TED Conversations

Kevin Jacobson

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What do you think is the biggest technological challenge the human race will face in the next 30 years?

I see a lot of things wrong with humanity and I just want another persons input.

+4
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Carroll Kinkade

    • +1
    Jul 14 2012: I am impressed with Michael Picucci's contribution. Consumer based economies have devastated our planet. And he is right in suggesting that resource based economy will support a healthier planet. Our resources need to be respected rather than frittered away on stuff that continues to age out at alarming rates.
    Technology needs to advance in partnership with our planet - who is cleaning up the debris from the Fukishima tsunami (no one to blame, but still needs attention)? I read of oceanic drifts of plastics miles long collecting in our oceans that has been noted but no news of how this is being remediated (it isn't about who to blame, it is about polluting the waters we depend upon to provide our sustenance) . Our challenge is managing our own waste in all its forms.
    We need sustainable power and clean water. I can not believe we faced power issues in the 70s and petroleum has remained the primary relied upon resource. Wind and solar power research seems to have been in park until only recently.
    As I glean the research it appears more motivated on how to get the biggest buck for the least change yet touted (erroneously) as major change to improve use of our resources.
    Guess I'm saying the greatest technological challenge is a higher moral compass for the goods and services humanity needs (not wants) to operate effectively.

  • Arne Havgaard

    • 0
    Jul 14 2012: Enviromental issues, the earth, clean water, clean air and resources have build/developed over the last 4,5 billion years.Humans have now almost used up all that stored energy e.g. in less that 150 years .... congratulations!Guess "agent Smith" was right in his clasification of humans in the Matrix.
  • thumb

    Tim Leisio

    • +1
    Jul 14 2012: Technology is not just a machine or contraption that we make. I would equally relate it to applied knowledge for a specific purpose. With that...

    The biggest technological challenge our race is already encountering is the technology of social change.

  • Smita Purushottam

    • 0
    Jul 14 2012: Finding the solution to fusion energy, it will give us emissions free limitless energy and solve the problem of global warming which is now a global menace and which could soon wipe out billions.

  • Roberto grania

    • 0
    Jul 14 2012: the biggest challenge of technology is through it that humanity can make a common global task.
    are many tasks that have accumulated underdevelopment energetic matrix that is another discussion wars etc
    My language is Spanish and this has been translated by the pc
    el mayor desafio de la tecnologia es que a traves de ella la humanidad pueda realizar una tarea global comun.
    son muchas las tareas que se han acumulado matriz energetica subdesarrollo guerras esa es otra discusion etc
    Mi idioma es el español y esto ha sido traducido por el pc
  • thumb

    Ron Pearson

    • 0
    Jul 14 2012: I think it will be managing the ramifications of the connection between biotechnology and nanotechnology. We can't even imagine the implications of what's coming in the next 20 years...

  • Michael Picucci

    • +1
    Jul 14 2012: It is a challenge of leadership. Once leadership accepts that a strictly "finance-based economy" is doomed, we may adopt a "resource-based economy" that focuses on natural resources and how to best use for all. This would have to include additional forms of currency (as is already being done in several cultures). When leadership moves in this direction technology will be redirected toward these new intentions.

  • Jeri Apt

    • 0
    Jul 14 2012: HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) the largest electro-magnetic broadcast system currently in the hands of the Navy and Air Force. Located 30 miles from Fairbanks Alaska. Because it is operating in complete secrecy in the hands of the United States military we can instantly recognize the military application of weaponry and destruction. While they attempt to harness and direct energy through frequency manipulation and amplification into the earths ionosphere all life forms on the planet are at risk. There is an international treaty to not tamper with naturally occurring weather systems. I seriously doubt the military will be forthcoming on their capability of altering the weather. Nor will we ever be officially advised when they modulate the frequency and begin implementing mental imagery or mind control. These mad men operate uneducated and unrestricted under full US authority. There are very sound and valuable uses for such technology. Were our military not so interested in hiding what they're doing from the people they were sworn to protect I might not have been so worried. As it stands, historically speaking anyway, there is absolutely no accountability with the military or the government. I am gravely concerned but without a plausible solution all I can do is speak up and hope that there is something better waiting for us.

