Category Archives: Issues in Science

Waste Resourcing

What exactly do we consider “waste”? Could what we are flushing down the toilet be more important than we realize? We are constantly in search of supplies to burn for energy and grow to eat, but what leaves our body we tend to want to overlook. New technology is developing that may be able to take advantage of that we currently label as waste, which holds both nutrients and biomass. Recycling of these resources can help mediate the depletion of natural supplies from our energy and agriculture demands.

image by Olearys via Flickr

Nutrients which are necessary for plant growth–such as nitrogen phosphorous and potassium– are all excreted after we consume those plant foods. Humans use raw deposits of these minerals for fertilizers, which have been estimated to contribute to 30-50% of crop yield. Before this discovery humans were using guano (sea bird and bat excrement) in crops to promote growth. These nutrients are essential for our ever growing agricultural industries. Meanwhile, their natural deposits are quickly declining due to our own demand. The following video discusses the problem of diminishing phosphorous:

Similar problems are faced for other nutrients such as potassium; while having a longer projected depletion time of 330 years this estimate does not account for accelerated use for grain crops or depleted soils. Potassium as well as nitrogen prices are estimated to steadily incline over the next 10 years.

Another depletion that can be mediated though waste sourcing is fossil fuels, which we use as an energy source. Organic material (also known as biomass) in sewage can be converted into methane gas and used as a fuel source which can serve as a green source of energy for our growing demand. As fossil fuels also have a diminishing raw supply it is imperative that reliable alternate energy sources are found. Potentially using waste biomass as a carbon source would provide a sustainable and economical source of energy. Although sewage biomass will not be able to replace fossil fuels, it is still a completely green fuel source that can make a contribution to our demands.

Are these recoveries realistic? There are two leading processes for waste treatment: Lower Energy Mainline (LEM) and Partition-release-recover (PRR).

image by Montgomery County Planning Commission via Flickr

Both processes target nutrient preservation while recovering energy. LEM is by far more cost efficient and results in net energy recovery and full phosphorous recovery, but very low nitrogen recovery. However, due to it’s cost efficiency it is likely to be used in the near future. PRR on the other hand results in large enough concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous for extraction of both, but it more energy intensive.

As our technology advances the field of waste treatment will become more and more efficient. Resource availability is a serious threat, but being able to take advantage of our waste can create a much more sustainable society. Slowly implementing these advancements can bring us closer to a circular economy; one that does not depend on sources being depleted from natural deposits.

Video

Is time traveling fiction or reality?

The wormhole in the movie “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”. Source: Live Science.

I’m sure the question “What if I had studied more for my exams?” crossed your mind at least once during your time in university. In order to answer this question we would have to travel to the past and check if studying more would have helped us. However, is time travelling possible?

There are many theories suggesting that time travelling is possible because time is relative. Einstein showed that there is a strong relationship between time and space as one cannot exist without the other. Since time is relative in different locations of the Universe, a being can be in a place where time passes slower than on Earth.

Traveling to the future can be made possible since velocity and force affect the normal state of time. In other words, if people would be able to travel approximately at the light velocity, they would be traveling to the future. The time on Earth would be a lot faster compared to the time passed when traveling at light speed. Additionally, a strong force of gravity could also alter time. For example, if we could be able to stay close to a black hole, a strong force of gravity would try to pull us. If we do not let this force pull us, we would experience that time goes slower than on Earth.

We can also think of Einstein’s theory of special relativity as a cube. There are many ways to cut a cube. When we think about our present, an event that everyone on Earth can perceive that happens at the moment, represents a vertical 90 degrees cut on our cube. However, what if someone far away in the universe is not at our same time line? This activity would create an angle between what the distant being considers the present and what is considered the present on Earth. Furthermore, this movement would allow this individual to presence the past or the future of the human society. Therefore, future, present and past are real in what we consider our present. For this reason we could think about the Novikov self-consistency principle ,  which explains the possible existence of parallel dimensions. If this principle happens to be true, we could say that traveling to the past is also possible.

There are other theories that explains the possibility of travelling to the past through wormholes. Simply put, a wormhole is a passage that connects two points in space and any object that goes through it can travel faster than the speed of light. They are predicted by Eisten’s theory of general relativity but there is no empirical evidence on wormholes existence and it would be extremely hard to manipulate them.

Therefore travelling in time is possible in theory, but I think it is not yet practicable with our current technology and knowledge of the physics of the Universe. Unfortunately we can’t count with time travelling to solve our studying problems yet!

Artificial Intelligence: A Friend or Enemy of Humanity?

During the most recent decade, there have been a lot of movies showing humans fighting against robots. Most of these movies have a background that the robots massively destroying human society, such as The Matrix and The Terminator series. This makes some people worry about the future of human society: Will scientists eventually develop an artificially intelligent machine that can outsmart human in every aspect, and will this machine likely declare a war to overthrow the domination of humans?  Unfortunately, according to some leading scientists such as Stephen Hawking, both of these worries have a high possibility to occur soon.

The revolution? — From Wikimedia Commons

Artificial intelligence (AI), which is defined as the machines or software that are designed to perform tasks, is extremely beneficial to the current society. Therefore, techniques that create advanced AI are developing at a staggering rate nowadays. Some AIs that exist today can even outsmart humans in certain aspects since AIs’ components provide AIs a processing rate that no human being can reach. For example, a well-known AI that is designed to play Go (encirclement chess) defeated the top Go player in 2016 because this AI can always calculate the move that has the highest win chance. Moreover, developers have developed a machine that has the functionality to self-code in order to generate new algorithms for new questions. Using this technology, with enough time and memory space, building an AI that could learn more than any people and outsmart humans in every aspect will become highly possible. In 2013, a research survey asked hundreds of AI experts about the approximate time to achieve a human-level AI. The results were that with the current trends of the development of artificial intelligence, AI experts expect the first human-level AI to be developed in 2022 at the earliest.

