Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 6/5/14 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Thanks Marc, That was the comprehensive summary of my concept. I...

Marc Séguin: on 6/5/14 at 2:22am UTC, wrote Gbenga, Among the essays of this contest, your very original essay is...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 6/4/14 at 22:09pm UTC, wrote I was not anonymous. The system signed me out. Gbenga

Anonymous: on 6/4/14 at 21:24pm UTC, wrote Dear George, Thank you for your comments, but I perceive your...

George Gantz: on 6/4/14 at 15:33pm UTC, wrote Gbenga - I enjoyed your essay and the basic notion of ecosystem dynamics...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 5/31/14 at 20:24pm UTC, wrote Thank you Jonathan, Sorry for your infection. Please get well on time and...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 5/30/14 at 20:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Cristinel Stoica, Thanks so much for finding time to read my essay. I...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 5/30/14 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Chidi, Thanks for appearing on my thread. I could not hold my JOY...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM by Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this article “How humanity should steer his future” the author propounded a philosophical hypothesis whose theory is based on striking a balance between scientific discoveries and the cosmic earth which is known as an ecosystem. He argues that if human’s invention or technology is originally meant to provide humanity with a better world, then dehumanization, nuclear terrorism and environmental disaster will be avoided in all ramifications. In achieving this he provided a common ground between the cosmic earth (ecosystem) which revolves along its axis with Newton’s laws of motion, thermodynamics and wave motions. He explained the philosophy of misuse, disuse and abuse of technology. You will discover how humanity can experience a better world when invention and technology are coefficient correlated with his ecosystem: although all in the absence of natural disaster.

Author Bio

Ogungbuyi Michael Gbenga, is a bio-environmental research fellow at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Peter Gluck wrote on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Gbenga Ogunbuyi,

I take this contest as a great opportunity to learn from my competitors- colleagues and therefore now I am starting my study- in the natural order- reversed chronology- the newest first. You are No 40.

Your essay is a high quality, broad vision ecological manifesto; what I like especially is honest search for equilibrium between innovation and protection of

the meta-environment. You seeemingly are not questioning the problem solving abilities of Science-Technology just you are just demanding the application of Rule 6. of my Problem Solving system

"NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or

undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented"

In practice, those negative effects have to be ANTICIPATED- this is a must for a professional technologist. The ways are different for progress regarding information, energy (great battles to come soon!)and matter.

As in automation for ecology, smart use makes it easier to avoid misuse, disuse and abuse.

My favorite ecology author writer is Dave Pollard from Canada, I recommend you to study his ideas - except the end of world.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 22:56 GMT
Fellow Comrade,

Thank you so much for your comments. I share in your view that no matter how logically excellent our articles may have been, it is exciting to learn from other authors- which is the goal of this platform. I wish others see it in this perspective.

About the author you recommended, knowledge is the most inexhaustible well we cannot attempt to drain. We see issues about life in different perspectives and this is what gave birth to this community. I will check up and revert.

I also read your piece and I found it very interesting and philosophical. The basis of your philosophy revolves round "Our world is the most interesting of all possible worlds". As you wrote "Let truth spring up from the earth (Psalm 85.11)" is supported by 2 Corinthians 13.8 "For we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth". I call your rules for real life problem solving the objectivity of living and I quite agreed with your philosophy. In particular your definition of technology by Prof. Pierre as controlled phenomena of transport, transfer, transformation of matter, energy and information that create something useful for people is in line with mine philosophy. That is humanity should have adaptive control over his innovations and including technology. Also, as you wrote about humanity being in symbiont with nature, this is my idea of striking a balance between technology and ecosystem where humanity interrelate with nature and his ecosystem.

I can see that you also wish a better world for humanity, however, can the set of rules you outlined provide any answer for natural phenomenon which humanity cannot control?

Finally, as your comment on my article read "As in automation for ecology, smart use makes it easier to avoid misuse, disuse and abuse". Do you think the earth can be automated? I think it is too dynamic than to be put in a system. If it were possible to automate, united nations would not have been formed.

Thanks for your comments.

Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 00:44 GMT
I took some time up to explore some of the writings of Dave Pollard but could not find the topic you suggested, but rather a fascinating writing about 'how to safe the world' where some of the points he mentioned in search for a better way of living is contained in my model. If it is an excerpt, could you provide the link?

Thanks

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 6, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT
Idealists have had these goals for millennia. Plato even suggested an organization to accomplish them. You say “should” frequently, but suggest no means to accomplish. I agree with your last suggestion that nature will be the judge. My paper suggest the “how” to accomplish your goals by using nature.

I agree balance is a noble goal and is enforced by nature. Out of balance systems will be selected against. But this is not a peaceful process. Its achievement has often been through war and starvation (when nature changes climate) and the destruction of the good with the bad.

A closed thermodynamic system tends toward sameness as a form of equilibrium. Production of work requires energy difference in the system. The Earth has the Sun. This too will become unable to produce work (in millennia). The universe in the popular model is adiabatic. It too will become unable to produce work. We can only hope the reality is different for our progeny’s sake.

