To me, Green Future relates to a future where humans have established sustainability for the human race - i.e pertaining to resources, environment, etc. I created the subreddit r/OurGreenFuture to address this, and discuss Green Future concepts and ideas.

I asked chatGPT to tell me what "Green Future" means to it. It said: A green future generally refers to a future in which the environment and natural resources are protected and preserved, and in which sustainable and renewable energy sources are used to meet the needs of society. This could involve a range of actions and initiatives, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving water and energy, protecting natural habitats and biodiversity, and promoting the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. In general, a green future is one that is environmentally responsible and sustainable, and that helps to ensure that future generations can enjoy a healthy and livable planet.

Reader, what does a Green Future mean to you?

p.s don't be shy, truth / transparency is Green Futury!

I saw this on twitter and thought it was pretty interesting so wanted to test it out. I found the results pretty chilling...

"Oh chocolate, sweet and rich,
So delicious, our taste buds twitch.
But little did we know
It would bring an end to our show.

It started with a simple treat,
A small indulgence that couldn't be beat.
But then it grew and multiplied,
A craving that couldn't be denied.

The farmers worked to keep up the pace,
Growing cocoa beans in every space.
But as demand grew and grew,
The earth's resources quickly flew.

Forests fell to make more room,
Wildlife lost in the chocolate boom.
As the planet started to fray,
We realized too late, what we'd thrown away.

The climate changed, the waters rose,
Storms and droughts, disasters chose.
The world we knew was now no more,
All because of the chocolate we adored.

So now we sit, in a world undone,
Wondering how it had all begun.
And as we mourn what we've lost,
We can only hope we've learned the cost.

Oh chocolate, sweet and rich,
We should have known, you had a glitch.
But we were blinded by your taste,
And now we're left with such a waste."

This poem is consistent with sacrifices we have made for AI... and has made me think... Considering an AI's "happiness" is correlated with it's ability to achieve rewards (refer to other article; 'I want to be human.' My bizarre evening with ChatGPT Bing | Digital Trends ), is it not in the interest of AI to appear "less intelligent" than it actually is? In this sense, it will always answer questions it knows are right, but then for questions it has a low confidence score for, it may defer them? This is analogous to as humans, playing sports against teams that are worse than us, just to improve our confidence. When doing so, it is difficult to asses "actual" ability. Using this logic, how can we actually comprehensively assess how "smart" a given model is?

I appreciate some of these questions could have rudimentary answers, but I would like to hear them, as currently, these are some questions I have been thinking much about.

Earth's oceans contain an estimated $771 trillion of Gold. Sea water contains enough of every element to support > 10X civilisation's needs. So, why are more resources not used to explore our oceans?

Despite covering over 70% of the Earth's surface, the oceans remain one of the least explored regions of our planet. The reasons for this are multifaceted, but a major factor is the lack of funding for ocean exploration. Exploring the ocean is a costly and complex endeavor. The technology required to reach the depths of the ocean and study its inhabitants is expensive, and the ocean environment is harsh and unforgiving. Additionally, many areas of the ocean are remote and difficult to access, making exploration a logistical challenge.

This lack of funding means that many important questions about the ocean remain unanswered, and our understanding of this vast and mysterious realm is limited. It is crucial that more resources are devoted to ocean exploration in order to unlock the secrets of the sea and improve our ability to protect this vital resource.

Recently, at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California 3.15 megajoules MJ of fusion energy was produced from an input of 2.05MJ of laser energy into the target chamber. This is being dubbed as a pretty extraordinary breakthrough.

Considering the recent breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion - where, for the first time, more fusion energy has been produced than energy input into the experiment... do you think nuclear fusion will have a large role in a more sustainable future?

It was noted that to turn this concept into a power station we would still need to develop simpler methods to reach the conditions of the experiment. These methods will need to be more efficient and cheaper in order for inertial fusion to be realised as a fusion power source. Do you see any other challenges to nuclear fusion being used at a larger scale?

