Here is a collection of articles that I wrote for the Brave New World course at UNSW. The idea was that they would be created for the UNSW science publication, and the best ones would be selected for it. I never heard, or saw anything about the publication, but considering that I got a high distinction, 99%, for the course and 100% for the final assignment, Survival and Human Expansion, I figured some of my articles probably made the cut.
Researched Science Journal Articles
Survival and Human Expansion
While we once marvelled at our technological achievements, in recent years a lot of aggression and disappointment has been placed on the shoulders of humans due to our scientific understanding of the role that we have played in climate change and damage to the planet’s biodiversity. From an emotional perspective it’s easy to see why, the decimation of 46% of earths forestry environments, 83% of earths animal species and our role in the increased rate of climate change, can to a large degree be contributed to our actions within 2 lifetimes. For 650 lifetimes we were living in caves, which puts this into some perspective. In 2018 the U.N released a climate report that warned us that catastrophic conditions could be upon us as early as 2040, resulting in coastal flooding, drought, food shortages and more frequent and severe natural disasters [1].
With this realisation comes a fair amount of fear and anger. Fear and anger are natural survival instincts so in this sense, it’s a perfectly normal response [2]. Although I wonder how much control we have over our impact and how much blame we should place on our actions as a species. To look at this unemotionally we need to consider the root causes of the actions that make our impact on earth damaging, and this comes down to progress and population.
Progress
Progress is also a survival instinct and can allow us to go beyond our own comfort zones, from the moment we are born we are trying to improve and challenge ourselves, learning to walk leads to learning to run. It is the instinctual reason why we are so quick to embrace even slight advancements in technology and explains our quest for knowledge [3]. It would be easy to blame the industrial age of the mid-19th century as the catalyst for human based environmental destruction, but to criticize this period for its environmental impact, is also to criticize humans for our technological advancements [4].
In an article called ‘The Big lie were told about climate change, is that it’s all our fault’, Mary Annaise Heglar discusses an IPPC report that states 71% of damaging emissions are created by just 100 companies, and instead of being depressed we should be very angry because the problem isn’t consumption, its supply [5]. A common and understandable reaction if considered on a case by case basis, but overall, it’s an emotional response as you can’t have supply without consumption. We can view this visually using s-curves. Figure (1) below shows us a typical technological progression cycle [6], figure (2) shows us how this develops into the advancement of any given technology [7]. Its important to note how similar these curves are over time due to the rate of consumer adoption.
Below we can see how this works for our total technological progression through the ages, and our world energy consumption. Renewable energy sources are at the start of its advancement cycle, it’s clear that it is becoming the next stage of energy advancement and will eventually replace other forms of energy as demand increases. If an energy company were to attempt to replace existing energy sources with renewables at this stage not only would it lead to its collapse, we would also have a limited energy supply. These cycles make inaction over reductions in fossil fuel usage a little easier to understand, the change can only occur when consumption matches the supply cycle [8].
Population
Population growth is another survival instinct, and as is the case with all forms of life we need birth, death and migration for expansion. If we can’t migrate our population decreases and is the main reason behind the damaging effect humans have on less dominant species [9]. In more developed areas, expansion takes longer, accordingly the growth rate has been dropping over the past 50 years, from 2.0% in the sixties to 1.2% now. It is estimated that by the year 2050 our population will begin a downward trend [10]. The rate at which it is slowing is in line with a similar slowdown in technological growth which is bound to demand. Economist Michael Kremer states that population growth is limited to technological progress, and technological change is reliant on population expansion [11].
To consider the effect this has on the environment as a species, we need to consider that population and progress are linked. If we look at the correlation between these and emissions pre industrial age, we still see an increase of emissions inline with human expansion, and once fossil fuels were introduced the rate of increase is still relative. This isn’t to say that it can’t be affected by the introduction of clean energy, but rather it highlights that an inline increase is still expected along with any human expansion and technological advancement whether its emission free or not.
While I would most definitely like to see humans develop a much greater respect for our environment, the damage we do as a species is consistent with our survival and while unfortunate, this is not something we can limit completely. A positive to come from our rapid advancement is that it gives us a noticeable way to view the effect we have on our environment. Without the pace of the industrial age we would still eventually reach the same level of negative impact, although a slower pace might not have allowed us to notice this impact as easily or given us the technological expertise to combat it, even now we have a lot of climate deniers.
Humans have achieved amazing things in a short time, the signs are all there that we will find ways to reduce damage created by our survival methods even if the speed of these solutions are largely out of our control. While it is frustrating, before you get angry at our species, consider that it’s because of our expansion that we can manage our biodiversity and search for solutions. Until very recently we were living in caves, we are a tribal species, the fact that we are able to calculate and care about our global impact at all is a testament to how good we are at surviving.
[1].NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/climate-grief-growing-emotional-toll-climate-change-n946751
[2]. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/why-fear-and-anger-are-rational-responses-to-climate-change-114056
[3]. Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/headshrinkers-guide-the-galaxy/201612/progress-and-the-human-psyche
[4]. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/the-industrial-revolution-and-its-discontents/379781/
[5].Vox, https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/10/11/17963772/climate-change-global-warming-natural-disasters
[6].Caroli, https://www.caroli.org/en/the-technology-adoption-curve/
[7].Innovation Management, https://innovation-management.org/innovation-model.html
[8].Passionate About OSS, http://passionateaboutoss.com/oss-s-curves/
[9].Stanford, https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Population_Dynamics.html
[10].UCSUSA, https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/world-population-growth-exponential
[11].BBC, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121018-hidden-rules-of-human-progress
[12]. Peak Oil Barrel, http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-energy-2018-2050-world-energy-annual-report-part-5/
As social media progresses, this brings with it new problems, such as privacy, security, misinformation, division and the realization that one of the greatest benefits of social media is that we are more informed as a community, although one of the greatest dangers might also be that we are more informed as a community.
While we do see signs that there are benefits from this unity, such as students rallying for changes to gun laws in America [1], and the recent unified climate change protests occurring in 143 countries [2], these fairly unorganized collaborations can quickly escalate to something else and it’s not always for a good reason.
