You do them no dis-service as an "old white guy" sparking their creative minds! Riding into class on your bike certainly catches their attention and gives you some immediate credibility on the subject at hand. Successfully challenging a large group of kids w/ diverse backgrounds and different majors to just think about the multitude of impending problems, and then come up with their own creative ideas is a great accomplishment. Kudo's Lloyd!
“Integrating comprehensive climate education into formal school curricula is fundamental. This includes EDUCATING students about the science of climate change, its consequences, and the role of human activities.”
The caveat, of course, is whether or not you're going to educate them or indoctrinate them. (I'd suggest it's the latter and not the former.) How is it that so many Nobel laureates in physics, atmospheric sciences, geology, and other academic disciplines change their tune on climate change once they retire? Is it because they've lost their minds, or is it that they no longer have professional retribution to fear? Personally, I'd suggest your students read everything about climate change using their critical thinking skills—but that's something in short supply amongst the younger generations.
"The answers were interesting, intelligent and often better than I could have written." That's probably because much of what was submitted was likely done via ChatGPT. I mean, just looking at the responses given, it reads like it was churned out by an A.I. bot, especially if you're only requiring them to provide a PDF document as a final answer.
Lloyd, you talk about "sustainability" frequently, but I don't think you've ever properly defined it in context of feasibility, costs, or the balance between sovereignty, resource allocation, population, need, and local/regional environment. I think that it's vitally important to define sustainability in terms of context for all those things, because as I alluded to in another post, dealing with climate change is not just a series of individual silos to be addressed irrespective of each other.
When I was going through college I took a single-semester course on ethics; we explored many facets of what ethics encompassed and how it was demonstrated, and ultimately on the last day of the class our professor revealed to us his definition of what ethics meant, and it goes like this:
"Ethics means doing the MOST good for the MOST people MOST of the time."
Notice he didn't phrase it as an ***absolute***, because no matter what is done in life there will be winners and losers; some will have more than others, whether by sheer luck, work ethic, or design. My throwing out an eggplant tonight because it was going fuzzy will not, in any capacity, affect the resolution of someone's hunger pangs on the other side of the planet tonight. Likewise, merely suggesting we should shun meat and eat more of a plant-based diet overlooks two very important things: (1) most of the world's meat is grown on land that is NOT conducive for growing vegetables or fruit, and (2) meat can be processed, frozen, and transported across the entire globe without ANY degradation in quality or quantity. The same cannot be said about fresh vegetables and fruit, which is simply a function of the perishable nature of said consumables. The **ethical** thing to do is to fully utilize what you buy and thus limit waste, but waste will be inevitable to some degree no matter what. But suggesting that a resource like beef and lamb should be severely restricted belies the resource utilization of the land itself for an alternative.
So how do you get a nation with few natural resources to grow more of their own food? In modern Western nations, we have the good fortune—again, by design or luck—of being able to produce vast quantities of food that can be shipped to all nations around the globe. Which then begs the question, should the nations **without** those resources have ever been allowed to have as many children as they did, forcing them into unsanitary and unsafe conditions, rife with poverty, crime, and hopelessness, or would it have been more ethical to allow them to become dependent on foreign aid to artificially prop them up above the carrying capacity of the land they live on?
That's an existential question, besides being a rhetorical question. My point is, "sustainable" is not a catch-all term that only some people (read: developed nations) must ascribe to in practice, or that can even be easily defined at the individual level, much less collective, because of how complex the practice of living is for all of us. If I have a lot of money but lead an austere lifestyle, what rewards do I get for doing so? Anything tangible? And if not, then why should I be ridiculed for indulging in activities or consumerism that provides personal enjoyment and enrichment of the soul—and which CANNOT be distributed equally amongst the other 8 billion inhabitants of the planet? Like I pointed out above, my failure to eat that eggplant before it went fuzzy will, in no shape, way, or form impact the life of someone else somewhere else—whether that be next door, in the next county over from mine, next state, or across the ocean.
You wrote: "The least answered and probably toughest category is equity, how people in rich countries are emitting so much carbon, and the poor are suffering the consequences ... [t]his is the lecture where I get a bit bolshy and eat-the-rich." Well holy shit, that comes as no real surprise to anyone that you get "bolshy" about carbon equity. But then again, you've ***always*** been a watermelon—green on the outside, communist red on the inside—except you've now stopped pretending you **aren't** one.
