May 04

To read later.

Posted on by

To read later.

Originally shared by Greg Batmarx

It began, like many things on Reddit, with a simple question: Former climate change deniers, what changed your mind?

More than 600 posts later, AskReddit was able to not only offer insights into that question, but also shed some light on why people initially rejected the consensus view held by 97% of climate scientists that the Earth is rapidly warming because of human activity.

Yale Climate Connections analyzed 66 answers describing the motivation behind the conversion. The biggest reason was a slow acceptance of clear scientific evidence.

Seeing graphs of atmospheric carbon dioxde and overwhelming data supporting the conclusion that humans are rapidly, catastrophically warming the planet was convincing for many.

It’s just difficult for me to deny it with the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it wrote one.

The desire to safeguard the Earth, evidence of extreme weather, and dubious sources among climate change deniers sealed the deal for most of the rest.

But why did people reject climate change in the first place?

Family was the most common reason.

Mostly because my family rigorously shot it down whenever it was remotely mentioned one person wrote. Another writer had grown up “actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real.”

But personal politics and identity were a close second (and are cited as top reasons in other studies). Climate change is starkly political in the US.

Although 68% of registered Democrats rate climate change as a “very serious problem,” reports the Pew Research Center, only 20% of Republicans agree (the global median is 58%) .

I had kinda developed the idea that liberals were the ‘bad guys said one poster justifying his rejection of the science.

Another added: … raised Republican. Naturally, I believed climate change is leftist bullshit.

The third major reason was a desire to avoid the enormity of the problem.

I really doubted it for a while, because honestly it scared me one poster wrote. “I figured if I just denied it and pretended it wasn’t a thing, it wouldn’t be and it would just go away.

Conveying the urgency of climate change, informed by science, has several psychological forces working against it, report Yale University researchers: the human brain privileges experience over analysis; we are primally social beings who adopt group norms; and we don’t prioritize problems distant from our everyday lives.

Should a deniers’ friend go bang them on the head with studies? No. That’s likely to have the opposite effect, says Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan who studies the issue.

People tend to reject the validity of scientific evidence when it conflicts with their deeply held world-views. Instead, suggests Kahan in Mother Jones, present information in ways that already align with people’s beliefs without triggering emotional, defensive responses.

Kahan tested this concept by showing people of various viewpoints two fake newspaper articles: “Scientific Panel Recommends Anti-Pollution Solution to Global Warming” and “Scientific Panel Recommends Nuclear Solution to Global Warming.”

For conservative individuals (” hierarchical individualists” in the study) who doubted climate change, the second article was far more effective at convincing them that humans caused global warming. Kahan suspects this is because the science was presented in an existing pro-industry narrative.

How do you change peoples’ minds? Lead with values. That gives facts a chance.

https://qz.com/966586/four-big-reasons-why-deniers-started-believing-in-climate-change-according-to-a-yale-university-analysis-of-reddit/
May 04

Electric flying cars. Surprisingly, not all self-driving.

Posted on by

Electric flying cars. Surprisingly, not all self-driving.

Originally shared by Greg Batmarx

The once fanciful concept of flying cars appears to be a step closer to reality, after a German company completed successful test flights of a “flying taxi”.

Munich-based Lilium backed by investors who include Skype co-founder Niklas Zennström, said the planned five-seater jet, which will be capable of vertical take-off and landing, could be used for urban air-taxi and ride-sharing services.

In flight tests, a two-seat prototype executed manoeuvres that included a mid-air transition from hover mode, like a drone, to wing-borne flight, like a conventional aircraft, Lilium said.

Potential competitors to Lilium Jet include much bigger players such as Airbus, the maker of commercial airliners and helicopters that aims to test a prototype self-piloted, single-seat “flying car” later in 2017.

But makers of “flying cars” still face hurdles, including convincing regulators and the public that their products can be used safely. Governments are still grappling with regulations for drones and driverless cars.

Lilium said its jet, with a range of 190 miles and cruising speed of 186mph, is the only electric aircraft capable of both vertical take-off and jet-powered flight.

The jet, whose power consumption is comparable to an electric car, could offer passenger flights at prices comparable to normal taxis but with speeds five times faster, Lilium said.

Other potential rivals include the crowd-funded e-volo, a firm based near Mannheim that has said it expects to receive special regulatory approval for its two-seat “multicopter” with 18 rotors to be used as flying taxis in pilot projects by 2018.

Terrafugia, based outside the US city of Boston and founded 11 years ago by MIT graduates, aims to build a mass-market flying car, while the US-Israeli firm Joby Aviation has said it is working on a four-seater drone.

Google, Tesla and Uber have also reportedly shown interest in the new technology.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/21/electric-flying-car-lilium-google-uber-vtol-jet-taxi

May 02

Big changes are coming.

Posted on by

Big changes are coming. We’re not ready for them, we may not like them, and many of our most powerful institutions are actively but ineffectually resisting them, but the outcome could be wonderful.

(Warning: fixed-size font, unsuitable for people with visual impairment.)

Originally shared by Jennifer Ouellette

History gives us some perspective. The Day Before the Renaissance. The only antidote for 100-days mania and 24-hour news cycles is to shift focus from the urgent to the important. “An epochal change is coming, a transformational tsunami is on the horizon, and most of our leaders and many of us have our backs to it. We’re looking in the wrong direction. Indeed, many of those in positions of power and their supporters are so actively trying to cling to the past we can almost hear their fingernails clawing at the earth as they try to avoid accepting the inevitable and momentous changes to come.” http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/the-day-before-the-renaissance/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/the-day-before-the-renaissance/

May 01

I haven’t watched this yet, but I want to.

Posted on by

I haven’t watched this yet, but I want to.

Originally shared by Larry Panozzo

40-minute interview yesterday with the greatest man on the planet.

Tunnels, Tesla, SpaceX, and the future.

#ElonMusk #Tesla #SpaceX #Hyperloop #TED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPaYrhUZSYQ&feature=share

May 01

The article (and, indeed, the ethicists who are quoted) quite rightly raise the phenomenon of “rights inflation” -…

Posted on by

The article (and, indeed, the ethicists who are quoted) quite rightly raise the phenomenon of “rights inflation” – the current tendency to classify anything that one considers morally desirable as a human right.

I don’t know that their approach is necessarily the best one, but I do commend the fact that they’re starting to think about these issues. As the lead researcher says, in the closing sentence of the piece: “It’s always too early to assess a technology until it’s suddenly too late.”

Originally shared by Singularity Hub

4 New Human Rights for When Our Brains Are Hooked Up to Computers

http://suhub.co/2pQ74EJ

Apr 30

This is an idea whose time is coming, but it requires that we value citizens over corporations.

Posted on by

This is an idea whose time is coming, but it requires that we value citizens over corporations.

Originally shared by Jane Rakali

May 1st is coming up, a day to share links and promote the idea of Universal Income worldwide. This article describes what it is, how it can be paid for and the benefits.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/why-we-should-all-have-a-basic-income