As early as 2005 In Sydney, the Cronulla riots began as a dispute on a beach between two groups, and quickly escalated through social media resulting in hundreds of people engaged in violence and random property destruction [3].The recent yellow jacket protests in France against its leader, was a result of the public being able to unify quickly, these events occurring every Saturday for months and were also quick to turn violent [4].
Both ISIS and Al-Quada uses social media as a tool for recruitment, enabling an international network of well trained and highly organized terrorist activities actively seeking violence [5]. Others have learned from the methods of Al-Quada to use violent crime as away to harness social media to highlight their beliefs and agendas to millions. As seen recently during the Christchurch massacre where the attacker live streamed his violence. Social media companies admit that they are struggling to contain the video and his 74-page manuscript [6].
In government, China has made no secret of its own concerns, from a western perspective creating its very own dystopian society to limit information and the publics ability to discuss concerning issues relating to their government’s agenda [6]. We have seen Russia’s attempts at influencing the U.S election using social media [7], and we watched as Americas reality tv president, Donald trump and Dictator Kim Jong Un, engaged in childish insults on twitter that contributed to an increase in tensions, resulting in a military build-up and threats of nuclear engagement [9].
On a world stage, diplomats were once considered experts at diplomatic relations and would enter into calculated dialogue to maintain peace between nations and introduce hopefully well thought out policies to improve growth and prosperity for their people. In more recent times, dialogue has often consisted of spur of the moment social media comments often increasing tensions, and a leader’s popularity can be decided by their engagement with the public on social media.
In our local communities, in an increasingly online social world where one of the biggest social media influencers has 91 million subscribers, and is a guy nicknamed ‘PewdyPie’, an anti-sematic game reviewer who thinks that a forest full of suicide victims is funny [10], the largest threat to our own safety may quickly becoming our own acceptance of our online social engagement.
[1].The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives-protest-gun-violence-washington
[3]. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/09/cronulla-summer-simmering-tension-race-riots-10-years
[4]. ABC, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-17/yellow-vest-protests-flare-up-in-france/10909246
[6]. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/15/video-of-christchurch-attack-runs-on-social-media-and-news-sites
[7].HRW, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/18/chinas-dystopian-push-revolutionize-surveillance
[8].VOA News, https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-election-us-trump/4703628.html
[9]. France 24, https://www.france24.com/en/20180608-usa-north-korea-nuclear-summit-trump-kim-twitter-insults-diplomacy
[10].Influencer Update, https://www.influencerupdate.biz/influencers/1/pewdiepie/
As Pragash Haran discusses in his post, the science fiction genre can be used to highlight some of the negative aspects that our decisions can have on our futures, to expand on this further, how can we use this genre to prepare for the possibility of these changes moving forwards.
In 2017 Australia’s chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel, delivered a speech called ‘Science Fiction for Leaders’ in Melbourne, in order to raise awareness of an issue first termed by author Alvin Toffler in his 1970’s novel, ‘Future Shock: the vertigo of the victims of progress.’ Dr. Alan discusses the dangers of dismissing radical new ideas about our future and asks us to prepare for rapid changes to our society by taking science fiction seriously. He uses initial scepticism of both Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers ideas, as some examples of how what’s thought to be impossible, has a way of progressing on us very quickly and that we need to be prepared. He discusses that the rate of change can be so drastic that it can have the effect of us not being able to adapt quickly enough, creating a kind of technological vertigo that can ultimately lead to dangerous imbalances within our societies. He mentions a quote from Jack Welsh, the head of the corporate giant GE, “If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near.”, and humanity has never seen a rate of advancement as drastic of what we have witnessed in recent lifetimes [1].
Although it’s not only leaders who need to prepare themselves from our rapid advancement. Through exposure to science fiction, many different fields of study can also benefit from this type of forward thinking. It has already been shown that past science fiction design has had a large impact on the direction that designers have taken when trying to develop new ways of approaching form and function. Sociology, medicine, anthropology, natural science and electronics are some other fields that have benefited from studies of this genre [2].
Understanding science fiction is also able to broaden the publics minds of the possibilities that may or may not take shape, allowing for an early expectance of a wide variety of new technologies before they arrive. It is believed that by being exposed to the varied ideas that science fiction can raise, that this can enable a better tolerance and understanding of what difference may represent [3].
Martin Luther King once convinced ‘Star Trek’ actor Nichelle Nichols to remain on the show so that people would continue to see a black woman in a scientific role portrayed as an equal among her peers, to help reduce racial tensions. This decision directly led to the selection of the first African American astronaut Sally Ride, and astronaut Mae Jemison also conceded that this was her inspiration for aiming for the stars [4].
Science fiction has more of a role than just the acceptance or development of new ideas, it seems it also has its place in creating the stage that will allow for those changes to occur, and without this acceptance, we might not be ready to cope with some of the more drastic changes to our societies that science fiction serves so well to highlight.
[1]. Chief Scientist, https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2017/09/speech-science-fiction-for-leaders/
[2]. Academia,https://www.academia.edu/1906685/The_Power_of_Science_Fiction_Exploring_Sci-fi_s_Relationship_to_Real-World_Innovation
[3]. Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/04/28/why-fiction-good-for-you-how-fiction-changes-your-world/nubDy1P3viDj2PuwGwb3KO/story.html
[4]. Unsolicited Press http://www.unsolicitedpress.com/blog/science-fictions-influences-on-modern-society
As an artist I wanted to try and look at this from that perspective. And one of the things that interested me is how would you go about replicating our systems, from ground to space, using existing rules of image creation. Because if you can repeat the process artistically, its creation is following a set of rules and therefore isn’t just the chaos that it seems to be.
At the moment there is no way to know for sure if there is alien life out there or not and I am no scientist, but looking at how possible it is that the system would repeat itself, even if in a slightly varied state, might be an interesting way to look at it.
What first comes to mind when I consider whether there is life existing other than what we know of, I first think, “As the twig grows bent, so grows the tree”. This saying has a similar effect on art that might also be found through considering the Fibonacci sequence, or using the spiral theory as guides when constructing an image and being able to use these as a prediction as to how each line or shape will fit within the image without having a form of reference to create from. If your lines and shapes don’t follow these rules, the image will appear to have something wrong with it, everything basically fits within the boundaries of these laws that nature seems to abide by visually.
The more you consider the construction and similarities between one life form or structure and the next, the more you find that the systems are interlinked not just from an artists view, but from a scientific perspective as well. Given this is it just random chaos at all?
