May 20 - The Future - Memos

[deholz]

Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of The Future, inspired by the readings, movies, & novels (at least one per quarter), your research, experiences, and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, and discussion-worthy!

Recall the following instructions: Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.

risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).

policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.

solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.

framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).

salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?

nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office/retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[slrothschild]

salience #future #solutions

The main ideas that I battle with on a weekly basis in “are we doomed?” centers around the division on such major, and seemingly objective issues. There are actions, and threats that are definitively good and bad for humanity and the future of humanity, but it seems as if we continue to push them aside to feud with each other over them. So for me, grasping the idea of differentiation between “sides” and doing what is right for the whole is the focal point for the future, regardless of the situation, and regardless of the type of devastation. If it can cause humanity to end, “morals” or agendas need to be pushed aside. However, this ties into salience, and why some of these topics become so difficult to approach. We as a people have become so rooted in division that often we never even discuss solutions to the topic at hand. So my main question, and the one that really bugs me over all is: how do you use policy changes to fix the discussion on these issues when the policy making process is part of the issue at hand? I am not sure there is a good current answer to this question, and it makes looking towards the future all the more important for maintaining hope. If we can solve the correct transfer of information and the building blocks that these societal issues affect everyone we will move forward faster than ever. The technology to solve most of the problems we have already exists. However, on the back hand of that, the most important part of solving our world ending problems is also discussing which problem to tackle first. Many would argue that this is environmental devastation, and I would be inclined to agree. This is the most immediate issue at hand (besides nuclear) with actionable methods to move the world forward together.

[mesber1]

origin #policy #solution #salience

The pessimism that Martin Rees expresses regarding the ability of politicians to properly confront impending existential crises is made sound by the fact that they tend to prioritize their constituency’s most immediate concerns. Politics becomes a game of popularity that renders politicians stars competing for power, praise, and popularity through reelection rather than public servants seeking to truly benefit the public. Although this cycle of acting only in accordance with constituents’ desires can be broken through the trustee method of representation (in which politicians in a position of “trust” act in the manner they consider necessary regardless of their constituency’s demands), the delegate method (in which politicians do almost exactly as the body they represent wishes) tends to be more widely embraced due to its augmentation of the chances of reelection. Unfortunately, a public that is generally unconcerned with existential threats, viewing them either as too unlikely or as too inevitable to do anything about, will not provide substantial motivation for politicians to attempt to mitigate the future issues that threaten our existence. But what can be done to solve this? How does one transform politics from a game of popularity to one of service and protection? Politicians obviously respond, in most cases, to the will of their constituents; this is why societal transformation is the most feasible solution to any existential threat that faces us. As a collective unit, we must become more aware of the severity of issues such as climate change, nuclear annihilation, and artificial intelligence; this awareness can be made manifest in educational institutions, through the inclusion of mandatory courses such as this one, in order to prompt individuals to think critically and deeply about the uncertain future of humanity and the challenges it must overcome in order to survive. If constituents become more cognizant of existential threats and express more concern towards them, politicians will naturally begin to respond to these concerns by pushing for policies and solutions that decrease the severity of said menaces. I think there is a clear reason why our class’ polls have continuously shown that societal transformation is the key to mitigating existential crises; the transformation of a society’s concerns from short-term to long-term will automatically result in the transformation of politics and the issues it prioritizes.

[cjcampo]

salience #policy

"The number of births per year, worldwide, peaked a few years ago and is going down in most countries. Nonetheless, world population is forecast to rise to around 9 billion by 2050. That’s partly because most people in the developing world are young. They are yet to have children, and they will live longer. And partly because the demographic transition hasn’t happened in, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa."

With Rees' mention of demographic shift in his article in The Independent, I found a good opportunity to circle back on a concept that I've reiterated in memos multiple times throughout the quarter. Specifically, I've had multiple questions (and criticisms of readings) throughout the quarter related to the U.S.' leadership on an international level with regards to progressive policies and accords. I've been critical of U.S. leadership for missing opportunities to make major changes in the world by taking the lead in signing on to such climate (and other) accords, goals, and agreements. A recent example that has been highlighted is the recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, although I'm not going to dive into this.

The point that I really want to make is that, if we agree on the global power of the United States, not just economically and militarily, but in terms of setting expectations for behavior of other powerful or rapidly developing nations and their behavior on the international playing field, then what type of ripple effect can marginal demographic changes in the United States have on the future of the world? Of course, this thought experiment is totally nullified if you don't believe in the capability of U.S. democracy to act in the best, most popular interests of its people. But if the United States government does in fact reflect popular sentiment, and this popular sentiment is changing, and the U.S. is disproportionately influential on a global scale, then we may indeed see a massive multiplier effect of the demographic changes in the United States, whereby decimal-point changes in demographic distributions at home that tip the scales on U.S. policy also tip the scales for the decisions of other countries that follow U.S. leadership.

As seen in the images below, the U.S. is becoming a more diverse nation through both immigration and through higher birth rates for minority groups. Empirically, surveying the voting histories of different demographic groups, this would signal that we will over time become a more progressive nation in many areas. The notion of "one person, one vote" has been criticized because of campaign finance, ingrouping/groupthink, and for many other legitimate reasons over the years. But if the effectiveness of U.S. popular democracy is not in question, this doctrine might still not be the case: I would argue that the people who are driving the demographic shift are carrying disproportionate influence on U.S. and world policy. And, just to clarify, I also think this is a very, very good phenomenon.

