfully tested, makes testable predictions/postdictions that are successfully tested, if it is simple, etc. I agree that nothing is absolutely true in science but there is a degree of plausibility you might have to consider. Also, if you consider another fact that so far through science we have consistently found natural causes as explanations for many of the phenomena which we formerly attributed to the supernatural cause it actually gives more grounds for us to doubt the existence of God. With all the available evidence in front of us, we have found natural explanation, but not a single shred of supernatural explanation. Because of this, no scientists make any theories that postulate the existence of God as a cause of things because we haven't found any phenomena that sufficiently compels us to think so. Precisely because we cannot find anything in the Universe that suggests an exclusive divine cause, we simply do not need one to explain the Universe' existence.

    "Emotion is a spiritual result, not that of information. You can dispute information, not the human emotion...Your explanation is merely a description of the physical and material experience...Then it stops, goes no where. Things like inspiration, love, hate, envy, bliss, joy, peace, harmony, desire, passion etc. are executions of the spirit in conjunction with the human sensory, not by a mechanical program either by an organic or synthetic entity. In other words a computer can never execute any of the above behaviors or feelings outside of the fact it would have to be programed to emulate that of the human experience. It would be ingenuous without the girth we humans possess, AKA the soul..."

    You seem to suggest that what qualifies as information is that it can be "disputed" in other words people can disagree with each other on the truth value of the information, but emotions cannot qualify for this. But disagreement about the truth-value of information alone does not necessarily or sufficiently define information at all for it is possible that everyone can dogmatically accept information. It also does not distinguish information apart from emotions since we disagree with each other all the time in regards to both information and emotions. Even so, there are many things we cannot dispute with but they are not emotions; we do not dispute about there being a dispute about abortion, but that does not mean that the dispute in regards to abortion is an emotion. We do not normally dispute that 1=1, but that's not an emotion. Also, if another thing that qualifies information is description of the physical, then this is also problematic; I can describe sequence of numbers that are not physical but that description is not description of the physical at all.

    Also even if we can reduce emotions to physical description, it does not "stop there" because it would still be unclear which physical description corresponds to which emotions. Also the problem here is that unlike John Asher you have the burden of proof to show us that this "spirit exist". John Asher does not have that burden of proof because he believes that the brain exist in which our emotions are dependent on, and that is something that is proven to be true. Also, if we need "spirit" to explain emotions then you are suggesting that emotions are impossible without spirits. However this is false given that Antonio Damasio shows that there are patients who lack the feeling of emotions because a certain physical part of their brain is damage. What this suggest is that this part of the brain is both necessary and sufficient for the feeling of emotions to be possible, thus we do not need to posit spirits to explain emotions.

    Stop whining about how much we need this "spirit" to explain emotions. Whether or not our emotions are purely physical or simply an emergent property that is dependent on physical process, OUR FIRST PERSON EXPERIENCE OF EMOTIONS ARE STILL SUBJECTIVELY TRUE TO ME AS MUCH AS YOU.

  • danijel vilenica

    Try to meditate and everything will be ok. You are not alone. Try to read Walter Russell.

  • mrhednoc

    Well avd420...If the 420 stands for what I think it does, then I'd like to pass this proverbial joint as we embark on our commentary...

    That being said, you're correct, none of us really knows anything...No matter how much we read a bible, Qur'an, etc. or dissect and analyze the very microscopic matter of an organism, at the end of the day everything is regardless of what we think it is. It's up to us to take advantage of and build on our natural surroundings.

    Neuroscience in my opinion can only scratch the surface on the physical process of our chemistry...That process however is influenced by an energy within us. That's why pharmaceuticals are continuously developing and using us as test junkies to see how they can manipulate our chemistry...When we try to synthetically reproduce the same effects, it's never the same. We are capable of so much more. Take the shamans for example, whom have existed for centuries in many countries; some of which been able to identify botanical remedies and concoctions like ayahuasca through the use of plant based hallucinogens. We reside on a living earth whether we accept that or not, and when we do, we can find out more about our selves in ways no human can teach us. The end outcome is a spiritual realization and awareness, whether or not scientist say that's in response to a chemical reaction...What they can't measure is the impact it makes on our lives...That my friend is a spiritual experience, not a simple scientific explanation. And it's what you do with the experience that makes the difference...IF you simply think it's just chemistry, then you become detached and cecum to the man made agenda...Which is gradually excluding itself from the natural process for the sake of its own superficial claims. Our system is now designed to object to the natural process in order to glorify our own selfish process...If it can't be explained scientifically, then it's not possible...Now that my friend is the art of deception and ignorance...

