Algorithmic Culture | Magazine – A different read.

Should Innovation, Not Legislation, Lead The Way, Or Do We Stand A Chance Against Climate Change (Or Its Crisis), Whatever Its Form? Here's the good news. As repulsive as it sounds, there are some who unnecessarily own and drive pickup trucks, eat meat, buy and wear leather goods, all with a shameful disregard for the planet, all while knowing how this consumption exacerbates a potential crisis. However, they still have the gall to march at climate change rallies. They jump out of an Ford F-Series with fibrous meat stuck between their teeth before pumping their fist with collective defiance. It's worthy of an eyeroll for the unpardonable hypocricy alone. This kind of outward dishonesty, a flagrant attempt to convey one's image as representative for a cause but in practice is the opposite, is behaviour indicative of a sociopath. Unfortuntately, the comfort of an SUV, leather purses, and one's desire for meat is not exemplary of Greta's climate revolution. Greta herself would not approve. Regardless of what activists feel, many are doing what they can to already stem the tide of a crisis. This shouldn't breed complacency in the goal, but it should evoke praise, and a healthy discussion on solutions, not the spit and fire of a teenage panelist instilled with panic and fear. In short, the goal is to the halve the human contribution to CO2 levels, and there's a lot to suggest we're halfway there. And while we hurtle toward climate uncertainty, these angels who artfully prop Greta but choose not to exercise her demands, will continue to add to the collective demise like so much carbon incrementally layering the heated trap above. So, despite their ignorance and claims of representing the just—they are guilty. Worse, they are both guilty and hypocrits. That's more than you can say of those who only mock Greta's followers. But The Planet's Real Heroes: Unlike Activists, Scientists—despite those who make limp claims of a Planet Inferno—Are Making Strides In Attempts To Decarbonize; Alongside Engineers, Innovators and Policy Makers. Scientists very often take a stance on scientific matters with great caution, and they often don't lean on consensus or deal in philosophical matters as they do with numbers of exactitude. It is likely the main reason why the IPCC report has as its default an intellectual loophole to spare themselves of humility: in determining their consensus (from a limited group of scientists), the participants were able to vote, not with any certitude, but on a scale of likelihoods (e.g. "likely", "very likely", "most likely"). This suggests something more akin to hypotheticals and an educated guess of opinion, as betting on likelihoods lacks full accountability or confidence. A pedestrian's call, too, can claim that the climate will likely change a degree in 80 years time, without a care for preserving one's reputation; if anything, they immediately score points for being seen as prudent. One's triumphant reverence or humiliation awaits, but either way, they'll be posthumously forgiven because a claim of absolute certitude was never claimed. This extends to the activists as well—how brave of them all. In an attempt to shred one's anchoring biases, to temporarily shelve one's confirmation biases, and to do away with attentional biases; here are scientific reports, from established scientists, from credible institutions—who adhere to the same principle and mantra of Greta's regarding "the science"—that will hopefully sway one's alarmist pessism or at least tone down one's inner rhetoric. Unfortunarely, on the international stage of protesters, there are climate deniers and climate catastrophists, when what the world desperately needs are those who are climate curious; an agnosticism that pivots from the cognitive bias of functional fixedness, that often encumber scientific revelations. Without piety, and for the sake of intellectual curiousity, here are some glimpses at proportioned science that look compelling, that feed not only climate optimism but a general optimism for human innovation that is likely the only . 'IGNARROGANCE' - A SIGN OF OUR TIMES. What we do know about climate change and climate activism specifically, is that it now includes 'cancel culture' as its by-product; but, the activists themselves (including agencies that fire staff like the BBC when they fired Dr. are very often not the scientists and can only respond regarding its catastrophic details that "It's science" and "scientists" who insist that humankind is the climate culprit, without ever acknowleding in any detail the actual science. This blind faith is reminscent of Republicans who would often answer difficult questions with, "It's in the Bible" as a way to "win" the argument; if you disagree, you've lost all virtue, moral and divine excellence. When there's conflicting science—opposing sides that both agree climate changes, however, the root cause is not agreed upon—it should occassion in the activist not to take a side if they haven't analyzed or undersood the data themselves. It's the very definition of arrogance and ignorance. (A new word, a portmanteau of the former and the latter should come into being for a study of our times: "ignarrogance"; people who claim to know science without any critical analysis or without even absorbing any of the data/knowledge attendant therein, but still confidently display with childish vigor their "knowledge" of the subject for Instagram posts. In other