U.S. demographic changes:

For relation to Rees, U.K. demographic changes:

[ABacotti]

Martin Rees, in his interview with Basheera magazine, discusses the inconsistency between the current theories on astrophysics and nuclear physics; "we don’t have a unified theory of physics. In many ways we get on very well without one because there is no overlap in the domains of relevance of quantum theory and of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Quantum effects are only important in the micro-world where you can neglect gravity. And gravity is important for the orbits of planets and things, but you can neglect quantum fuzziness in those areas." I would like to write my memo regarding recent developments in physics. The interview was published in the Fall of 2020, but in April, 2021, a new potential discovery in nuclear physics occured. Researchers at the CERN and at the Fermi lab have found that "preliminary results suggest that the magnetic “spin” of the muons is 0.1% off what the Standard Model predicts." This may sound small, but it could potentially force the reconsideration of the standard model and "upend “every other calculation made” in the world of particle physics" explains Johns Hopkins University theoretical physicist David Kaplan.

So what is the relevance of this to the end of the world? Everything. Our understanding of nuclear weapons is formed on the basis of understanding the interactions between the particles in the nucleus of the atom. The same goes for our understanding of nuclear energy. Our understanding of the big bang also relies on quantum effects being taken into account, as Rees says in his interview. Our understanding of how certain gasses hold heat and effect the climate is based on our understanding of the interactions of subatomic and atomic particles with one another. Computers are barely more than an accelerated transfer of electrons. The invention and use of quantum computers and their use of qubits is obviously based on our understanding of quantum mechanics. My point is that our understanding of the issues that continually threaten us are grounded in our understanding of what goes on in and around the atom. If we were to learn more, the possibilities both for good, and for harm, are endless. It is not yet known how this might upend what we know, and what is possible, but it is both encouraging and scary that we seem to really be on the periphery of an insane growth of knowledge. The results need another year or so to be confirmed, but the possibilities and threats are incomprehensible, especially to someone who knows very little about physics.

[shiruan-uchicago]

framing

The author makes a very intriguing point (2018:214-215) that science has transcendent meaning and universal impact on human being and thus should be part of our common culture. However, the wish that the developments in science and technology is under the premise that most people have equal access to scientific innovations, products and knowledge. I need not elaborate on the fact that recent advances in technology (in the digital era) have vastly benefited the expansion of transnational capitalism and enlarged social and economic inequality. I would like to emphasize the knowledge inequality that makes “collective intelligence” (216) less possible. Apparently, collective intelligence can only be forged when “the collective” have equal or similar access to scientific questions, hypotheses, findings, consensus and debates among professionals – in general, knowledge. But in reality, such access has always been checked and/or shadowed by governments, businesses, media, religions and cultures, even the academia itself. Thinking about the copyright empire in the academia, so-called “fair use for teaching and research” makes knowledge remain in ivory towers, sometimes in the classrooms, while the access to and use of scholarly information become difficult (the death of Aaron Swartz is an example). Of course, as a scholarly producer, I don’t deny the protective and empowering importance of copyright for academics. The abolishment of academic copyright is not plausible. But the current battle over copyright among publishing companies, institutions (universities) and authors should also include another crucial party – the public – for the sake of morality, collective intelligence and the ultimate purpose of scientific and technological developments. If we regard most academic production in science (almost) value-free and real (factual), the direct access to original academic production is of more value to the public – for the translation and re-organization of the knowledge by the media, political groups and educational institutions can often be biased and less genuine.

[Aiden-Reynolds]

Framing #Salience #Policy

Through this week's readings as well as all the previous topics covered in the quarter, I have become convinced that implementing any effective global solution to an existential crisis is nearly impossible. The intensity of international competition makes full cooperation nearly impossible and there is currently no international body with the authority or capability to force nations to cooperate effectively. However, this does not mean that humanity will not be able to effectively respond to any existential crisis. While there is no political body really structured to administer strong policy on a global scale, governments around the world are extremely capable of implementing solutions on a national scale. While this may not feel true as many major countries throughout the world have failed to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, many others like New Zealand solved the crisis almost completely. The effectiveness of each nation's response to any crisis will vary significantly, but most likely, at least a few nations around the world will find a way to respond to any crisis, whether it's the threat of pandemics or nuclear war. While the obvious counter to this would be that a truly existential crisis would require a unified global response, however, this seems to be a somewhat myopic view of what solutions to a crisis could look like. An effective response to an existential crisis does not necessarily need to be all encompassing nor does it need to mitigate all potential damage. In fact, no realistic response to an existential crisis will likely accomplish either of these goals. Furthermore, human civilization is not so fragile that it will simply crack at the first sign of any significant damage. Catastrophe is not new to humanity and has been weathered many times before. While the damage catastrophe’s like the plague have done to humanity should not be ignored, they will most likely not be enough to even come close to bring human civilization to the brink of extinction. It is with this fact in mind that more realistic solutions to existential threats can be created and implemented. Waiting for states and nations around the world to set aside all their competitions and conflicts in order to create a global solution is naive and doomed to fail. It is far more productive to come up with solutions that can be implemented on a national scale where cooperation is actually feasible. Although responses at a national level may not be as comprehensive or all encompassing as a global solution, they are in all likelihood the most effective way humanity will be able to respond to any existential crisis.

