Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
9 ways self-driving vehicles could change tourism
Future vacationing could be pretty different.
- A study examines how autonomous vehicles could change the tourism experience
- Removing a human driver adds some new possibilities, like personalized sightseeing tours
- Sex on wheels, anyone?
While experts and manufacturers often assert that self-driving vehicles will come to market by 2020, others are skeptical, as some required elements are far from realization, among them digital maps for cars and cheap enough onboard sensors, computers, and power supplies. (Current hardware is prohibitively expensive for mass production.) Also, more robust networks will be required for all of these connect vehicles. Still, people are already considering the eventual passenger experience — what will we do as we're ferried hither and yon?
In the January 2019 issues of Annals of Tourism Research is an article by the University of Surrey's Scott A.Cohen and Oxfords' Debbie Hopkins. The article's called "Autonomous vehicles and the future of urban tourism," and it examines the impact of future autonomous vehicles on urban tourism. The researchers consider the ways in which sightseeing, recreation, and lodging may change once the technology has matured to the point that vacationers are comfortable enough to let their connected autonomous vehicles, or personal CAVs — and shared, connected autonomous vehicles, or SCAVs — do the driving. Absent the cost of human drivers and with the presumed greater safety — especially with the removal of jet-lagged travelers from behind the wheels of rental cars — Cohen and Hopkins suggest a number of things that could be different.
1. Self-driving taxis
One of the sectors benefiting most from current tourism is taxi drivers. With self-driving vehicles, however, cab drivers could be largely put out of business. On the other hand, self-driving cars are expect to be safer than human-driven cars, so passengers may prefer a less dangerous ride through a new city.
2. Targeted sightseeing
Imagine sightseeing vehicles programmed to satisfy the visitors being shown around town. A pre-trip questionnaire could result in a map optimized for the travelers' interests, reducing the potential for wasted ho-hum vacation moments.
The authors note a couple of potential downsides. First, once the sightseeing vehicle "knows" what interest you, would it also bombard you with onboard targeted ads? Also, the impact of private sightseeing CAVs — as opposed to multi-traveler SCAVs — could lead to greater urban congestion.
3. Extended sightseeing
A car drives beside a Route 66 highgway mural in the downtown district of Albuqurque, New Mexico on October 1, 2018. MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images
Another possible outcome the authors suggest is that sightseeing tours could inexpensively cover larger areas, allowing for more expansively themed trips. Onboard recreations could be provided to keep visitors engaged and amused. Which brings us to…
4. Rolling hotel rooms
With tourists feeling safe in their vehicles, why not catch some sleep en route to the next destination? Ideally, it would look a more comfortable than this, but the thought is there. If people can catch sleep on planes, why not make ground travel more sleepable and appealing?
5. Rolling entertainment
Or you could catch a show. How about a movie, or some sort of VR/AR entertainment? Experiencing a VR environment — related to your real location or not — could be a really fun way to get from place to place.
6. If the SCAV’s rocking, don’t come a-knocking
The report notes the relative lack of interest in studying nyctalopia in that academia "tends to overlook what happens when night falls." Thinking about this, though, autonomous vehicles may see "a variety of practices and emotions gain traction within a particular space-time which generates a special atmosphere associated with particular activities, experiences and possibilities." Night-time travel, like any night-time venue, could provide a mobile setting for "criminal acts, a rendezvous for lovers, nonconventional behaviors, or organizing rebellion."
So, yeah, mobile sex. And maybe revolution.
7. Events and parties
Could larger CVAs contain moving events or parties that allow an organizer to control the atmosphere more absolutely without concerns of its effect on a stationary space? We're thinking easier cleanups, better security, etc. SCAVs could also gather its participants as as the night rolls on.
8. Restaurants and bars
If diners enjoy viewing a skyline from up high while eating, why not the ever-changing nighttime cityscape of well-planned urban tour passing by at ground level? The same could apply to watering holes — why just stare at a bartender when you could be taking in the sights?