There is a interesting read about chaos related to our universe in Discover Magazine article, ‘Does chaos rule the cosmos?’, Nov 01 1992, (http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/doeschaosrulethe147/) that considers this question.
‘Chaos raises some fundamental questions about the universe: Since order can generate chaos as well as pattern, what is the role of natural law? Is it chaos, not order, that rules the universe? And where do nature’s complex patterns come from, if not from simple laws?’
While the article raises the issue, it doesn’t give us a defined definition of what role chaos plays.
This led me to another article in Cosmos magazine, ‘Is nature really chaotic and fractal, or did we just imagine it?’, June 28th 2018, (https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/is-nature-really-chaotic-and-fractal-or-did-we-just-imagine-it). While reading this I appreciated the statement, ‘the issue of chaos has nothing to do with reality, and a lot to with its human interpretation.’ And was reminded of a graphical process called the Mandelbrot set, created by Benoit Mandelbrot. It begins with a complex shape, based on a complex mathematical equation and has the ability to create graphical representations of infinity. I find this relevant because even the though the results can appear chaotic, the images are created from the same structure and can be in a sense, controlled chaos. Its not hard for me to imagine this process occurring for life itself.
While trying to relate this to current thinking of how we began, I watched a series called ‘one strange rock’ on Netflix that I found helpful in understanding just how chaos was involved in the creation of life on earth and found that even before life, a membrane was needed to contain a smaller selection for the ingredients of life rather than have everything floating around in a huge pool of water. This led me to think that even before life, this process even though appearing random and chaotic, lucky almost, it seemed to be trying to happen, and it wasn’t just the happy accident I always thought it was because it was chaos, but chaos seemingly based on a set of defining rules.
I then considered other environments that have sparked our imaginations as potential candidates for our search for life and was most interested in two of Saturn’s moons in particular, Enceladus and Titan that both have the potential for life. Especially Titan.
Information that I found on Nasa’s ‘Solar system Exploration’ site, (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/saturn-moons/titan/overview/) states that, ‘Titan’s atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen, like Earth’s, but with a surface pressure 50 percent higher than Earth’s. Titan has clouds, rain, rivers, lakes and seas of liquid hydrocarbons like methane and ethane. The largest seas are hundreds of feet deep and hundreds of miles wide. Beneath Titan’s thick crust of water ice is more liquid—an ocean primarily of water rather than methane. Titan’s subsurface water could be a place to harbor life as we know it, while its surface lakes and seas of liquid hydrocarbons could conceivably harbor life that uses different chemistry than we’re used to—that is, life as we don’t yet know it’.
Even if it is was found that it isn’t a host for life now, I cant imagine that the same rules don’t apply to its somewhat ordered chaos given how similar this system is. I found myself believing that the universe is attempting to create the conditions for life, and that these conditions at some point have been and will be met again, even if it seems chaotic in nature to us.
Cosmosmagazinecom. (2019). Is nature really chaotic or did we just imagine it?. Retrieved 4 March, 2019, from https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/is-nature-really-chaotic-and-fractal-or-did-we-just-imagine-it
DiscoverMagazine. (1992. Does Chaos Rule the Cosmos?. Retrieved 4 March 2019, from http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/doeschaosrulethe147/
Nasagov. (2019). Solar System Exploration: NASA Science. Retrieved 4 March, 2019, from https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/enceladus/
Nasagov. (2019). Solar System Exploration: NASA Science. Retrieved 4 March, 2019, from https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/saturn-moons/titan/overview/
Wikipediaorg. (2019). Wikipediaorg. Retrieved 4 March, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
It is often said that science fiction is a far more useful predictor of medium to long-term developments in science than any committee of experts. Why is this said? Is it true?
Im not sure there can be definitive answer either way. Google certainly had a good go at initially attempting to bring science fiction to life via their Google x program, spending billions in the process and not really getting much out of it as admirable as the pursuit is. While it is certainly a fun ride, I cant find much in the way of serious science progress that has come from it, although they were able to discover that money cant buy everything in their early days. They seem to have matured somewhat lately.
Developing science fiction from existing scientific theories, proven or unproven however, has given scientists a way to visualize and expand their theories and this in turn helps to drive them forwards.
When I consider the film interstellar for example, the director Chris Nollan’s collaboration with astrophysicist, Kip Thorne, and their dedication to creating theoretical and plausible visualizations for the film, presented us with an opportunity to understand and view these theories in new ways. What was also interesting about this approach was the feedback that both the director and the science community received regarding the plausibility off the visualizations, which in turn allowed for the involvement of a much broader community and therefore, awareness. More minds on the job, creating an efficient system of collaboration regarding these ideas.
In one instance, while investigating visualization methods to recreate black holes using particle systems for their visualizations, they were able to create software that exceeded other solutions for simulating black holes that were more accurate than anything that had come before it, improving the way that scientists conducted their experiments in virtual space.
In some instances, I would say that science fiction does find ways of allowing our minds to wander towards new ideas but most of these would be impossible to accomplish. I’m probably leaning more towards using existing science as a place to expand from using science fiction as an extra tool to visualize and experiment with those concepts further. And while some advancements would certainly have been made by simply stretching our imaginations, the important solutions that address our everyday concerns would be more likely be achieved through scientific collaboration.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/x-google-moonshot-factory/540648/
Billings, L. (2014, 28th November). Parsing the Science of Interstellar with Physicist Kip
Thorne. [Weblog]. Retrieved 13 August 2017, from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/parsing-the-science-of-interstellar-with-physicist-kip-thorne/
Rebecca hawkes, R.H. (2017, no-date13th Feb). Interstellar VFX research leads to scientific paper on wormholes. [Weblog]. Retrieved 3 September 2017, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11410919/Interstellar-VFX-research-leads-to-scientific-paper-on-wormholes.html
Robbie gonzalez, R.G. (2017, 17th Feb). The Truth Behind Interstellar's "Scientifically Accurate" Black Hole. [Weblog]. Retrieved 3 September 2015, from http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-truth-behind-interstellars-scientifically-accurate-1686120318?IR=T
history of radio telescopes
To try and add to the discussion I thought I would add a bit of the history of radio telescopes as the discovery of this technology could certainly be considered as an important step towards existing radio communications.