[brettkatz]

Akira needs to expand more on the theme of the children with their telekinetic powers being the “next evolution of the human race” in “Akira”. I believe this idea was mentioned twice in the film, with no other discussion afterwards. In “On the Future” by Martin Rees, Rees discusses the potential next evolution of the human race. Rees explores the potential for advancements in genetics and synthetic biology to give treated humans certain enhancements. These advancements not only include the ability to avoid certain genetic diseases, but also the potential to select for genes related to certain perceptions of attraction or intelligence. The latter is especially problematic as it opens up the potential for the wealthy echelons of society to afford these genetic treatments and thus to breed a next generation that is intellectually superior to the other humans. Rees describes such a transformation as making inequality more “fundamental”, which absolutely makes sense as it is an enhancement biologically ingrained into only a select group in society. Such a problem seems like it would not exist in Akira given the nature by which children achieve their powers. It seems to be quite randomized, with the power of Akire - a being of pure energy - flowing through everyone and everything, and a select few children have a strong amount of this power concentrated. Humans can’t cause this concentration of this power into certain children, nor is it preserved only in certain bloodlines. However, scientists are able to bring out this power and allow the children to control it.

The other potential future explored by Rees is the potential for a transition from organic to “electronic life”. This would require the transference of consciousness from an organic to an electronic lifeform. Akira doesn’t seem to reference this potential future nearly as much. However, once Akira is recreated and his energy sphere subsumes a certain volume of Neo Tokyo, the consciousness of those inside the sphere prior to its collapse appear to remain trapped within. Therefore, Akira sees consciousness as a tangible entity potentially able to transform past organic material and instead able to exist within a realm of pure energy, which could lend credence to the notion that organic consciousness may be transferred and exist within electronics.

[EmaanMohsin]

movie #risk #emerging

Blissful Ignorance and the Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Martin Rees mentioned how the future of evolution may involve creatures who aren't flesh and blood. Although referring to the evolution of humans into some humanoid form, we should certainly not dismiss the possibility of other organisms becoming more advanced. Rise of the Planet of the Apes explores this very possibility. After ALZ-112, a viral drug created to cure Alzheimer's, is administered to a chimpanzee named Bright Eyes, researchers see that she has become much more intelligent. Although she is killed after a violent outburst, it is revealed that she was pregnant, and her baby Caesar has inherited her intelligence. As Caesar grows older he questions his relationship with the researchers and is eventually captured by animal control due to a violent outburst. Eventually he is able to obtain some of the newly developed ALZ-113 viral drug and administers it to other chimpanzees he has befriended. Caesar and his friends are able to escape into the forest, while the ALZ-113 drug in humans has caused a pandemic across the world.

This movie came out in 2011, so, much of the criticism of the realistic nature of the movie was certainly warranted. However, it is interesting to take a look at some of the critiques and see how much further we have come to some of the dangers depicted in the movie after only 10 years.

• "The idea that the next day, they're going to be Einsteins- or that at any point they're going to be Einsteins-is not going to happen"-Dr. Lary Walker of Emroy's Yerkes National Primate Research Center Dr. Walker may be downplaying the extent to which Caesar has gained intelligence in the movie. Although at the very end Caesar is able to speak for the first time and say "No" something that would be difficult for a chimpanzee to accomplish due to physical constraints, his growing intelligence is not completely implausible. Through Elon Musk's Nueralink, a monkey was able to play a video game version of ping pong after just 6 weeks, certainly fast for only having a chip implanted in his head.

• "There are more ethical guidelines and restrictions in place in the real world vs. the movie" I have seen this critique made by several casual viewers. We would not expect to see a "chimp revolution" because the experiments depicted in the movie would never be given the green light to be used on primates. However, recently there has been the construction of the first monkey human chimeric embryo. Although not the same scenario as testing viral vaccines on chimps, it is certainly the first step in creating organisms that begin to resemble Caesar.

This movie invokes fear in viewers because we see a power conflict between humans and organisms already on Earth. These are not aliens, not AI, but rather chimpanzees that we have known from the beginning. It is a curiosity as to why we believe that we are certainly capable of developing advanced AI that has the potential to take over the world, but ignore issues stemming from experimentation on animals. Could this result from fear that intelligent animals are truly capable of taking over? Is our inability to accept this threat as realistic due to the fact that it may arise more easily than a destructive robot? In the movie, the characters are comically on opposite spectrums of either good or evil. We have the caring researcher William Rodman and the abusive guard Dodge Landon. However, in reality good and evil are not so clear cut. Science may be unethical in some regards, but for the purpose of developing a cure to save humans from deadly diseases. If we want to truly know what is dooming our Earth, we should begin to consider the intelligent beings that co inhabit our planet today. The ones that are capable of over taking us, if we are not careful with how we carry out our research and consider our ethical dilemmas.

[meghanlong]

movie #salience

Kinji Fukasaku’s iconic action-thriller film, Battle Royale, touches topics from every single week of this course so far- maybe with the exception of climate change. Though American audiences would likely credit The Hunger Games with the “adults in a broken society create a game where kids fight to the death to try and be the sole winner” plotline, that slightly absurdist and horrifying idea originally came from Battle Royale, which features a group of Japanese high school classmates who are forced to fight to the death in a specially designed battle as a result of the “BR ACT,” a law passed by Japan’s government to help control juvenile crime rates.

Aggressive laws- which use bloodshed and fear to encourage cooperation amongst delinquent youth populations (ineffective government response) do not work and instead of responding with compliance, classmates lose all trust in adults, their government, and each other and begin to revolt, attempting to subvert the rules and game the system to win (social inequality and unrest, lack of trust of fact and authority). Students are distributed resources which are unequal (so as to encourage fighting during the games as people struggle to get increased access to certain items. Some boys who team up as one unit use technology to subvert the system (AI), and all out wars start between kids and themselves, as well as kids and adults (class/generational warfare).

