Quick thoughts about 'Abandon Earth—Or Face Extinction' by Stephen Hawking

video via bigthink.com

Can't help but feel compelled to make this draft into the a formal post straight away. Might not be doing much impact but I thought I might as well write it anyway.

I feel Dr Hawkings has over emphasized in the logic of hard core Sciences for survival. For if there is lack of humanity in various ethical thoughts, that our human race would perish despite technological advances.

There are certain uncanny ways about how life and the universe works which perhaps is incomprehensivable even by science. Despite the rules that human mind research could delve into in their individual ways and feelings about how things work. I think we have not developed till that stage where the entire universe can be fully comprehend, else we will not have developed new problems that need new solutions to solve. If we have genuinely understood the root concept of problem solving, we will not problems sprouting out from existing ones. We could have simply sort the problem spot on.

Many of these problems simply morph in form. Not loosing an ounce in essence, the solutions usually require a far more complex way of solving.

If we need to sustain our race beyond the next 100 years or so, we need to find the root problem as to why we have come to this dire point. The thinking process doesn't require a mere escape in the physical space we live.

I have no doubt that one day our race will eventually be left with no choice but to emmigrate to space. That is if we cannot change what what we have been doing in time. The future living space may well be mars; it may well be a human made platform or synthetic space ground for our future generations to live on. Under a totally new environment, a brand new set of problems will sufface if we cannot face out our own humanisitc problems in thought which controls our decisions that shape our living space on earth.

There is no doubt that the brilliance of the human mind could also solve some of the toughest scientific problems around. However, I have the feeling that we may be dwelling in linear thought or rather we are moving into a history old, seemingly genetically formulated code in our genes into digging more deeper holes and simply swapping spaces for our root problem ---- the pertinent issue that we refuse to face the daunting thought that we have been bending rules of nature which is the result for our current dire situation.

We have not changed much in the area of survival. Human greed has not been changed much for centuries and let history be told, whether in total truth or with partial biasness, that our forebearers have merely altered their way of being selfish and that technological knowhow has been used to further exploit in the most uncanny of ways.

There is no doubt that we would eventually be living in space if our existing problems cannot be eradicated in time. It may well be we cannot sort them at all. Climate and land changes have proved in reality of the impending outcome of extiction if we still live on this planet. We have almost depleted our natural resources and also at the expense of other living species in any form for the sole selfishness of just one specie, and that is us.

We need to be truthfully honest about what we and our forebearers have done and how our past and existing thinking had maketh us our own assassinators for our own sustainable survival.

Our knowledge in humanities, science & technology should continue advancing in depth and in width. But we need a source of change that directs us to genuine sustainablity. And that is to make a real conscience about who we are and what we need to do. Not with the impurity of new so-called colours that smudge; but with the eventual outcome of being totally pure as light that will shine us into ever lasting exisitence.

And that one of the several human components may well be a far simpler thought: and that is ethics of sharing, loving and to be far less menacing & hypocritical in today's fast advancing, pragmatic life of selfish materialism. We are all in a way guilty. Perhaps via the way of doing bit of good everyday and have a far more daring gut toadmit fault & make every modest good step forward; we may perhaps create a miracle that science and religion will be most happy to jot down in our human history.

It's really a collaborative effort.

Got to run off now. It's a very quick one-off draft. I want to write more. But I have to go off for now. ---- Karen Fu

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Postgrad or not? - the value of education to answer real problems.

I have just received an email invite to attend a talk for postgraduate studies by an American professor. Honestly I had thought the college would not call me up anymore because I get the sneaky feeling they may not really like the way I think. On the other hand, I don't have the time to attend as I happen to work at that time slot and the time is really pretty much fixed. I don't know if I want to study any more. I have been catching up with some of the best professionals and many ironically do not hold a postgraduate degree. It seems to me that my motivation for postgrad appears to wane over the years after talking to too many people. I seem to have an impression that education does not breed the ideal graduate who could genuinely contribute to society in a sustainable and healthy way. Maybe its due to the people whom I talked to but I didn't really think they were exactly nice people.

 

I was particularly 'pissed' by a few academics who seem to think that postgraduate education provides the ultimate skill. Not that I disregard the fact that advanced skills contribute to a far higher quality of solutions; but more of the fact that it was delivered in arrogance. I don't like pompous, matter of fact answers. I often find humility in the most intelligent people and that group of smart people aren't exactly all from postgraduates.