Here's the thing: **YOU** don't get to tell me WTF to do with **MY** money, or how I must live **MY** life, any more than I get to tell you what to do with **YOURS**. You want to live a life of austerity, shunning many of the things that make modern Western society a pleasure that literally millions risk their very lives to attain? Great, that's YOUR choice, and more power to you and your misguided belief that it's going to mean a squirt of flea piss on a rat's ass to saving the planet, because it's not—that was the false equivalence so often promoted over on TreeHugger, that somehow YOUR personal decision to live a life of lesser means translates into "saving" the planet, and that by extension, I should thus be forced and coerced to do the same. As I said back then to those idiots who espoused that mindset, "F—k you and the horse you rode in on." It ain't happening, ever, and not just because it runs afoul of the ideals of personal freedom and individuality—it also runs afoul of basic human nature.
You wanna eat the rich? Great—but if you had the ability to exercise your fascist dreams to make that happen, where would investment come from for innovative minds to create the next true breakthrough in technology, science, agriculture, transportation, medicine, and the like if meritocracy and rewards are not part of the equation? I'm not saying you should kneel and kiss the ass of people who are well-to-do (or even obscenely rich) but at the same time, what THEY do with THEIR money and time IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE PLANET, NOR OF REQUIRING INTERVENTION BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO DICTATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HOW THEY UTILIZE THEIR PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENTS. We saw how the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own disincentives to meritocracy and innovation; are you suggesting that for the good of the planet Western society should eschew modern life and embrace a third-world lifestyle? Good luck with that if that's your belief, because that's neither ethical nor reasonable.
Once again, you've proven to me that "sustainable" is a feel-good term that watermelon communists love to promote but can ill-define—and even more poorly demonstrate (COP28, anyone?) because it relies on the twin tenets of coercion and prohibition to achieve its goals.
Good health and happiness to you in 2024; the gloves are off early this year.
Good health and good fortune to you in 2024, Lloyd.
#1 Water- Govt enforcement, switching to a global model
#2 Food - While not explicitly stated, it is clear this, too, is advocating for Government to mandate change (collective)
#3 Food - Government enforcement and calling regular citizens stupid (a variant of Mao struggle sessions?)
#4 Zooey - Food - "with the help of Government" - 'nuff said; we're back to the Guiding Hand as if we have no agency or ability of our own. Or for those that "won't listen to our reasons".
#5 Kate - Food - "...is that household accountability for food waste falls on individual consumers" - to WHOM are they responsible? And if "responsible" what are the penalties for being irresponsible? Who will apply the consequences? And will they be individual or collective punishments (for there is no "asking" by Government)?
#6 Caitlin - Food - Is she (and others) intimating that "not-local" food is going to be limited? By whom? And for her old Climate Agriculture, has she computed the cost of greenhouse ag and the resulting cost to consumers vs transportation of non-locals? Sounds nice but what's the numbers versus pie-in-the-sky lack of analysis)? Once again, the requirement given for Govt "support" would need a whole 'nother cost analysis - including the opportunity cost of the lost (by Govt taking) private property of those would have used that money for other purposes.
#7 Rosie - Clothing and textiles - Well, at least she outsources consumer coercion from Govt to "Brands" - but is she assuming that the "Brands" will willingly act as third party agents for Govt? At least she didn't mention "The Limit" of only 3 new clothing items/year!
#8 - Clothing and Textile - Sorry, but taking the advice of PETA is not in my wheelhouse. However, it is left as an individual choice. Except, however, for that "fur farms are still legal" still shows a reliance on Govt to do what personal persuasion by the part of such folks has failed.
#9 Transportation - WHO is ultimately doing the "investing" and will it be by individuals of their own free will or, again, by punitive, regressive, and revengeful taxation ("ok, dunderheads, if you won't do what we tell you to do, we will take those other choices away!"). Again, living on a mountain in central NH with a 12" snowstorm outside and winds blowing isn't persuasive to my biking on a snow-filled rural road (plows take 4 hours to do a round trip; at an inch/hour...yeah, no to the Oulu idea - which would tremendously add to my hamlet's govt emissions to boot).