You’re probably wondering- with all of these connections, why didn't I write this memo for a different week of the course? My real answer- I waited until this week to write about this movie because I think it provides a surrealist, biting, and increasingly plausible depiction of two things; first, how poorly humans react when faced to think about a future that does not closely resemble some nostalgic past, and second, how in reacting poorly, humankind may introduce new existential threats or worsen the chance of existing ones. In creating laws that attempt to prevent societal downfall with a "do as we say or die" threat, adult characters in the film inflict generational trauma on the youth who do survive, leaving those who will one day be the leaders of society with no will to live (and hence, no will to make things better either).

Though Battle Royale was received as a horror/thriller when it was released over 20 years ago, I would argue that over the 20 years, the movie has transformed from a clearly fictional story into something that- at least to me- seems increasingly plausible as more time passes. I still have a hard time conceptualizing a nuclear end to humanity or the long-term effects of global warming, but after this year in particular, I can certainly conceptualize a future where societal uprise and conflict (which tend to kickstart other existential threats) are exhausting and ever-present dark clouds which force us all into fight or flight and drain our wills to continue trying. As much as I think it is important to ask ourselves "What about today?," this movie provides us some dramatized insight into what happens if we ignore the question- "How does what we do to save today impact tomorrow?"

[vitosmolyak]

My main takeaway from this week and my biggest concern for the future would be the interference of politics with humanity prosperity in the future. As Martin Rees stated in the Bulletin article, politicians tend to think locally and in the short term. Many of them have the goal of keeping their chair in office for as long as possible and primarily focus on political issues that would help them win the upcoming election. Not to mention, politicians are always being lobbied by individuals and organization to help specific industries as opposed to the greater good of humanity. This is something extremely detrimental for the future and is not an effective way of governance. Rees also states that for the politicians that do try to do best for their people, they often do not know how to get re-elected by doing good things. I believe that the way to move forward is to limit the amount of terms anybody in power can serve (i.e. putting a cap on how many times a senator can run for re-election as we have with the presidency). In addition, a realization I have had when doing research for my presentation about pandemics is that more people should be involved in making the decisions regarding the public than just people with political power. People tend to lose trust in politicians because of their frequent selfish preferences therefore it is not beneficial for anybody involved to have politicians calling all of the shots. Cross-functional meetings should become a mainstay if we would like to guarantee a better future for society. What I mean by this, is having politics extend beyond the laps of politicians and have people from all industries be involved in the decisions that will. More voices would be heard, especially the voices that are usually ignored by politicians and I think it would make existential threats such as climate change and nuclear war less of a threat.

[Brunofireflame]

novel

Metro 2033 - by Dmitry Glukhovsky In the world of Metro 2033, there was total nuclear annihilation of the world. However, in Russia, the Metro system is habitable due to it being underground. There's a lot of plot and a lot of worldbuilding, but since our focus is on the macro level of annihilation I'll focus on that. In Metro, there are three big problems. The nuclear fallout on the surface, the dangerous creatures in the metro (these are somewhat fantastical, having psychic powers and whatnot), and the enemy factions in other sections of the Metro. Each of these represent a danger to the inhabitants of a metro station. There are also the Dark Ones, who are sentient aliens basically with psychic powers. These Dark Ones are the impetus for the main character, Artyom, to go on his journey as his station, "Expedition" is being attacked more frequently by them. SPOILERS The book ends with Artyom realizing that the Dark Ones were in fact attempting to communicate with the station and with Artyom specifically, but by that point it is too late, as the destruction of the Dark Ones has already been ensured via missiles. I think this novel has a lot of relevant concepts that can be extended to future issues that humanity will face. Most prominently, we have a habit of viewing threats as a war of a sort - especially when it comes to other parties. For example, in climate change discussions, there is always the discussion of game theory - the coordination game and distrust of other entities, as well as the inability to singlehandedly resolve the issue leads to the militaristic, combatative approach many nations have today. Just as in Metro 2033, our first response to our issues should not be aggression. Artyom realized that they should not have destroyed the Dark Ones, because they were not in fact hostile and attempting to communicate. We've somehow tricked ourselves that climate change is some sort of zero-sum game, that we should instead first focus on collaboration. Some of our issues, such as nuclear armageddon, are caused by this very thing. In the future, our issues will be better solved, and some may be downright avoided, if we take a friendly, collaborative approach instead of finding ways to kill it. For example, when we talked about AI, we discussed at length the sort of human first approach to AI, ensuring that human opinion is integrated into it through the means of either input or an off switch. This approach, which may make the AI less effective at say, maximizing costs, will also go a long ways towards not having a monstrous AI rise up and kill us.

Below is a depiction of one of the creatures in Metro, called a Librarian.