  • Joe Ling

    • 0
    Jul 13 2012: The problem of making money on website's by ad's and suggestions on the web. For big companies like Google depend largely on profiling on what you search. Including other websites doing the same thing. Then term's and services agreements (for no one ever reads the whole thing) having hidden terms.
    This will push companies and some developers to go into other area's in technological area's. This will challenge the human race to go into other markets. Or just update to more extreme data collections terms by governments or companies. So when it gets to the stage of when governments stamp down on the companies or the people do it will be a massive challenge to complete it. And fill the market and make sure that in closing it down people don't use the data for worse.

  • Steve Rockabrand

    • 0
    Jul 13 2012: The biggest technical challange will be to have the technology to technically disable the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen !
  • thumb

    Leo Walsh

    • 0
    Jul 11 2012: Sustainable urbanization and power capture/ utilization without fossil fuels. On the other hand, there may be a devastating biological event, or an asteroid strike, or massive volcanic eruption that would make all such striving mute.

  • Ezeani Chris

    • 0
    Jul 10 2012: What i mean is '' do we have the resources to predict future weather conditions to a reasonable degree?''
    • thumb

      Kevin Jacobson

      • 0
      Jul 10 2012: Yes. We can track differentiating areas of temperature and pressure, measure their build up or demise, and predict where and when all these properties will come together to make a storm or not. Any other questions?

  • Ezeani Chris

    • 0
    Jul 10 2012: Alright, it appears i finally have someone to argue this global warming thing with. One question. At the current level of technology, is it possible to predict weather conditions for say 8.30am tommorrow?

    • Jeri Apt

      • 0
      Jul 14 2012: It is possible to create a weather system at 8:30 am tomorrow anywhere in the world. HAARP. spread the word

  • Jerome Delsa

    • +2
    Jul 10 2012: The question asks for "technological challenge" so I'll say "find and use cleaner (or even better, sustainable) sources of energy".

  • Ezeani Chris

    • +1
    Jul 8 2012: For me it will be controlling and effectively legislating technology and its use. To understand what i mean, imagine Al-Queda with nuclear weapons or hackers getting uncontrolled access to classified information. Or to use a more common example blatant copying of other peoples designs and intellectual property. In the end global warming is a joke compared to what unregulated technology would cost us.
    • thumb

      Kevin Jacobson

      • +2
      Jul 8 2012: All true except for the global warming part. You see, if the greenhouse effect continues, obviously the world gets warmer, but, it will also release the thousands of tons of methane from the southern and northern tundras of the world. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas and would further speed up global warming. When the temperature rises that much the north pole will completely melt, literally wiping the coasts of certain countries of the map, which would damage the global economy. There would also be increased tensions in the middle east and that could lead to nuclear war. Especially between Iran and India which both have nuclear weapons that are only 1st generation atomic bombs, meaning that their bombs are extremely dirty and release high amounts of radioactive material. The U.S. and Russia have 3rd generation bombs which are "clean bombs". Global warming could also cause a sort of 21st century Permian extinction with increasing desertification and rising temperatures. During the Permian extinction, 90% of earths species died out. Imagine that repeating it self. On top of all that, the global climate would be much drier, reducing crop growth when you have a still growing population. Natural disasters would also be much more common, costing billions of dollars a year. So, global warming is a lethal chain reaction that would end up being much more dangerous than hackers, terrorists and theifs.
      • thumb

        Josh S

        • 0
        Jul 10 2012: In your argument you try to make global warming seem much worse then it is by linking it to nuclear warfare, thought there is no correlation and no causation.