In 1932 a physicist named Karl Jansky, who was an employee of Bell Telephone laboratories, was asked to investigate radio interference for long distance communications, and by creating an antenna system shaped like a merry go round that he would be able to rotate. While I wasn’t able to determine if he had a name for his creation, he was able to use this to differentiate between 3 different types of static signals.
Two of the signals he discovered were coming from varied storm interference, the third of the signals, that was said to have sounded like a hiss, he determined was coming from the centre of our galaxy and was the first instance of evidence that radio signals were generated by astronomical energy and was the beginning of the development of radio astronomy.
Following in this discovery, a radio enthusiast named Grote Reber, while considering existing telescope technology, created a 9.5mtr parabolic dish at his home, and was able to use this to create the first known contour maps of the sky. Later advancements to his design even led to the information being used to develop photographs.
Another first that interested me occurred at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, Mexico. This is currently the worlds second largest single dish radio telescope, and is 305mtrs in diameter, 51mtrs deep. In 1974, it was used to send the first message into space with the intention of contacting extra terrestrial life. The message was a simple picture containing a binary set of numbers describing chemicals of life and DNA, and also included a picture of a stick figure human. This message was 1,679 bits of information, took 3 minutes to send as was sent 21,000 light years away into the globular cluster, M13. Arebico was also known for discovering the first (confirmed) Exo planet, around the pulsar PSR 1257+12, in 1990.
https://earthsky.org/space/this-date-in-science-first-radio-signal-beamed-to-space
https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/museum/RA50.htm
http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Telescopes/Radio-Telescopes-Discovering-the-Invisible-Universe.html
https://www.space.com/20984-arecibo-observatory.html
Space Travel Gradually Becoming a Commonplace
Expanding on Masuma's concerns, it would say it depends on what is meant by 'commonplace' when compared to the aircraft industries progress. it will certainly progress, just to what extent.
If we are to think about the possibility of space travel as a viable commercial exploit the focus seems to be on the technical and financial aspects that would make this possible. Following on the other discussion points here, I have also found that it seems that a lot of these problems will be overcome. Reducing weight through the use of carbon nanotubes is a huge step forwards, new propulsion technologies could well reduce a one-way trip to mars to about 90 days, both of these factors alone will likely reduce costs and the strain on of long term travel ultimately.
Space accommodation has also taken big strides lately with planned attachments to ISS, and even a new space station called AXIOM is in the works to make this a reality very soon. There is even a company planning on setting up shop on the moon to provide fuel for your travels.
Beyond tourism we also have more governments willing to invest larger amounts into space and mostly seem willing to cooperate as a single unit, sharing technological advances. On the flip side of that there is also more being spent on space as part of their defence spending, such as the newly incorporated space force into the Americans air defence force. Given all this extra spending by both government and private bodies we are certainly in for some exciting times when it comes to fairly commonplace space travel.
Where I begin to have my doubts though is the idea that when it comes to being able to take a quick trip into space to see mars for our next holiday, there may not be enough people willing to go for the development of technologies required to enable us to spend extended periods there. Space habitats that would enable long term stays would need to be ridiculously expensive. Considering that just one of those human needs for a long term stay to requires anti-gravity. While possible, the solution needs to involve a rotating space station, spinning at 360kph and 1km in diameter and it would still be awfully uncomfortable. This is only possible if enough people want to actually live in space, and while there is a need for it. This kind of tech isn’t going to be introduced for the few that actually need to be there beyond tourism, considering that a lot of work they are planning is based on cheaper alternatives such as using autonomous tech, and also that its cheaper to just bring them home again, and send up a new group to replace them. Im not convinced that tech in space works the same as here on earth where early adopters of tech generally fund advancement and make our gadgets cheaper.
An example here on earth that I find a little similar is wouldn’t it be awesome to jump into a Ferrari every morning. The reality of owning one is not what you would expect. Its dangerous, the cars are so low its hard to see around traffic, cars slow down and take their eyes of the road and harass and film your every move. It’s hard to stay under the speed limit because they aren’t designed that way. You are harassed by police. Just stopping to get fuel takes forever as you will have a constant stream of people asking questions about it, and parking is a nightmare. As it turns out, a lot of people who own them don’t really enjoy driving them. There are cheaper and more practical ways for us to get around. A quick search about this reveals a lot of varied complaints. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/10-reasons-supercar-isnt-cool-up-2016-12?r=US&IR=T
Owning one is more of romantic idea than a realistic one, and as someone who loves new tech I really want to see science fiction become reality in regards to space travel, but will the reality of living in space live up to expectations. Here is a link to NASA’s romantic dreams of future space travel. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the-future/
It would be so cool to go to space, the power of the trip up, the view for a while, the rest of it doesn’t sound so great. Would I go back? How much do I want to live in space? When I consider the reality, not at all really, like most of us, I like earth actually.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the-future/
Current travel concepts
https://matadornetwork.com/read/6-space-travel-projects-reality/
Weight reduction and Nanotubes
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/gettingtospace/16sep_rightstuff.html
Propulsion
Hotels
Human Costs and Danger
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/how-much-risk-is-space-flight-worth/541935/
https://www.wired.com/story/wired-guide-commercial-space-flight/
https://www.space.com/386-private-promise-danger-space-travel.html
I agree with Milan Sharma’s post that the safety and risk involved could certainly prove to but an uncertainty within commercial space development. Elon musk states in an article on CBNC, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/elon-musk-spacex-and-tesla-were-two-of-the-dumbest-business-ideas.html
"If you were to do a risk-adjusted rate of return estimate on various industry opportunities, I would put building rockets and cars pretty close to the bottom of the list. They would have to be the dumbest things to do," [1].
In 2008 Space X was almost bankrupt after three failed launches and they had one chance left before facing bankruptcy, this luckily proved successful, and they were thrown a life line by NASA for $1.6 Billion for contracts to deliver 10 payloads to the ISS [1]. I mention this to highlight just how fragile business can be among the top commercial space ventures, and how the success or failures of these will certainly have some impact on future commercial investment.
Where the industry might be able to find a sense of stability though is among the governments renewed sense of urgency regarding what could be considered as the new arms race, although on a technology front, occurring between the world most developed nations. And while governments seem to be mostly cooperating in the last decade, this seems set to change, possibly leading to a larger budget and increased opportunities for commercial ventures in security and government contracts.