9. Less parking to be done
NANJING, CHINA - OCTOBER 31: Abandoned vehicles sit parked inside an industrial park on October 31, 2018 in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province of China. Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images
One great way to make money for a developer is to open a parking garage in a popular tourist destination. With tourists riding around in SCAVs instead of private vehicles, though, that investment seems considerably less attractive. Of course, tourists will no longer have the difficulty or expense of finding somewhere to park. On-street and roadside parking would also be less necessary, and the authors wonder, "What if parking lots and roadside parking could be transformed into city parks, event spaces and bike lanes?"
Automated tourism of the future, or not? Discuss.
Taxis, sightseeing, and parking changes all seem inevitable and desirable. But it's fair to ask of this study exactly how much of this ambulatory activity is actually desirable, or even that new? After all, people sleep on trains as they travel already, and on planes. Would people prefer sex for some reason in a moving vehicle to a stationary room somewhere? (Mind the potholes.) Much of what's envisioned in the study is already doable with a human driver, and one wonders how much more popular such activities would become absent that one factor — we see very few people engaging in them now. We'll have to wait and see.
Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?
Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: N = R* × fP × ne × f1 × fi × fc × L. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.
The Drake equation is an example of a broader issue in the scientific community—considering the sheer size of the universe and our knowledge that intelligence life has evolved at least once, there should be evidence for alien life. This is generally referred to as the Fermi paradox, after the physicist Enrico Fermi who first examined the contradiction between high probability of alien civilizations and their apparent absence. Fermi summed this up rather succinctly when he asked, “Where is everybody"?
But maybe this was the wrong question. A better question, albeit a more troubling one, might be “What happened to everybody?" Unlike asking where life exists in the universe, there's a clearer potential answer to this question: the Great Filter.
Why the universe is empty
Alien life is likely, but there is none that we can see. Therefore, it could be the case that somewhere along the trajectory of life's development, there is a massive and common challenge that ends alien life before it becomes intelligent enough and widespread enough for us to see—a great filter.
This filter could take many forms. It could be that having a planet in the Goldilocks' zone—the narrow band around a star where it is neither too hot nor too cold for life to exist—and having that planet contain organic molecules capable of accumulating into life is extremely unlikely. We've observed plenty of planets in the Goldilock's zone of different stars (there's estimated to be 40 billion in the Milky Way), but maybe the conditions still aren't right there for life to exist.
The Great Filter could occur at the very earliest stages of life. When you were in high school bio, you might have the refrain drilled into your head “mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell." I certainly did. However, mitochondria were at one point a separate bacteria living its own existence. At some point on Earth, a single-celled organism tried to eat one of these bacteria, except instead of being digested, the bacterium teamed up with the cell, producing extra energy that enabled the cell to develop in ways leading to higher forms of life. An event like this might be so unlikely that it's only happened once in the Milky Way.
Or, the filter could be the development of large brains, as we have. After all, we live on a planet full of many creatures, and the kind of intelligence humans have has only occurred once. It may be overwhelmingly likely that living creatures on other planets simply don't need to evolve the energy-demanding neural structures necessary for intelligence.
What if the filter is ahead of us?
These possibilities assume that the Great Filter is behind us—that humanity is a lucky species that overcame a hurdle almost all other life fails to pass. This might not be the case, however; life might evolve to our level all the time but get wiped out by some unknowable catastrophe. Discovering nuclear power is a likely event for any advanced society, but it also has the potential to destroy such a society. Utilizing a planet's resources to build an advanced civilization also destroys the planet: the current process of climate change serves as an example. Or, it could be something entirely unknown, a major threat that we can't see and won't see until it's too late.
The bleak, counterintuitive suggestion of the Great Filter is that it would be a bad sign for humanity to find alien life, especially alien life with a degree of technological advancement similar to our own. If our galaxy is truly empty and dead, it becomes more likely that we've already passed through the Great Filter. The galaxy could be empty because all other life failed some challenge that humanity passed.