What is likely to be the consequence of this development? Although it sounds impossible that a piece of code or a metal machine will declare a war on human beings, a lot of professors have expressed their worries about that a high-level AI, such as a human-level AI, may declare a war on its creators, human beings. The following video shows the details about their worries:

https://youtu.be/LjWc2vtbn9M

To sum up, a genuinely smart AI is likely to be invented by humans in the coming future as technology develops, and such an AI will have the high potential to spell the end of humanity. However, this should not be a reason for stopping the development of AI, as AI has brought so many benefits to humans. From my perspective, as long as the developers have the overall control of any of its developments, such as inserting a self-destruct function triggered by anti-human thoughts for every AI, humans will never lose control to AIs.

-Zhaolin Deng

Image

All Aboard the Hype Train!

Recall the most recent technological or scientific breakthrough that you were hyped about – a new Apple product, SpaceX, coffee mugs that charge your phone, or one of the other innumerable findings in the realm of science. How long did the excitement last before – and after- the slated release of the technology you have in mind? When it finally arrived were you satisfied, let down, or left somewhere in between?

In the field of genetics, a new approach which utilizes the CRISPR (pronounced as crisper) mechanism to edit the genomic DNA of a target host holds great potential and is seen as the next “big thing”. CRISPR and its associated genes (cas) are part of an immune system used by prokaryotes to identify and degrade foreign DNA. Geneticists have modified the CRISPR/cas system to help them accomplish amazing feats. Compared to previous methods of genetic modification, CRISPR/cas is far more streamlined and efficient.

The CRISPR/cas mechanism has seen numerous applications in fields ranging from botany, pathology, and even oncology. CRISPR/cas has also proven to be able to restore the non-functional gene which leads to sickle cell anemia.

The hype behind this emerging technology should be kept in check, however, as CRISPR/cas is not a magic bullet. Though its potential seems limitless, it does have technical limitations. Furthermore, an international consortium on stem cells, ethics, and law known as The Hinxton Group has released a statement warning about the potential dangers of unfettered application of CRISPR/cas to biomedical research.

We know that the media and the scientific community both love to get excited over new and upcoming technologies, and the hype for CRISPR is no different. As potential consumers and beneficiaries of CRISPR/cas mediated treatments, we like to hear about the wonders of this emergent technology. However, as scientists and communicators, we ultimately have to be careful that we do not lead ourselves and our target audience through the hype cycle. Over promising and underperforming is a hallmark of bad science, and is something we should strive to avoid.

Programmed to kill! Autonomous vehicles and decision making.

Imagine letting your car make the decision to kill you. With the increasing popularity and improvement of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, driverless cars will be publicly available before we know it. But how do they work and how comfortable can we be letting a vehicle make decisions for us?

There is a major misconception that AVs are pre-programmed with tons of intricate and conventional “if-else-then” guidelines for every situation a vehicle may encounter, as well as situations akin to the trolley problem. For example, if a child and a senior citizen are suddenly on the road, then the vehicle would hit the one with the lower chance of injury or perhaps the one with the most life left to live.

However, AV technology is not based on the ethics of driving. In fact, AV systems rely heavily on artificial intelligence and machine learning abilities to make informed decisions and discern its surroundings, just like a human driver.

The most common machine learning algorithms that are being used in AVs are based on “object tracking.” The purpose of these algorithms is to improve the accuracy of identifying and distinguishing between objects.

A core problem facing these algorithms is profiling of an object, i.e. whether it is another vehicle, a pedestrian, a bicycle, or an animal. The answer is a complex machine learning or pattern recognition algorithm that is given many images containing objects.

How a self-driving car might classify objects to make decisions. (Source: Iyad Rahwan, MIT)

Such an algorithm inspects the images and guesses the kind of object in each image. Logically, most of its initial guesses will be wrong and the algorithm modifies its internal parameters or parts of its structure based on the initial mistakes and tries again.

This process occurs continuously, discarding changes that reduce the algorithm’s accuracy and keeping changes that increase its accuracy until it correctly classifies all images. When the algorithm is shown new images, it will classify them with high accuracy. By this time the algorithm is said to have “learned.” The algorithm can then evaluate its surroundings and make a calculated choice about how to proceed.

Now back to the question at hand, how comfortable can we be letting a vehicle make decisions regarding death? I’m not sure how comfortable I would be letting a computer make a choice for me where the consequence could be death. On the other hand, I’m not sure how confident I would be in my own ability to make such a decision. The video below discusses the social dilemma of self-driving cars.

(Source: Science Magazine, YouTube)

When you strip away the bias, and purely focus on the logistics, i.e. the decision that will lead to the greatest good, perhaps an algorithm may be the best decision maker.

After all, evidence suggests that 90% of vehicle collisions are the result of human error. By removing the human element from driving, motor vehicle accidents would significantly decline thereby making roadways much safer.

We’re still a long way from allowing fully autonomous vehicles to take over roadways, but it is worth thinking about how the vehicle might make decisions where ethics and morality would normally play a huge part and how comfortable we might be letting an algorithm decide.

By: Ami Patel