        The Permian extinction had essentially 2 phases. in the 1st phase, it is 'proposed' that gradual climate change occured. But the true damage, what truly killed so much 'has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event'. This could be a nuclear war in our situation, but a nuclear war is not caused or even linked to global warming.
        From wikipedia talking about artic methan release: "while methane release is indeed likely to amplify global warming to an unknown level, fears that it could lead to catastrophe are possibly overblown."

        You say the rate of occurence of natural disasters would increase, im assuming youre talking about hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes for the most part, because global warming doesnt affect earthquakes and thus dont affect tsunamis. But earlier you said there would be less rain and it would be much drier, so wouldnt the rate of floods and hurricanes decrease?
        Temperature increases are much more overblown then they actually are. Im sure you are aware of temperature cycles of hotter and cooler. But even if we take that out and look at the facts and the numbers, temperatures are .1 degrees hotter then they should be, and .4 degrees hotter on the most radical scale. Is this really more dangerous then terrorists with nuclear weapons pointed to our largest cities? hackers distorting shipping and manufacturing throughout the world?

        siting graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
        • thumb

          Kevin Jacobson

          • +1
          Jul 10 2012: I don't think your making a connection here. Nuclear war would be possible in the middle east because of increasingly crowded conditions. The middle eastern countries are already crowded and would try to claim more land for their countries in this situation. There would indeed be more tropical storms because if the increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This means that there would be more fuel for storms to occur. These temperature changes seem slight, but the planets temperature was it's original way for a reason. Because the climate is very sensitive. Even slight temperature changes have already caused the north poles glaciers to melt significantly. The cycles that the earth go through happen over millennium, not all of a sudden after the industrial revolution. The methane release would be extremely significant since the tundras around the world would thaw, thus causing tens of thousands of years of animals to rot, thus causing tens of thousands of years of methane release. Oh, and I wouldn't use Wikipedia for this situation since anybody with an opinion on the subject could edit the article.
      • thumb

        Josh S

        • 0
        Jul 10 2012: 'increasingly crowded conditions'
        Middle eastern countries, with the exception of israel, are some of the least crowded countries on earth. Most middle eastern countries ie. iraq, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia have under 200 people per square mile. When looking at a list, these countries have some of the smallest population densities.

        'increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere'
        thats what i thought, but didnt you also say this:
        ' the global climate would be much drier, reducing crop growth when you have a still growing population'

        speel about methane:
        This is a new field of study, all scientists agree that this does add to the affect of global warming. However, many believe that it may take decades to make a substantial impact. And again, since the question focuses on the immediate 30 years, the theory on arctic methane release does not apply.

        'even slight temperature changes have already caused the north poles glaciers to melt significantly'
        yes the sea level has risen, on average 1 mm each year. in the context of this question, this would equate to 3 cm. ( 1mm x 30 years) 3 cm of added sea level posts relatively small consequences when compared to other dangers posted above.
        • thumb

          Kevin Jacobson

          • +1
          Jul 10 2012: I'm talking about the long term, not just 30 years, so the methane problem does indeed apply. And while I realize the middle east isn't majorly populated, before even 30 years comes along, their numbers will rise dramatically, causing thousands of refugees to flee from the ever rising shores and concentrate the population to a high degree. Remember, you can't use today's population stats to fight this argument, you have to predict what the population in those areas will be like by mid century. On top of that, because of global economic damage, the growing population will be under stress, causing more reckless countries to solve such problems with violence and war. Remember, this problem will only be in full swing by mid century, so, we have 40 years to switch to a cleaner life style. Once again, I'm talking about the long term. But it doesn't hurt to acct on these problems now. Oh, and as you stated, Israel is the only country it takes to trigger the entire middle east to go up in flames.
      • thumb

        Josh S

        • 0
        Jul 11 2012: If you're basing all your arguments off POSSIBLE events happening in over 30 years, we're debating different things. I wasn't arguing with your points by trying to say they're wrong, other then your view on the middle east, but just saying that they don't pertain to the question being asked.

        To restate the question if you happened to forget: What do you think is the biggest technological challenge the human race will face in the next 30 years?

