Slashdot Mirror

You must work for the industry for suggesting something as stupid.
1. You're asking the government to waste an average of USD$5887 to incarcerate someone for 90 days
2. 90 days is extreme for something like copyright infringement
3. The real losses are nowhere near what the MPAA and RIAA wants you to believe. If they can sell a song for 99 cents then the actual damage for downloading a song is 99 cents, not thousands of dollars. You really need to watch this and get back to reality.

Insane people like you are the reason why the USA is in rapid decline and under so much debt.

Just to give an idea of what's possible beneath the surface:
Deep brain stimulation at TED Talks

Probably should go more with the "Brain Pacemaker Helps Treat Alzheimer's Disease" story, but it's too cool not to share. This involves implants performed by neurosurgeons because the positioning and amount of electricity is critical to the success of the procedure.

Although it would be interesting to see what a trickle charge does for these burnt-out frontal lobes...

One aspect of solar power is the question of where to put the collectors. Land area is expensive and in short supply around cities, and putting the collectors close to where the energy is needed makes better efficiency.

It occurred to me that we have lots of land in the medians between highways, many of which are enclosed by guard rails or Denver barriers. The road already has easements which could be used to run powerlines (metal conduits at ground level, no digging needed).

For example, highways in "fly over country" have long, unused stretches of median which could be tiled with solar collectors. With modern power conversion tech, these could add energy to integrated powerlines that run straight to the next city. (Adding guardrails as needed.)

Perhaps add a few liquid metal batteries for storage and load balancing.

Is it possible to get popular support and political will at the level that built the US federal highway system? The benefit from this infrastructure would be enormous.

"Then explain how they can predict a population peak."

This statistics wizard can explain it to you with boxes, it's quite convincing.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

So many signs that population is expected to peak around the year 2011 and start decreasing.

I think you meant "population growth rate". Anyway, ob. TED Talk.

Short version: the population will continue to increase due to longevity, but the births have already slowed.

Short-short version: don't worry, be happy.

Or, it could peak at 10 billion, with little to no ill effect.

In a somewhat inspirational essay This is Water, David Foster Wallace deconstructs this kind of thinking into what it really is: a limited and narrow worldview where only you are the focus and others are "in your way".

Humorously, xkcd points out that everyone else tends to think the exact same thing. That they're the brilliant, smart one and everyone else is a stupid and mindless automaton. It can only stem from a complete lack of empathy. Perhaps that driver who is going ten mph below the speed limit has general anxiety disorder and is only trying to get to work to the best of his ability.

Everyone else is stupid and you're the brilliant one... Except you're not.

Sir Ken Robinson lays out a pretty convincing reason why. Or I can simply fall back on an old Einstein quote about judging fish climbing trees.

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change things.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime, taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson, especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I've made in

Is called damage mitigation, you can't change the past, so how you live in the present?.

And you could not had avoided it anyway, unless you are called Lester. The most you can do is making people aware of the current situation, so they can do something next time (i.e. vote for a 3rd party, or vote for no candidate, in big enough numbers maybe would have some effect). And this kind of discussions raise awareness.

PRISM affects far more than just americans. Of course, as they don't vote (not that americans vote mean or will accomplish anything, unless they are called Lester), they will act. That should give with time a big push to foreing search engines, social networks and open source software (specially mobile one)

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions
people can take to help fix the government.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the
incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these
incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better
serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean
giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a
lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close,
so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime,
taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system
gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know
how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you
know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously
those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have
seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional
switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,
especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the
internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for
knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers
across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed
to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the
government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a
situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that
people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people
support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations
are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is
closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and
politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot
Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in
general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not
"tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too
over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable
third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of
interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions
people can take to help change the situation.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the
incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these
incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better
serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean
giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a
lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close,
so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime,
taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system
gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know
how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you
know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously
those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have
seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional
switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,
especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the
internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for
knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers
across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed
to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the
government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a
situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that
people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people
support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations
are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is
closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and
politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot
Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in
general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not
"tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too
over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable
third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of
interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will

The greatest navy on the planet, best trained military at the time, got its ass handed to it by some upstart guy named Washington

Uh, and the French? One of the other best trained militaries, navy, and financial backers. Battles are not wars.

