“I’m right; you’re wrong” is a tempting position to take, especially when emotions run high. However, many seemingly disparate issues are inextricably intertwined, particularly when it comes to energy generation, and part of a just transition toward renewable energy means addressing the concerns many have about moving away from fossil fuels. As always, I’m learning that it’s easier said than done.
We use machines to make our lives easier, but we are not making use of the time we save in a meaningful way. Omnipresent AI tools in our daily lives are contributing to our reduced capacity for long attention spans, research and curiosity, critical thinking, and creativity. We’re relinquishing some of the things that make us human, and it’s not AI’s fault; it’s ours.
While we don’t (yet) have artificial intelligence that can match human intelligence, we seem to have enough difficulty interacting with the Narrow AI that exists now. Such technology is supposed to make our lives easier – and in some ways it does – but some of our distinctly human skills, such as critical thought, creativity, and discernment seem to be eroding as we rely more on AI.
As an avid science fiction fan, I have spent much of my life focusing on what is possible – good and bad. The potential negative outcomes of our technology are concerning if we let our achievements outpace any consideration of their implications. Man vs. machine narratives can serve as a popular cautionary tale in that vein, but are they simplifying the situation too much?
While the Spotted Lanternfly is on the rise in Pittsburgh, I was surprised to find very few back east when I was visiting my dad this summer. Thanks to ongoing research from academics and vigilance from the agricultural industry, we’re learning more about where they pose the most risk and what methods are – and aren’t – successful at keeping them at bay.
It was only a matter of time before members of my Climate Lab cohort would be asked to produce something as a result of our learning, instead of just cramming information into our heads. In a time when my country feels more divided than ever, I wanted to find a way to work toward equitable, sustainable solutions that addressed concerns of conflicting parties.
Misconceptions abound when it comes to recycling, and a new technology called “chemical recycling” is being positioned as a major win for recycling hard-to-recycle plastics. No matter their intentions for the future, most chemical recycling facilities are currently turning plastics into fuel to be burned, not recycled plastics to replace virgin plastics. Perception is everything in the court of public opinion, and information matters.
After only a week, my July has already had its share of plastic consumption, largely associated with purchases that would otherwise be considered eco-friendly. While we work to reduce the amount of plastic coming into our homes, it’s also important to understand what happens after our plastic waste once we dispose of it. In short: what do “recycling” programs actually do with all this plastic?
I really loved being able to say that I had never had COVID. Unfortunately, it was one (but not the only) unpleasant souvenir I picked up on recent travels. Catching up on COVID research, I learned that I might have picked up one of the new “FLiRT” variants, which are on the rise, just in time for summer. As always, education and awareness are key.
I was impressed when I learned about Hawaii’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2045, but I was shocked to learn about some unintended impacts of wind energy development on Oahu’s north shore. Hearing from impacted residents was a great reminder that wind energy, like any tool, is not inherently good or bad – it comes down to how it is developed and used.