As we enter July, it is once again time to examine our relationship with plastic (which permeates so much of our daily lives and this blog already). While it can be difficult to find alternatives to plastic, especially in food packaging, it is important to understand how some so-called alternatives can be harmful (or not really be alternatives at all).
It’s not the end, but it is an end. The final debrief of our year together in the Climate Lab was bittersweet and carried with it intentions to pay our lessons forward into the world – collaborating with each other, if possible. For my part, I want to continue bridging gaps in knowledge and perspectives to co-create more equitable solutions to the climate crisis.
Affordability often comes with a price somewhere in the supply chain. In the case of instant noodles, it could be deforestation for ingredients and oil extraction for packaging long before the noodles hit the store and/or adverse health outcomes long after they hit the stomach. Nevertheless, this invention was an unexpected marvel that buoyed the Japanese economy and still supports disaster relief efforts worldwide.
Good travel puts us outside our comfort zone and broadens our perspectives. Our trip to Okinawa in the Climate Lab connected us with government officials, entrepreneurs, researchers, and community volunteers – people working on the issue of climate change from different angles. A conversation with the former Vice Governor of the prefecture helped me better understand ways we can build bridges across professional islands.
Travels with the Climate Lab took me to Okinawa for the first (but hopefully not last) time. This Japanese prefecture (and former kingdom in its own right) is an absolute melting pot of cultures, disciplines, and functions in society. For someone who is regularly trying to break down silos in my own work, I was thrilled to see what lessons Okinawa had to offer.
The standard Hollywood-style, three-act movie with a showdown between good and evil at the end may be fun to watch, but it isn’t realistic. Miyazaki’s use of the “kishotenketsu” narrative arc represents a more subtle style of storytelling, but it invites the audience to take more of an active role as thoughtful viewers, maybe even applying insights to our own lives in the process.
“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?