 

Some time back, I was talking to an academic who claim to say that better buildings are made through more years in the university. I know Tadao Ando, a famous Japanese architect, didn't attend any professional architectural school at a university. He was entirely self-taught. By self-taught through travelling and working, he formulated his own ideas which invariably meant that he was creating fresh ideas/methods away from the convention. Le Corbusier was another famous architect who did a similar way. Perhaps some people may argue that these great innovators were such because knowledge then wasn't as diversfied and in depth, which makes self teaching possible. But somewhat I feel that postgraduate training is unlike undergraduate. The latter offers a base. If you have a good base, you could extend and multiply off your knowledge later. If you had a lousy base, you can't do postgraduate anyway 'cos it wouldn't be effective.  A good foundation is one that allows one to form ideas and method to learn, apart from skills.

 

I also question about the true value of a college education for we have problems that are not exactly being solved. Its more morphed than being answered permanently. Looking around at the changes in science and tecbnology; language and humanities; can anyone truly claim that the worlds problems or rather on a microscopic level, a society's problem be sorted sustainably? We may be living longer but we may not be necessarily be living healthier. We seem to sort problems partially, and leaving another part of the problem to mutate into another new set of problems.

 

I wonder if we have really learnt our lessons inside out. Over the course of history of seveal thousands of years, human deceit has never been really eradicated. It appears that people of lesser formal education appear to learn more at times when disasters come. The only downpoint of these people are that they lack impeccable verbal skills. Language skills appear to dominate in the area of intelligence. It really shouldn't be this way. I have learnt a great deal everywhere from everyone. I wouldn't have the guts to claim I know it all. Neither would I have the might to say I am perfectly educated. I often feel that many around me have taught me a lot. Hence I am now questioning the true value of education. We should humbly take cues everywhere from everyone. The direction we are heading may well be wrong.

Simply because we have an impending global disaster --- both physical and metaphysical climate. --- Karen Fu

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Land Use Design - World Population in a 1000 Singapores...

The line in the Straits Times a couple of days ago caught my eye: 'By 2050, 70% of the world's population will be living in cities in the developing world'. This caught my attention as I was travelling on the train home. Honestly I have been dreading the idea of increasing the poputlation to 5.5 million in the near future. Surely, this piece of news citing Singapore's land use to house some 6+ billion people on just 0.5 % of our planet's land must be scary, if not petrifying.

Singapore, which has only a land size of  710 square kilometers, is aiming to house some 6 million inhabitants on land. As a citizen and resident of this tiny dot, I must admit it was an eye popper news. I have been squeezing through trains, and replaning my time around peak hours. But when I start to recall  spaces around places on this tiny dot,  this seemingly daunting aim appears to be achievable from mainly 3 aspects:

1. surprisingly, there is still good amount of green spaces that could be utilized.; 
2. the way these designs of flatted properties with underground system planning of spaces could effectively save a lot of land space for a growing population. 
3. there is very little crime, and people are generally at peace, making this concept of urban planning feasible.

We are currently undergoing the pace of change where lots of spaces are still undergoing constructional change, which is why the crowded packs. Complementing this undergoing this space change would be the enlarged network of the Mass Rapid Transit points, which will see extended links in the central parts of the country. Mass Rapid Transits' undergrounds are also built with retailing outlets apart from linking them directly to office, recreational and residential spaces. For a tiny dot to remain as a livable urban city, the living spaces must grow along the rising population (both expats and local).

Checking this illustration on Straits Times [Aug 2010]

The above illustration shows the size comparison with Texas, in the US and with China. If this were the way the land is used, theoretically it would take up very little piece of land, leaving a huge remainder of the earth's surface for other uses. Though theoretically ideal, there are a few worries off hand:

1. Would everyone agree with such land use? Different cultures of different peoples around the world would not agree to the kind of living depending on one's idea of what is comfortable and even 'prestigious' living. Some may consider this as a packed up living life style where you cannot enjoy the spaciousness of greens and enjoy the big airy skies around you. 
2. Social economically, and more importantly politically; this idea of land use may not be palatable to all. It would need the sacrifice of space where grandeur may have to be taken away in architectural designs of monumental buildings. This could impact social uproar when national identity and pride is taken away via a reduction of space for these historically important venues.
3. The price of land would peak unless we have an economics system where this cost could be cut from earnings from other areas. This could possibly be achievable if we would use other land spaces for other economic activity, provided if we could keep greed in....