#10 - Har Har!. All the EV manufacturers (except Tesla and BDV) are lowering their production runs (Ford just cut their F-150 EV levels in half) or going out of business. China, being a totalitarian State, is forcing its subjects to buy them. Unfortunately, here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, our Gov is following suit (along with a number of the States - including NJ Governor Murphy that couldn't bother with trying to pass legislation (the American way!) to force the change from ICE to EV - he simply told his bureaucrats to make it happen via regulation - totally by-passing that now quaint idea of "American self-Government".
#11 Rosie - Housing. Is she covertly advocating for these condos, private property of individuals, to be taken from their rightful owners simply to be given to others? And if the building codes are so "cheap", how will poor people be able to afford much higher costs (er, they won't be able to) if they are raised to the higher standards she wants? As economists say (as well as those of us justly concerned with personal choice, privacy, and Rights and trying to limit Government): "There are no solutions - just tradeoffs).
I think a follow-up exam, Lloyd, to bring their ideas fully circle to the Real World, would be to identify those tradeoffs AND their costs to those that actually pay and carry the burden - individual citizens. VB and I, along with others from our former haunts at TH, always asked that question - what are the plans, the timelines, and the COSTS? We never saw an answer - that must have been due to the Emissions Variant of the Divine Right of Kings gambit. But shouldn't your students be grounded that ALL activities have costs?
#12 Tech and Comm - I'll agree with the repair bit. However, this answer sounds more Luddite than not. No, I don't upgrade at every chance but the rate of progress in electronics, computing and comms is so fast with the benefits very tangible requires more nuance than what this answer states. In fact, it is anti-tech innovation in the aggregate (as I type this on a 6 year old laptop but which runs a Xeon chipset with 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD and a 17" screen doing heavy DB analysis - it's almost time for replacement).
#13 Education - yep, indoctrinate them. You DO remember who said "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted" and "Education is a weapon, the sharpest weapon of all, in the struggle for...". Others of the totalitarian / one issue mindset have said similar.
#13 Juliana Equity - This bothers me the most, as in reality, it means that no one can ever be better than anyone else. It drips with "Johnny, is that gum in your mouth? If you don't have enough for everyone, you can't have it either". This is OUTRIGHT using Government force to satisfy someone's ideological urge to wield a bat against all those more successful than the writer. In fact, this is the epitome of "Eat the Rich" - see #13 and I ask "from who did Juliana learn this from?".
So almost all the answers showed that they turned to Government to get the result they desire from others - showing that democracy IS the tyranny of the majority (or by persuading a small number of powerful politicians or bureaucrats). Also, not ONE of your students mentioned the cost of implementing their ideas, the cost to "the Little People" in having their lives messed up, and the resulting cost of choice by the enlargement of Government.
All this said, I'm glad you wrote this and have ideas for more post - REALLY!. As the Loyal Opposition, I love to show others what many wish to do to their lives simply the many believe themselves to be self-righteous and no one else should have a say concerning their lives.
I merely want the ability for EVERYONE to make their own decisions for their own lives and family. These answers show a willingness to take those choices away for a religious belief in climate Armageddon.
Glad to be of service. So, in following up to my question first asked back at TH, when would you allow me to speak to your students in presenting a reasoned point of view that may be contrarian?
This is really encouraging and motivating, seeing the passion and urgency in some of those well thought out responses from your students! There is hope in the future!
There are other LLMs out there that are more current...
Speaking of ethics, are you using any of the "anti-AI" tools, Lloyd? How does Harvard's Claudine Gay's intellectual theft (for that's what plagiarism is) play an effect on your take-home exams - do you issue warnings?
no I am not using any of the anti-ai tools. I haven't decided if they are any worse than looking something up on google. I really don't know what to do about them other than move to oral exams.
'Having an old white guy standing in front of a class lecturing is so tired' - this kind of 'progressive' self-flagellation is unbecoming. Who are you trying to impress? Never apologize for who you are. Not to mention that is mostly males that have created the Build Environment, and this isn't about to change, given the general difference in areas of interest of men and women.
You do them no dis-service as an "old white guy" sparking their creative minds! Riding into class on your bike certainly catches their attention and gives you some immediate credibility on the subject at hand. Successfully challenging a large group of kids w/ diverse backgrounds and different majors to just think about the multitude of impending problems, and then come up with their own creative ideas is a great accomplishment. Kudo's Lloyd!