Okay, the Vietnam war. Now we're the greatest military force on the planet. We get our asses handed to us by a bunch of tunnel-dwelling communists

You have a strange definition of "asses handed to us", in general.

Now tackle Japan.

Your point about the drones is worth considering. But perhaps a better context, without the shakey historical context, might look something like this: http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell.html

http://anticorruptionact.org/
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections
http://represent.us/
http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
https://www.unpac.org/
And many others - someone passed those links on to me and whenever someone asks 'What can we do" I usually reply along those lines.

There will be no real party other than the money party until we get money of out of the system.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

There are some very real and good ways we can get the money out of our system. And of course money will always be a part of any system but it will not be the same as since:

Buckley v. Valeo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

And then we let the floodgates open with:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

We are not in any way shape or form a democracy if a small percentage of people are allowed to vote with their dollars as well as their individual vote.

Not intentional. But if you really want to go off the deep end. Mr Skull and Bones from the Forbes pedigree has friends in the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_United_Nations_Affairs

Again unintentional. And yes I saw the 1950's cartoon about un American vs American values. And how its all our differences of opinion that make us unique little special buttercups in a melting pot and that we shouldn't single out individual opinions... etc..

But if you realize, that http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html We voted for a limited set of candidates. And that these candidates a point these positions.

I would be the first to call for certain forms of political reform. What I mean about this being unamerican is that it is intended to control and dicatate peoples ability to freely and equally compete in a sector of our society. Something that I never swore to uphold while pledging to serve the consitution of the United States of America.

I don't know what else to call it. I'm actually open to suggestions. Even if you think I'm being stupid.

If you want it to be locked down and proprietary, don't publish.

While I agree with you mostly, one of the biggest problems they have (especially in medicine) is unpublished papers.
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html
Over 100,000 people were killed in the United States due to 1 paper that went unpublished.

One reason is because the public will balk if not enough money goes directly to the cause. Heaven forbid if the non-profit spends more money on advertising and administrative overhead (which may be necessary in order to grow big).

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html

Here's a TED talk I've posted here before regarding a system that's verifiable, secure, and private.

Source for the relative life expectancy figures: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html
Source for the total execution figures: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

In this brief talk, Saul Griffith unveils the invention his new company Makani Power has been working on: giant kite turbines that create surprising amounts of clean, renewable energy.

Actually, it is corruption if the system is not working as intended... and I don't think anyone would argue that the US political system is working as intended. The entire system is corrupted by money where the rich buy the laws they want to make more money. It is very open and somewhat transparent (and thanks to the rich buying the laws they want, it is "legal") but it is thoroughly corrupt.
Lawrence Lessig makes the case very eloquently here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

I am not sure if you are being facetious, but a more affordable car is in the works.

Here is a recent video interview with Elon Musk where he says that the third model released by Tesla Motors will be more affordable:

http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spacex_solarcity.html

There is some evidence even the 1% is worse off: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Only if you are called Lester. Is a game where you only play if you agree to follow their rules.

Countdown timers on RED traffic lights decrease accidents, as it decreases irritability and road rage.
Countdown timers on GREEN traffic lights increase accidents, as people seem to speed up when they see the light will soon change.

Rory Sutherland talks about this (starting around 8:37) on his TED talk: "Perspective is Everything".

You already mentioned the difference: the amount. If giving money is an effective way to skew the results your way, then giving a lot is proportionally more effective. In practice this is equivalent to say that everyone can vote, it is just that some votes weight much more than others. Not that such a system is unthinkable (it is similar to medieval royalty and nobility), but is far from the representational democracy that is supposed to be there. I imagine you now see the problem.