  • mrhednoc

    Might I add, watching the doc "Why I'm not a Christian..."

  • mrhednoc

    Ah yes Paul So, very interesting observation and I agree with many points you made

    I stand corrected then...Even if it's "Sexual Selection" that I meant to utilize as a point of reference, it still coincides with the point I was trying to make...As per Natural Selection, the survival of an organism is reliant on the passing of advantageous mutations. Animals can rationalize in order to best choose the sexual mates in order to carry on their advantageous traits...whether they know those traits would be inherited or not. However, I did not imply that rationality is required for that to happen. I used that as an example to assist in my response to John, so stop "Whining about what you think is considered to be a distortion...In the end it's the sexual urge and attraction as you put it that plays the role in the mating taking place...But an animal can choose to engage or seek out a more suitable mate.

    Nevertheless, the real point I was trying to make was that if we pass off our human experience to be that of a chemical or even mechanical process (and very much can be) and accept that we have no spirituality, then we become detached for the natural world in the worst way. To accept that modern science is the ultimate determining factor in explaining why things are or why they are not is simply self reducing as much as it can be empowering. And yes, it is plausible at times I admit. But to be spiritual does not require proof or measurement of any degree. To be spiritual is to disengage from the physical at times as well as inspired by the physical. It is, in my opinion, to be synchronous with the world we are a part of, not always trying to figure it out in order to believe in ourselves, and furthermore to believe that scientific calculations hold more truth than that of spiritual derivative. In fact, yes many scientists have found some biblical stories to have align with scientific findings such as flooding, references to cities etc...So there's a bit of both. I agree that through scientific discoveries we have been able to explain many historical occurrences. Many of those findings have also influenced my decision to not to follow a religious regimen or practice. a phenomena as you put it can also interfere and render our life as we know it to death. There's no science that can measure that occurrence. But a spiritual approach can; it simply is because it is...I don't need to go to an institution for years, to become a professional, conduct studies and rigorous test, to research and dedicate my life to and miss out on all the important things in life to prove that there's a reason for it.

    A hypothesis will stand as long as it may until someone else comes along to challenge it. The reality is that people like me exist to balance people like you and vice verse...You may ask me to prove the spirit, and yet it could be right there in your face. IT can be expressed as my sense of self awareness, my underline personality. If we can believe that a fourth dimension exists, but can't see it with the eyes of this dimension, does it mean the 4th one does not exist? Science can calculate it, but it is not in plain sight by the eye in the 3rd dimension. Spiritually I can believe other dimensions exist with out having to calculate, and still be right about...In my opinion, believing is a spiritual experience/awareness, and has nothing to do with religion or science...It just is as it always was and always will be. Our physical existence is an interface. And it has been for thousands of years. The difference is that is a spiritual being such as my self can reason with why things are the way they are where as someone such as yourself needs a reason to accept things for what they are....

  • Paul So

    "Nevertheless, the real point I was trying to make was that if we pass off our human experience to be that of a chemical or even mechanical process (and very much can be) and accept that we have no spirituality, then we become detached for the natural world in the worst way. To accept that modern science is the ultimate determining factor in explaining why things are or why they are not is simply self reducing as much as it can be empowering. "

    Wait, I don't understand what you mean by being "detached from the natural world in the worst way", this seems to assume that if there is spirituality then we are more attached to Nature in the best way, but what does this mean? Are you assuming a kind of spiritualistic view on Nature? If so, then if it is false then how can that be "worst", because "worst" seems to assume that there is a spiritualistic reality that we ought to be connected with, otherwise we are doomed. If that's the case, then your statement is question-begging. I also don't think such a view (if you hold one) is tenable since there is no evidence suggeting otherwise. I think it would be a mistake to accept modern science as the ultiamte determining factor to explain everything, that just would not be modern science, that's merely scientism which isn't even a scientific theory itself. I also don't understand why "spirituality" is required for the self to be significant, you don't seem to clarify this kind of reasoning.