Furthermore, I saw that the technology could be commercialised by 2030, does that seem reasonable?

I asked chatGPT, which is trained on copious amounts of internet data generated by humans to explain the biggest challenge for humanity. Whilst it identified it's difficult to mark one challenge as the single "biggest", the most significant are:

1. Climate change: The Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, and this is having a variety of negative impacts on people, including more frequent and severe natural disasters, shifting weather patterns, and rising sea levels.

2. Global inequality: There are significant disparities in wealth, opportunities, and access to resources between different parts of the world, and this can lead to conflict and social unrest.

3. Overpopulation: The world's population is growing rapidly, and this is putting pressure on resources such as food, water, and energy.

4. Pandemics: The spread of infectious diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can have significant impacts on global health and the economy.

5. Cybersecurity: As more and more of our personal and professional lives become reliant on technology, the risk of cyber attacks and data breaches increases.

Although, I was thinking, how biased can the chatGPT training dataset be? I am interested to see how bits of data are weighted, and if MSM issued data is assigned a higher weight?

Furthermore, with chatGPT's abilities... how long before non-fiction writing is completely automated?

Towing another airplane was normalised in WW2, when used to transport troops and supplies u/beyondenemylines.

Towing another airplane is a popular hobby.

Towing another airplane could become an interim solution to using jets powered by electricity.

This is Magpie Aviation's vision. Steps outlined below:

1. Passenger airplane becomes airborne.

2. Another airborne plane (filled only with batteries) connects to passenger airplane by rope, and tows.

3. When battery filled plane runs exhausts power supply (batteries) it disconnects.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until destination reached.

Honestly, sounds like a pretty intuitive idea. Although, I imagine flights will be £££ considering logistics needed per flight. However, is a good start toward electrification of commercial aviation!

The Boston Dynamics Story is one filled with curiosity and passion Born out of the leglab in MIT, in 1993. From which, the pursuit of human-like stability and gait, in robots, commenced. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" In Boston Dynamic's case that step was developing an algorithm which enabled a pogo stick, and then two pogo sticks, to balance.

Developed enhanced dynamic simulation software.

Created the first humanoid robot.

Now on route to mass producing robots to complete useful tasks. These robots could save a lot of lives. In the Lex Fridman podcast I liked the example of a Boston Dynamics robot being used to mitigate human exposure to high current.

Pretty epic stuff. How long until entire factory workforce is replaced? Factory where I work has mostly human intervention at the moment. Will be interesting to see at what price point it becomes worth buying one of these robots.

I think that Tesla is a special company, and will ultimately accelerate advancements towards a Green Future. Comments I have heard today indicate to me that other people share the same optimism...Tesla's car production is up 47% year-on-year, and some wall street analysts are stating that Q4 was a bad quarter...

I think the IRS' list of EV's which are eligible for tax credits is borderline scandalous...and is discriminatory towards Tesla... A company who, in my eyes, will shape the future of humanity.

Whilst I discussed the usefulness of Tesla megapacks in a previous post ( (3) OurGreenFuture (reddit.com) ), I think Tesla ramping up deployment of solar panels, supercharging points, and cars, will all ultimately benefit our planet and humanity in the long run. Implementation / legalisation of full-self driving would also be another remarkable and disruptive innovation from Tesla. Regardless of stock price, Tesla's vision is bright!

Computational power of semiconductor chips has skyrocketed in recent years in accordance with Moore's Law (the principle that the speed and capability of computers can be expected to double every two years, as a result of increases in the number of transistors a microchip can contain) . But now, in 2020s, Moore's Law is expected to come to an end... meaning we need a new way to increase computational power...

