The future is here, and it sucks

Step into the future where life is

faster, funnier, and more futuristic

than ever.

By the year 2000, the United States will

have a 30-hour work week and month-long

vacations as the rule.

The year 2000, um, I think I'll probably

be the spaceship to the moon, dictating

robots, to robots.

This integrated workstation incorporates

a complete office in one unit.

Unlike human housemaids, Mabel never

tires, never grumbles, never takes a day

off. No one's excited for 2100. Have you

noticed that?

I feel like we have a really dystopian

future ahead of us.

Technology in quite a lot of ways has

actually made things significantly more

difficult. Apple announced iOS 26 today

and this thing is an absolute disaster.

Why are modern appliances so terrible?

Is it just me or is AI making everything

worse right now? I don't know about you,

but I'm finding it harder and harder to

like even fathom or look at the future.

Take a trip with me to the future, if

you will. Imagine stepping into a city

that breathes with life. The air is

clean. The streets are silent, carrying

only the faint hum of electric machines

hard at work. The buildings in front of

you are lined with solar panels powering

the businesses inside. And in the

distance, there's a mixture of wind

turbines, nuclear power plants, and

geothermal wells supplying energy to the

wider community. Rooftop gardens crown

the cityscape, growing local fresh food

while simultaneously providing thermal

cooling for the occupants within. The

city is bustling, but not chaotically,

rather in a communal way. Thanks to the

increased productivity of automation,

much of our work has been taken off our

plates, giving people shorter work days,

longer vacations, and the freedom to

reconnect as social beings, the way we

were meant to be. Beyond the city, we

see aquaponic farms growing and

irrigated with freshly desalinated ocean

water, managed, of course, by AI systems

that optimize for water use, energy

consumption, and waste, all in perfect

balance. It's a beautiful place to live,

but you're probably asking yourself, is

this really our future? Because as

inspiring as this image is, it doesn't

really feel like we're heading in that

direction, does it? And I don't know

about you, but as we're closing in on

the end of 2025, I feel like our

technological progress should have taken

us farther by this point. The truth is,

holding on to the optimistic visions of

our future on which our culture is

founded is getting increasingly more

difficult. Back in the 60s, people

imagined the world of tomorrow as shiny,

clean, and full of promise. And I

wouldn't really use those words to

describe what we're living in now.

Because while every year brings a

dazzling new array of technological

advancements, it's hard not to wonder if

all of these innovations have actually

made our lives measurably better. So,

that's what we're going to get into

today. Why technology may be doing more

harm than good, what went wrong with the

future we imagined, and whether that

dream is still within reach.

As far back as humanity's story goes,

technology worked towards improving our

lives. Not without some complications or

consequences, of course, but overall the

impact has been a net positive. To go

through the classics real quick, we have

the wheel, the printing press, the light

bulb, and sewage systems. Each one

reshaping society by raising the

standards of health, knowledge, and

quality of life. Our desire to solve

problems and leave the world better than

we left it is deeply rooted in our DNA.

as the hope for a brighter future drives

innovation forward generation after

generation. Nowhere was this optimism

clearer than in the midentth century

where visions of the future were the

hottest topic and one of excitement with

shows like the Jetsons of course

displaying this idealic picture of a

world with flying cars, robot helpers,

automation at work, food machines and of

course space tourism. But since then, we

seem to have lost our direction as

technology has for the most part stopped

improving our lives and often is

hindering us instead. Somehow the same

spirit of innovation that once gave us

the first automobile now has led us to

things like Bluetooth water bottles.

It's as if things have continued to

progress but not necessarily improve.

There's no denying that technology has

infused convenience into our lives that

our ancestors couldn't have fathomemed.

With a few taps on a screen, we can

summon food to our doorstep, video chat

with someone across the globe or easily

navigate a foreign city without

bothering to learn the local language.

The world has become high tech, but only

in the most superficial sense of the

phrase.

Would you ever pay $400 for a juicer?

No. What if I told you it can connect to

Wi-Fi? Still no? What if I told you that

it doesn't juice fruit, but you have to

buy proprietary, overpriced juice packs?