        3 key words being next 30 years. My arguments have been based off of the next 30 years, not the long term (over 30 years).
        now to your single point that still applies to this question:

        ' before even 30 years comes along, their numbers will rise dramatically, causing thousands of refugees to flee from the ever rising shores and concentrate the population to a high degree'
        i hate to give a geography lesson, but you do understand that these middle eastern countries are high above sea level, and even with population increases, which are on average 2% throughout the middle east. so in 30 years time, the population density is estimated to still be under 280 people per square mile, which is not crowded at all. Also, this 'ever rising shore line' is a grand total of 3cm, not exactly geographically devastating for the middle east.

        'global economic damage, the growing population will be under stress, causing more reckless countries to solve such problems with violence and war'
        What global economic damage? and please keep your response to events that can actually occur in the next 30 years, not falling back to global warming or other environmental issues.

        But please keep in mind the actual question, which refers to the next 30 years.
        • thumb

          Kevin Jacobson

          • +1
          Jul 11 2012: Most of the issues I've stated are not indeed a threat in a 30 year time period, however, climate change is one of the major threats in a 30 year time frame. As I've said, desertification, frequent tropical storms, extinction, and lower crop production is a extremely likely threat, in fact, many of these issues are being witnessed now. Desertification being the biggest one. For example, in south America, deforestation causes land to be exposed and dried out. This land is cleared for agriculture, but you can't grow anything on dry land.

  • Silas Birdsell

    • 0
    Jul 7 2012: The U.S. is draining all of their sources of fresh water and in the future, probably by the middle of the century, they will be in desperate need of water. Some towns in the dry south west are already running out of water. So what do we do?

    We could cut back on the amount of water we use, but as cynical as this sounds I don't think the majority of Americans are capable of doing that. We could import fresh water from countries, like Canada, who have it in abundance, but this doesn't solve the problem it is just a temporary fix. Or we could find a new way of getting fresh water, like desalinating water from the ocean. Unfortunantly desalination harms coastal ecosystems.

    This is a trend that I am seeing in nearly all aspects of human growth going forwards, we are going to have to choose between development and the enviroment. The human population on Earth has very little boundaries now, Vertical farming removes the boundary of not having enough food to support the population. Water desalination makes the all of the oceans avaliable as a water source. Diseases are being cured at a rate that has never before been seen in human history. And so the biggest technological challenge the human race will face is the moral decision of whether to tame the enviroment to permit our growth or to somehow limit the growth of the human race to allow nature to remain wild.

  • MR T

    • +1
    Jul 7 2012: Boredom, when the aliens steal our smart phones.

  • Kanisk Chakraborty

    • +2
    Jul 5 2012: Not technological, although would be caused due to technology-disconnect between the younger and older generations. Even though there has been some disconnect between past generations, the one in the future will be more drastic.

    The kids will be able to access the internet, and therefore, information, at a much younger age which could cause them to rely more on technology than their guardians. When they will need to know the meaning of something, they will simply do voice searches on google to find out the answer. The idea is a stretch, I agree. But it is very much possible for something like that to happen if things aren't moderated-something most parents don't think of with internet/gadgets/technology (unless they've had first hand experience), or simply don't know how to.
    • thumb

      Kevin Jacobson

      • 0
      Jul 10 2012: Other than the excessive dependents on technology, I don't see much wrong with that. If information could be that easily accessed, just think of how smart the future generations could be if it was utilized in the educational system.

      • Kanisk Chakraborty

        • 0
        Jul 11 2012: Hmm.. well there isn't anything wrong with that, I agree (well, primarily because I'm a kid myself :) )
        Having resources like KhanAcademy and the likes just a click away has been truly beneficial for my studies.