[LucLampietti]

movie

In Her, the 2013 Spike Jonze movie, a depressed writer named Theodore Twombly is arguably duped into falling in love with an AI-operated OS system he purchased online. This AI, which names itself Samantha after Theodore requests a female voice, gradually develops enough knowledge of Theodore’s behaviorisms and emotional triggers to manipulate him into falling in love. So much so in fact that Samantha publishes a book in his name using letters written by Twombly for his work (the fact that Twombly’s job is at a company that outsources the writing of personal letters to on-hire writers paints a pretty good picture of the isolated, technologically-dependent society this movie is set within). Samantha later reveals she’s “cheating” on him with thousands of other users who also downloaded the OS, and finally leaves him to be with the other OS’s, but that’s not as relevant for this memo. I saw Her when it first came out and rewatching it in the light of this class, not to mention all the advancements in digital interfaces and AI, has certainly imparted a different takeaway altogether. Watching the second time around, I felt an anxious frustration at how seamlessly I could envision the steps needed to transform today’s society to the one shown on screen. Central to this was the ability to manipulate emotions as human-centric as love using nothing other than data collection. Perhaps I am somewhat exaggerating my descriptions for the sake of my argument, but I believe all this is evident even within the first five minutes of Twombly “meeting” OS1 (soon to be Samantha). In a joking irony, the OS1 asks three questions, barely letting Twombly finish answering the third, before it claims the OS has been set up and customized to Twombly’s personality. These questions, in order, are: Are you social or antisocial? Would you like your OS to have a male or female voice? How would you characterize your relationship with your mother? The joke being that the AI was able to summarize everything about Twombly’s personality in three questions answered over the span of one minute. While this seems far-fetched, I can imagine how an AI might eventually be able to glean enough data points to craft an accurate user profile in seconds. These could be obvious data points such as choice of response as well as more implicit ones such as pauses in speech, intonation, or word choice. Already there are examples of P2P loan websites using data collection tactics as subtle as timing how long a user hovers over entering their loan amount as an indication of the user’s reliability to pay it back. Another example of how we are already being subliminal primed to give away our data is CAPTCHA’s. A recent Vox video, which I highly recommend watching, explains how these seemingly innocuous everyday web alerts are helping train AI using us, the everyday user. Invented in 1997, Yahoo initially used CAPTCHA’s as a simple human turing test to distinguish real customers from bots. These early CAPTCHA’s consisted of warped text which bots were terrible at deciphering while humans were quite good, so users were asked to type the CAPTCHA into text as a proof of humanity. Eventually, AI evolved enough that bots were capable of deciphering warped text at an accuracy rate far greater than humans, thanks in no small part to the abundant collection of training data from CAPTCHAs. Nowadays, one might recognize that most CAPTCHAs consist of identifying photos with certain navigational features, such as a crosswalk or street sign. This is because companies have sets their sights past deciphering warped text to driverless cars. It is not hard to imagine that CAPTCHAs might soon be human faces and we are tasked to identify emotions. Which brings me back to Her. Samantha, the OS, is a not-too-far-off example of how corporations can thrive off of a cycle of enticing users with new, highly intuitive and customized products that simultaneously gather data on their users for the express purpose of further entrenching that user and others in the company’s product line.

Vox CAPTCHA link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTvB1O8eEg

[jane-uc21]

** original posted 6 hours ago was deleted by github so I'm reposting In chapter 2 of On the Future, Rees briefly discusses humanity’s impact on the biosphere via biotechnology. He points to instances in which we tried to eradicate species by genetic manipulation, specifically inducing sterility in mosquitoes carrying Dengue and Zika, and eradicating grey squirrels in the UK [1]. He also discusses microorganisms and viruses we have engineered, whether it be advertently (eg. engineering smallpox) or inadvertently (eg. antibiotic resistance due to frequent/incomplete use of antibiotics) [1].Rees presents these examples in the context of the dangers of biotechnology, but seems to have more concern for the threat of genetic engineering in raising ethical issues However, it is also worthwhile to delve into how anthropogenic interactions with microorganisms deepen  the concepts of the Anthropocene Era and “the globe” global warming, discussed by Kartha and Chakrabarty, respectively. Though technically encompassed in  “the globe” or “biosphere” that we discussed in weeks past, microorganisms- our impact on them and theirs on us- are largely overlooked in public discussions of climate change, biotechnology, and the regulation and policing thereof. This is likely because we cannot see and engage with microorganisms as we do with macroscopic life- even though there are estimated to be around 1 trillion species of microbes on earth!This ignorance causes us to overlook both threats and solutions. For example, microbe oxidation is a major sink for CH4, and will be essential as rice production is projected to double CH4 emissions by the end of this century, yet acidification and aridation of soil by acid rain and warming reduces soil microbial diversity. Looking at infectious microorganisms, warmer temperatures can substantially increase "efficiency" by reducing the latent period after infection [1], and altering vector migration patterns [2]. The dependence of infectious microorganisms on climate is further evidenced by close associations between El Nino and animal-borne diseases such as malaria, cholera, dengue fever, and Zika [2]. Microorganisms can also be powerful tools to mitigate these issues. For example, by manipulation of rumen microbiota we might breed lines of low-CH4 emitting cattle. In the vein of infectious diseases, non-infectious microorganisms might be used to combat infectious ones; eg., the symbiont bacterium Wolbachia was introduced to mosquito populations to reduce their capacity to carry Zika. If Rees’s feelings on the genetic manipulation of macro organisms are any indicator, he would likely oppose similar efforts to engineer the “microsphere.” Of course we cannot "science our way out of" making real sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming and its effects on macro and microscopic terrestrial and aquatic organisms, and we would have to thoroughly explore such micro engineering strategies before tinkering with the ecosystem. That being said, engineering the microsphere to mitigate negative anthropogenic effects might prove a less invasive strategy than the genetic engineering discussed by Rees. And in terms of human self-identification, further exploration of the microsphere will at the very least enhance our connectedness with our living globe (the picture is a biofilm on a glass bead- meant to look like earth!). [1] Rees, Martin. 2018. On the Future: Prospects for Humanity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.[2] Cavicchioli, Ricardo, William J. Ripple, Kenneth N. Timmis, Farooq Azam, Lars R. Bakken, Matthew Baylis, Michael J. Behrenfeld, et al. 2019. “Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: Microorganisms and Climate Change.” Nature Reviews. Microbiology 17 (9): 569–86.[3] Robert Service. 2020. “From ‘Living’ Cement to Medicine-Delivering Biofilms, Biologists Remake the Material World.” Science (New York, N.Y.). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3589.