Still no? What gives? In all

seriousness, obviously, nobody would

ever buy this product. But shockingly,

it was real. In mid 2016, the Juicero

finally hit the market. It retailed at

$400, had to be connected to Wi-Fi to

function, and instead of juicing actual

fruit, required proprietary juice packs.

Now, while it would be silly to say that

today's technology hasn't improved our

lives at all, it does feel like we've

crossed over this line of mostly

improving to mostly getting in the way.

At what point are we going to decide

that laptops and iPads are thin enough?

Because I personally have stepped on my

laptop before and will step on my laptop

again. And if y'all keep making it that

skinny, it's going to snap in half.

An easy example of this is the

smartphone, which has revolutionized the

human experience by connecting us to the

world and putting the sum of human

knowledge at our fingertips. But also,

they're eroding our agency and autonomy,

trapping us in the addictive cycles of

the attention economy. We stare at our

phones non-stop, and even though we're

all now connected, we have no social

ability to connect. Then within that,

there are things like gig economy apps

that allow you to be your own boss, but

with no pay stability or work benefits.

Always listening smart devices like

Alexa and Google Home add convenience to

our lives, but as we've talked about

previously, at the cost of constant data

harvesting. We celebrate the ability to

work remotely, but this same technology

shackles us to an always on work culture

that blurs the lines between

professional and personal life. And so

we work non-stop because our bosses and

colleagues can access us from midnight

to midnight.

Technology in quite a lot of ways has

actually made things significantly more

difficult for us. Let's take

communicating for example. If you wanted

to send a message to somebody that you

could not immediately travel to, say 300

years ago, the only way you would do

that would be by writing a letter. But

today, if you'd like to send that same

message to somebody that you cannot

immediately travel to, you wouldn't send

a letter. You'd send an email. A process

that used to take weeks can now happen

within a fraction of a second. So now

that same person that would only write a

letter on issues that truly mattered

will now write emails on every single

small thing that they can think of.

Which is why so many people even with

absolutely no position of authority in

their life whatsoever will find

themselves having to respond to 50

different emails a day. And because of

how easy it is to respond to an email,

if you take too long to respond, it'll

look like you're lazy because writing

back is so easy. It only takes a second.

So we've made the process of writing

letters significantly easier by not

having to do it by hand and by making it

such that you don't have to wait weeks

in between each message. But by doing

this, we've given ourselves

significantly more letters to write. The

process is physically easier, but

mentally it's a lot more strenuous.

We also benefit from a world where we

can shop online from the comfort of our

own homes, but at the cost of local

streets becoming ghost towns and the

communal aspect of life being eroded by

convenience. I could go on. And now we

have AI thrown into the mix, making

creativity more accessible than ever,

but also leaving us in a world of deep

fakes and disinformation. Like, you

know, things are going downhill when we

can't even trust Google searches

anymore. Not that you could ever take

them as gospel, but still, now they just

give you straight up fake information

from their AI overview. Why is Google so

much worse these days? I'm having an

easier time finding a will to live than

finding anything on Google. Google

search, a core pillar of the internet,

is completely broken. It fails to

deliver results that are a useful and b

earned in a fair manner. Instead, it

favors sponsored posts and paid ads. It

exerts its power and influence to

control the pecking order. And of

course, the worst update of all,

generated AI overviews that pull from

sources like Reddit as a source of

truth. Google is quickly becoming the

spam it spent the last 20 years trying

to fight. And that's just one side of

AI. There's also, of course, the

disruption to the job market and the

environmental toll from energy hungry

data centers using up all of our

freshwater systems. This is my cold

water pressure in the kitchen.

This is where I fill up water for

storage. Those are the things we have to

fill up to flush the toilets.

So, you can see the sediment from the

data center.

Wow. And that's just from the water

coming out of your faucet.

Yeah. The global AI demand may even

require 4.2 to 6.6 6 billion cubic

meters of water withdrawal in 2027,

which is more than the total annual

water withdrawal of Denmark or half of

the United Kingdom. If the US hosts half

of the global AI workloads, the

operation of AI may take up to 0.5 to

0.7% of its total annual water

withdrawal. And these are just a few

examples of why it feels like most

technologies coming out today offer such

minor benefits when compared to the

drawbacks that come alongside them. I

think everybody misses when technology

was just enough. Like it was just enough

advancement and fun for it to be

something that was interesting and

enjoyable, but it wasn't so overarching.