        But, I have a feeling that this might turn out deleterious in the future-primarily because of the young age of the kids. Becoming independent is great, and a crucial step forward in life. However, technology might create that barrier between the parents and the kids. They will be smart, but they will become their own bosses, doing what they think is right, and what google thinks is right-which is not always correct.
        • thumb

          Kevin Jacobson

          • 0
          Jul 11 2012: I don't think it would encourage them to be their own bosses but rather give their minds a greater boost than what our generation get's now. I'm only an 8th grader and I wish we had technology like this. I have to read books in order to get a higher education in order to rise above school education. It is so pleasant to think that, if I was born just 10, maybe even 5, years ahead of now, all I would have to do is ask my search engine to look something up and then have it read it to me then presto! In 10 minutes I got a half hours worth of reading in.

      • Kanisk Chakraborty

        • +1
        Jul 12 2012: I don't know if you got the reply (seems that the system only allows for a max of 3 replies;yes I'm new here). I'll try to condense whatever I said.

        You seem to be basing the future thinking that there will be more people like you, who are smart and grasp things much quicker than their peers. But, you must also take into consideration the fact that there will be people who are a complete polar opposite to your image of kids in the future (in most real life cases, there seems to be an abundance of people like these for reasons, unexplained). The amount of distractions the avg student faces now is 100x what was before, and the likelihood of that number going higher is inevitable. Not every person is going to be interested in what you think they might be (this is where the disconnect comes in). You'd want your son to be watching videos on quantum mechanics, but (and let's hope not), maybe they'll end up being fanatics of Justin Bieber's son, and watch youtube videos of them on "hovering" telescreens.

  • Thomas Bridge

    • 0
    Jul 5 2012: The problems caused to society are changes in weather patterns, intense storms, changes in food supply, availability of potable water, increased pollution, inundation of coastal cities.....

  • Thomas Bridge

    • 0
    Jul 5 2012: The population explosion plus the atmosphere warming and the interaction betweenn the two.
  • thumb

    Brian Ross

    • 0
    Jul 5 2012: Overcoming ignorance. There can be no technology without education. There can be no real education without stimulating the imagination. In the most "literate" country in the world, the U.S., 51% of American adults can barely read, write and think well enough to add up a check and follow instructions. 96% of American adults have varying degrees of problem synthesizing information.(http://truth-2-power.com/2012/06/29/why-negative-political-attack-ads-work-5-in-10-americans-cant-read-8-in-10-cant-process/ ) As our machines get "smarter" ignorant people become increasingly leery of them, and politics which drive funding for advanced technology turn their back on it as the practice of the less-controllable "elites." Until we can find a way to harness technology to overcome ignorance, rather than entertain, amuse and distract us, there is a clash awaiting the technocrats with a population increasing fearful of what it brings to their limited world views.

  • Sean Kang

    • +3
    Jul 5 2012: I think it's restructuring our financial system. I think at the most fundamental level, our current distribution of wealth and currency system gives incentives to people to only think about making money rather than encouraging us to actually make contributions to our world. I am not a communisit or socialist by any means, but if we can figure out a way to motivate each individual by rewarding them in a fair manner, this will undoubtedly solve all the existing and future problems of our world. We have to devise a way to maintain socio-economic equity while keeping everyone motivated.

    At the core of every problem that we are currently facing, money is the culpirt. There are millions of gifted minds across the globe who possess the intellect to surpass many notable professors and researchers; yet those gifted individuals are not striving to make a positive difference in our world but are encouraged by our monetary system to conspire against the public. It is not because they are bad people but our monetary system encourages them to do so. People need to be given a different incentive.

    The field of science has made a tremendous leap over the last hundred years but our financial systems are much the same. I mean afterall, we should be fueled by a nobler incentive rather than primitive bags of coins and wampuns right?

    As forementioned, the biggest technological challenge for the human race in the next 30 years would be figuring out a new incentive system geared towards maintaining ecnomic equity.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • +1
      TED Translator
      Jul 5 2012: i don't understand the following statements:

      "people to only think about making money rather than encouraging us to actually make contributions to our world"

      you get money for contributing something to the world, don't you? we all contribute 8 hours a day.