words, seeking validation for needing a purpose . Ultimately, it's narcissism that's at the core of this, because to be "on the side" of climate alarmism is to suggest one is "saving the planet and all its innocent inhabitants"—like a superhero—from all the polluting villains who are corporations). To put blind faith in science and scientists is slightly arrogant, if not foolish, despite the fact that we put faith in engineers each time we cross a bridge; however, the science of prognostication is an entirely different science and has made fools of scientists, those that activists claim are of divine wisdom: Scientists in the 70s claimed 'Global Cooling' Disasters. Oddly enough, scientists today (at NASA) are now suggesting, that despite global warming fears, we could be entering another 'ice age'. So, which is it? Some examples of scientific prognostication include: Scientists believed in the 1960's that oil depletion would occur in about a decade; that same prediction was made by scientists in the 70s claiming that oil would end in twenty years; again, Peak Oil was to occur in the 90s and in 2000 There were forecasts of famine, again by scientists in 1975. More importantly, there was scientific consensus for 'global cooling' and that famines were on the way. 1970's: Depletion of World Resources by 2000 Ice Age by 2000; 2020 and 2030. Another by 2070. Oil Depletion in 20 Years. '76 Scientific Consensus of global cooling, famine imminent. Peak Oil in 90s. Peak Oil in 2000. Maldive Islands underwater by 2018, it never happened. Peak Oil in 2020. Manhattan under water. Y2K? How could scientists have been so wrong in predicting an Ice Age? Being a climate agnostic while genuinely curious about the science makes one legitimately engaged on a topic that so many seem to know only through headlines. What if we're wrong about diabetes? ...asks. The vastness and complexity of the human body is analogous to the galactic body that is earth and its inherent system: climate. And both are systems with infinitely dynamic mechanisms that react to internal and external influences. Take A Deep Breath, There's A Lot Of Good News Surrounding Climate Change. If we're to believe that humanity contirbutes to climate change and that it can also prevent or reverse it, here are the key elements that will reverse the apocalyptic course that will not require taxation on a global scale; in fact, much of it is a result of innovation (not legislation) and they're already happening. Humanity's yearly carbon contributions are roughly 3%, and this tiny figure has to be halved, at the very least, so we're told, if we're to survive the "high probability" of having the average global temperature rise above 2 degrees, a point of total global catastrophe—think Heston on a beach, pounding his fists into the sand, kind of catastrophe. If we attain this goal, it means, we can still have all of the nice things we use—some of us more hypocritically—in the face of potential climate dangers. Industry. No single player as made a greater dent toward combating carbon emissions than Elon Musk. Pollution from vehicles contribute (%) into the atmosphere. Citizens often assume that government must have the answer to make significant change, but often forget that they can vote with their wallets to make the fastest disruptions. In a recent televised DW Documentary, "Will Germany's Car Industry Survive?" former BMW executive Carsten Breitfeld expresses it beautifully regarding electric vehicles, "if I look at the European democratic structures, then I see how we spend about a decade discussing new ideas, and after a decade all that's left is 10% of the original idea" [translated]. This is the problem of oversized, overly bureaucratic systems, despite their democratic underpinnings. Diet. Take A Deep Breath, Stop Pretending You're Better Than Most, Practice Environmentalism And Not Social Media Slactivism, Embrace Science But Question Loose Findings And Don't Alarmed Take a deep breath. If you can afford it and looking, buy an electric vehicle, and/or convince someone you know to get one. Reduce your intake of meat, if you'd like. Replace that unnecessary truck for a smaller vehicle. Personalize your carbon reduction, share your accomplishments, but do so without the rancour of preacher-like indignation. Even getting a used, smaller second vehicle and splitting the insurance would be a step forward; the...

Algorithmic Culture | Magazine

About that Elon Musk and Tesla Phone Rumour…When The World Is Begging For One

Skyworker’s Co-Founder, CEO on War, Ukraine, Guilt, and the Startup Dream

Techstars CEO Maëlle Gavet at Collision Conference; Corporate Empathy and the Secret Sauce to Mentoring Startups

Various National Flags At Toronto Protest Shows Emotional Reach Of The War In Ukraine (Lithuania, Georgia, Belarus, Poland, Estonia, Taiwan, Netherlands, et al.)

The Meme Stock, Viral Trading Craze: For Markets and Hedge Funds, It’s Something Of An Incursion; For Retail Investors It’s Something Of A Revolution.

Why Toronto (And Surrounding Regions) Might Be The Next Silicon Valley

With A Possibility For CRISPR To Cure “All” Diseases, Should All New Biotech Companies Be Designated Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs) To Thwart Potentially Specious Big Pharma Takeovers?

BlackBerry World Tour 2019: Girl Guides of Canada; CylancePROTECT; AI; IoT

Forget Jobs, Bezos, Gates or Musk, It’s Time The World Knows And Echoes The Name Rothblatt: Elevate Talk And Post-talk Interview