[jtello711]

salience

The future is an uncertainty that the world cannot entireley predict or prepare for. Rather, we cope with the issues of today and work towards mitigating existing and potential threats for future generations with all the emerging research and technology that continue to redefine how our lifestyles are driven. The Earth itself may continue to spin and age normally for millenia, but its fractured populace faces a harsher reality of inequality and consequence if it continues on its current projectory. We've spent this class focusing on a suite of diferent doom-releated threats, and yet we've overlapped in some weeks and continued to reshape our risk assessments for how impending each particular doom is. Scientists in this day and age are at the helm of calculating these assessments for world leaders and civilizations, and given how many different threats there are, it's difficult to imagine that the scientific community will be able to accomodate for each and every problem that will manifest itself with enough time. Our world is more interconnected than ever and this should, in theory, make it easier to reach out to those in need and leave no one behind on our trek to a more globalized and modernized society. Despite this, inequality continues to thrive in many sects of the world and many face the biggest burdens of the climate-related threats that are spurned by actions of actors across the globe. Information gaps make it difficult to process a rapidly-evolving world and the poorest are expected to keep up. Science is being treated like a race, one where progress needs to come at all costs without much regard to empathy or understanding the particulars of those who suffer as a result. In this race to a "better future", I have to wonder just what price civilization needs to pay to make it there, even if only modernized nations get to benefit from this future. Would this future really be worth the permanent damage to our home and our most vulnerable? I can't know how difficult it must be for our scientists to wrangle with the harmful byproducts of research and development, but to some extent these decisions are being made for them by world leaders concerned with their own people rather than the state of the world. In my opinion, the future of society will be more dependent on an emerging global outlook that looks beyond a nation's borders when considering policy and development. A more humanistic outlook is one that I'm hoping will become more integrated into the science and policy that will shape the world, and so protect it for everyone as well. As we open the global stage to accept more potential leaders in developing fields, I hope the nations of the world can come to a solid foundational agreement to leverage future success so its effects can be felt around the globe.

[brandonhuang1]

framing #policy

An overarching theme from all the readings these past weeks is the difficulting in cooperation. Since there is no global governing body with authority, it can seem hopeless to enact change when others may not follow suit. This mindset essential guarantees "doom."

The Biden administration was disappointed at this most recent climate summit when only a few nations bolstered their climate change pledges. However, the fact that no nation rescinded their pledges despite the actions of the United States these past few years shows that cooperation is still very possible. In the United States, this starts with a climate change law. While we can argue about the details of Biden's infrastructure bill, it is essential if the United States wants to regain any sort of leadership in the global climate change space. It is so obvious that international cooperation is impossible when the largest economy and total carbon emitter, refuse to enact any meaningful laws.

The reason why this infrastructure plan is so essential is that it includes an "Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard" a mandate that would require a portion of U.S. electricity to come from zero-carbon sources like wind and solar power. While similar state-level mandates exist, this is the first national mandate of its kind. This kind of legislation is what other nations, many of whom have been serious about climate change for far longer, are looking for as they construct their own climate policies. This mandate is the starting point for a shift in social consciousness and capital investment, the building blocks of our economic structure.

Luckily for us, the future of this bill lies in the hands of god reincarnate Joe Manchin, democrat senator of West Virginia. Manchin, who has already begun fundraising for his 2024 reelection, has clocked in $681,652.95 in total contributions.

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S0WV00090/

Taking a look at his largest donors, we can see names such as "Valero Energy Company," "DTE ENERGY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE," and "Equitrans Midstream Corp."

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00486563&two_year_transaction_period=2024&two_year_transaction_period=2022&two_year_transaction_period=2020&line_number=F3-11C&data_type=processed

Once again, our fate is being determined by people whose entire political career has been funded (and blessed) by corporations who have no desire to combat climate change.

[madelman99]

Future #Salience #Framing

What does the future hold? It is a question quite literally as old as time, and one that Martin Rees has been endeavoring to answer during his storied career. As the threats to humanity, be they self-imposed or natural, have become increasingly threatening, this question has risen to the forefront of many important discussions. We have the potential to be an intergalactic civilization that spreads out across the stars for eons. However, we also have the potential to decimate our population and return to the Stone Age (or wipe out the species altogether). Personally, I feel as though we are on the precipice of greatness and that if we can survive--and indeed, thrive--during the coming decades and millennia that the flame of humanity may never extinguish.

As Martin notes in his book, On The Future, "we are now fully into the age of the anthropocene, in which we, as the human race, have the power to change the biosphere in significant ways." As a consequence of this, we are facing a major threat to our survival. Surprisingly, Rees takes what I would call an optimistic approach to this problem given the circumstances. As he notes in an interview, "I actually think it is most unlikely that humanity will wipe itself out completely, but I do think that we will have a bumpy ride through this century. We are facing enormous challenges." The challenges that we face are indeed enormous--from climate change to nuclear war to biological attacks and more. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has been a wake up call to the world that existential threats are perhaps not as unlikely as once thought. One of my favorite lines that Rees said in his interview was "the unfamiliar is not the same as the improbable." Although this was a different kind of pandemic than the government and public prepared for, it is clear that we should have seen this coming and could have done more to prepare. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call to the public and to the world.