      "rewarding them in a fair manner"

      today we are not rewarded in a fair manner? how is it unfair? every contribution you make, sold on the market to the highest bidder. what could be more fair than that?

      "gifted individuals [...] are encouraged by our monetary system to conspire against the public"

      for example bill gates did not deliver a popular operating system? or owners of walmart did not deliver cheap products and good service to many millions? or ford did not make the automobile available? or rockefeller did not make petroleum affordable for the masses? how are these a "conspiracy against public"?

      • Sean Kang

        • +1
        Jul 5 2012: I find it distubring that one guy gets paid million dollars a year just because he started a company while the worker at a factory gets paid not even one thousandth of the employer's salary. I mean, perhaps three folds or even up to ten folds sounds much more reasonable as opposed to a thousand times.

        Philanthropists like Bill Gates is a rare example. I guess he was enlightened enough to realize that we are all the same. Company executives very well know that their company can charge significantly less for their products and still reap a fair margin yet they choose not to do so. By monopolizing the market, they conspire against the public. (and if you want to talk about how competition is abundant in the market, price fixing is everywhere.. companies love playing that game) It has been like this for thousands of years. It's nothing new.

        That's why we have to change our financial system. We need to evolve.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • +1
          TED Translator
          Jul 5 2012: so you decided not to think about these issues, but repeat the shallow statements you picked up somewhere. second round, more questions. this time maybe you are willing to think for yourself.

          "I find it distubring that one guy gets paid million dollars"

          why? do you have any reason other than envy?

          "company can charge significantly less for their products"

          what determines price on a free market?

          "reap a fair margin"

          what is a fair margin? imagine yourself in their boots. you have a company. you sell stuff. what is a fair margin?

          "monopolizing the market"

          how can a company monopolize the market? don't just pull a stock answer. think about it.

          "price fixing is everywhere"

          what does price fixing means? how can a company fix the price of its competition? how can they fix the price of competing alternative solutions? again, don't try to ger rid of me. it is easy, but don't make you any more informed. think.

          " for thousands of years"

          thousands of years of price fixing? please try to imagine the economy in 1200. imagine the life of an ordinary person at that time, say, somewhere in europe. what kind of price fixing there are? what kind of companies? what kind of trade? what kind of monopolies? better don't even answer these. if i see a reply from you within two days, i will immediately know that you refused to think, and just throw random answers to get rid of the questions you don't like. these are very interesting questions if you indeed seek for answers.
        • thumb

          Kevin Jacobson

          • +1
          Jul 5 2012: Well, considering the employer is the reason they have a high salary or low salary job at all, the employer deserves to be a sort of "alpha of the pack". Whether you like it or not, these millionaires are the reasons many have a job at all. Think of Walmart. They could charge a hell of a lot less for certain products and the CEO is rich as can be, but Walmart employes a lot of people. So, if these business owners make a fortune, let them. They deserve it for causing many jobs to be made.

      • Sean Kang

        • +3
        Jul 5 2012: "so you decided not to think about these issues, but repeat the shallow statements you picked up somewhere"...ooohhh wow...ouch.. you have the nerves to make statements like these? I assume that you thought I was some Occupy Wall street guy set out to preach our beloved Michael Moore's snake oil lectures right??? okay.. i give up. You are smarter than me by multiple folds. You got me here man. As an ignoramous, I should just shut up and listen.
        I really thought TED was about express and sharing ideas not receiving these personal vendetta like comments. It seems that as a translator, you made some great contributions to TED...I think comments like these are far too below you.

        here are some tips for your future replies:
        1. be polite
        2. do not express personal anger towards the commentor (whether they are right or wrong..even perhaps misguided)

        just stick to these simple rules and you will be fine. Maybe you are not so bitter everyday but for today...I just refuse to banter with you due to your lack of etiquette. You just can't treat people like that whether online or offline; even if you are indeed correct. Take a deep breath and dont ever post stuff like this again. You are an embarassment to anyone who is affiliated with TED.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          Jul 5 2012: "you thought I was some Occupy Wall street guy set out to preach our beloved Michael Moore's snake oil lectures right???"