“Integrating comprehensive climate education into formal school curricula is fundamental. This includes EDUCATING students about the science of climate change, its consequences, and the role of human activities.”
The caveat, of course, is whether or not you're going to educate them or indoctrinate them. (I'd suggest it's the latter and not the former.) How is it that so many Nobel laureates in physics, atmospheric sciences, geology, and other academic disciplines change their tune on climate change once they retire? Is it because they've lost their minds, or is it that they no longer have professional retribution to fear? Personally, I'd suggest your students read everything about climate change using their critical thinking skills—but that's something in short supply amongst the younger generations.
"The answers were interesting, intelligent and often better than I could have written." That's probably because much of what was submitted was likely done via ChatGPT. I mean, just looking at the responses given, it reads like it was churned out by an A.I. bot, especially if you're only requiring them to provide a PDF document as a final answer.
Lloyd, you talk about "sustainability" frequently, but I don't think you've ever properly defined it in context of feasibility, costs, or the balance between sovereignty, resource allocation, population, need, and local/regional environment. I think that it's vitally important to define sustainability in terms of context for all those things, because as I alluded to in another post, dealing with climate change is not just a series of individual silos to be addressed irrespective of each other.
When I was going through college I took a single-semester course on ethics; we explored many facets of what ethics encompassed and how it was demonstrated, and ultimately on the last day of the class our professor revealed to us his definition of what ethics meant, and it goes like this:
"Ethics means doing the MOST good for the MOST people MOST of the time."
Notice he didn't phrase it as an ***absolute***, because no matter what is done in life there will be winners and losers; some will have more than others, whether by sheer luck, work ethic, or design. My throwing out an eggplant tonight because it was going fuzzy will not, in any capacity, affect the resolution of someone's hunger pangs on the other side of the planet tonight. Likewise, merely suggesting we should shun meat and eat more of a plant-based diet overlooks two very important things: (1) most of the world's meat is grown on land that is NOT conducive for growing vegetables or fruit, and (2) meat can be processed, frozen, and transported across the entire globe without ANY degradation in quality or quantity. The same cannot be said about fresh vegetables and fruit, which is simply a function of the perishable nature of said consumables. The **ethical** thing to do is to fully utilize what you buy and thus limit waste, but waste will be inevitable to some degree no matter what. But suggesting that a resource like beef and lamb should be severely restricted belies the resource utilization of the land itself for an alternative.
So how do you get a nation with few natural resources to grow more of their own food? In modern Western nations, we have the good fortune—again, by design or luck—of being able to produce vast quantities of food that can be shipped to all nations around the globe. Which then begs the question, should the nations **without** those resources have ever been allowed to have as many children as they did, forcing them into unsanitary and unsafe conditions, rife with poverty, crime, and hopelessness, or would it have been more ethical to allow them to become dependent on foreign aid to artificially prop them up above the carrying capacity of the land they live on?
That's an existential question, besides being a rhetorical question. My point is, "sustainable" is not a catch-all term that only some people (read: developed nations) must ascribe to in practice, or that can even be easily defined at the individual level, much less collective, because of how complex the practice of living is for all of us. If I have a lot of money but lead an austere lifestyle, what rewards do I get for doing so? Anything tangible? And if not, then why should I be ridiculed for indulging in activities or consumerism that provides personal enjoyment and enrichment of the soul—and which CANNOT be distributed equally amongst the other 8 billion inhabitants of the planet? Like I pointed out above, my failure to eat that eggplant before it went fuzzy will, in no shape, way, or form impact the life of someone else somewhere else—whether that be next door, in the next county over from mine, next state, or across the ocean.
You wrote: "The least answered and probably toughest category is equity, how people in rich countries are emitting so much carbon, and the poor are suffering the consequences ... [t]his is the lecture where I get a bit bolshy and eat-the-rich." Well holy shit, that comes as no real surprise to anyone that you get "bolshy" about carbon equity. But then again, you've ***always*** been a watermelon—green on the outside, communist red on the inside—except you've now stopped pretending you **aren't** one.