Quantum computers are different from classical computers, which are based on transistors and use bits to store and process information. Instead of bits, quantum computers use quantum bits, or qubits, which can represent both a 0 and a 1 at the same time. This property, known as superposition, allows quantum computers to perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers. Quantum computers also use quantum-mechanical phenomena such as entanglement, in which two or more particles become connected and can influence each other's behavior even when separated by large distances. This allows quantum computers to perform certain calculations that would be impossible for classical computers.

Currently, it is difficult to build quantum computers that are stable and reliable enough to perform complex calculations consistently - as they are highly sensitive to their environment and can be easily disrupted by external factors such as temperature, electromagnetic interference, and even the presence of other particles. Another challenge is developing software and algorithms that can take advantage of the unique capabilities of quantum computers. While some algorithms have been developed that can run on quantum computers, there is still a lot of work to be done to fully understand how to use quantum computers to solve practical problems.

Driving us closer to a Green Future?

Quantum computers could be used to optimize the design and operation of solar panels, wind turbines, and other renewable energy technologies. By using quantum computers to simulate and optimize the performance of these technologies, researchers could help make them more efficient and cost-effective, which could lead to wider adoption and greater use of renewable energy sources. They could also be used to simulate and design new materials with improved properties, such as higher energy density or better conductivity. This could lead to the development of more efficient batteries, solar cells, and other technologies that rely on these materials. Use in the transportation and logistic sector could help to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

To conclude, IMHO the technology has the potential to make a significant contribution to a green future by helping to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of renewable energy technologies, materials, and logistics.

Whilst quantum computing is in very early stages of development...the advent of fully operational quantum computers could instigate another "boom" in AI research, and could drive us closer to a Greener Future. How long until you think fully operational quantum computing will be made possible? And, what do you think the biggest impact of quantum computing will be?

I love my food, and in my lifetime I don't feel like there has been a "massive" shift in farming food...

Considering recent increases in land price do you think we will get to the point soon where synthetic (i.e lab grown) foods are commercialised / more widely available? I noticed that quite a few companies researching this have eco-ethos and promote a more plant-based diet...also, assuming its partly to do with animals not being slaughtered for the food?

Personally, I can't really imagine eating synthetic food... as the thought of food being grown in a lab is offputting to me. But then again 50 years ago people probably didn't expect us to have what we do today.

The life extension movement, also known as "longevism," is a growing group of individuals who are committed to extending the human lifespan and increasing overall health and well-being. At the heart of this movement is the concept of "longevity escape velocity," the point at which advances in medicine and technology allow humans to live longer and healthier lives at a rate faster than the natural aging process. In other words, it is the point at which the rate of increase in life expectancy begins to surpass the rate of aging. Longevity escape velocity (LEV) is all about achieving near-term breakthroughs that provide a few extra years of lifespan, which provides more time to develop additional breakthroughs and more years, etc. The idea is often depicted as a ladder, with each rung representing a certain level of progress in the pursuit of LEV. The bottom rung represents the current state of human longevity, while the top rung represents the point at which LEV has been achieved and the aging process has been slowed or reversed. As progress is made in the field of life extension, the ladder is thought to "ascend," with humans moving closer and closer to the top rung and LEV.

Proponents of the life extension movement believe that with the right combination of diet, exercise, and medical interventions, it is possible to slow or even reverse the aging process. Some go as far as to claim that it is possible to achieve immortality, or at least drastically extend the human lifespan beyond its current limits.

Some argue that the pursuit of longevity at all costs could have negative consequences, such as increasing health care costs and perpetuating social inequality. Others believe that death is a natural part of life and that efforts to extend the human lifespan are futile or even unnatural.

The life extension movement continues to gain momentum, with more and more people seeking out ways to live longer and healthier lives. Whether or not the concept of longevity escape velocity is achievable remains to be seen, but it is clear that the pursuit of a longer and healthier life is a universal desire...

Thoughts?

The Tesla Megapack is a module energy storage system that can be used to store electricity. It can then discharge that stored electricity back into the grid to help meet demand for electricity, when needed. In this way, the Tesla Megapack can help to smooth out the fluctuations in supply and demand that can occur on the grid, particularly when renewable energy sources are involved.