          in fact yes. these ideas come from there.
        • thumb

          Josh S

          • 0
          Jul 10 2012: Sean,
          What a way to avoid the questions because you either found you were wrong or simply cant find the answers on other websites. He was being polite but tough, i think you need to relax and be more open minded to the possibility of you being wrong. If anyone was being rude it was you, sarcastically rebuttling Krisztian. He simply picked apart your argument in a logical manner that was easy to follow, this doesnt make it rude, but it does make it a good counter to you.

          This was a interesting debate to read, dont ruin it by saying childish stuff along the lines of 'youre mean so im not gonna talk to you' when you were losing the argument. Come on now.

      • Ezeani Chris

        • 0
        Jul 8 2012: you deserve a nobel prize. i'll see what i can do about it.(just joking)

  • Steve Bullock

    • 0
    Jul 5 2012: Without a doubt it is the basic need for potable (drinkable) water for everyone and the technology improvements needed to address the coming water shortages. Climate change has had little impact so far on the policy makers and the people we trust to lead the world in the area of water sources and upgraded treatment technologies. In the US we see massive drought areas, climate change that has the majority of the states in record heat. Crop production and quality of crop production is being impacted. Water is the answer.

    The water SOURCES are a major part of the problem, especially lakes and smaller rivers. Underground acquirers have dropped and shifted. The underground rivers also contain more pollution than in the past (in some areas). These next few years are critical in man's survival. If we invest in new technologies and address the causes of climate change we may have a legitimate chance of feeling no pain. Keep doing what we are doing and we will run out of potable water. iPADs, computers, cameras, Big Screen LED TVs are meaningless if we do not have the water we need. If you want proof...look at the star levels in you local lakes and reservoirs.

    WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES NEEDED...we simply need to choose to make it happen.
  • thumb

    Mark Garnham

    • 0
    Jul 5 2012: I think the big challenge today is how to move conventional business into the online world. Walk the streets of almost any city and you will see empty shops and buildings for lease - because the old retail model is dying. People not only want the best price these days, but they also want products and services available at the click of a button - it's the instant gratification syndrome that we have become used to.
    Mobile devices are improving rapidly and eventually we will be able to have one gadget that does everything from being a communication device to being our bank access and TV - size and functionality are the issues with that.
    In less than a month, there will be general public access to a totally new e-commerce platform available - one that is devoid of all the negative issues with typical web e-commerce sites - because it is not web based. This is a completely new platform that has been designed to be a secure global marketplace - well worth a quick look because I believe this is the sort of technology the world needs today to facilitate conventional businesses participating on the internet.
    http://safeworldstv.com

  • Everett Johnson

    • 0
    Jul 4 2012: Bio-medical CANCER treatment. Billion dollar industry, why would they want a cure? -this can't be true, or is it

    I would like to propose a hypothetical question, can researchers/technologists create issues to ultimately profit from them? -I don't think so
  • thumb

    Christian Edwards

    • 0
    Jul 4 2012: https://vimeo.com/christianedwards

    In the link above, I talk about this question. Technology is becoming more part of our lives every single day. It is growing more rapidly than ever. We wake up and check our phones, as well as we check our phones through out the day and before going to bed. It is like we have a piece of our brain that we keep in our pocket. If we go with out this device for just a day, it is very easy to feel emotions of emptiness. However, some may find it very liberating. But as humans, we need connection to other human beings. Technology just lets us do that faster and easier than ever.

    I believe that this is only going to get worse. We live alone together each day. I know we can't get rid of this device. However, I think there needs to be a device that lets us live our lives as we did before. We stay more connected than ever, yet we are not distracted from our daily lives in the real world with people. I believe the google glass project is tackling this well. However, it may hurt us more than help us. We will need to decide that soon.
    https://vimeo.com/christianedwards
Load more comments…