Like now technology is in every single

facet of our lives and it has sucked the

life out of so many enjoyable things. As

said here, the grand internet experiment

is slowly derailing. The technologies

that 50 years ago we could only dream of

in science fiction novels have been

co-opted into tools of surveillance,

behavioral manipulation, radicalization,

and addiction. And then on top of that,

even the technologies that do more good

for us still have massive problems that

are often overlooked. Like the rise in

electric cars helping to reduce carbon

emissions is a great net positive for

humanity. when you don't look at the

lithium, cobalt, and nickel mines that

are destroying habitats and exploiting

workers. Along the same vein, there's

the environmental impact that comes with

the rapid turnover of modern tech

products. Often, these devices have a

predetermined short life expectancy of

just a few years, where previously the

standard of 20th century applications

like washing machines, fridges, and TVs

was decades. I think all of our

appliances in the '9s were just better

because not only did they last longer

and they worked, but you could fix

anything in your house

by hitting it.

We're now dealing with an epidemic of

e-waste destroying our environment at an

exponential rate. Last year alone, it

was reckoned that more than 50 million

tons of e-waste was generated globally,

with only around 20% of it officially

recycled. Half of the 50 million tons

represented large household appliances

and heating and cooling equipment. The

remainder was TVs, computers,

smartphones, and tablets. Overall, we've

entered a stage of technology that makes

our life faster, not better, despite

what's advertised to us.

Excuse me, can I park here? Of course.

Do you have the app? I do have the app.

Whatever app you think you have,

download four more because it's not the

app we use. Okay, I've downloaded every

parking app under the sun. Can I

proceed? No. Put the location code in.

I've already put it in. Put it in again.

sake. I've got to be somewhere in

20 minutes. Forget that. This is going

to take you a solid half hour at least.

The most recent example again being from

the AI movement. Many claim that this

revolution will give people the freedom

to work less as AI takes on much of

their workload. Sounds like the idealic

future we've dreamed of, right? Like

finally, we've arrived at the Jetson's

phase of humanity where just like Mr.

Jetson, we too can only put in a 1-hour

workday because everything else is

automated. Or so we wish. The problem is

that this narrative, which is nice to

dream about, doesn't align with the

latestage capitalist society we live in.

Because what the AI revolution actually

means is that now corporations have the

ability to extract and exploit more out

of workers. I mean, just look at all the

time freed up by AI. And this is

happening as we speak. I know people who

have gone to meetings where managers

discuss what they can add to their plate

now that they've offloaded so much to

Claude. Are we accomplishing more and

less time or simply rushing through life

with technology urging us on? The allure

of multitasking powered by tech is

fracturing our attention span and the

quality of our work and the depth of our

engagement with the world around us are

suffering. And maybe this is coming off

a very Gen Z doesn't want to work, but I

think this traditional mindset is just

the brainwashing of multiple generations

where you got praised for overextending

yourself. Like everyone would be so much

happier if the work we pass off to AI

meant we could finally get on board with

the 6-hour workday. As studies have

shown that even without AI, productivity

doesn't go down. But moving on, what I

think this all goes to show is that

we've passed the point of technology

progressing the noble cause of humanity

because tech companies aren't thinking

about humanity. While technology has

streamlined the minutici of our daily

routines, it has not elevated our

quality of life to the exalted heights

forecast by the pundits and profits of

Silicon Valley. Ours is an age of

marginal convenience, not measurable

betterment.

[Music]

So, what's the alternative here? Because

despite many of us having an innate

distaste for technology at this point in

history,

I think a way to assess how people are

kind of feeling about AI right now, like

a vibe check, is the emergence of this

word clanker, which has been kind of

getting me'med around. It's supposed to

be a negative way of talking about some

of these technologies.