In 2007 china launches a missile, destroying a satellite in space. Along with increased spending by the Chinese government, this event creates a sense of urgency to improve the security of US owned space craft [2]. In 2013 and 2015, Russian satellites are seen deploying smaller drone like self-powered satellite’s, suspected of spying on other satellite’s and the behaviour of these craft was extremely suspicious and worrying [3]. The threats don’t just come from other nations, the concerns for amateur hacking of satellites is also being taken seriously [4].
Events like these have highlighted the need for governments to create a more unified process to control their space interests as a matter of urgency, prompting the Us government to create its own space force that has been now incorporated in its air force.[5] With this new focus, arrives the need for governments to consider the private sector for cheaper space solutions, [6].
To reduce spending new companies have emerged to solve problems around the repair and maintenance of satellites, along with methods for maintaining their safety such as debris removal and avoidance systems.
A company called Made In Space Inc is developing tech called Archinaut, designed to construct new components in space on demand. North group Grunman is developing CIRAS, a system for robotic system and hardware replacement. And Space Systems Loral is developing Dragonfly, that will allow self-assembly of satellite’s in orbit. They are also working with DARPA in an effort to create a space-based system that will service any satellite on contract wherever needed [7]. The university of Michigan is currently working with Nasa to develop self-healing materials for use in spacecrafts [8]. And private companies are also starting to appear focused on debris removal from the atmosphere [9].
So while the government has decreased its spending and the commercial funding has increased, there can be very little certainty at this stage that this balance will be maintained for the long term.
[2] Wired https://www.wired.com/story/new arms-race-threatening-to-explode-in-space/
[4] OuterPlaces https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17687-us-military-admits-space-weapons-vulnerable-hackers
[5] Nationalgeographic https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/space-force-trump-legal-military-role-satellites-science/
[6] DefenseONe https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/03/military-race-space-will-turn-ability-choose-commercial-services/146675/
[7] NASA https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/irma/index.html
[8] ExtremeTech https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/213063-self-healing-material-could-patch-up-damaged-spacecraft-in-under-a-second
Peony’s choice of ‘The Martian’ Led me to look for similar films depicting the problems faced with living on a new planet. In the film “The Titan’, (2018) the story focuses on altering the human body to be better suited for long term planetary travel and settlement on one of Saturn’s many moons [1]. While the film didn’t receive very good reviews and is certainly on the extreme scale of what it might take to accomplish this, it did lead me to think about the potential difficulties we may face and the toll it might have on our bodies.
While gene editing has for long time been considered unethical, it hasn’t stopped scientists from experimenting with the possibilities, and the current space travel considerations seems to have increased the interest in this research regarding the benefits that this could have for a future that involves space resettlement
In China recently there has been a debate and outrage from the international community directed at Dr.He Jiankui’s claim that he had edited the genes of to embryos to make them resistant to the H.I.V virus, and that those babies are developing and healthy. One of the concerns raised is that while this may be true, they don’t yet know enough to be confident the removal of this gene won’t cause other issues, most seem to be certain that it will [2].
These potential problems certainly haven’t stopped others from trying to perfect this process in animals to create a more resistant species, and now with the knowledge that this may one day be required for planetary settlement, I can’t see this technique being contained permanently [3].
Harvard geneticist George Church has identified 40 genes that could our bodies resistance to problems with long term space travel, such as CTNNBI that could possibly help with radiation resistance, LRP5 that can strengthen bones and ABC11 that could allow individuals to produce less odour [4]. This work may also lead to the development of human gene sequences being imprinted onto bacteria, populating the new planet with new life through the spread of bacteria as part of a 500-year plan to inhabit new plants with humans [5]. While this may seem like a crazy solution, its actually a viable and possible solution that is being considered.
On a more socially accepted note, NASA has been experimenting with the modification of plants that could potentially grow in Mars. Both to be used as a food source as well as having the benefit of creating oxygen in its atmosphere [6].
It certainly seems as though there will be some form or other of genetically engineered astronaut in the future, it will be a matter of to what extremes they are prepared to go to accomplish this.
[1] The Titan, (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4986098/?ref_=tt_urv
[2] Livescience.https://www.livescience.com/64166-first-genetically-modified-babies-risks.html
[3] The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/24/genetically-engineered-animals-the-five-controversial-science
[4] Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604142/engineering-the-perfect-astronaut/
[5] Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-jason-pontin-genetic-engineering-for-mars/
[6] NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/mars_plants.html
While reading Seungyoen Kim’s post, I disagreed with modifying ourselves to adapt to A.I, and believe this could raise even more terrifying concerns regarding ways in which A.I could potentially cause harm to humans. I do agree though that we need to know how to protect ourselves from the development of A.I from deciding that it should eliminate humans as a way for it to protect itself. Understanding if A.I will ultimately be capable of, or even arrive at this conclusion, raises a lot of questions that should be addressed prior to uploading our consciousness into a combined system. Without definitive proof, it seems more a matter of being afraid of what could happen, than a certainty of what will happen. Stephen Hawking suggested that the development of A.I, could spell the end of the human race [1].
Will A.I even try to protect itself, as it isn’t a living creature so why should it develop code to be concerned about that? A.I’s are not designed to survive, they are after all, programmed to solve very specific problems [2]. Problems can begin to arise when A.I is asked to consider questions relating to the well being of humans. Such as in the U.S court system where it began to racially profile Black Americans as twice as likely to re-offend than white people. These decisions were then used by the courts in informing their decisions. The A.I had essentially developed racism [3]. Considering this, there should be a clear distinction between questions and solutions. Asking a computer to answer a question, can be concerning although we can still decide for ourselves how to use this information. But as humans, asking A.I to solve our problems becomes a little scary, especially when we can guess that some of the most efficient ways of dealing with a problem, could mean our eradication.
If we were to ask A.I to solve the problem of maintaining our bio diversity for example, A.I might consider that although we represent just 001% of all bio diversity, we have destroyed 83% of animals and half of the worlds plants and destroying humans might be a good start [4]. Similar solutions might arise if we ask it to solve the problem of humans having an impact on our climate. I think that it’s our own awareness of who we are that bothers us most, as we probably don’t want A.I solving some of the negative aspects of what we already know about ourselves. If we expect A.I to solve problems that essentially give rise to answers relating to our existence, we should expect problems. This leads to me to think that once A.I leads to singularity, we might need to develop systems that aren’t able to consider certain solutions.