Check this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

In fact, I have seen some proposals were donations are restricted to individuals only (it's fine if they want to attach a cause or group to describe the donation) and up to a low threshold (like $100 or so). Others go even beyond this, by making the state provide each citizen's contributions for them, so everyone get's a vote chip and a donation chip. Equal chips BTW.

Things are being done wrong... and doing the wrong thing with more more effort and money won't do much to change the outcome. Ken Robinson says it best, and with the entertaining delivery of a comedian. : http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley.html

Where you stop kicking? Things were pretty clear last presidential election, and still one of the 2 candidates that were assuring that everything will still be in the same way or worse were elected. If having the chance nothing was done, even when plenty of evidence of the trend, why you think it will be done next time?

The only possibility is that the Lesters choose someone that will actually fix things for all, not following their goals. And even if by some miracle it happens, all those heavy investors and all their high paid consultants get fooled and choose the wrong guy, still remains the rest of the goverment.

You can keep playing lotto and hope that next time you will hit the big prize. But odds are high that things will never be fixed, the system is just too rigged.

Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?

In this case, and many others, probably bribery.
On a more general note Lawence Lessig has a good amount to say about reducing corruption in American politics.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
I don't remember if he covers it in that talk but somewhere I have heard him give an example where a state(?) imposed a system that judges, when running for election, (yes judges do in some states) could only accept donations under a scheme where

1. A) they could not see how much money was donated
2. B) even if told it didn't matter because the donator could withdraw their amount (in some time frame) so it was unverifiable and
3. C) the donation was spit out to their campaign in random amounts over several bursts combined with other donations, further obscuring donations

I believe this was eventually cancelled because judges suddenly weren't getting any campaign contributions.
If someone could give some links to those points I'd appreciate it. I'm just going by a half remembered ted talk and daily show interview.

Companies/individuals could claim that they were merely supporting the politicians because he/she already believed as they did and not that those companies/individuals were bribing the politicians into a new position, which other commenters have pointed out.
What seems like a good solution (and I believe is more or less what LL advocates) would be a combination of,

1. 1) only individuals (human beings) can donate to campaigns,
2. 2) all contributions must be donated via an anonymous system as above,
3. 3) the amount a person can donate is not only fixed but in fact paid for by the government from taxes -- each person has the same $$$ to donate.

To not fix the amount a person can donate at a flat rate, is a triumph for capitalism but a deep wound for democracy. Which do you value more?

A good post with great ideas, all of which I'd support. But you have go one step further. There is an election before the general election. Not the primary election but the one where the special interests can fund the candidates they want to get elected. This means you only get to choose from pre-bought candidates. So it's hard to get a politician to vote for your fixes because the pool of potential candidates is limited to those who can get enough campaign contributions from the special interests. It's an insidious problem that is pervasive throughout the system. Getting it out of one area will just lead to it the other areas recontaminating everything. Some of this is discussed in an excellent TED talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

Give this a try... hard evidence on reversing desertification.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

These are makeshift solutions. With an ever growing population all solution we come up with, besides of reducing population and consumption, is rather temporary.

We don't have an ever-growing population. Worldwide, we're already basically at replacement level reproduction, and the industrialized world is at less than replacement level when you remove immigration. Europe's population is declining, period. In Hans Rosling's terms, we have reached and passed "peak child"; there are just shy of 2B children in the world and that number is not increasing and -- based on current trends -- not going to increase.

Assuming we maintain a constant level of 2B children, that means that there will be 2B people in each living generation, putting us at a steady-state population of about 10B. Actually, barring significant changes in current trends, that won't be a steady state, it will be a high water mark. As wealth and -- more importantly -- female education levels continue to rise around the world, the birthrate in what we now call the developing world will also drop below replacement and the population will gradually decline.