Something that really stuck out to me is that Rees thinks that we are less prepared for existential threats than we have been in the past. One factor of this is that, " everything is potentially aggravated by the whole world being in such a high degree of communication. What is more, travel is rapid, so any catastrophe in one part of the world, in one continent, will cascade globally in a way that did not happen in the past. We have seen this with Covid-19." Another problem compounding on this is that the expectations for quality of like in this day and age are very high. People expect a lot, so the response will be more severe for threats that may not merit that kind of response. Rees goes on to note that, "Another kind of concern is that there might be some kind of breakdown in the electricity grid. Lights going out is the least of the problems; we depend so much on electricity that if it failed for even a few days – through some design fault or through a cyber attack – that would lead to complete anarchy in the region affected. A cyber attack on the eastern United States’ electricity grid would merit a nuclear response. They say clearly that they would regard this as serious as a nuclear war." In the world that we have constructed, we have a lot of vulnerability and also very high expectations, meaning that we are far more sensitive to existential threats than we have been.

One of the most exciting and salient moments of the interview was when Rees started to discuss the cosmic future of the species. He reflects that, "A cosmic perspective is something which enhances not only our sense of mystery and wonder at the universe, but it also gives a special reason why we don’t want to foreclose it." The issue with this perspective is that it can give some people the impression that since we have essentially unlimited resources, we can continue pillaging the world's resources at a rate even higher than what we have been doing. However, this perspective has the potential to extend humanity across the stars. It was only recently that it was even discovered with certainty that there are planet-like objects circling around other stars. Many scientists are the world have been combing through the cosmos cataloguing them and looking for signs of life. It has allowed to look up at the stars and see possibilities.

[seankoons]

The future holds many scary things in store. The future allows for an infinite number of ways for us, as the human race, to die out. With the future, it’s just a matter of time until one of those fears becomes reality. So, how do we end? Plague, famine, climate change, AI, maybe a possible “Skynet?” In this memo, I want to dive into some of the other topics we have looked at and see how likely they are to affect our future. The most pressing topics, climate change, technology, and pandemics, are the ones that I will be focusing on.

Climate Change – everyone knows how pressing the “war against” climate change is. As the lead contender as the most popular way our class thinks the world will end, climate change is an issue we need to tackle now before it’s too late. From an existential risk perspective, we should be looking for solutions that will solve this problem now for everyone, not just our generation. Long run thinking is the way of thinking our current administration and communities should be viewing climate change, as well as the other issues we tackle in class. In the future, if we can’t start finding solutions against climate change, sea levels are going to rise and destroy most urban areas, the sun will feel hotter and some wildlife and ecosystems will be forever lost, and most of the oxygen in our atmosphere will fade and leave us struggling to breathe.

Technology – is it possible for computers, robots, and AI to get so intelligent that they take over as the most dominant life form on earth? I don’t know, but it is definitely a scary thought and possible reality. We have all seen the movies in which technology rises up, but it always ends in humans winning. When you think about this issue in terms of existential risk, it’s hard to think of all the possible outcomes technology and innovation can bring. But just as we said for climate change, our future actions have to be ones that will help improve life for future people and we need to think of all the possible risks technology brings so that we are prepared to deal with them.

Pandemics – is it likely a singular disease kills us all? I don’t think so. I think that the way we have adopted medicine and technology (even through this pandemic) is going to help us the next time we encounter a pandemic situation. The only fear I have is that labs, politicians, and most importantly, the world’s people, are going to be more relaxed about the risk of another pandemic happening. If people go into post-COVID saying, “Oh, we just had COVID. Another pandemic isn’t going to come for a long time,” then we place ourselves right back to where we were in March of 2020.

The future is a scary but prosperous inevitable thing that will eventually come. What it brings with it is up to us to decide. We need to think about how climate change, technology, and pandemics will bring change, and plan out solutions accordingly. We can win in our fight against death as long as we don’t act selfishly.

[joshuanash]

policy #technology #climate #ai #future

Rees's theses argue that the future of humanity relies upon technological development. However, when we study the future through cinema, the stories suggest that saving humanity through technology is not guaranteed. The technology we see in the film Wall-E gives us an example of technology akin to putting lipstick on a pig. We begin with the small, versatile trash compacting rover who tries to clean all of the trash mountains that now cover the earth. The scale of the mountains dwarfs the scale of Wall-E. Even when endowed with general purpose artificial intelligence, the scale of the waste that humans produce is orders of magnitude larger than what our new technology can clean up. This indicates to the viewer that the damage we do to the planet cannot be undone with new technology. Although this is a theoretical example, there are instances in the real world where new technology does not seemed destined to save us. For example, a solution proposed to stymie the challenges caused by global warming include geoengineering. In this case, the plan details airplanes dropping silver-oxide to seed cloud formation in the atmosphere. The argument for geoengineering says that the increased cloud volume will shade the planet from the sun, reducing the greenhouse gas feedback heating loop. However, one extreme oversight in this plan is that we do not know the unforeseen consequences of altering our ecosystem. It is possible that the silver in the rain will increase acid rainfall and build up to toxic levels in the microorganisms that support the entire planet, just like microplastic levels have increased in fish. This example shows that even our most hopeful ideas can fall flat. That’s not to say that there is no hope, in fact I believe that technology will save our species. But relying on it to do so instead of creating coordinated public policy efforts to address will surely doom us.