Isaac Asimov’s proposed three laws of robotics that suggest, ‘A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law’ [5]. It’s an interesting concept, although the problems with misinterpretation of these laws, has often been highlighted for us in science fiction films such as ‘I Robot’, and ‘The Terminator’.
I consider that similar, although more appropriate laws and restrictions on the limits of A.I capabilities, would seem like a more logical step forwards than uploading our minds into a collective system that at this point we do have reason some to be concerned about already.
[1]. Livescience, https://www.livescience.com/62775-humans-why-scared-of-ai.html
[2]. Techopedia, https://www.techopedia.com/why-superintelligent-ais-wont-destroy-humans-anytime-soon/2/33619
[3].The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses
[4]. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
[5]. Defense, https://defense.cioreview.com/cioviewpoint/will-artificial-intelligence-destroy-humanity-nid-25882-cid-217.html
I chose to discuss ‘Physics of the impossible: How to travel to a parallel universe’, that considers three different ways in which we might discover a parallel universe.
The first one discussed was the theory of ‘Infinite Universes’. The idea of this argues that the universe is likely flat and is infinite, although if it goes on forever, at some point it needs repeat itself as there only so many ways that particles can be arranged [1]. Next, we had the ‘Bubble Theory’. This involved external expansion that caused the universe to inflate like a balloon. Some pockets of space slowed eventually while others continued, creating many different inflated universes [2]. And lastly, we looked at ‘Brane theory’. This idea is based on another theory called the string theory, and considers that at a quantum levels, there are further elements inside quarks and electrons, called strings that vibrate, and that these vibrations are due to them existing in multiple dimensions at the same time. Brane theory considers that those dimensions represent flat planes in space that are untraceable [3].
In the past ten years since the airing of this series, other theories that have been seriously considered as contenders to these have emerged. Such as ‘Daughter universes’ and ‘Mathematical universes’ [1]. And then there are some very crazy sounding scientifically supported ideas, such as the idea that we live in a simulation like the matrix [4].
Parallel worlds have for a long time been considered as our collective psyche, stemming from ideas of spirituality, reincarnation, heaven and hell, and even the role of our own sub conscious, and now our attention has turned to dark matter and quantum physics. While media has certainly helped to drive our imaginations, scientific theories regarding parallel worlds are surprisingly not only now considered plausible, some consider it more than likely. Michio Kaku suggests in ‘Physics of the impossible: How to travel to a parallel universe’, https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyxd6n , ‘There are worlds sitting on planes just above or below our own, and that our universe is contained on thin sheets, is far from fiction’. And Neil Toruk, from the ‘Perimeter Institute’, states, ‘That the ordinary understanding of what reality is, we know is completely wrong’. I find the current scientific communities’ engagement and belief, in a field of study that so far has yielded little proof a little bit odd, and this why I find myself disagreeing with it. Only one of these can be accurate if any at all as they have all been developed to support two different theories, and those theories also remain unproven.
The hunt for dark matter (Neutralino’s) is based on the concept that there is 84% of the universe that is unrepresented by bright matter (Neutrinos). Dark matter is the term used to describe what the missing volume must be. This in itself is based on the theory that there must be something missing that we can’t see, because stars on the outer edge of the galaxy are rotating faster than expected. This assumption doesn’t make any of those theories correct as its yet to be proven, if it exists, is still as elusive as it’s ever been. This is one of the main arguments behind parallel worlds, that dark matter could be the result of forces created in another dimension [5], and the physics behind quantum behaviour, specifically string theory, is also yet to be fully understood and is also used as a reason for the possible existence of parallel worlds [3]. As amazing as it would be to discover these other realms exist, and am excited in the prospect of it as the scientist are themselves, at this time I would have to imagine that the idea of parallel worlds is most certainly in the fiction category, and I would be no less surprised if the next generation of telescopes discovered a bearded, cross legged, meditating hippy floating in space who did indeed create this whole show.
[1]. https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html
[3]. https://societyofmodernastronomy.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/the-brane-multiverse/
[4]. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix
[5]. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/the-dark-matter-crisis/#.XJI6raAzaUk
Since 1962 many attempts have been made to contact and detect aliens and these efforts have raised a lot of ideas regarding what the best method would be for communication. Most of these discussions seem to rely on aliens having some sort of advanced intellect. As early as 1972 when a golden record was sent into space on the pioneer 10 spacecraft, the visual content on this record contained very advanced ideas to understand even for humans. Mathematical formulas and descriptions of time units and even a formula for hydrogen described using binary coding [1].
The use of binary coding sent via radio telescopes has for a long time been the standard method of sending messages into space that are designed to contact aliens. There are no guarantees that this type of coding will be understood to any degree, so modern attempts consist of sending a lot more variation in the data to improve our chances that something will be understood [2].
Recent attempts to send light beams into space to seem like a more positive step forward [3]. Even if the binary data contained with the light or radio source doesn’t get a reaction through misinterpretation, the nonstandard nature of the light or radio signals could serve to attract attention hopefully followed by questions raised about its source.
I think our chances of contact would start with these types of simplified introductions, and If we were to make contact and meet face to face, it would make more sense to look at this from a perspective of life communicating with life, as this is something we already have some experience with. In a lot of cases being able to understand the initial intentions of another form of life is something that is built in, even if it can sometimes take some time to reach an unspoken understanding. [4].
If I consider our relationship with sea creatures, while we are out of the water and attempting to go in for a closer look, it’s very unusual for a fish to hang around and its obvious to us that they feel threatened, but if we stick on a pair of goggles on and enter into their environment, they suddenly become extremely friendly. It’s possible an alien meeting would go better if it didn’t occur initially on earth.
Dogs are another good example to learn from, we can’t always read each other’s signals, but we can quickly come to an understanding. And when we consider the words they appear to understand, this is also more of a general idea of what’s being communicated than any sort of defined idea of what’s being described [5]. This lack of understanding doesn’t stop either from learning from each other even if it is in a limited way. The realization that we are still in the dark at what our animal friends are thinking, is an indication of how difficult communication with aliens could be.