It's not all bad. We've just become so

accustomed to corporations exploiting us

through tech that our first instinct is

to turn up our noses to anything new,

assuming the worst. Because in a world

where surveillance, capitalism, and

planned obsolescence are the norm, it's

not hard to be suspicious of every

innovation. But we know smartphones in

and of themselves aren't harmful. And in

a different context, they can actually

be beneficial. For those of you on the

same side of the internet as me, we saw

this last month when Hank Green released

his Focus Friend app. And it rose to the

ranks as the number one downloaded app

in the US. But if you're on the other

side of the internet and don't know what

I'm talking about, it's an app that

gifies productivity by putting you in

charge of this little bean who loves to

knit. The way it works is the bean knits

socks during focus sessions, and the

socks can be spent to decorate its

little room. The kicker is you can't

interrupt the knitting or else it will

all unravel and you lose the sock

progress. It's a really cool app because

it encourages you to focus not with

guilt like a lot of other focus apps,

but with a genuine caring of this little

digital being that you want to have a

cozy room. Now, besides the app being

super cute, it's cool because it's made

to genuinely help people with no secret

underlying narrative. It's free to

download and there's no data collected

or ads on the app. The way their

business model works is they keep the

lights on by people purchasing new skins

for the bean and upgrading the game. But

what this goes to show is two things.

One, that people don't like living as

slaves to technology and want to change.

But two, that there is a real

possibility of a world where apps are

wholesome, good, and helpful. The main

point is that we don't live in a void of

harmful technology as we do still have

many new innovations that help our

lives, including today's sponsor,

Ziotics. If you haven't heard of

Ziotics, their pre-alcohol probiotic

drink is the world's first genetically

engineered probiotic. It was invented by

PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings

after drinking. Here's how it works.

When you drink, alcohol gets converted

into a toxic byproduct in the gut. And

it's this byproduct, not dehydration,

that's to blame for your rough next day.

But what Ziotics pre-alcohol does is

produces an enzyme to break down that

byproduct. So all you have to do is

remember to make Zbiotics your first

drink of the night. Drink responsibly

and feel your best tomorrow. As I've

said before, just in the past year, my

body started rejecting red wine, which

was a huge bummer because I love the

communal aspect of getting to share a

bottle with friends over dinner. But

when I thought all hope was lost, I

discovered Ziotics. So, if this is

something that interests you, click the

link in the description to get 15% off

your first order at checkout with free

shipping. Plus, Ziotics offers a 100%

money back guarantee. If you're not

satisfied for any reason, they'll refund

your money, no questions asked. Now, I

include all this because I feel like

it's been a long time since we've seen

technology, let alone an app, that is

genuinely constructive, but also because

it segus nicely into talking about what

it would look like if every corner of

the tech industry had this approach to

design and production. So, what if we

imagined a world where nature, humanity,

and technology could not just coexist,

but thrive together? one where

technology works in harmony with our

environment and truly serves the

betterment of humanity. While that

future isn't just a dream, it exists in

the vision of solar punk. Now, while

solar punk is technically a literary and

artistic aesthetic, it does represent a

tangible possibility for how we could

live. If you aren't familiar with the

term solar punk, think of it as kind of

the antithesis of cyberpunk, the

dystopian tech heavy world most of us

know from media. We see it in movies

like Bladeunner, Tron, The Matrix, as

well as aspects in Ready Player 1, and

even Wall-E. It's a popular theme

because it opens our minds up to what

could realistically happen if

corporations go unchecked, leading to

technology advancing as society and the

environment collapse. It's a critique of

where society is heading, and it forces

us to confront the risks of corporate

overreach and neglecting the greater

good. But Solar Punk, on the other hand,

tells a different story. Instead of a

bleak, oppressive cityscapes, Solar Punk

imagines a bright, hopeful future where

innovation and ecology coexist. It's a

postc capitalist future that prioritizes

ecological balance, community

well-being, and social relations over

individual profit. Imagine being

surrounded by lush natural landscapes,

buildings covered with verdant plants

and vegetation complete with rooftop

gardens, and cities that are completely

powered by clean energy. Imagine having

our technologies built in harmony with

nature and shared equally with everyone

on the planet. This is what our world

should look like as envisioned by the

solar punk movement. It's best known

through artwork with images of

futuristic cities covered in greenery so

that nature and infrastructure fuse

seamlessly. In the solar punk vision,

corporations are held accountable while

people are left to restructure society

beyond capitalism to achieve a

sustainable and inclusive future. And

the cool part is that it's all done with

technology, not in spite of it. But

interestingly enough, it's not portrayed

as much in the media at all compared to

cyberpunk. I understand this on one hand

because cyberpunk makes for a really

easy conflict to build a story around.

