Do futurists address energy? Do they say we will use mostly solar and wind powered electric devices, from phones, to cars, to mining equipment? Do they recognize the existence and energy cost of data centers? It seems the more electronic and data driven we make our world, the less the natural world survives. Until our futurists start imagining a natural world recovery can we afford to follow their imaginary lead? I will stick to my manual toothbrush, or better yet use a branch of a toothbrush tree (Salvadora persica) that regenerates itself.
I’m not sure it fully applies but I know a number of science fiction authors describing the future have settled for a future either driven by unobtainium or they just magic the issue away. My Johnny one note conversation with my space focused friends is on the same theme - creating an environment in space in which humans can live will depend upon an unending potentially infinite supply of energy, to such a degree that energy is likely to become a unit of exchange
Neil de Grasse Tyson was asked on a show about colonizing Mars and space and he side-stepped the energy question. Instead, he said, if we can successfully terraform Mars, can't we solve Earth's problems? If we develop the skills to survive in space, can't we develop the skills to survive on this planet? Energy is carefully balanced in living systems, and life evolved in the fluctuating but relatively narrow boundaries of our planet. We need to organize our systems within those planetary boundaries to thrive, and we can. It means degrowth. We cannot survive at our present rate of consumption with the population we have. If we keep consumption, population would have to drop to below a billion, perhaps substantially below. Our present population is too high even for minimal consumption, so we need to reduce both population and consumption. For futurists this probably looks like apocalyptic thinking, but we might pull it off with very intelligent planning. Unfortunately most of our planning is rooted unreality, based on the projections of billionaires who have no idea how most people live.
'if you bring an internet-connected object into your home in the year 2024 then you should fully expect it to be listening to you. And you should also be prepared for someone to hack it'.
I’m waiting for the day when artificial intelligence structures our written sentences in such a way where they actually make sense. For example, eliminate any ambiguity surrounding the word-pair “near miss,” which I think most people accept as a miss, similar in meaning to what a “close call” would be.
But, I don’t agree. To me, a near miss is a hit just as a near hit or a near collision would be a miss. Two objects nearly colliding with each other, by any definition, is a miss. So, how can it be that two objects nearly missing each other (a near miss) is a miss? It’s not; it’s a hit, as I see it.
A narrow miss, on the other hand, is a miss, as in two objects narrowly missing each other. A close call, in other words.
With respect to near and narrow misses, I believe many, many people are conflating the two. AI would know the difference, know the correct meaning of each term, or should, and when we humans get the use wrong, AI would intervene to set us straight, this being contingent, of course, on AI being worth its salt.
Do futurists address energy? Do they say we will use mostly solar and wind powered electric devices, from phones, to cars, to mining equipment? Do they recognize the existence and energy cost of data centers? It seems the more electronic and data driven we make our world, the less the natural world survives. Until our futurists start imagining a natural world recovery can we afford to follow their imaginary lead? I will stick to my manual toothbrush, or better yet use a branch of a toothbrush tree (Salvadora persica) that regenerates itself.
I’m not sure it fully applies but I know a number of science fiction authors describing the future have settled for a future either driven by unobtainium or they just magic the issue away. My Johnny one note conversation with my space focused friends is on the same theme - creating an environment in space in which humans can live will depend upon an unending potentially infinite supply of energy, to such a degree that energy is likely to become a unit of exchange
Neil de Grasse Tyson was asked on a show about colonizing Mars and space and he side-stepped the energy question. Instead, he said, if we can successfully terraform Mars, can't we solve Earth's problems? If we develop the skills to survive in space, can't we develop the skills to survive on this planet? Energy is carefully balanced in living systems, and life evolved in the fluctuating but relatively narrow boundaries of our planet. We need to organize our systems within those planetary boundaries to thrive, and we can. It means degrowth. We cannot survive at our present rate of consumption with the population we have. If we keep consumption, population would have to drop to below a billion, perhaps substantially below. Our present population is too high even for minimal consumption, so we need to reduce both population and consumption. For futurists this probably looks like apocalyptic thinking, but we might pull it off with very intelligent planning. Unfortunately most of our planning is rooted unreality, based on the projections of billionaires who have no idea how most people live.
You really wouldn't want a bathroom mirror, of all things, connected to the internet.
As the writer of this article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/18/is-your-air-fryer-spying-on-you-its-time-to-stop-buying-unnecessary-smart-devices
observed
'if you bring an internet-connected object into your home in the year 2024 then you should fully expect it to be listening to you. And you should also be prepared for someone to hack it'.
That last bit about the guy referring to people as consumers is not only de-humanizing, it is frightening.
Chilling and hilarious. Futurism is so selective as to be silly. What about the environmental costs of AI? 🤔
I’m waiting for the day when artificial intelligence structures our written sentences in such a way where they actually make sense. For example, eliminate any ambiguity surrounding the word-pair “near miss,” which I think most people accept as a miss, similar in meaning to what a “close call” would be.
But, I don’t agree. To me, a near miss is a hit just as a near hit or a near collision would be a miss. Two objects nearly colliding with each other, by any definition, is a miss. So, how can it be that two objects nearly missing each other (a near miss) is a miss? It’s not; it’s a hit, as I see it.
A narrow miss, on the other hand, is a miss, as in two objects narrowly missing each other. A close call, in other words.
With respect to near and narrow misses, I believe many, many people are conflating the two. AI would know the difference, know the correct meaning of each term, or should, and when we humans get the use wrong, AI would intervene to set us straight, this being contingent, of course, on AI being worth its salt.