Technology...
Such an interesting notion, isn't it?
To this day, there's practically nothing we cannot do to eliminate over 90% of issues that are happening in the world.
Poverty, hunger, homelessness, inequality, 'energy crisis'... even majority of diseases (the so-called 'deadly ones' as-well).
All of those issues are technical problems.
Some might argue and say: 'no, they're political'.
Political?
Mind if I ask you people... when was the last time a politician actually solved a problem?
Ask any politician a question such as one of below:
'How do you intend to solve the problem of water scarcity?'
The usual answer: 'I don't know.'
'How do you intend to solve the problem of homeless people?'
-'I don't know.'
'How do you intend to solve the energy crisis?'
-'I don't know.'
'How do you intend to solve traffic congestion and public transport problems?'
-'I don't know.'
'How do you intend to solve the problem of 'food shortage'?'
-'I don't know.'
'I don't know.'... or 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it'... are the usual responses of typical politicians.
My favorites are people who claim they will improve things... and when they get into the office (regardless of where on the planet you may be) they often end up doing whatever they want, the exact opposite and even nothing that was ever promised.
So... why do people continuously cling to the notion of government (which time and time again fails to solve fundamental problems of society) and keep repeating the same mistake by 'electing' people into positions of power somehow thinking that things will change?
It's possible that a lot of individuals grew accustomed to the notion of a government that they can't see a 'society' functioning without one.
However... there's another possibility.
The general population lack's exposure to relevant general education (I'm not referring to 'industrialized academic education') and as such are prone to being manipulated and used.
Oh and, they 'delegate' decision making to other people (the government).
It's a funny thing actually... on one hand, a lot of people seemingly advocate for humans to be able to 'think for themselves and in a critical capacity', 'to question things', 'arrive at informed decisions', to be 'problem solvers'... and yet, they have this nasty tendency to go support the notion of having a 'government' which essentially contradicts everything they seem to 'advocate'.
Now... what is 'relevant general education'?
One would hope it means being exposed to as much data as possible in all subjects relating to man, arrived at through the scientific method and also being informed of what our technological capabilities are and what can be done.
But see here... our society doesn't really work like that. Does it?
Most people seem to be 'educated' for the purpose of 'getting a job' and 'working for a living'.
Highly specialized education for that matter.
We are NOT being informed of where we are in terms of technology... we are NOT being informed of just what is the real situation with our resources... we are NOT being encouraged or taught to be 'problem solvers'.
No... the purpose of the current academic system is to test you (for the most part) how well you're 'following orders' so you can 'get a job', 'make money' (for someone else) and thus be considered 'productive' to society.
Productive?
Here's a little newsflash:
Over 80% of the global workforce is in the service industry which is completely 'unproductive' to society at large, and people in such positions often simply make money on the 'movement' of said money.
'Money'...
A tool used to facilitate the means of exchange.
Would it surprise you to know it became useless/worthless over 100 years ago?
How?
Simple. Get comfy because here's a little history lesson:
By the late 19th century, humanity perfected recycling technology (by being able to recycle heavy metals), so we effectively gained the ability to break matter down into base elements and reconstitute it into something else, or turn it into an alternative energy source (actually, this sort of practice was prevalent before that time, but it included heavy metals in the late 19th century).
To supplement this notion, by this time, humanity already piled tonnes upon tonnes of trash on out fair planet... all of which could have been utilized to create superior synthetic (man-made) materials that are: light, durable, stronger, etc. (thanks to our ability to manipulate and synthesize them in abundance) compared to currently used materials ('cheap' or 'cost effective').
In 1891, Nikola Tesla demonstrated a working prototype device for wireless power transfer. Admittedly, that prototype did suffer from relatively low efficiency (35% to 40%), however, by contrast, low efficiency in power transfer through WIRED means is also common today (thanks to in large part to the outdated infrastructure [in most cases by about 60 years, others by 100 and over] the world still uses).
Oh and, Tesla also perfected his wifi power transfer prototype several years later and bumped efficiency all the way up to 90%.
His idea was to give the world free energy... and the moment this notion effectively got out, his funding was cut on the grounds that the costs exceeded original budgets.
By this time, humanity already had the ability for converting wind into electricity - yields were low, but it was viable to be used as a supplement.
However, by 1911, a first geothermal power plant came into operation (producing electricity and heat at the same time) with CO2 emissions up to 100x lower (negligible - and could be mitigated easily) compared to coal power plants of those times (including ones today).
By 1929 (when the first great depression struck the planet), the globe could have transitioned to geothermal power for baseload production, with wind being used as a supplement.
Where would we get the resources needed to construct all those power plants - you might ask?
Simple: from using raw matter on the landfills that piled up all over the surface of this planet. Recycling materials from those landfills and converting them into man-made materials required for construction of tools, buildings, power-plants, electronics or technology in general was/is actually easier than it was/is to extract 'fresh' materials and convert those from the Earth itself.
