Below, Margaret Turnbull responds to the question:
The boundaries of science are continually expanding as scientists become increasingly integral to finding solutions for larger social issues, such as poverty, conflict, financial crises, etc. On what specific issue/problem do you feel we need to bring the scientific lens to bear?
I think that the most important issue upon which technological innovation should be brought to bear is in energy efficient devices and the decentralization of energy production. Whether this would include something like photovoltaic paints or clothing that captures energy from bodily movements throughout the day, we need simple systems with easily fabricated components that can be used by homeowners to generate their own power. When individuals take responsibility for their fundamental needs (like fuel, power, and food), then they truly demonstrate freedom--and only then will our society be truly sustainable. As long as Americans are reliant on "the grid" over which they have little understanding or control for food, fuel, and jobs, we will be (perhaps needlessly) vulnerable to economic disturbances, political corruption, weather events, terrorism, short-sightedness, etc.
- Log in to post comments
It sounds a bit like you are advocating a subsistence lifestyle for all peoples. Is this really what you mean and wouldn't it require a dramatic die off of mist of humanity?
It sounds a bit like you are advocating a subsistence lifestyle for all peoples. Is this really what you mean and wouldn't it require a dramatic die off of mist of humanity?
Localized energy creation makes sense if the fuel sources are already being delivered locally. Solar is the most obvious example. One big one that is overlooked is sewage which when fermented gives off quite a bit of heat as well as methane. The heat is of greater benefit when utilized locally and the pretreated sludge is more easily managed at the centralized treatment plant. Now if we could only convert plastic packaging into clean energy in our homes, then we would be using the other major discarded available matter.
This answer was non-responsive to the question and it exposes the rift in the "selling" of science. The answer has nothing to do with science whatsoever in the sense of =doing= it. Rather it is a request for engineering focus, which doesn't do science, it uses the knowledge the scientific method produces.
It may be important to focus on localizing energy production. I don't really get why, except that it will probably be more resilient. Engineering research and development of technologies would be needed to do this. Any real science needed here would be in the environmental impact analysis. The real issue is engineering research. I agree that this is very neglected and totally disrespected.