Here's the thing: **YOU** don't get to tell me WTF to do with **MY** money, or how I must live **MY** life, any more than I get to tell you what to do with **YOURS**. You want to live a life of austerity, shunning many of the things that make modern Western society a pleasure that literally millions risk their very lives to attain? Great, that's YOUR choice, and more power to you and your misguided belief that it's going to mean a squirt of flea piss on a rat's ass to saving the planet, because it's not—that was the false equivalence so often promoted over on TreeHugger, that somehow YOUR personal decision to live a life of lesser means translates into "saving" the planet, and that by extension, I should thus be forced and coerced to do the same. As I said back then to those idiots who espoused that mindset, "F—k you and the horse you rode in on." It ain't happening, ever, and not just because it runs afoul of the ideals of personal freedom and individuality—it also runs afoul of basic human nature.
You wanna eat the rich? Great—but if you had the ability to exercise your fascist dreams to make that happen, where would investment come from for innovative minds to create the next true breakthrough in technology, science, agriculture, transportation, medicine, and the like if meritocracy and rewards are not part of the equation? I'm not saying you should kneel and kiss the ass of people who are well-to-do (or even obscenely rich) but at the same time, what THEY do with THEIR money and time IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE PLANET, NOR OF REQUIRING INTERVENTION BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO DICTATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HOW THEY UTILIZE THEIR PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENTS. We saw how the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own disincentives to meritocracy and innovation; are you suggesting that for the good of the planet Western society should eschew modern life and embrace a third-world lifestyle? Good luck with that if that's your belief, because that's neither ethical nor reasonable.
Once again, you've proven to me that "sustainable" is a feel-good term that watermelon communists love to promote but can ill-define—and even more poorly demonstrate (COP28, anyone?) because it relies on the twin tenets of coercion and prohibition to achieve its goals.
Good health and happiness to you in 2024; the gloves are off early this year.
Good health and good fortune to you in 2024, Lloyd.
A few observations:
#1 Water- Govt enforcement, switching to a global model
#2 Food - While not explicitly stated, it is clear this, too, is advocating for Government to mandate change (collective)
#3 Food - Government enforcement and calling regular citizens stupid (a variant of Mao struggle sessions?)
#4 Zooey - Food - "with the help of Government" - 'nuff said; we're back to the Guiding Hand as if we have no agency or ability of our own. Or for those that "won't listen to our reasons".
#5 Kate - Food - "...is that household accountability for food waste falls on individual consumers" - to WHOM are they responsible? And if "responsible" what are the penalties for being irresponsible? Who will apply the consequences? And will they be individual or collective punishments (for there is no "asking" by Government)?
#6 Caitlin - Food - Is she (and others) intimating that "not-local" food is going to be limited? By whom? And for her old Climate Agriculture, has she computed the cost of greenhouse ag and the resulting cost to consumers vs transportation of non-locals? Sounds nice but what's the numbers versus pie-in-the-sky lack of analysis)? Once again, the requirement given for Govt "support" would need a whole 'nother cost analysis - including the opportunity cost of the lost (by Govt taking) private property of those would have used that money for other purposes.
#7 Rosie - Clothing and textiles - Well, at least she outsources consumer coercion from Govt to "Brands" - but is she assuming that the "Brands" will willingly act as third party agents for Govt? At least she didn't mention "The Limit" of only 3 new clothing items/year!
#8 - Clothing and Textile - Sorry, but taking the advice of PETA is not in my wheelhouse. However, it is left as an individual choice. Except, however, for that "fur farms are still legal" still shows a reliance on Govt to do what personal persuasion by the part of such folks has failed.
#9 Transportation - WHO is ultimately doing the "investing" and will it be by individuals of their own free will or, again, by punitive, regressive, and revengeful taxation ("ok, dunderheads, if you won't do what we tell you to do, we will take those other choices away!"). Again, living on a mountain in central NH with a 12" snowstorm outside and winds blowing isn't persuasive to my biking on a snow-filled rural road (plows take 4 hours to do a round trip; at an inch/hour...yeah, no to the Oulu idea - which would tremendously add to my hamlet's govt emissions to boot).