Not matter what type of ideas we were to arrive at pre-emptively, it will still probably come down to natural instincts and we will adjust our actions accordingly, this might then enable us to increase our understanding of each other from there.
[1]. Planetary, http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2016/0120-the-pioneer-plaque-science-as-a-universal-language.html
[2]. How Stuff Works, https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/communicating-with-aliens-is-hard-communicating-with-alien-ai-could-be-harder.htm
[3]. Big Think, https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/mit-laser-beacon-attract aliens?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
[4]. BBC, http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150706-humans-are-not-unique-or-special
[5]. Astronomy, http://astronomy.com/bonus/alien-contact
7: Is the current rate of technological change accelerating compared to other times in history?
When I think about the history of technological change that my grandparents went through, I have my doubts that we will ever see this type of rapid advancement again. From no electricity, letters being the only form of communication, horse and carts, no air travel and the idea of going into space considered a ridiculous concept, to what we have achieved today, I find little comparison to what I have seen in my own lifetime. There have been many incremental changes to the ways in which we do all these things since I was young, although technological and human boundaries have become harder to overcome as we have advanced through time.
These incremental changes do eventually add up, although it’s not very often that I am surprised by new technology. One example of why this occurs is the Olympics. As new technology pushes athletes to their limits, records tumble, but the Olympic organization has begun to struggle with an image problem, as technology and human boundaries begin to find their limits [1]. This isn’t the only reason public interest in the event has dwindled, although it is a factor and investment towards finding human limits is reduced as a result [2].
While this isn’t an overwhelming life changing difference to humanities progression, it’s a clear example of how humans and technology begins to catch up with itself. How fast do we need travel and how fast can we? How much faster do we need to transmit data? If most internet users are content with downloading at a gigabyte a second, investment will slow accordingly.
This is something that seems to be occurring now in a large variety of markets, along with technology reaching a point of smaller incremental improvements, our phones, TV’s, the quality of our clothes and shoes, improved manufacturing processes and materials leading to cheaper longer lasting products, all of this increases pressure for companies to attain a high enough percentage of the dwindling markets to continue operating. As fewer companies stay invested in a technology, the amount of competition and resources put into a respective technologies’ development begins to slow [3].
There are new technologies on the horizon that will introduce substantial change and are often described as the next big thing to change the world, although most of these seem gimmicky and will only affect a limited market, and only within the developing nations. Smart homes, A.I, Robotic Automation, Faster internet, Quantum computing are a few examples [4].
Where I think the world will benefit most from arising technology are in the fields of biotech, gene editing such as Crispr, advancements in renewable energy sources and climate and biodiversity protections [5]. While I have no doubts we are yet to see substantial changes to the way we do things because of technologies still to come, I don’t see anything that points to the type of broad changes that have occurred across so many areas of technology and have benefited such a large percentage of the earth’s population, in the same way that it has in the past.
[1]. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/12/olympic-records-time-numbers-mathematics
[3]. NYTimes, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-market.html
[4]. Entrepreneur, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/310204
[5]. BBC, http://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/20170905-33-ideas-that-will-change-the-world
While only the size of a grain of rice, RFID- NFC (Near Field Communications) devices might not seem as exciting as bionic eyes and prosthetic improvements in regard to biotech body modifications, but I see it as a soft approach that will ultimately lead to further adoption of a whole range of bio additions in the future. Just as we have become used to clicking ‘Install’ despite all the private access our new phone apps ask us for, implanted NFC devices could be heading in the same direction.
It wasn’t that long ago that my dog disappeared and ended up in a pound, I finally tracked him down and was informed that they wouldn’t release him unless he was microchipped. For dogs at least, it had suddenly become mandatory. I don’t see it being that far fetched that one day we would find ourselves in a similar situation, minus the threat of captivity and eventual euthanasia as was the case with poor Ajax.
A UK firm called Biotech has already begun micro chipping employees of some corporations in England and has been in talks with various firms considering this idea. One of those companies has over 100,000 employees. A few banks and financial institutions have already micro chipped their employees as way to improve security, and shipments of this technology have already been sent to companies in Spain, France, Germany, Japan and China [1].
Not everyone thinks this is a good idea as it certainly raises privacy concerns. The accessible data and uses for this technology could extend to identification, medical and health information as well as information about all of your connected devices such as your phone, access passwords, credit cards, travel pass information and other data storage [2].
Getting the public used to this idea seems to be initially sold as a great convenience. Ultimately it could be used as the hub that will enable communication with any other NFC connected device, and this will enable any device used with it to affectively become an extension of your body. Companies developing these technologies seems to be enforcing the idea that we get to leave our wallet and keys at home, and why wouldn’t we want that! [3].
The first stage is public acceptance and not unlike our phone apps, we might eventually just hit install as the inconvenience of not having this chip will become to much of a hinderance, and we might begin to feel left out if we don’t have one. Like the old lady paying for her groceries with the small change in her purse, as we fumble around for our wallets to retrieve the right card and finally pay for our goods, we might start to see a lot of foot tapping and eyes rolling in the que behind us as we do.
[1]. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/11/alarm-over-talks-to-implant-uk-employees-with-microchips
[2]. Govtech, https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/chip-implants-the-next-big-privacy-debate.html
[3]. Redbull, https://www.redbull.com/au-en/bionic-chip-implants-in-humans-interview
I don’t consider threats bought about by manmade events to be our greatest challenges still to come, my concerns come from naturally occurring events that we are probably unprepared for. The asteroid that contributed to the fall of the dinosaurs was about 70kms wide, a much smaller asteroid at about 1.5kms wide can have the potential to wipe out an entire nation, as well as causing long term problems for survivors worldwide [1]. It’s not only the impact we need to worry about. Tsunamis, climate change, shockwaves and air toxicity are all side effects of a strike that could potentially have global effects [2].
While its estimated that around a third of the near-earth asteroids have been detected, around 8000, that leaves a lot of unknown threats still out there. As recently as December 2018, a large explosion equivalent to that of 11.5 Hiroshima bombs was detected, there was no warning of the strike before it occurred. Luckily this happened over the ocean in the baring straight and there were no casualties [3].