If we find another alien civilization, but not a cosmos teeming with a variety of alien civilizations, the implication is that the Great Filter lies ahead of us. The galaxy should be full of life, but it is not; one other instance of life would suggest that the many other civilizations that should be there were wiped out by some catastrophe that we and our alien counterparts have yet to face.
Fortunately, we haven't found any life. Although it might be lonely, it means humanity's chances at long-term survival are a bit higher than otherwise.
Cross-disciplinary cooperation is needed to save civilization.
- There is a great disconnect between the sciences and the humanities.
- Solutions to most of our real-world problems need both ways of knowing.
- Moving beyond the two-culture divide is an essential step to ensure our project of civilization.
For the past five years, I ran the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement at Dartmouth, an initiative sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation. Our mission has been to find ways to bring scientists and humanists together, often in public venues or — after Covid-19 — online, to discuss questions that transcend the narrow confines of a single discipline.
It turns out that these questions are at the very center of the much needed and urgent conversation about our collective future. While the complexity of the problems we face asks for a multi-cultural integration of different ways of knowing, the tools at hand are scarce and mostly ineffective. We need to rethink and learn how to collaborate productively across disciplinary cultures.
The danger of hyper-specialization
The explosive expansion of knowledge that started in the mid 1800s led to hyper-specialization inside and outside academia. Even within a single discipline, say philosophy or physics, professionals often don't understand one another. As I wrote here before, "This fragmentation of knowledge inside and outside of academia is the hallmark of our times, an amplification of the clash of the Two Cultures that physicist and novelist C.P. Snow admonished his Cambridge colleagues in 1959." The loss is palpable, intellectually and socially. Knowledge is not adept to reductionism. Sure, a specialist will make progress in her chosen field, but the tunnel vision of hyper-specialization creates a loss of context: you do the work not knowing how it fits into the bigger picture or, more alarmingly, how it may impact society.
Many of the existential risks we face today — AI and its impact on the workforce, the dangerous loss of privacy due to data mining and sharing, the threat of cyberwarfare, the threat of biowarfare, the threat of global warming, the threat of nuclear terrorism, the threat to our humanity by the development of genetic engineering — are consequences of the growing ease of access to cutting-edge technologies and the irreversible dependence we all have on our gadgets. Technological innovation is seductive: we want to have the latest "smart" phone, 5k TV, and VR goggles because they are objects of desire and social placement.
Are we ready for the genetic revolution?
When the time comes, and experts believe it is coming sooner than we expect or are prepared for, genetic meddling with the human genome may drive social inequality to an unprecedented level with not just differences in wealth distribution but in what kind of being you become and who retains power. This is the kind of nightmare that Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Jennifer Doudna talked about in a recent Big Think video.
CRISPR 101: Curing Sickle Cell, Growing Organs, Mosquito Makeovers | Jennifer Doudna | Big Think www.youtube.com
At the heart of these advances is the dual-use nature of science, its light and shadow selves. Most technological developments are perceived and sold as spectacular advances that will either alleviate human suffering or bring increasing levels of comfort and accessibility to a growing number of people. Curing diseases is what motivated Doudna and other scientists involved with CRISPR research. But with that also came the potential for altering the genetic makeup of humanity in ways that, again, can be used for good or evil purposes.
This is not a sci-fi movie plot. The main difference between biohacking and nuclear hacking is one of scale. Nuclear technologies require industrial-level infrastructure, which is very costly and demanding. This is why nuclear research and its technological implementation have been mostly relegated to governments. Biohacking can be done in someone's backyard garage with equipment that is not very costly. The Netflix documentary series Unnatural Selection brings this point home in terrifying ways. The essential problem is this: once the genie is out of the bottle, it is virtually impossible to enforce any kind of control. The genie will not be pushed back in.
Cross-disciplinary cooperation is needed to save civilization
What, then, can be done? Such technological challenges go beyond the reach of a single discipline. CRISPR, for example, may be an invention within genetics, but its impact is vast, asking for oversight and ethical safeguards that are far from our current reality. The same with global warming, rampant environmental destruction, and growing levels of air pollution/greenhouse gas emissions that are fast emerging as we crawl into a post-pandemic era. Instead of learning the lessons from our 18 months of seclusion — that we are fragile to nature's powers, that we are co-dependent and globally linked in irreversible ways, that our individual choices affect many more than ourselves — we seem to be bent on decompressing our accumulated urges with impunity.