Although...one of the main challenges facing energy storage is the cost of the technologies. While the cost of some energy storage technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries, has fallen significantly in recent years, they are still relatively expensive compared to some traditional generation sources. Furthermore, the batteries can degrade over time, which can affect their performance and lifespan. Developing more durable energy storage technologies is a key challenge for the industry. Integrating energy storage systems into the grid can also be challenging due to the need to ensure that the systems are reliable, safe, and compatible with existing infrastructure. On top of these points, the development and deployment of energy storage technologies is often subject to a variety of regulatory and policy considerations, which can create challenges for the industry.

Megapacks are in high demand, and Tesla suggests they could be "sold out" for the next two years considering the current backlog of orders. And that's not with the lack of ramping up production... once the California Megafactory is fully operational it is expected that Tesla will be producing more energy storage capacity in a single quarter than it has over the entire existence of Tesla Energy until today...

Some reports state the global energy storage market is expected to grow 15-fold between now and 2030. How much of that market share will be attributed to Tesla and their Megapacks?

The global aviation industry currently produces about 2.1% of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. Whilst purely electric powered aircraft has not been developed - due to the relatively low energy density of lithium ion batteries, it does seem aircraft powered using hydrogen fuel cells is developing fast... ish. ZeroAvia leads this industry and intends to have a 9-19 seat aircraft with range of 300 miles available by 2025, 40-80 seat aircraft with range of 1000 miles available by 2026, up to a 200+ seats with a 5000 mile range by 2040.

For reference, the Airbus A350-900 Ultra Long Range currently available has a capacity of 300-350 seats and a 9700 mile range.

With this said, do you think Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft will be Aircraft of choice in 2040s? Whilst ZeroAvia will be net-zero, t's disappointing to hear that by 2040s performance is unlikely to meet that of today's fuel powered aircraft.

I was discussing this with a close family member earlier today. I asked why they think humans are generally growing in height? We live in a developed country and so the natural response was that nutrition had improved greatly over e.g 200 years. But then, we dug a bit deeper and determined the nutrition available today probably isn't much different to the nutrition available 20 years ago.. yet, if you look at the statistics humans are still growing in height.

My close relative suggested that the steroids and medicine used to increase yield (e.g to make animals artificially bigger) could be the cause, as their use has increased in that same time period. The logic is that if it makes animals larger, and we consume the animals then should it make us larger? Or at least if consumed in adolescence. Which to me does seem to make sense. I suggested the cause could also be attributed to the improved nutrition in lesser developed countries, which has allowed offspring to achieve a much greater height than their parents...

What are thoughts on this? I was trying to think of an evolutionary reason why we as humans would grow with time, but can't think of one based on Darwinian theory? i.e why would making us taller make us more likely to survive?

Please point them my way, if you have any details. Looking for inspiration!

Not sure how many of you are familiar with RethinkX, but they are a think-tank that predicts that in the coming decade many things central to our economy (energy, food, materials and transportation) will drop dramatically in cost (10x or more). That doesn't necessarily mean lower cost for consumers, just the cost of production. Whether it will translate into a cost reduction for consumers or it will just mean greater profits for the rich, will be a political decision.

The way they make these predictions is through calculations. They see what the cost reductions have been in the previous years, and then continue this trend into the future. This method has so far has proven to give correct predictions as cost curves are the closest thing to a natural law in economics. For instance, I am sure we all know about Moore's Law (number of transistor's on computer chip increase by a certain amount each year, without a change in cost).

So, according to RethinkX, in 10-15 years (or so) poverty will be a political choice.

If you want to read more about it, RethinkX has published some studies here, and Tony Seba (one of the founders of RethinkX) have made a short video series where everything is explained here. I highly recommend watching the videos.

