For this project, we watched three TED Talks and embedded the video on our portfolios. We then copied a little blurb that outlines the whole video in a couple of sentences (these are the typing directly below the video). After completing these two objectives, we took the most meaningful minute from the talk and transcribed it and posted it below the video to which it corresponds (it is in the following format).
Name of the video
The minute that it starts
The paragraph
Name of the video
The minute that it starts
The paragraph
Economist Andrew McAfee suggests that, yes, probably, droids will take our jobs — or at least the kinds of jobs we know now. In this far-seeing talk, he thinks through what future jobs might look like, and how to educate coming generations to hold them.
Andrew McAfee: What will future jobs look like?
12:01
We see very serious and sustained and data driven efforts to understand and intervene in some of the most troubled communities that we have. The green shoots are out there. I don’t want to pretend for a minute that what we have is going to be enough. We are facing very tough challenges. To give one example; there are about 5,000,000 americans who have been unemployed for at least six months. We aren’t going to fix things for them by sending them back to monastery. And my biggest worry is that we’re creating a world embedded in kind of a shadowy society and supported by an economy that produces inequality instead of opportunity. But I actually don’t think that’s what we’re going to do, I think we’re going to do something that’s a lot better for one very straight forward reason; the facts are getting out there. The realities of this new machine age and this change of the economy are becoming more widely known. If we wanted to accelerate that progress we could do things like have our best policy and economy makers play jeopardy against Watson.
12:01
We see very serious and sustained and data driven efforts to understand and intervene in some of the most troubled communities that we have. The green shoots are out there. I don’t want to pretend for a minute that what we have is going to be enough. We are facing very tough challenges. To give one example; there are about 5,000,000 americans who have been unemployed for at least six months. We aren’t going to fix things for them by sending them back to monastery. And my biggest worry is that we’re creating a world embedded in kind of a shadowy society and supported by an economy that produces inequality instead of opportunity. But I actually don’t think that’s what we’re going to do, I think we’re going to do something that’s a lot better for one very straight forward reason; the facts are getting out there. The realities of this new machine age and this change of the economy are becoming more widely known. If we wanted to accelerate that progress we could do things like have our best policy and economy makers play jeopardy against Watson.
The US economy has been expanding wildly for two centuries. Are we witnessing the end of growth? Economist Robert Gordon lays out 4 reasons US growth may be slowing, detailing factors like epidemic debt and growing inequality, which could move the US into a period of stasis we can't innovate our way out of. Be sure to watch the opposing viewpoint from Erik Brynjolfsson.
Robert Gordon: The death of innovation, the end of growth
10:43
But I'm now going to give you an experiment. You have to choose either option A or option B. Option A is you get to keep everything invented up till 10 years ago. So you get Google, you get Amazon,you get Wikipedia, and you get running water and indoor toilets. Or you get everything invented to yesterday, including Facebook and your iPhone, but you have to give up, go out to the outhouse, and carry in the water. Hurricane Sandy caused a lot of people to lose the 20th century, maybe for a couple of days, in some cases for more than a week, electricity, running water, heating, gasoline for their cars, and a charge for their iPhones. The problem we face is that all these great inventions, we have to match them in the future, and my prediction that we're not going to match them brings us down from the original So here we are back to the horse and buggy. I'd like to award an Oscar to the inventors of the 20th century, the people from Alexander Graham Bell to Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers, I'd like to call them all up here, and they're going to call back to you. Your challenge is, can you match what we achieved?
10:43
But I'm now going to give you an experiment. You have to choose either option A or option B. Option A is you get to keep everything invented up till 10 years ago. So you get Google, you get Amazon,you get Wikipedia, and you get running water and indoor toilets. Or you get everything invented to yesterday, including Facebook and your iPhone, but you have to give up, go out to the outhouse, and carry in the water. Hurricane Sandy caused a lot of people to lose the 20th century, maybe for a couple of days, in some cases for more than a week, electricity, running water, heating, gasoline for their cars, and a charge for their iPhones. The problem we face is that all these great inventions, we have to match them in the future, and my prediction that we're not going to match them brings us down from the original So here we are back to the horse and buggy. I'd like to award an Oscar to the inventors of the 20th century, the people from Alexander Graham Bell to Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers, I'd like to call them all up here, and they're going to call back to you. Your challenge is, can you match what we achieved?
Economist Yasheng Huang compares China to India, and asks how China's authoritarian rule contributed to its astonishing economic growth — leading to a big question: Is democracy actually holding India back? Huang's answer may surprise you.
Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth?
9:36
So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that's when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital... nothing else but human capital.
9:36
So exactly why did China grow so much faster? I will take you to the Cultural Revolution, when China went mad, and compare that country's performance with India under Indira Gandhi. The question there is: Which country did better, China or India? China was during the Cultural Revolution. It turns out even during the Cultural Revolution, China out-perfomed India in terms of GDP growth by an average of about 2.2 percent every year in terms of per capita GDP. So that's when China was mad. The whole country went mad. It must mean that the country had something so advantageous to itself in terms of economic growth to overcome the negative effects of the Cultural Revolution. The advantage the country had was human capital... nothing else but human capital.