The experience from our experiment with the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement has taught us a few lessons that we hope can be extrapolated to the rest of society: (1) that there is huge public interest in this kind of cross-disciplinary conversation between the sciences and the humanities; (2) that there is growing consensus in academia that this conversation is needed and urgent, as similar institutes emerge in other schools; (3) that in order for an open cross-disciplinary exchange to be successful, a common language needs to be established with people talking to each other and not past each other; (4) that university and high school curricula should strive to create more courses where this sort of cross-disciplinary exchange is the norm and not the exception; (5) that this conversation needs to be taken to all sectors of society and not kept within isolated silos of intellectualism.
Moving beyond the two-culture divide is not simply an interesting intellectual exercise; it is, as humanity wrestles with its own indecisions and uncertainties, an essential step to ensure our project of civilization.
New study analyzes gravitational waves to confirm the late Stephen Hawking's black hole area theorem.
- A new paper confirms Stephen Hawking's black hole area theorem.
- The researchers used gravitational wave data to prove the theorem.
- The data came from Caltech and MIT's Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory.
The late Stephen Hawking's black hole area theorem is correct, a new study shows. Scientists used gravitational waves to prove the famous British physicist's idea, which may lead to uncovering more underlying laws of the universe.
The theorem, elaborated by Hawking in 1971, uses Einstein's theory of general relativity as a springboard to conclude that it is not possible for the surface area of a black hole to become smaller over time. The theorem parallels the second law of thermodynamics that says the entropy (disorder) of a closed system can't decrease over time. Since the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area, both must continue to increase.
As a black hole gobbles up more matter, its mass and surface area grow. But as it grows, it also spins faster, which decreases its surface area. Hawking's theorem maintains that the increase in surface area that comes from the added mass would always be larger than the decrease in surface area because of the added spin.
Will Farr, one of the co-authors of the study that was published in Physical Review Letters, said their finding demonstrates that "black hole areas are something fundamental and important." His colleague Maximiliano Isi agreed in an interview with Live Science: "Black holes have an entropy, and it's proportional to their area. It's not just a funny coincidence, it's a deep fact about the world that they reveal."
What are gravitational waves?
Gravitational waves are "ripples" in spacetime, predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916, that are created by very violent processes happening in space. Einstein showed that very massive, accelerating space objects like neutron stars or black holes that orbit each other could cause disturbances in spacetime. Like the ripples produced by tossing a rock into a lake, they would bring about "waves" of spacetime that would spread in all directions.
As LIGO shared, "These cosmic ripples would travel at the speed of light, carrying with them information about their origins, as well as clues to the nature of gravity itself."
The gravitational waves discovered by LIGO's 3,000-kilometer-long laser beam, which can detect the smallest distortions in spacetime, were generated 1.3 billion years ago by two giant black holes that were quickly spiraling toward each other.
What Stephen Hawking would have discovered if he lived longer | NASA's Michelle Thaller | Big Think www.youtube.com
Confirming Hawking's black hole area theorem
The researchers separated the signal into two parts, depending on whether it was from before or after the black holes merged. This allowed them to figure out the mass and spin of the original black holes as well as the mass and spin of the merged black hole. With this information, they calculated the surface areas of the black holes before and after the merger.
"As they spin around each other faster and faster, the gravitational waves increase in amplitude more and more until they eventually plunge into each other — making this big burst of waves," Isi elaborated. "What you're left with is a new black hole that's in this excited state, which you can then study by analyzing how it's vibrating. It's like if you ping a bell, the specific pitches and durations it rings with will tell you the structure of that bell, and also what it's made out of."
The surface area of the resulting black holes was larger than the combined area of the original black holes. This conformed to Hawking's area law.