search
The more I think about how our world has progressed over the past century, the more I feel that we have failed to control every instance of technological development.
- Industrial revolution: climate change, ecosystem destruction, etc.
- Cars: dismantling human-centered civilization in favor of unmanageable, car-centered hell
- Internet and Information Tech: eroding public trust (fake news) mental health and community (social media)
- Nuclear: weapons that can destroy humanity
And I'm sure the list goes on and the items above are fairly broad stroke and could be teased apart.
I suppose nuclear weapons could be argued an area where we did effectively course correct (thus far). But the rest? It seems the incentives (money) behind technological development were too strong and things happened to fast for us to effectively plan and design with long-term success in mind.
I can detail specifics on the items I listed but hopefully my bullets summarize well enough. Ultimately, it just seems that we moved too fast and now are living with the consequences of entrenched technology that is very difficult to reverse given the sunk costs and interests in status quo.
It seems unique within history. There was never technology thst has so widely and irreversibly settled into civilization.
There is no incentive to pause, plan and make more deliberate decisions. We seem to prefer trial and error but with the pace technology moves, can we afford that? Even if nuclear was considered a successful redirect, that seems to have been luck.
How can we rebalance these technologies we have? Do you all have hope that it will happen? Will new technologies like AI be an example where folks truly slow down or are we doomed to move too fast there too?
On a positive note, I'd consider modern medicine the one area where we haven't moved too fast. It seems like it's because we are dealing with biology and it's complicated (and we need to be ethical) so it's been slower, deliberate and hasn't backfired as substantially.
The education system needs to be reformed and it should be something like this:
Me: Would it be easier to learn when you're asking questions than forcing someone to learn?
ChatGPT: Yes, adopting a questioning approach can often promote engagement, curiosity, and active learning, making the learning process easier and more effective for individuals.
Me: So, an education system based on inquiries would be more effective?
ChatGPT:
Integrating inquiry-based learning approaches into the education system has shown to be beneficial, as it encourages critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and deeper understanding, making it a potentially more effective approach to education.
In the advent of AI, I think it's time to advance our education system.
"The future belongs to the curious. The ones who are not afraid to try it, explore it, poke at it, question it, and turn it inside out." - Anonymous
What are your thoughts? I am curious...
Albert Zijlstra, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Manchester, suggests shifting Earth further back from the sun by about three million miles.
At the moment, Earth is orbiting the sun at a distance of 93 million miles (150 million km) but this needs to extended to at least 96 million miles (155 million km), he says.
This movement would extend a year to 380 days, meaning we'd have to insert an extra 15 days into a calendar year somewhere.
Professor Zijlstra's concept for moving Earth away from the sun would involve a gravity assist or 'slingshot' manoeuvre, commonly used already for speeding up spacecraft after they've been launched from Earth.
By approaching a planet, such spacecraft can make use of the planet's gravitational pull to increase its velocity, which in turn makes the planet itself slow down slightly in its orbit.
And as we know, due to the laws of physics, as a planet slows down, it moves closer to the sun.
It's a little-known fact that gravitational slingshots can also be used to reduce the speed of the spacecraft, which have the opposite effect on the planet, speeding it up in its orbit.
And when the planet speeds up in its orbit, it drifts further away from the sun.
This is the basic concept on which the project would work, but instead of a spacecraft (which would be much too small) Professor Zijlstra suggests using a massive asteroid – about 30 miles (50 km) in diameter, the size of a major city.
He proposes somehow altering the orbit of the asteroid while it's still in space, perhaps by nudging it with a robotic probe at a certain angle and speed.
If nudged successfully, the asteroid would do a loop around the sun and head back towards Earth, before slingshotting itself on Earth's orbit.
'Do this once every thousand years, and over a billion years we can move the Earth enough to keep its temperature constant while the sun brightens.'
Professor Zijlstra stresses that there are two types of global warming to contend with.
The first, which is well-publicised, is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, such as burning fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, the second, less well-known form of global warming involves the natural brightening of the sun, which, as it stands, will make Earth too hot to live on in around one billion years.
Professor Zijlstra says 'This concept is not a solution to the current, human-caused global warming. It takes much too long to help us now – we need to solve human-caused global warming in other ways. But it will solve the long term changes in the sun.'
24 Y/O M. I am currently grossing around 120,000 - 130,000 but I am not fulfilled.
I am worried the workforce is being displaced by AI and other forms of automation but I have a passion for finance and want to pursue it. Is there still those 200k + jobs waiting at graduation in the 4 years to come?
If not then what is your idea’s or thoughts on which careers will be there still when AI progresses in the next decade?
Thank you in advance for every thing I really appreciate it !