But I feel like people would eat up

solar punk as just a setting where a

story is told. But you tell me. We do

have some glimpses if not parallels in

media though, including Wakanda from

Black Panther. not a perfect

representation as there's still a

monarchy in place, but it shows how

technology can be used to enhance our

world instead of destroying it. I also

found a lot of people online drawing

inspiration from Studio Gibli movies as

a whole since there isn't one particular

movie that portrays solar punk

perfectly, but the stories often carry

themes of nature interwoven with human

life. The thing I love about Solar Punk

is that it's not a withdrawal from

society and technology, which feels like

our only reprive right now, but an

adaptation of it. Because as much as I

hate on capitalism in my videos, as I've

said before, it's not capitalism in and

of itself that's the issue. It's

latestage capitalism with its unchecked,

unrestricted drive for profit above all

else that twists what capitalism could

be into something destructive. Because

while solar punk and cyberpunk are sort

of antagonists, solar punk and

capitalism are not. There's room for

both and there's a need for both as it

still requires technological innovation

and the entrepreneurial spirit to get us

to a place where both thrive. As said

here, we still need large-scale

capitalism pursuing Jetson style

progress, breakthroughs in geothermal,

small modular nuclear and fusion,

translating those breakthroughs into

conversion to indoor farming and

cultivated meat, heading out into space

to establish a permanent human presence

and outsource mining to the asteroid

belt and pushing ahead with the AI

revolution that will help make all of

these other wonders possible. And I

don't think that it's much of a stretch

to say that most people would prefer

this harmonious solar punk future with

clean air and water, local food, less

waste, healthy lives, and an overall

abundance all with the help of modern

technology. This is the utopia we long

for, right? So, if we're all mostly on

the same page, then why can't we seem to

get there?

[Music]

So, let's talk about what happened to

progress. Where are the futuristic

cities imagined in the 60s? Where are

the solar roadways and bike paths? Where

are the green roofed buildings and

living walls filtering air? Where's the

local yearround food production through

sustainable aquaponics? The algae fueled

boats and trains, the atmospheric carbon

extractors, and the deselination water

reservoirs. I could go on. Where is it

all? Well, these solar punk dreams

aren't science fiction anymore, and they

do exist. The technology, for the most

part, is out there, but what's missing

is largecale adoption. But why is that?

Why has progress slowed so dramatically

that even though we are innovating and

creating, we don't see it implemented

into our lives and cities anymore?

Compare a city in the 1890s to one in

the 1930s, and the transformation is

unmistakable. do the same between 1990

and 2025 and the differences are

marginal. What we're dealing with is not

a lack of imagination or innovation.

We're facing an epidemic of stunted

application and expansion where

technologies that could change our lives

never reach the scale where they create

the solar punk cities we long for. As

said in the book Abundance, throughout

the 1950s and 1960s, productivity in the

construction sector, how much we could

get done given the same number of

workers and machines and the same amount

of land, grew faster than productivity

in the rest of the economy. Then around

1970, it began to fall even as

economicwide productivity kept rising.

Today, a chasm yawns. A construction

worker in 2020 produced less than a

construction worker in 1970. At least

according to the official statistics.

In 1930,

the Empire State Building started

construction. It took one year to build

this place. It took 2 years to remodel

my kitchen. What the hell happened with

construction over the last 90 years?