A 30-meter meteor was witnessed in the Russian region of Chelyabinsk in 2013, it exploded while passing through our atmosphere creating a shock wave that damaged 7000 buildings, shattering windows and injuring 900 people. The asteroid was also undetected even though by coincidence, another asteroid called 2012 DA14 was being tracked and performed a close fly by of earth on the same day [4].
It is estimated that there is another 17000 ‘potentially hazardous asteroids’ (PHA’s) out there that they are currently unable to track due to the lack of funding, while the government has given NASA a deadline to track 90% of near earth asteroids (NEA’s) up to 140 meters in size by 2020, they think this result is still 30 years away. There is a space-based telescope project called NeoCam underway that could improve our chances but as yet a launch of this system has not been approved [5].
If we do manage to achieve early detection, Nasa has been working on technology that will allow robotic space craft to deflect asteroids, and other ideas have included international efforts at using explosives to change their orbit as well [6]. But even if we can track these asteroids at this stage there isn’t much that we can do to prevent the devastation from occurring other than trying to get out of its way.
[1]. Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1092674/Asteroid-warning-when-hit-asteroid-destroy-city-michio-kaku-asteroid-danger
[2]. Neo Shield, http://www.neoshield.eu/greatest-danger-not-asteroid-impact/
[3]. Extreme Tech, https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/287886-nasa-reports-undetected-asteroid-explosion-in-upper-atmosphere
[4]. New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23178-russian-meteor-will-teach-us-about-future-bigger-hits/
[5]. BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47607696
[6]. Space, https://www.space.com/40943-nasa-asteroid-defense-plan.html
There seems to be a lot of fear mongering going on when it comes to the effect that artificial intelligence and automation will have on the unemployment rates. Bill Gates believes in high unemployment and suggests a robot tax to avoid a government tax shortfall and to provide a way for business to contribute to the re training of employees and new job opportunities [1]. Andrew Yang is a 2020 Presidential candidate running on his promises of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). A UBI grants guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month, to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18. Although this suggests an extreme scenario that assumes suddenly everyone will be struggling to find employment [2].
A recent report in the UK considers that the combination of artificial intelligence and automation could replace 7 million jobs over the next 20 years, although this should also lead to a reduction in costs and an increase in investment and could potentially generate 7.2 million jobs. A 2013 study at Oxford university originally suggested that half of the jobs in the US and a third in the UK would be at risk, but this has recently been adjusted to 10 percent in the US, and 12 percent in the UK [3].
Economists use standard models when considering these statistics, the displacement effect, the productivity effect and the creation effect. Displacement has a negative impact on employment opportunities, productivity is positive, and creation is also positive. A lot of the reporting about the issue seems to focus on automation displacement and ignores the others.
Most jobs consist of completing multiple tasks and many of those will still be accomplished by a human even if some are automated. If your job consists entirely of automatable tasks, then you’re probably going to lose your job. To date of the 270 job categories in the US, only one has been completely replace by automation and that’s the former job of elevator operator. Initially, routine non-cognitive jobs were replaced, now we are beginning to see routine cognitive tasks being completed by automation as well. Non routine cognitive jobs are unlikely to be replaced anytime soon [4].
Employees might also begin to find greater job security and interest in their jobs, compared to working in a repetitive task environment. More human relatable skills will be in higher demand as robots take over mundane roles. This has happened in the past and things have stabilized without too much disruption [5].
I don’t really agree that disaster is on the horizon and imagine a smooth transition into a broader automation environment. While its certain to reduce opportunities to some degree, automation won’t be accessible initially to every business that could use it, and it will take some time before we see a large amount of jobs disappear. I imagine a more likely outcome for a lot of positions would be modified tasks, higher wages and shorter weeks
[1]. https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/
[2].https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/
[5].https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/20/robots-stealing-jobs-digital-age
The mechanics trade and job description has gone through a lot of changes since the dawn of the industrial age, and with those changes many thought their jobs would be at risk. In 1967, Volkswagen introduced the world’s first mass-produced fuel injection systems in their cars, while the technology had been around since the 1940’s, it took another 27 years for this development to occur. It wasn’t until 1995, that the last of the carburettor-based engines were replaced with injection as part of a broader set of rules regulating vehicle emissions [1].
With the advent of fuel injection, an Electronic Control Unti (ECU) was introduced to enable the engine management necessary for adjustments to the fuel system, replacing the need for manual service and tuning. Some mechanics began to struggle as the newer models would need to be serviced at specific dealers, unlike the past where dropping into any service mechanics would have been fine, each model of car now had its own software for the job.
Vehicle sensors were slowly introduced into this system, emission control, lighting, temperature and fluid levels to name a few. Now when you will take your car in and they will connect a few cables and the computer informs the mechanic of any car related problems, the mechanic replaces any parts, the computer tunes it. The concerns about mechanics losing their jobs to automation was unfounded, these progressive updates took about 70 years and not everything can be automated [2].
For the early seventies car manufacturing plants have been using automation to speed up production. While more efficient, mechanics are still required for supervising production and quality assurance on the final products. General motors and Volkswagen both failed at their attempts at full automation in the eighties, and recently Elon Musk had to admit that his plan at fully automating the Tesla production line was also a failure. Initially assuring investors a 5000 per week turnaround, they could only manage half of this. It was less efficient and 90 % of vehicles had defects compared to Toyota who had only 10% using a partly automated process. Eventually they hired a human workforce in order to meet deadlines and he admitted that he had vastly underestimated the productivity of the traditional workforce [3].
Costs also increased as there was a need to replace traditional mechanics with highly paid mechanical and electrical engineers, there was also the extra cost of the advanced systems, and errors in any part of the system would hold up entire production lines [4].
Mechanics are needed now as much as they always have been despite the concerns that their need would be reduced, with each new development serving as an aid to improve their quality and efficiency.
[1].AutoNews, https://www.autonews.com/article/20040823/SUB/408230807/electronic-fuel-injection-a-history-lesson
[2].SuperStreetOnline, http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/interior-electrical/1509-history-of-engine-management-systems/
[3].Arstechnica, https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/experts-say-tesla-has-repeated-car-industry-mistakes-from-the-1980s/
[4].Medium, https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/tesla-proves-technology-is-not-always-the-solution-3aa27f55485