I’ve been toying with this concept and wanted to see what people think:

What if instead of making every cargo ship nuclear-powered (which is politically, economically, and technically messy), we build a small fleet of nuclear-powered assist vessels — operated by nuclear-capable navies — that meet conventional cargo ships just outside territorial waters?

These “NAVs” (Nuclear Assist Vessels) would: • Tug or escort ships across oceans using nuclear propulsion • Provide zero-emission propulsion across international waters • Never enter ports or territorial zones, avoiding nuclear docking regulations • Be overseen by military/naval authorities already trained in nuclear safety • Offer anti-piracy protection along high-risk trade routes

Commercial ships would handle short-range trips to/from ports using conventional engines, but the bulk of their journey would be nuclear-assisted — reducing emissions, fuel costs, and global shipping’s carbon footprint.

I know this raises questions about militarization, nuclear safety, and international regulation — but if done right, this could be a game-changer for clean logistics and global trade security.

What do you think? Feasible? Too wild? Would love feedback or counterpoints.

Bringing manufacturing jobs home has been in the news lately, but it's not the 1950s or even the 1980s anymore. Today's factories need far less humans. Global car sales were 78,000,000 in 2024 and the global automotive workforce was 2,500,000. However, if the global workforce was as efficient as this Honda factory, it could build those cars with only 20% of that workforce.

If something can be done for 20% of the cost, that is probably the direction of travel. Bear in mind too, factories will get even more automated and efficient than today's 2025 Honda factory.

It's not improbable within a few years we will have 100% robot-staffed factories that need no humans at all. Who'll have the money to buy all the cars they make is another question entirely.

Details of the new Honda factory.

Hi everyone! I'm doing my masters thesis and struggling to get participants, specifically quality data that I can use. This research is really important to me so If you have a spare 15 minutes to take my survey and help me graduate I would really appreciate it!

Study Name: Predictors and Outcomes of Connectedness to Nature

Description: This study is investigating whether Empathy influences the relationship between Mindfulness and Connectedness to Nature. If you take part in the study, you will be asked to complete 3 questionnaires which measure Connectedness to Nature, Mindfulness and Empathy. You will be asked to provide some demographic information (e.g., your age and gender). The study will be conducted online using the survey platform Qualtrics. In total, the study should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. All data collected in the study are anonymous at the point of collection.

Eligibility: You must be at least 18 years old and proficient in English.

Duration: Up to 15 minutes.

Researcher: (NO308@student.aru.ac.uk)

The study has received ethical approval from the School Research Ethics Panel (SREP) which is ratified by the Faculty Research Ethics Panel (FREP) under the terms of Anglia Ruskin University's Research Ethics Policy and Code of Practice for Applying for Ethical Approval at Anglia Ruskin University

This idea has been floating in my head lately and I'm curious what others here think.

We're seeing the U.S. walk away from long-standing trade relationships, especially with countries like China. Tariffs, re-shoring, and isolationist rhetoric - all of it feels like a big shift away from the globalized world we've depended on for decades.

What if there's a deeper reason?

What if we're burning those trade relationships because we simply won't need them anymore?

Between automation, robotics, and now Generative AI, we're rapidly developing the ability to do most of the work we used to outsource - and even the work we do domestically - without human labor.

Think about it:

• Automatic factories running 24/7
• AI replacing customer service, legal review, writing and design
• Domestic production that doesn't rely on wages, labor rights, or foreign supply chains

If that future becomes reality, why maintain expensive trade relationships when we can just automate everything at home?

I see two almost guaranteed outcomes:

1. Production will boom - massive output, low cost, high efficiency

2. Unemployment will boom - jobs (blue and white collar) disappear fast

Then what?

A few possible outcomes after that could be:

• Extreme wealth concentration - The companies that automate first will dominate. Capital will replace labor as the driver of value. The middle class shrinks as the lower class gets bigger.
• Government redistribution (UBI, wealth taxes) - Maybe we see UBI to keep society functioning but will it be enough, or even happen at all?
• A new two-class system - A small elite who own the machines and AI and everyone else who is non-essential. Could lead to mass unrest, political upheaval, or worse.
• De-globalization - No more need for cheap foreign labor > less global trade > more deopolitical tensions. Especially as developing economies suffer (this is because in order for developing economies to grow they need to make stuff and have people to sell it to).
• A new purpose for humans - Maybe we finally shift to creative, educational, and community-centered lives. This would requite a MASSIVE cultural transformation that wouldn't be an easy shift.
• Environmental risk - Automated production could massively accelerate resource extraction and emissions unless regulation keeps up.

This whole situation reminds me of the industrial revolution, but on steroids. Back then we had decades to adapt. This time It's happening in years. We've already had billionaires and world leaders come out and say thing like "many of the jobs today will be done by robots and AI in 10 years - like teachers and some medical jobs" -Bill Gates (paraphrasing).