There is never 'enough money' to make things happen (especially what I described above) because it would be 'cost prohibitive' (possible from a resource/technological point of view, but not 'cheap' in monetary terms).
How about we simply discard the moronic notion of 'money' in the first place and get rid of these artificial limitations we imposed on ourselves (which at one point in our history were practical, but have been used as an obstacle which prevents us from making serious changes and strides in our technological evolution for just over 100 years that could have made all of our lives a lot better).
Why did the great depression happen?
Mixed opinions on this one.
But... I do think many will agree it was effectively due to the socio-economic system we imposed on ourselves.
The 'monetary system' to be exact.
Lots of people lost their jobs. Why did this happen? Automation/mechanization which eliminated the need for most human labor and replaced it with machines that made the job a lot faster, easier/more efficient - while humans served for the purpose of either operating or maintaining the machines in question (all in all a minuscule number of humans was required compared to the previous workforce).
Back in 1929... we had an ample supply of material goods, food and houses to provide for EVERYONE... but without 'money', those who were out of jobs were in no position to get any of these.
A lot of you may already know that the USA started making money out of effectively thin air, with nothing to back it up (because the national debt exceeded the amount of physical gold in existence) which is how the depression ended, and it also prompted creation of new jobs - mainly in the service industry (which is where the majority of the workforce is).
Today, we are experiencing a similar economic downturn, only this time, no new markets will appear.
It is accurate to say that in the past, technology closed certain sectors to humans and opened up new ones, but this is no longer valid because automation is already developed to such a high degree that NO ONE is 'irreplaceable'. Actually, as of right now, you have millions of algorithms running on servers as I write this, learning our habits, even things that we hadn't even heard of before, let alone trained for. And those algorithms are learning things at exponential levels.
A human being simply isn't capable of keeping up with that kind of level of processing, not to mention data input.
Humans require time to learn new things. And by the time they learn them, there is no guarantee that this line of work hasn't already been automated.
Robotic arms were invented in 1956. They didn't reach commercial use though until 1963... however, that doesn't mean we couldn't use them right away.
These arms revolutionized the production industry as we know it and eliminated majority of humans from the workforce.
Did they re-train for something else? Not all (because they couldn't afford it), and those that did often found themselves in a situation where automation already displaced them by the time they were done re-training.
Also... why insist on using humans for construction jobs and production in the first place?
We are slow, inefficient, require breaks, pension, sick days, etc. A machine (a specialized machine) needs nothing of the kind sans for energy and some maintenance (mind you, if we were designing things from best possible materials we can make and to make them durable, not to mention simple and easy to upgrade... maintenance would be needed in minimum portions, if ever - today we have machines that make other machines, maintain themselves, etc.).
So, we had the technology to create abundance over a century ago... and yet... we still continued to use money.
Why?
Lack of relevant education (perpetual state of ignorance of the general population and of course the unwillingness of the world's 'elite' to change things).
Just as it happened before and is a common occurrence today... the general population lacks exposure to information pertaining to our capabilities.
Anyone remember how people kept saying 'we will never break the sound barrier'?
Well, 5 years after the statement was made, it was broken.
Anyone remember how people also said 'we'll never get to the moon - it won't happen in a million years.'
It was accomplished in less than a decade after the statement was uttered.
This notion that 'things won't change' or that something is 'impossible'... where does it come from?
Well... forgive me for saying this, but it's lack of information (ignorance).
Here are a few more technological inventions that were made some time ago for you to consider:
Solar panels: invented in the 1950's.
Could have synthesized more than enough for every home on the planet (again using the landfills) and making them out of superior synthetic materials (and not 'cheap'/'affordable' ones as we do now) by 1970's.
When humanity launched its first mechanical satellite into orbit ('Sputnik'), scientists also thought of the idea of putting solar panels onto future satellites as a way of powering them.
The idea of orbital solar collectors was not a new one by then. By late 1980's we could have placed plenty of orbital solar collectors into orbit for accumulating solar energy (which is about 20 times larger in orbit due to a lack of atmosphere to filter it out) which would in turn beam that power through wireless means to us on the ground 24/7 (the wifi power transfer is harmless to humans, animals and the Earth in general, and the atmosphere would NOT impede efficiency of the power transfer - no losses).
Mag-lev trains were invented in 1974 with fastest overground train reaching speeds of 400 km/h (250miles/h)... capable of going even faster (up to 600km/h or 370miles/h).
Mag-lev technology since the moment it was invented was/is 10 times more energy efficient (requires 10x less power to run), and it requires very little maintenance (due to it being envisioned like that in the first place).