    "Animals can rationalize in order to best choose the sexual mates in order to carry on their advantageous traits...whether they know those traits would be inherited or not"

    Some animals do rationalize, and that's human beings and other intelligent animals (i.e. kinds of primates such as Chimpanzees), but others do not because they lack the capacity for abstract reasoning and self-awareness. Your use of the term "rationalize" is very loose and vague, and quite possibly a misues of the term that usually assumes the capacity for rationaltiy.

    "A hypothesis will stand as long as it may until someone else comes along to challenge it. The reality is that people like me exist to balance people like you and vice verse...You may ask me to prove the spirit, and yet it could be right there in your face. IT can be expressed as my sense of self awareness, my underline personality."

    That's partially true, but the actual case is that if there is no acquired evidence for the hypothesis to begin with, the hypothesis itself is not testable (unfalsifiable), and there is no impartial testing which avoids confirmation bias, then the hypothesis has nothing to stand on to begin with. If such a hypothesis has nothing to stand on to begin with then nobody needs to challenge it since there is nothing that qualifies the hypothesis to be worth challenging. Ultimately, it's an ad hoc hypothesis. If you still think your hypothesis stands in the absence of evidence, then another hypothesis with no evidence can also stand even if it is contrary to yours. Does it follow that both your hypothesis and someone else's hypothesis which 1) lacks evidence 2) not consistent with each other, both stand? I think not.

    But perhaps you are right, the spirit could be "right in my face" (whatever that means) since it underlies your personality and self-awareness, but how am I suppose to know this? I do not have access to your mind as much as you have to yours, so even if you are literallly right in front of my face I do not have the privelege to see this spirit from your first-person perspective. Perhaps I can try to look at it from my own self-awareness and personality, but why is it that some people assume this to be the case but others do not? Why does everyone have it? And What is it? If you cannot answer these questionst, then it follows that you assert the very thing you do not understand, it would amount to making your position incoherent.

    "Spiritually I can believe other dimensions exist with out having to calculate, and still be right about...In my opinion, believing is a spiritual experience/awareness, and has nothing to do with religion or science...It just is as it always was and always will be."

    I never suggested that your belief in spirituality is linked with a religion that you might belong to; to assert that "it just is as it always was and always will be" is vague, loose, circular, and a meaningless tautology. The universe for all we know can fit into that description very well but it may not be physical at all. Virtual Vacuum can also fit into that description very well, but it's not spiritual. Judea-Christian God can also fit into that description very well, but that does not follow that such a being does exist.

    "Our physical existence is an interface. And it has been for thousands of years. The difference is that is a spiritual being such as my self can reason with why things are the way they are where as someone such as yourself needs a reason to accept things for what they are.... "

    How does reasoning qualify as being a spiritual being? Reasoning can easily be understood through a neurobiological perspective. If that's the case then your claim is not only false, but your other claim that spiritual beings cannot be measured by science is also false. Sure, the difference between me and most of the things around me (except other people) is that I do reaon, I can agree with this, but such difference alone does not necessarily and sufficiently entail that I must be spiritual. I could just be a very unique biological being. And no, I do not need a reason to accept things the way they are, I need justified or well-supported reasons to accept things as very plausible. To "accept" reality seems to imply complacency, but that is not entirely accurate in describing my approach.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ES5YFURR5VOTKTGHD4PIVYXPVI John

    In the 30s, 40s, and 50s, the US education system was universally admired by everyone around the world as a model to be emulated. And during that same time the US produced some of the most brilliant scientists, engineers, etc. in the world. But, look at us now. We are not even in the top twenty in the world, and it's rare that a globally prominent scientist comes from the US.

    Every year some school administrator goes off to some education seminar (held by the huge corporate education industry) and comes back to his school all excited about the new super-duper, spectacularly "Kool" teaching methodology that all teachers are now required to use. Please.

    We've got to go back to tried and true teaching methodologies and modalities. And it is paramount that we get corporations OUT of our schools and get religious fanatics OFF our school boards. I just want to take us back to the 40s (with adaptation for technology), but religious fanatics want to take us back to the Dark Ages, while corporations want schools to produce only mindless worker bees and prolific consumers.