Space is often seen as a sign of power. Else histrorically, countries and people wouldn't want to wage wars to conquer more space for increasing political and economic might. To take away living spaces has a lot of conflicts of interests that we have to overcome. Cutting population growth is often seen as a way to solve overcrowding and many other human problems. But is a large population the main cause for depletion of natural resources? I doubt it. It could often be touted that the vice of misusing technology and knowhow is the main cause for unsustainable living. I often think that this is the most fundamental reason for our impending demise.

Don't you think so?

Time for bed...as usual..

--- Karen Fu....


Reference:

1. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore 
2. Straits Times article 17 August 2010 

The Future of Design Stanford Conference - BusinessWeek

The Future of Design Stanford Conference

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on March 19, 2010

I’m going to give a 5 minute talk on the future of design on Friday to spark conversation within a terrific group of design thinkers from around the world. Banny Banerjee, director of the Stanford Design Program is putting it on. I first met Banny at a conference in India put on by the National Institutes of Design.

Here are my thoughts on where Design/Thinking is going and should be going—and what is needed to get there. They are designed to provoke. Let me know what you think.

Point of View: Designing A Post-Liberal Arts Paradigm—Innovation Arts

The creation of a new belief system—Innovation Arts—to replace the prevailing Liberal Arts paradigm should be the next stage in the evolution of Design/Thinking. A world of constant, cascading change and the failure of existing social organizations requires a shift from the prevailing Liberal Arts paradigm that trains individuals how to make sense of an existing world based on past knowledge and reifying society to a new paradigm that trains people how to build new social systems based on deep knowledge of current cultural rituals and behaviors while embedding action in social, economic and political context. An Innovation Arts paradigm would also form the foundation of a post-Neo-Liberal economic theory that reconnects elites to real business context rather than the quantified financialization of business functions, focuses on value in network relationships and group social behavior and educates people to make rather than consume.

Three Future Directions for the Advancement of Design

1—Develop a mature culture of criticism. If it is to evolve into a mature intellectual system of thought, Design has to create a critical, self-reflexive literature. Design’s public discourse remains aspirational, narrow and secretive. Despite an emphasis on the importance of failure in prototyping and learning, little actual discussion of failure exists. Despite a focus on practice, very little is revealed of what really occurs in consultancy or corporate design practice. The RCA and SVA have just started MFAs in Design Criticism. We need more challenging conversations on both Practice and Theory. And we desperately need a powerful HBR of Design Thinking, anchored in an academic institution. Suggestions? Business or Design School?

2- Build Human Centered Design Tool Kits for Political Policy Makers. Design has focused recently on creating how-to design kits for NGOs to operate at the Bottom-of-the-Pyramid level in Asia and Africa. Building how-to kits for policy-makers at the Top-of-the-Pyramid level in the US, Europe, Latin America and Asia is equally important and challenging. The First World is the new Third World and needs Design Thinking to redesign itself. Design’s venue is expanding from product to experience to systems to policy. Policy is the new edge in Design and it speaks to domestic as well as foreign human needs.

3- The “as if….” perspective of ritual, serious play and the making of the new embodied in the Innovation Arts paradigm is already dominant in much of Generation Y culture. Gen Y has much to teach and much to do. In an effort to understand and activate the Gen Y demographic, Parsons is launching a Gen Y Research Institute. It will focus on deep understandings of Gen Y culture as represented by the global student body at Parsons and provide a public stage and financing for the products and services created by these students. A global collaborative of Gen Y research efforts would be hugely productive.

via businessweek.com

Reading this commentary by Nussbaum and company and had to add a very quick comment: 'Unless we take into consideration a radical change in design thinking, we will not solve any problems with real value-added and sustainable solutions.'

People are talking about different types of thinking and even morph into thinking hybrids when we may well possibly need just one - 'sanity and ethical thinking.'

Too much problems arise because we don't think in the right direction for different problems. And very often the real root of most problems is 'human nature'. The way I see it is that people do not really want to hit at the moral problems at different levels for many reasons. Either being really dogmatic or being really selfish. Perhaps we need to rethink about how we treat different problems at varying degrees. Maybe what we need to think is just being level to everyone else. Specific classification of thinking may create class disparities as far as solving real needs is concerned. Unless we stop thinking about intellectual ego, we will forever have this persistent problem of 'not doing the right thing' for the environment at large.

Best wishes !

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change