Human nature, venture, resilience, critical thinking. See & design invisible influences that drive behaviour. Future Fit Cities & co-founder at InceptionU
In Chapter 1 of The Demon-Haunted World, titled "The Most Precious Thing," Sagan cites Nietzsche's complaint in The Genealogy of Morals that scientific progress has steadily belittled humanity and eroded our belief in our own dignity and uniqueness.
This line is his reply.
The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion and have others listen to it.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but, crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense.
― Prof. Brian Cox
The human brain is constantly calculating how much energy is needed to do something. Since it is hard to get energy, it’s very conservative. This is why convenience is king. This post is a profound insight about AI in this very real context.
Buckminster Fuller, who was wrong about a lot of things in a way that was usually more interesting than other people being right, noticed something in the 1930s that still holds true.
He noticed that technology does not primarily get bigger. It gets thinner.
The transatlantic cable got lighter per unit of message. The building got lighter per unit of enclosed volume. The engine got lighter per unit of horsepower. Each generation of a technology tends to accomplish the same function with less stuff, and then with less stuff again, until at the limit the stuff approaches zero and only the function remains.
He called this ephemeralization : doing more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing.
And here were it gets interesting. What got eaten, in the first wave, was objects: my door key became a fingerprint.
What's happening today is the second wave: the AI paradigm shift. It’s our thought patterns, our decisions, our generative processes, our creativity, and our communication and coordination with each other that is being ephemerized.
And I think judgment abstraction has two consequences.
First, the output is not checkable at a lower cost than producing it. To verify a summary you must read the document. To verify a strategic recommendation you must do the strategy. The thing that made calculators safe (verification being orders of magnitude cheaper than generation) simply does not hold for the class of work being absorbed now. Which means verification won't happen because the economics forbid it. A check that costs as much as the work is not a check. It's a second attempt.
Second, the stairs are being removed as a consequence of using the lift. The way you stay able to judge a draft is by having written drafts. The capability is maintained by its own exercise and by nothing else. So the fallback and the thing it's a fallback for are the same muscle, and the system that replaces the muscle also stops the training.
This is Lisanne Bainbridge's irony of automation, which she wrote down in 1983 and which the aviation industry spent the next forty years rediscovering at great expense: automate the easy 99% and you have designed a job where a human with no recent practice must handle the hardest 1% with no warm-up, at the worst possible moment, on the basis of a mental model the automation has been maintaining on their behalf.
Airlines eventually responded by mandating hand-flying. No knowledge-work organization on earth currently mandates hand-thinking.
Hannah Arendt delivered this lecture, "Thinking and Moral Considerations," in 1971, several years after she had covered Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. That trial left her with a nagging question: how could someone commit such horrific acts without being a monster or fanatic? She concluded Eichmann's defining trait was simply an inability to think — he relied on clichés and fell apart when none applied. This lecture is her attempt to work out whether moral judgment depends on this capacity to think.
To explore this, she turns to Socrates as her model of real thinking. He described himself three ways: a gadfly who wakes people up, a midwife who helps others examine their own ideas without ever supplying answers, and an electric ray that paralyzes others by first being paralyzed itself. Genuine thinking, in her view, doesn't produce fixed rules — it unsettles things, which is both its value and its risk, since that same unsettling can tip into nihilism if people mistake uncertainty for permission.
Her central insight is that thinking is really an inner conversation — a "two-in-one" dialogue with yourself. Conscience, she argues, isn't some built-in moral sense; it's just what happens when you're forced to face yourself in that inner dialogue. People who never pause for this conversation have nothing stopping them from doing terrible things, because there's no inner witness there to object.
She ends by linking thinking to judgment — our everyday ability to say "this is wrong" without consulting a rulebook. Thinking itself is quiet and produces no visible results, but in moments when society's norms collapse, people who've practiced this habit of inner questioning are more likely to recognize wrongdoing and refuse to go along with it.
https://t.co/TCQloXbdPt
Scientists & science journalists decry the public's rejection of science, but are oblivious to the major cause: the perception, sometimes correct, that scientists are just another political faction. Among the guiltiest perpetrators are the recent editors of Scientific American, who turned this once-beloved treasure into a left-wing propaganda rag. This absolutely does not justify the Trump administration's unconstitutional meddling, but the new owners are right to restore it to its mission of explaining science to Americans. The Nation reports on The Fall of “Scientific American” https://t.co/m8Xml7EqQJ
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan
The Alberta taxpayers provides $1.78B annually in subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
Most Albertans argue that highly profitable, mature corporations should cover their own operational costs without taxpayer handouts.
A 2026 Pembina Institute poll found that 61% of Albertans oppose using taxpayer money to subsidize the highly profitable oil & gas industry.
#Alberta
https://t.co/8HpxDGXtwp
What he did was the equivalent of coming to work, and in a high-stakes moment, hijacking the work in front of customers, coworkers, leadership and history. He was free to do it, and they were free to fire him. Specific flag has nothing to do with it.
We are disturbed to learn that @CalgaryOpera has removed bass-baritone Gabriel Sanchez-Ortega from future performances of "Tosca" after he unveiled a Palestinian flag during the curtain call on opening night. Art is political, and artists should not be punished for expressing support for the Palestinian people as they face a genocide. This decision must be reversed.