Speed it up. And this is a big reason

why so many people have lost trust in

government because it feels like nothing

gets done anymore. As a result, we're a

culture that now lives in the past

trying to recreate the glory days of the

previous century rather than looking

forward to what we can make as our own

future. To understand why progress has

slowed, we need to look back to where

the explosive productivity of the early

1900s actually came from. Because it

wasn't just all rainbows and butterflies

and moonlandings and inventions of the

computer mouse. That era's efficiency

often came at the cost of chaos. Much

was built and created during those

decades, but just as much was destroyed

or extracted unsustainably. The boom was

not clean growth. It was growth fueled

by cutting corners and burning through

people and resources. For example, we

had the expansion of farmland in the

1930s, providing food for a growing

population, but leading to the Dust

Bowl, which was directly caused by

overplowing prairie land for industrial

agriculture and stripping the top soil.

As well, there was the construction of

the Tennessee Valley Authority dams in

the 1930s, which brought electricity,

flood control, and jobs to that region,

but also displaced thousands of

families, forcing them to uproot their

lives and make room for the reservoirs.

Name any major infrastructural

advancement from that era, and there

were probably hidden costs. So, of

course, something had to change and

eventually governments were forced to

step in, attempting to rein in the mess.

And between 1966 and 1973, the US passed

almost a dozen laws that required the

government to be more responsive to

local citizens and the environment. And

this was good, right? more regulation on

environmental impact, more rights for

workers and neighborhoods, more voices

from the public on what they wanted

rather than just developers taking

regardless of the impacts on everyone

else. But all this restraint also didn't

come without cost. And that cost was the

bottlenecking on implementation. Because

what ends up happening when you put so

many rules on environmental impact and

take everyone's voices into account when

making decisions is that nearly every

project proposed now gets slowed down to

a near stop.

Why does government construction take so

long? There's an off-ramp that's been

under construction next to my office for

over 2 years. It's just an off-ramp.

They're not completely redoing the

highway, just repositioning the off-ramp

to reduce traffic, but it's been under

construction for 2 years. And on the

flip side, there's private apartment

buildings being developed opposite where

I live. They have demoed this entire

shopping center and already starting

construction 3 months in. So why does

government construction just take so

long? I don't understand.

And this is something we're all familiar

with, right? Like we know the

frustration of government projects going

over budget and taking too long, but a

lot of the reason for that isn't just

inefficiency in office, but because of

all the hoops everyone has to jump

through just to get the ball rolling.

This leads us to projects taking years

and years to complete. All the while

inflation raises the price of supplies.

Labor costs go up with annual wage

increases and the interest on the loans

for the projects pile up as well. The

problem we faced in the 1970s was that

we were building too much too

heedlessly. The problem we face in the

2020s is that we're building too little

and are often paralyzed by process. As

said by Larry Selzer, the

environmentalist movement evolved to

stop bad people from destroying the

world. And so we have perfected the art

of saying no. But we can't know our way

to the kind of growth we need.

Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point

where some projects that would be

revolutionary for cities take too long

to complete that they just get cancelled

in the end. What has taken so long on

highspeed rail in California is not

hammering nails or pouring concrete.

It's negotiating. Negotiating with

courts, with funders, with business

owners, with homeowners, with farm

owners. These negotiations cost time

which costs money. Those negotiations

lead to changes in the route or the

build or design which costs money. Those

negotiations lead to public

disappointment and frustration which

leads to loss of money that might

otherwise have been approved if the

project were speeding towards

completion. There's one school of

thought that says it is worth taking the

time to do these projects right. If the

reviews and the negotiations and the

consultations take a few more years,

those are years well spent. But they

carry a price tag. Time is a killer on

the estimate of a project's cost. When

you don't have funding and can't make

decisions and can't drive to get

operational, and you can't move the

ball, the cost is huge. The public loses

faith, the politicians begin

second-guessing. We've gotten so good at

stopping projects that we forgot how to

build things in America. And this is the

reality of most infrastructural projects

as everything gets bogged down in

negotiations and complex regulations.