Also... in 1974, it was established by scientists that it would be possible to create a mag-lev train that runs inside a vacuum tube which would reach velocities of 6500km/h (4000 miles/h) with the technology and knowledge at the time, in abundance no less (basically creating a full network for trans-continental trips.
Imagine... by mid/late 1980's you could have been using mag-lev trains to circle the world in just a few hours and arrive at more local destinations using the slower overground version.
Let's put a few things about 'energy crisis' into perspective:
In 2006, an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13,000 zettajoules of power are currently available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily tap-able with improved technology (enhanced geothermal systems for one thing and regular ones).
We also have atmospheric wind generators that could supply the entire world with power hundreds of times over.
Solar heat concentrators: if we install them on 1.3% of the Sahara desert surface area, would be enough to power the entire planet (while 0.3% of Sahara would be enough to power the entire Europe).
These figures are not an exaggeration btw.
You can check more here:
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-and-wind-power.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120909150446.htm
Also... technology in circulation today is decades, up to a century behind in what we are capable of creating.
Why would I say that?
Cost/cost efficiency.
'Cost efficiency' = 'Technical inefficiency'.
Care to elaborate?
Well... companies that are on the market have to conform to certain rules.
They also have to be profitable for 'long term success' which means that in order to generate more profits within a monetary based system, you need to stimulate consumers to buy things at a regular basis to keep the money flowing.
Planned obsolescence is important here because it prompts people to either repair, replace or in general spend loads of money trying to fix the issue with their purchase (however possible).
We don't design products to 'last' or to be 'the best that we can possibly make from a technological point of view in a sustainable fashion' - no, we make things so they are 'profitable' and we use 'cost effective' (cheap) materials and means of production to do it. If things weren't bad enough, we design them with planned obsolescence in mind (easy or quick to break or become 'outdated') which results in cyclical consumption and endless waste.
And no... planned obsolescence does nothing for 'technological evolution'.
Most products on the market are quite similar in form/function/capabilities, with minor revisions ensuing once every 12 to 24 months giving boosts in efficiency and performance - however, that doesn't mean the companies in question couldn't have maximized the material's potential from the start (to the best of their knowledge at the time). Of course they could have. So instead of reducing the manufacturing process incrementally, they could have provided us with the smallest possible manufacturing process the material would allow with maybe 1 year delay... if it was done from the start.
Commercial companies like Intel already have fully developed and operational chips that are much more powerful/better and on a smaller manuf. process compared to the products they currently have on sale. The 'big news' of smaller manuf. processes and more efficiency are nothing more than old news that are being overhyped because they predominantly rely on consumer's lack of information to get away with it (and it works because as sad as it may be, the general population simply doesn't know better).
Consider the following:
A semiconductor made from synthetic diamonds along with means of production was patented in 1996.
Which means that by 1997 or 1998 at the latest we could have had a hybrid of silicon/diamond electronic computer chips.
Synthetic diamonds (man-made ones which have a higher purity and efficiency compared to 'regular' diamonds) have an extremely high thermal threshold (2000 degrees Celsius), and their properties at enhancing efficiency numerous times over was well known in the 90-ies.
If used in hybrid form wherever possible, it would improve computational capabilities by at least a factor of 40, while also lowering power consumption and eliminating the need for active cooling (which is one of the largest power gauging equipment in computers today) because diamonds would allow computers to run at much larger frequencies and temperatures without heating up at all or producing any heat (unless you reach 2000 degrees C at which point diamonds would begin to degrade) which in turn eliminates need for active cooling (as stated earlier).
By the year 2000, computer chips and most/all electronics could have been made from synthetic diamonds and computers would be about 40x more powerful, efficient, with more features, etc.
Silicon electronics are woefully outdated. Competition within a monetary system may only serve as means to lower the prices in certain situations (but as we all see from real life examples, such instances are rare at most as prices are well within each others range between competing products - and competition does nothing for technological innovation or evolution as a whole).
Most electronic gadgets and technology for consumers are basically duplicates of each other and come very close to function/form (albeit different features).
Sure, there are increases in power efficiency and processing power once ever 12 to 24 months (depending), but those are revisions of existing technology... they are certainly not leaps or innovations.
An innovation would be for the market to use synthetic diamonds as a material that would produce extremely thin and leaps/bounds more powerful electronics... but we know that won't happen anytime soon because let's face it: silicon is a multi-billion $ industry. Which means that if the market can still milk consumers for all they are worth using existing materials, they will.
That doesn't mean however that they couldn't have actively worked on release 10nm electronics 5 years ago.
They could have... but the more profitable route is to decrease the manufacturing process every 2 years or so (which follows Moore's law that the number of transistors will double every 2 years because their cost will come down) and sell them as something 'new' (while its nothing more than a marginal bump).
Cost has nothing to do with resources or our ability to produce something in abundance, or with highest possible efficiency in mind.