Rosling explains it well: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

Allan Savory gave a really good Ted Talk a few months ago backing up that claim with a substantial amount of science and experience. I hope you're not too lazy to watch all twenty-two minutes of it, but if you are, let me give you a quick synopsis. Dr. Savory states that the majority of our global warming issues are due to desertification (the destruction of grasslands and their transformation into desert areas), and he claims that 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere can be removed simply by ceasing unsustainable agriculture practices and converting these lands into grasslands for grazing.

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html

Actually, that's been done.

http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria.html

Pretty cool, imo.

Maybe is related with the language theirs managers use. If you see the future you/company/whatever hacked as another company, not the current one where you would be wasting time and money now, because your language just shows them as different things, and just push those pesky tasks to the other company, the future one, that anyway will be the one hacked, not the actual one.

Is not trivial to escape from the trap we build around ourselves with our language.

People want to pay back in a way or another to the artists that do something they like, just not the corporation that is in the middle and keeps most of the benefits for itself and throws just a bone to the artist in by far most of the cases. And want freedom too, not the "you can hear/see/read this where i say, when i say, and how i say" corporate motto. Is a combo of DRM free and reaching the final artist.

The problem is, if proves to be successful, it will be exploited by others too, from corporations that will again keep the money for themselves, or by scammers.

And here it is.

What "People" you are talking about? Lesters?

When enough people have become impoverished, hungry and desesperate, nothing will change, any kind of organized movement will be detected months before they even meet with all the monitoring that is around.

By now the hole that everyone dig in is so deep that is almost no way to get out.

what would Ron Finley http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html make out of these plants (assuming they somehow produce enough light when needed)?

Do you really want me to pull out the buggy whip argument?

Yes. Here, I'll do it for you. DRM is today's buggy whip manufacturers' mechanism for forcing the buggy whip to stay in use.

Watch this TED video for some hints about what's going on beyond the desperate measures of the Content Industrial Machine.

Some artists could disagree. And is not like are the artists the ones that are losing the lion's share on this.

A police officer's testimony is all that is needed for most convictions. Adding a microphone and camera is sort of redundant. Police have eyes, ears, and memory.

Must see: http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html
Scott Fraser is a forensic psychologist who encourages a more scientific approach to trial evidence

The problem is not the food production, it's how we waste it. The US imports 4 times more food than it physically can consume (even factoring in the obesity and things like this). I got this from a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_stuart_the_global_food_waste_scandal.html

First, watch this http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html

Second, C is a good idea.

Always teach the peanut butter robot exercise first. write out the steps for a robot to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
And when the kids skip a step, you get to stump them with "HOW?" They will soon understand programming at its core as a set of instructions.

When a kid wants to know how to solve a particular problem, they're going to learn the maths necessary. Unless they don't have the real interest, and then nothing of value was lost.

Any small party should definitely support: * Election finance reform. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html * Alternative Vote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Thorium Energy Policy: I'd like to see the Government focus on developing Thorium as an energy source. Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors have many benefits, and could provide all of our energy needs. Demand for Thorium would also make Rare Earth mining viable in the US (currently all done in China). If you mine Rare Earths here, you'd bring more high tech manufacturing here as well. Policy changes to enable and promote this course of action are fairly minimal. It's just hard to get politicians to give a damn.

It won't change. There is no space for a change in the trend when the most of the places for coordinate them (or that could disclose that it is happening) are under tight surveillance, and the remaining free/secure spaces are becoming outlawed. And most people are not aware or not care that they traded freedom for relative safety (at least until is their turn), they think they have a democracy in US, but it's just Lesterland

What worries me is how all of this spills over all the rest of the world. If you think US care little about the right of their citizens, you should see how just not care at all about others.

Touches on the tendency for systems to be inherently more complex as time goes on http://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history.html

Something like this perhaps?
http://www.ted.com/talks/a_robot_that_flies_like_a_bird.html

Here's a link to a youtube version which starts about the time it gets launched:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Fg_JcKSHUtQ#t=126s