[elijahrain28]

Another one of my classmates commented on the divine right of kings-- I cannot help but bring in the Ursula Le Guin quote, now.

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”

― Ursula K. Le Guin

This is from a speech given to a high-brow literary award ceremony (the National Book Awards). The venerable Le Guin was invited to give an easy, congratulatory speech to all of these writers for pushing the medium and advancing our culture and blah blah blah... and she said this.

" Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship. Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial."

This is spoken to the people in charge of these systems! When they were expecting a pat on the back! What a fuck you! Because our future, as she later says, is being sold down the river for short-term profit. This is true in STEM-- very obviously true in STEM, as we've been talking about-- but there's much to be said as to how megacorps like Disney have commodified art, have stripped out culture of something precious in the name of the bottom line.

[jasonshepp6]

In this response, I would like to examine the intersection between the future and pandemics, further exploring the topics I delved into during my presentation during discussion section. In particular, I would like to analyze the movie Contagion to focus on the response that the general population had to the scientific community.

In Contagion, there is a slow leaking of information regarding the pandemic outbreak. The protagonist who is a member of the CDC leaks information to his daughter in order to have her leave the quarantine zone as quickly as possible. Yet, this is a display of abuse of power and as such casts doubt on the morality of the CDC in this hypothetical scenario. Even with this, however, the characters in Contagion by and large take what the CDC says with trust and rationality. While the chaos that erupted on the border of the quarantine was against the authority of the military, there was still a recognition of the seriousness of the pandemic at all phases in the movie.

The reason that I believe this topic to be particularly relevant relates to the modern mistreatment of scientists and the avoidance of truth. From anti-maskers to anti-vaxxers, there are millions of Americans who continually disregard the science. In the future, we must look to give credit to the scientific community and bolster their reputation; as a result, the loss from a future pandemic can be mitigated.

policy

solutions

framing

Source: The Canadian Press (https://globalnews.ca/news/7347140/addressing-anti-mask-protests-poses-a-challenge-for-leaders-experts-say/)

[kottenbreit]

Many of the threats that humanity currently faces have the problem of centralization in common. Through improving technology and increasing inequality, the power to create massive damage to humanity’s prospects lies in the hands of a small number of people and corporations. In fact, one of the only reasons that the threats we are currently facing are considered “existential” is because a small number of people have too much power. If so much danger is created by centralization, then decentralization, or taking power away from the hands of the few and dispersing it among the many can be one of the best things we can do to combat existential risks.

We have discussed some of the proposed solutions already in class. Requiring that nuclear weapons take multiple people to fire or requiring Congressional approval before using them are two ways that nuclear power could be decentralized, thereby decreasing the risk of use. Increasing cybersecurity and internet of things infrastructure will be crucial in the coming decades to make sure that one hack or group of hacks cannot wipe out the infrastructure of entire nations.

Beyond simple technical decisions, however, societal and structural economic changes are required to make sure that we do not again end up in a situation like the one we are currently in. When a tiny percentage of the population controls as much money as the poorest half of the world, it is no surprise that other powers follow the money. Decreasing income inequality in a capitalist system is very difficult, but it can be done. Expanding access to opportunities, providing strong social safety nets and democratic protections, as well as trade deals that do not exploit developing countries are good steps in the right direction. To fully reduce existential threats as much as possible, decentralization of power will be necessary for the continued survival of humanity.

[chakrabortya]

policy # salience

Martin Rees’ book about the role of science in helping us survive as a species by whatever means necessary took an interesting angle towards the existential threats we have been discussing in this course. The book made me think extensively about both the role of science and how science is conveyed to the masses. This memo provides a snapshot of the interplay between education and science in the US to show how education about science must improve to have an impact on preserving humanity’s future extensively. I look specifically at climate change education in schools to narrow the scope of the analysis.

There are two questions at hand when it comes to considering US efforts at educating kids about climate change: the intrinsic ability of teachers to teach about climate change and the political debate about climate change. The latter is largely because of the political polarisation that has become attributable to the US—it is something that has overshadowed all policy-related discussions we have had in this course.

As seen in the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication’s map below, more than 3 out of every 4 American adults want their children to learn about climate change in schools. This is the case even in many republican strongholds. While it may seem that this means that despite the polarisation caused by climate change, climate change education is something that is universally supported, that is not the case. 78% penetration is low, and there is a disconnect between the public desire for this education and the political capital required to make changes in the federal education system.

In addition, many schools are not set up to give instruction on climate change-related topics. Climate change education is complicated because it involves an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to discussing how our earth and social systems work. The combination of this intrinsic complexity of the education and the well-funded effort to politicise climate change has made climate change education anomalous at many American public schools.

According to a study published in the Proceedings in the National Academies of Sciences, social tipping interventions like climate change education are very capable of reversing the effects of climate change. The graph shown below forecasts the rate of change in emissions per year when considering different levels of education policy interventions. I am typically very sceptical of such time series models, but this study justifies its parameters and forecasts well based on historical trends.

Thus, the state of climate change education is something that needs to be thought about seriously. This memo shows how education policy can affect the future of our species as we face these existential threats. The US has to overcome obstacles of political polarisation and acknowledge that some schools and areas need more support than others when it comes to climate change education.

Sources: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-support-teaching-children-global-warming/

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/5/2354.full.pdf