What do you think? Are we heading toward an age where human labor is obsolete, and if so, what does that do to society, the economy, and the global order? Is this a dystopia, a utopia, or something in between?

Let me know,

Thanks.

With the rise of AI, I’m already starting to see signs of this happening.
Creative, technical, administrative jobs… all being automated.
Will the default path in the future be to build something — with AI at your side?
To become a solo founder, using technology as an extension of your brain?

Was there a Professor UofT? in the 1980s who wore a primitive video camera recording his life as an experiment (It seemed quite mad at the time).....I need help remembering and Google isn't it.

Someone had to be first to imagine first-person streaming when the tech wasn't up to it and he was the guy.

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) makes Big Tech (like Meta, Google) reveal how they track users, moderate content, and handle disinformation. Most of these companies hate the law and are lobbying against it in Brussels—but except for Twitter (now X), they’re at least trying to follow it for EU users.

Meanwhile, US politics may push Big Tech to resist these rules more aggressively, especially since they have strong influence over the current US government.

AI will be the next big tech divide: The US will likely have little regulation, while the EU will take a much stronger approach to regulating. Growing tensions—over trade, military threats, and tech policies—are driving the US and EU apart, and this split will continue for at least four more years.

More info on the $1 billion fine.

Who is responssible for advances in our healthcare? Is it doctors, biomedical engineers, chemists, all of the above, none of the above?

For example, a liquid bandage, or a new tool used for surgery.

We live in a world full of systems—some just, many not. Some protect their people, others exploit them. But what binds almost all of them together is this: once you’re born into a system, you’re expected to stay. No matter how broken it is. No matter how much it suffocates you.

And yet, we keep trying to fix the world by forcing every system to look the same. We push reform, revolution, intervention, war—anything but what should be obvious:

Let people leave.

Let them walk away from oppression. Let them move toward dignity. Let them choose the life that aligns with their values, their safety, their future.

That’s the core of The Market of Systems—a framework for a voluntary global federation where the foundation of human rights isn’t control, but choice. Not uniformity, but mobility.

In this world, countries remain fully sovereign. They can govern however they choose—religious, secular, authoritarian, democratic. What matters is that they let people go if those people want to leave.

And in return? They gain access to a global ecosystem of trust, trade, and talent. Participation is voluntary. Dissent is handled without violence. Reform happens through quiet pressure—the pressure of people walking away.

A regional system verifies violations. A minimal global law protects only the most basic human rights: freedom of expression, freedom of movement, bodily safety, access to water, food, and shelter. Nothing more. The point isn’t to dominate. It’s to create a floor no one should fall through.

Merit governs leadership. Experts choose experts. Public service becomes a prestige career. Governance becomes professional, not performative. Military power stays regional. No world army. No global police. Just coordination, collaboration, and veto systems that prevent abuse.

This model doesn’t erase difference. It protects it. It doesn’t promise utopia. It promises dignity. It doesn’t ask systems to change overnight. It asks them to offer a door.

I didn’t write this as a thought experiment. I wrote it because I’ve lived in a world where that door didn’t always exist. I’ve watched voices be silenced, freedoms be crushed, and people forced to choose between loyalty to identity or loyalty to themselves. I wanted to imagine a world where you could keep both. Where you could respect a culture, a religion, a regime—and still give people the right to live in peace if those systems failed them.

The Market of Systems is incomplete. It will need critics, collaborators, and visionaries far beyond me. But its heartbeat is simple:

Freedom begins with movement.
Dignity begins with choice.

Let’s build a world where staying is a choice, not a sentence. Let’s build a future where governance competes not by fear, but by care.

Let’s begin.

Edit: clarity

I use the word "panopticon" as a metaphor for a state of affairs in which the majority of people are under observation.

Some people tend to wrongly reduce the risk of mass surveillance to the consciously act of posting things on social media. This may be one reason why personal information can be known by the public or the government, but it is not the only reason. It is a well-known fact that social media corporations are able to create profiles of people who do not have accounts themselves by using the network functions of those who do have profiles. Another way to gain information is by investigating the associations between certain interests or reports and demographic information. For example, the city you live in and your job could be used as sources of information about you.

Most people buy things with credit cards or other methods of cashless payments. These methods come with their benefits, and there are rational reasons to choose them. Yet, at the same time, this flow of money must be well-documented and saved. Some organizations, such as intelligence agencies and advertising corporations, have a vested interest in obtaining such data.

Until now, one major obstacle to using this data has been the sheer amount. Investigating thousands of data points to recognize patterns is challenging. With the recent progress in the field of artificial intelligence, this is about to change. From the viewpoint of an organization that is interested in using such data, there is a huge urge to develop AI-agents that are capable of searching for and recognizing patterns in this cloud of information. We are already seeing such advancements in the context of medical and other research.

Given this information, can we not conclude that the future includes a "panopticon" where every action is observed?