Near the Boraie Development, Reddit users gathered and began discussing “rewilding” — eschewing modern society, returning to nature and living mostly off the land — and whether it should be considered a valid life choice or a fad on Monday, April 13th. As one user pointed out, the National Geographic Channel posed similar questions last August when it explored rewilding in the pilot of Live Free or Die.
Rewilders are typically nature lovers or people tired of the pace and stress of modern life. They choose a return to the wilderness because they feel it’s humanity’s natural state. They point out that humans only began living away from the wilderness over the past few thousand years.
Yet, those who criticize rewilding argue that although humanity did survive in the wild through much of its evolution, it was only “survival.” Historically, many humans died young because of living outdoors.
The life is certainly not for the weak. Rewilders are hunter gatherers who live in harsh weather and environmental conditions and often go without eating at times, which can result in poor health from exposure, accidents and malnutrition. They often wear the furs of the animals they kill risking exposure to parasites and disease.
There are plenty of benefits though to rewilding. People become more focused on better understanding themselves and the land. With enough knowledge about edible plants and animals, rewilders often have healthier meals than the standard American diet.
The Telegraph has an article about a new invention: a pair of robotic hands that are able to prepare gourmet meals and even clean up afterwards. You may want to put down your Bulletproof Coffee for this one. The robotic hands were developed in England using a real life chef as a model. The chef was filmed preparing crab bisque – a difficult dish – and the film was then used to create computer algorithms for the robot to follow. The robot can now create a dish that is just as good as the original the chef cooked. There are plans to market these robotic arms so that they can cook for people in their homes.
Personally, while this invention is amazing, I think that overall it is a bad thing. Humans should be cooking for themselves. I am against technology like these robotic arms which do everything for humans. The average person who buys one of these robotic chefs will have no clue how it actually works, and that’s not good. What will they do when it breaks down?
We are becoming more and more dependent on computers and electronics that we don’t really understand; we just know how to use them. I’m not against technology, I just feel that as computers, cell phones, robotics, etc. become more sophisticated they are leaving people more disconnected from the tasks being done. They aren’t making us a smart as we think we are.
When it comes to the world of the internet there are a lot of things that are available for free. There are free printables and free games and there is also free music. Some of that free music is available legally through services that have permission to make it available to their users and some of it is available illegally by individuals who have uploaded music that they have gotten a hold of. Most people want to listen to music in a legal way, and some are even willing to pay to do that, but just how much are those individuals willing to pay?
There is only so much money available to some music lovers who would love to pay for a streaming service but just need those monthly or annual payments to be low. There are some artists who are fighting to push one streaming service that costs much more than the competition. Will individuals like Ricardo Tosto be willing to pay a lot of money for this service or will it simply encourage them to give up on paying altogether and just take advantage of any free music that they can find? They certainly aren’t paying for Wikipedia.
Vast technological progress is going on and the most recent achievement is a brain-to-brain mail system. It is important to point out that the concept is at its very beginning, but the good part is that someone out there is working on this and maybe in a few decades we will start sending complex messages from one to another directly.
Gianfrancesco Genoso told us that the tech trial was conducted by Giulio Ruffini, a scientist from Barcelona. His test subjects had to imagine moving either their feet or their hands. The signals were coded as 0 for leg movement and 1 for hand movement. On the other side, in France, sat the receiver whose brain stimulator allowed them to see a flash of light for every 1 (or hand movement). The distance was chosen deliberately as the point was to test both the quality and the speed.
The conclusion was that the signals were slow and could render a very limited range of information, but they were accurate and they proved that with some technological advancement humans will soon transmit complex messages, even feelings, through technological connections. Giulio Ruffini, the main responsible, was happy with the first experiment and plans to continue improving his new communication system.
Mark Ahn, strategic consultant to life science companies and biotech, participated in an interview with Entrepreneur Podcast Network where he discussed the current trends of entrepreneurship. There have been great interventions such as digital media, personalized medicine and globalization of markets, just to name a few.