    All those people who say the US education system is about to crash and burn are wrong. Our system has already crashed, and already burned!!!!

    We've got to rebuild it -- and without corporations and religious wackos.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ES5YFURR5VOTKTGHD4PIVYXPVI John

    All those people who say the US education system is about to crash and burn are wrong. Our system has already crashed, and already burned!!!!

    We've got to rebuild it -- and without corporations and religious wackos.

  • Bianca B

    You are so wrong, the us wasn*t admired by everyone around the world, especially by Europe.
    And what concernes the so called ”brilliant scientists, engineers” were not ”produced” by the us, they were ”produced” in general by Germany, Netherlands, U.K., Denmark and other great countries in Europe. So stop with the supremacy feeling, us doesn*t know anything else but masquerade.

  • sknb

    I agree with 99% of what you said but:

    The forties? You mean when segregation existed? I don't think so.

  • sknb

    It was interesting to see the "Roots of Empathy" program. I worked for an Emotional Literacy program through Yale University in 2009 that was trying to implement a program among 6th, 7th, and 8th graders in Catholic Schools throughout Brooklyn, NY. My job was to administer surveys about emotions and empathy and bullying. The goal of the program was to stop bullying.

    As a victim of bullying myself I was drawn to this. I would be curious to see what happened with it as I had to move away. I guess this research has been going on for a long time.

  • ndb8

    Interesting response, thank you for sharing :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.han.5437 Ryan Han

    I understand what you're saying. I myself don't believe in any religion. And I do get frustrated when religions keep the humanity back from evolving into next stage through their fear tactics.

    Pushing your beliefs on others is wrong, whether you're religious or atheists. But I have to say this, I have had hundreds of people who tried to convert me to Christianity throughout my life, but I have yet to meet one person who tried to convert me to Atheism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.han.5437 Ryan Han

    kist, don't you know that when you shove your Christian beliefs on people, it just does more damage to the Christian image?
    So keep up the good work, we who want to evolve into higher human beings need all the help we can get.

    kist, we are not in the days of Inquisition and witch trials anymore. The Christian fear tactics only works on ignorant people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/emanuel.faisca Emanuel Faisca

    Really good and inspiring documentary.

  • anna miller

    that was fantastic! Well said!

  • anna miller

    The reason Atheists are so outspoken is because
    the religious have pushed their beliefs on culture for the past 3000 years. Perhaps the history of the religious is not so
    outstanding either. Religion is supposed to teach us how to treat each other isn't it? Perhaps you could be as understanding toward atheists as you are toward the religious.

  • johnBas5

    Exactly, there was this war (World War II) that chased every intelligent resourceful brilliant scientist and engineer away from Europe into the US.

  • johnBas5

    Brain malfunctions, that's what causes the out of body experiences.

  • Izzy

    I'm sorry I do not agree with this. The documentary is highlighting that although political, social and economic ideologies are changing the education system is not adapting to these changes and so not educating children into a modern (or post-modern) society, therefore creating an inadequately educated population.
    Rebuilding is moving forwards not backwards.
    :)

  • mike

    i was taught you use my right hand when writing, even though i had naturally started using my left hand. this was back in the early 80`s.

    and being told off actually encourages you to lie because of the negative consiquences.

    social structures (friendship) was / is a constant battle for me. because i question everything.

    i have debates with my friend. most of the time he says that i`m wrong, but many things i`ve commented on and studied - he`s told me that i was right.
    i tell him to question everything. don`t accept what we`re told.

    also, my brother always argued with me. telling me i`m useless. or he said that he`s embarraseed to be around me because of how i act. the same as being bullied.

    these things emotionally forced me to just do what i want. be it spontaniously traveling to London or going camping on my own in woods. and dancing my own way to my own rhythm.

    i am my own boss. nobody should dictate to us. and through doing my own things i`ve expressed myself through drawing, weight training, taught myself to play guitar and play my songs at open-mic, designing solar and magnetic propultion. - whether these work or not is errelivant. i`m doing my own things.

    i prefer to be a loner and create than be popular and conform.