Also... in simplest terms for those who might not be aware, diamonds are nothing more than pressurized carbons.
Which means that its one of the most abundantly occurring substances in the universe (including this planet).
But, we are being told that diamonds are 'scarce' and that this is why 'prices' are high.
DeBeers cartel anyone?
They are a prime example of a company that has a monopoly over a certain resource and can dictate the price tag arbitrarily and keep them high (this is one of the reasons 'new technologies' are deemed 'expensive' and 'cost prohibitive' - and yet we can still produce them with extreme efficiency and in abundance).
It doesn't help the premise that numerous women in the world were brainwashed into thinking 'diamonds are girl's best friend' which of course perpetuates the vicious circle.
Would it be so bad to have a synthetic diamond? One that is actually of much higher purity, quality and possibly 'radiance' compared to the 'mined' ones?
And where is this difference exactly?
Its in your mind.
If you were to try and compare a synthetic diamond ring with a 'real' diamond one, simply speaking, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference - you'd need an electron microscope to do that, because otherwise, they'd be indistinguishable.
And for that matter, you are already probably in possession of a synthetic diamond as is without even knowing it.
Besides both are just as 'real'... except that man-made ones can be far superior in properties.
'Food scarcity' (I beg your pardon... but WHAT?)
People say that there's not enough food to go around. Really? Because I distinctly seem to observe that humanity has been producing 17% more calories per individual for just over 30 years, allowing us to feed 10 billion people every year. And for some reason, we still have close to 1.5 billion on the planet who are starving, and 15 million children who die on an annual basis.
So why aren't we feeding those people?
Well, refresh my memory, but we live in a world that uses money as means of exchange, so we need it first in order to get things that, oh, you know, we need to survive.
Plus, over 50% of the grown food is destroyed.
Why?
Because it cannot be 'sold'.
The western world (in which I live in btw) wastes so much food and kitchens even forbid their employees to take the 'extras' home because it should be scrapped instead.
Oh, but that's not the worst of it. By today, humanity effectively destroyed 30% of arable land on the planet because its using highly invasive chemicals and pesticides (all of which are toxic, end up in our bodies [poisoning us in the process] and lower nutritional value of the food we eat, impeding our immune system and other biological functions because we have a deficit of vitamins and nutrients in our systems).
Now... for the solution.
Hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponics used in vertical farms.
Hydroponics were perfected in 1940's by dr. William Gericke. This techique allows us to grow food without the use of soil (eliminating bugs and various nasties that can ruin crops and subsequently pesticides and chemicals) and utilizing much lower amounts of (nutrient rich) water.
Aquaponics is a combination of hydroponics with growth of food in water (which would receive its nutrients from fish and other marine based life that the plants would take as needed and subsequently clean up the water - yes, 'feces' is the correct term for nutrients... but this is what the plants require for growth).
Sufficed to say, that these techniques could have been used in fully automated (no need for human labor) vertical farms.
Vertical farms imply growing food using Hydroponics, aquaponics and aeroponics in skyscrapers.
This is actually a decades old concept (including with full automation) originating from NASA since the early days of the space program (moon landing).
1 fully automated vertical farm occupying just 1 acre (the size of a football field) and 44 stories high would be enough to feed 613000 people (with 10 different vegetables every day per person).
You can put 15 such structures int the city of London and have enough food to feed over 9 million people (the overall estimated population of the ENTIRE London currently being 8.5 million).
There's more than enough space to pull it off. Practically every major and smaller city on this planet has numerous structures that are currently vacant or just abandoned.
Here's an idea: why don't we harvest those structures for their materials and construct these vertical farms?
The beauty of this approach is that you grow food vertically (in the sky) instead of using land-mass (and destroying it in the process with extremely invasive techniques).
On another notion... most cities on this planet have a problem with homeless people, while at the same time those cities have numerous (vacant) buildings and apartments (in mint condition no less) that could be used to house those homeless people... or combining those numbers on a global basis, there is no reason for anyone on the planet to live in slums or under 'poor living conditions'.
Did you know that we have a self-assembling robot that can print a house in less than 24 hours (with electrical and plumbing system)?
This technology is about 30 years old now (3d printing), but it was 'modified' by a university professor in 2007.
Oh and this robot can also print an entire building (with obviously more time).
The point is... all those people who lost their homes due to natural disasters in USA or other countries and are living in slums as a result - well, there was no reason for them to live in slums.
Put enough of those self-assembling robots on the job and you can have the problem of housing settled in less than 2 weeks for large swats of population.
The purpose of all this?
Well, for one thing, I had these thoughts and felt it would be prudent to write them down so they would be visible to others for consideration.
Also... if you've made it this far, do not take everything I say at face value or for granted.
By all means, I encourage you to verify/check this information for yourselves and hopefully it will prompt you to arrive at a decision through informed means.
Signing off for now folks...