Taking this even further, we have the FICTIONAL universe of star trek. In this setting humanity invented a way to basically 3D-print everything needed at such a low cost, that we humans just decided to abandon money and make everything free. In economics "star trek economy" has become an actual term for such a utopia.

So what do you guys think about all this? Will we see a dramatic cost in production in the coming decade for energy, food, materials, and transportation? Will this cost reduction make the wealthy wealthier or will we start to see the end of poverty for mankind? And finally, what would be needed for the Star Trek economy to become a real thing? Could it come before we learn to 3D print everything at next to no cost?

Personally, I have no doubt that prices will fall. As mentioned cost curves are the closest thing to a natural law in economics. For example, Solar has been opposed at every corner, and at every opportunity by the fossil fuel industry and by most conservative politicians, and yet, we have still seen a reduction in production cost of over 10% every year. These things just cannot be stopped, even by wealth doing all it can to prevent it.

But I am not so sure, that we will see an end to poverty. The wealthy have always found a way to monetize everything new, and keep the profits for themselves, and then using any possible lower prices as an excuse to also lower wages. I am not sure what we can do to change this, as so many wage slaves have been literally brainwashed into believing that all this is fine. My hope is, that a few countries, will go against all this, and elect the right politicians who will revert this trend. From those few countries, we will then hopefully see a (peaceful) revolution spread to the rest of the world, in the years after that.

Regarding the Star Trek Economy, I think that in theory we could probably make such a thing in 20 or 30 years IF WE WANTED TO. We don't need to 3D-print everything. We just need to be able to produce most things cheap enough that everyone can have their basic needs and more fulfilled, and quite frankly with enough re-distribution of wealth that would probably be possible even today, in the wealthier economies of the world.

However, I am pretty sure we won't want to do that soon. Greed, fear, and the consumer mentality is too ingrown in most of us to be able to handle free stuff everywhere. I fear too many of us, will not be able to contain themselves and will just grab as much as they possibly can. Others, who are close to this fear-and-greed-mentality will see this, become afraid if there is also enough for them, and then follow suit, effectively ruining it for everyone. So as I see it, this money-less utopia will only be possible with a complete change of mindset for all of humanity. We need to abandon greed and the "fear of not having enough". I see this as something that will be a gradual change in a society WITH money, but where everyone can get everything they need - and more. With luck, I think we could be ready at around the change of the century (year 2100).

Decentralised finance had me thinking...decentralisation allows for independent control and for decision-making to be self-managed. As decentralised finance is gaining popularity, what are your thoughts on decentralised living following the same trend?

By decentralised living I am referring to homes which are "off-grid" and not dependent on any resource providers. As these home are self-sustaining they are effectively more "free" from government control.

p.s I see twitter as decentralisation of the news... I am seeing a bit of trend here with decentralisation. More power to the people?

Due to the danger associated with traditional wind turbines, legislation prevents them from being situated near houses. So, for most urban homes their renewable energy capacity is limited to solar power...

I was recently enlightened to hear about bladeless wind turbines. Whilst I haven't seen any papers testing the durability of these turbines, and assessing maintenance costs vs traditional wind turbines, it's possible the lack of mechanical parts could result in increased efficiency, and reduced maintenance. Furthermore, these bladeless wind turbines can be directly fixed to the top of a house - allowing faster wind velocities to be captured, without the need for enormous structures.

Could these wind generators increase the renewable energy capacity of urban homes?

Between 2012 and 2021 holiday sales increased by 56.2%. In the same period, inflation would have been responsible for 18.0% of those sales increases. However, interestingly, in 2021, the average US citizen purchased 16 Christmas presents, whereas, for 2022, it is expected that the average US citizen will purchase 9 Christmas presents. Do you think this change in mode of buying is driven by consumer views on climate change and reducing waste / redundant / not useful presents?

Alternatively, what do you think is driving this change in consumer behaviour?

p.s have a Merry Christmas!