#10 - Har Har!. All the EV manufacturers (except Tesla and BDV) are lowering their production runs (Ford just cut their F-150 EV levels in half) or going out of business. China, being a totalitarian State, is forcing its subjects to buy them. Unfortunately, here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, our Gov is following suit (along with a number of the States - including NJ Governor Murphy that couldn't bother with trying to pass legislation (the American way!) to force the change from ICE to EV - he simply told his bureaucrats to make it happen via regulation - totally by-passing that now quaint idea of "American self-Government".
#11 Rosie - Housing. Is she covertly advocating for these condos, private property of individuals, to be taken from their rightful owners simply to be given to others? And if the building codes are so "cheap", how will poor people be able to afford much higher costs (er, they won't be able to) if they are raised to the higher standards she wants? As economists say (as well as those of us justly concerned with personal choice, privacy, and Rights and trying to limit Government): "There are no solutions - just tradeoffs).
I think a follow-up exam, Lloyd, to bring their ideas fully circle to the Real World, would be to identify those tradeoffs AND their costs to those that actually pay and carry the burden - individual citizens. VB and I, along with others from our former haunts at TH, always asked that question - what are the plans, the timelines, and the COSTS? We never saw an answer - that must have been due to the Emissions Variant of the Divine Right of Kings gambit. But shouldn't your students be grounded that ALL activities have costs?
#12 Tech and Comm - I'll agree with the repair bit. However, this answer sounds more Luddite than not. No, I don't upgrade at every chance but the rate of progress in electronics, computing and comms is so fast with the benefits very tangible requires more nuance than what this answer states. In fact, it is anti-tech innovation in the aggregate (as I type this on a 6 year old laptop but which runs a Xeon chipset with 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD and a 17" screen doing heavy DB analysis - it's almost time for replacement).
#13 Education - yep, indoctrinate them. You DO remember who said "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted" and "Education is a weapon, the sharpest weapon of all, in the struggle for...". Others of the totalitarian / one issue mindset have said similar.
#13 Juliana Equity - This bothers me the most, as in reality, it means that no one can ever be better than anyone else. It drips with "Johnny, is that gum in your mouth? If you don't have enough for everyone, you can't have it either". This is OUTRIGHT using Government force to satisfy someone's ideological urge to wield a bat against all those more successful than the writer. In fact, this is the epitome of "Eat the Rich" - see #13 and I ask "from who did Juliana learn this from?".
So almost all the answers showed that they turned to Government to get the result they desire from others - showing that democracy IS the tyranny of the majority (or by persuading a small number of powerful politicians or bureaucrats). Also, not ONE of your students mentioned the cost of implementing their ideas, the cost to "the Little People" in having their lives messed up, and the resulting cost of choice by the enlargement of Government.
All this said, I'm glad you wrote this and have ideas for more post - REALLY!. As the Loyal Opposition, I love to show others what many wish to do to their lives simply the many believe themselves to be self-righteous and no one else should have a say concerning their lives.
I merely want the ability for EVERYONE to make their own decisions for their own lives and family. These answers show a willingness to take those choices away for a religious belief in climate Armageddon.
A+ to Granite Grok!
Glad to be of service. So, in following up to my question first asked back at TH, when would you allow me to speak to your students in presenting a reasoned point of view that may be contrarian?
Well done. I just ‘retired’ from 25 years of adjunct teaching.
This is really encouraging and motivating, seeing the passion and urgency in some of those well thought out responses from your students! There is hope in the future!
Seems like a great course! It's inspiring to see these answers from the students
Those students likely used ChatGPT to come up with their responses.
As I told them, ChatGPT database only goes up to 2021 and much of this discussion is newer than that.
There are other LLMs out there that are more current...
Speaking of ethics, are you using any of the "anti-AI" tools, Lloyd? How does Harvard's Claudine Gay's intellectual theft (for that's what plagiarism is) play an effect on your take-home exams - do you issue warnings?
no I am not using any of the anti-ai tools. I haven't decided if they are any worse than looking something up on google. I really don't know what to do about them other than move to oral exams.
BOY, could I think of some questions for THEM!
Forgot to add - one example is a new one: https://www.perplexity.ai/
'Having an old white guy standing in front of a class lecturing is so tired' - this kind of 'progressive' self-flagellation is unbecoming. Who are you trying to impress? Never apologize for who you are. Not to mention that is mostly males that have created the Build Environment, and this isn't about to change, given the general difference in areas of interest of men and women.
Sharing this one at Domeliving.