Mark Ahn’s main concern is the implementation of startup
. He claims this has been slowed due to the recession and the high cost of student debt. In order for startup to be possible life sciences needs experience and right now there is a low participation rate, which he feels is due to the impact of student debt.
When asked about the exciting changes in entrepreneurship in the life sciences, Mark Ahn claims this could not be more of an exciting time for this industry. He states that the life-sciences field has shifted. It was first concerned mainly with numbers, but now it is more about genetics and how it works. An example he gives is the way we can now treat patients. We are now given the ability to allow patients to graft their own cells. Once they are grafted they can be given to the patient through an infusion. This is being done now and gives the possibility of a single dose cure for a patient, which changes the drug industry dramatically. This is only one example of how the treatment spectrum has changed.
Mark Ahn states we need new technology in biopharma, which will allow us to use the patient’s own immune system. This is currently being done, but on a small scale. As companies are changing, merging and growing together, it is his hope that this will become a regular practice.
You can follow Mark Ahn on Twitter for more insights.
Researchers at the University of Houston have come across some information that may be troubling to the online world. It seems that the mega social network Facebook may be making people sad. The study looks at the link between amount of Facebook use, social comparison and depression symptoms.
I think it’s easy to see why someone may be depressed when using Facebook. People only post the best bits of their lives online. It’s a sort of filtered view that makes it hard to compare yourself to if you don’t really have much going on in your life.
Let’s face it, Alexei Beltyukov says that if you’re already depressed you may be leaning on online sources of entertainment and interaction more than others to begin with. It’s hard to blame Facebook itself for how you feel about what you see your friends posting online.
The study showed that both men and women showed greater symptoms of depression the more time they spent on Facebook. I think this is really due to the unprecedented access we now have in other people’s lives. You can easily attain intimate knowledge of people you barely know through social networks online.
I think that if Facebook makes you sad you can always just stop using it. Maybe get outside and take a walk or attempt to do the things that your friends are doing that make you so jealous. Have real life interactions and experiences and post them to your Facebook account so you can feel less inferior.
Scientists reported finding a new Cambrian Period predator in the journal Paleontology. It is the first new species reported from the Marble Canyon in British Columbia’s Kootenay National Park. According to scientists, the Marble Canyon fossil beds, which were found in 2012, rival the Burgess Shale in both the diversity of species and in how well-preserved the fossils are.
The newly found animal is an arthropod about six inches long. It had four eyes and a set of long arms beneath its face used for grabbing prey. It has been named Yawunik kootenayi, with the genus name being that of an important figure from the Ktunaxa creation myth. The animal lived 580 million years ago.
Arthropods are the most diverse phylum on Earth and now make up 80 percent of the world’s species. There are a million species of insects alone. Arachnids and crustaceans are also arthropods. Scientists on YouTube, however, aren’t sure when the arthropods evolved or how their body plan developed. Arthropods have a hard, chitinous exoskeleton, and they have segmented bodies and legs. Those legs tend to be highly specialized and tailored for one of any functions including walking, swimming, breathing and hunting.
If you’re watching a YouTube video in the UK, you’ll notice there’s something a little different now. YouTube has started adding age ratings to its videos in the United Kingdom. The ratings are made by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and are designed specifically to help protect kids from graphic content on the web.
Not all the videos on YouTube are rated. Right now the pilot program is just being implemented on videos by Sony, Warner Music and Universal, and not that many of them. The classification has only been applied to 84 videos so far, but more are expected to get ratings in the future. CNN reported that the rating will only be displayed on a video that the organization feels should only be watched by someone age 12 or older. Videos are given a rating of 12, 15, or 18.
Video ratings can be great to help parent’s decide what videos their children should be able to watch. In the case of many YouTube videos however, the parents are there to screen what their children are watching and when. It will be interesting to see if the new designation has any impact on what videos are viewed on the service.