And as an offshoot of this, we're also

seeing the stifling of infrastructural

innovation because no one wants to join

in on this hot mess of political

turmoil. Patrick Collision, the CEO of

the online payments behemoth Stripe,

once was asked whether too much talent

was flowing into Silicon Valley. I don't

think that the ambitious upstarts who go

into high-speed rail in America anyway

are going to have a great time or have

much success in convincing their friends

to follow them. And I suspect that for

various reasons, too many domains look

somewhat like high-speed rail. There's a

view that the internet is a frontier of

last resort. And I don't think it's

totally wrong. This brings us to the

technology sector and how it's almost

the opposite of what's going on in the

world of infrastructure. Because unlike

construction, technology advances are

booming left, right, and center. And

it's largely because regulation can't

keep up as tech moves faster than

lawmakers can legislate. But as it turns

out, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And I know I might sound super

hypocritical for this because if you've

seen any of my videos on technology, you

know I love to rant about how there's

not enough restraints on the tech

industry. But hear me out. I've learned

a lot while researching for this video,

and it's not so black and white. The

reason technology is developing so

quickly is because it's one of the few

industries that's left to break first

and ask for forgiveness later. Yes, this

approach can and often does harm, but it

also drives rapid innovation. But the

point to note here is that this

innovation most of the time serves the

company's interest, not the public good.

And that's the problem, not the speed of

which they're working. But what if we

could have both? Innovation that doesn't

lead to dystopia. It seems like our only

two options are either government

restraining projects so much that

nothing happens or let companies go hog

wild with almost no oversight. But what

about a middle ground? One that comes

from helping guide technology rather

than stifling or controlling it. See,

right now, aside from private companies

using their own resources, much of

academic and publicly funded scientific

research relies on grants awarded

through proposal systems. But what if

there's another option where we actively

encourage innovation in critical areas

through a reward system? This is known

as the concept of pull funding where

instead of just giving money for

projects that companies already want to

pursue, you create rewards that pull

innovation towards areas we actually

need. And it is something that is

already being done by the government.

But we need more of it. Because if you

dangle a carrot in front of the

scientific community, someone will go

after it and we can actually see these

utopian futures come to fruition. Like

what if we offered a reward system for

the first company to create affordable

largescale desalination plants? You

know, we'd be drinking ocean water real

quick. This is where the government is

falling short because they're kind of

only doing half their job. They restrict

where restrictions are necessary, but

they aren't encouraging other avenues at

the same time. And we don't want what

happened to the infrastructure sector to

happen to the technology world either

where the government squeezed companies

so much that they prevented creation and

innovation. The government's role is to

control the tides of innovation by

pushing and pulling the private sector

towards social benefit. And I want to

add that I do feel a little bit silly

telling the government what to do

because I'm literally just a girl with a

science background, not in political

science. But it's clear that the current

approach is not working and we need more

incentive to encourage progress, not

just damage control.

[Music]

Okay, final thoughts. So, this video,

while a bit of a downer to start with,

felt quite hopeful as a whole as I

finished it off. Just being reminded

that the future isn't set in stone and

we can still make changes to achieve the

future we desire. Because right now it

can almost feel like we're in a losing

battle with technology. If you watched

my previous videos, you can probably

relate to that. But it can feel like

we're struggling to keep it from

destroying ourselves and the planet. But

it's not an inevitable outcome.

Technology itself isn't the enemy. It's

a tool. And its impact depends on the

intentions of those who build and

control it. And in the vision of solar

punk, that same tool can be redirected

towards healing our world rather than

harming it. So, that's the takeaway of

this video. I guess you tell me what you

think, whether it rang true for you or

if you still think we're screwed. Um,

I'd love to hear it. But that's all I

have for you today. Make sure you

subscribe if you haven't. Check out my

merch, of course. And if you're looking

for some of that solar punk energy, I

suggest you put on the Studio Giblly uh

soundtrack in the background as you go

about your day. That's what I've been

doing lately, and it's brought me a lot

of peace. So, enjoy that. Bye.

This is amazing. Imagine if this was all

servers. Imagine if you had glasses that

could make this even brighter. Google

Glass, turn this all blue. That would be

incredible.

Grass has inspired a thought. There

should be a new kind of money that only

I can have. I saw Lotus Flower for the

first time and the first thing I thought

of was what if there was a

subscription-based service that allowed

poor people to rent this experience.