Do you suggest balance by means of everybody adopting the same morals? Nature has selected against sameness and the quest for sameness in societies. If balance is to be achieved by different groups, how is war to be avoided? History has shown war is the arbitrator of last resort if starvation and failure to adjust to climate change fails.

The use and disuse theory is one reason technology has developed – to be more effective in war. So the UN attempted to discourage nuclear weapons. The result has been the opposite of that intention. The UN acted to encourage peace (meaning not violent conflict). The effect has been the opposite. But all is not lost. The advance of technology has allowed larger groups and mankind reorganized its political structures. Non-violent conflict occurs in the larger groups. But it seems each of these groups (nations) behaves as spoiled brats and tends to violent, intolerant conflict. Lager groups mean large destructive power and larger disasters when trying to deal with natural disasters. Paradoxically, larger groups are required to develop technology.

Certainly, global warming is producing a great stress on humanity. How do you propose we achieve your “should” goal? History seems to suggest the idealistic “should” has no means. Like the UN, the result will be the opposite of the intention. You have noted a few examples.

“All forms of terrorists…should be brought to order or judgment at once!” Who can disagree? “How?” is the question of the day. The UN and US have tried only to resort to war and great loss of life at an expense that is proving too great to bear.

(i) Obey natural law. Nature will see to it. But nature’s methods are not pretty. Humans have shown a penchant for disobeying natural law only to have nature destroy them. But we don’t know nature’s law. Maybe what is happening is human societies through their morals are attempting to find natural law but get it wrong. Nature destroys the good with the bad. Our learning is very slow. So, again How do you suggest we “… respect the law of nature…” that we may not know?

(ii) How should we steer to a better world by allowing the force applied to do it. If the force applied does not steer us to a better world, then what? How do we know the difference?

(iii) How are we going to stop natural disasters?

The dream of a better world is still an idealistic dream. The means to achieve it are being misdirected as history has shown. I think this is true because the methods of the dream are contrary to nature. I agree, nature will catch-up with the tyrant.

I think you have outlined some of the problem. I think I outlined a possible solution.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 00:54 GMT
Thank you John,

As I usually do, I will go through paper and then revert back.

Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 22:18 GMT
Fellow Comrade,

As said earlier, I have read your piece and it was quite entertaining and educating!

You query mine frequent use of 'should' though not so frequent as it may sound. You will notice is an action and central word in this year's foundational topic of the essay. The word 'should' answer the interrogative how, where and when as humanity steer his future. And if you read...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 06:02 GMT
Some clarifications on the article, “Striking a balance between technology & ecosystem”.

I am compelled to clarify the thermodynamics aspect of my article following the various comments and questions asked. No reference is made to entropy, which is the degree of randomness of an enclosed system in the article. I based my theory on the 1st law of thermodynamics which is the law of conservation of energy. Kindly follow my ideology stated below.

As propounded by Einstein, the theory of relativity establishes the relationship between space, time, mass and energy: which found it expression in the law of conservation of matter. That is, the total quantity in the universe is fixed and cannot be increased or decreased by human agency. This is the same to the law of conservation of energy which also state that the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and can be neither created nor destroyed. This is popular known as the first law of thermodynamics.

My emphasis is on first law of thermodynamics and not entropy change which goes for a closed system. This should be consciously noted as the readers read the article. My explanation on conservation of energy received from the sun to be used by humanity and other living components of the ecosystem follows the theory of relativity and not entropy.

These notes could have been part of the footnotes of the article, but for oversight

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Doctor Ogungbuyi,

I thought that your exceptionally well reasoned essay was quite timely, and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

With best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 21:06 GMT
Thanks so much for your comments. It is well appreciated!

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 12, 2014 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

My perception is that it is not only the "ecosystem" that is responsible for a change in mentality. It is first the mentality of humanity that is responsible for our ecosystem, meaning the consciousness of humanity is realising our "reality" and in reality the eco-system is only one of the participants.

When you go deeper into the "reality" we become aware of the "nothingness" of our created universe. So the it is willingness of humanity to change its future (and past. For the latter pls take some time to read {link:http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1991]my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?" and petrhaps you are willing to leave a comment on my thread and maybe give a rating.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 13, 2014 @ 23:26 GMT
Fellow Comrade,

Thanks for your comments.

The ecosystem according to my article is not just a "participant". In layman language, it the home of the universe where living and non-living component exist and co-habit with nature. Of course, humanity is a component and a participant that inter-relate with other participants in the ecosystem or universe to keep the system dynamic, but in a stable equilibrium. According to my model, no participant should be a menace to the system. Your 'conscious' model theory also uphold my hypothesis that humanity by his science and technology determine to a very large extend what happens to other components in the ecosystem. If humanity is conscious according to my theory, his science and invention will provide peace, comfort and satisfaction to himself, other components of the ecosystem and the natural habitat which he find himself. By this humanity is keeping the ecosystem balance and in a state of equilibrium.

Take for example,Gugliemo Marconi who invented the first radio set. His aim was to allow humanity enjoy music and listen to world news through it. But the same radio can result to pollution and make other people within the same environment (ecosystem) inconvenience when it is raised to the highest volume such that rather than enjoying music it is now a noise. Is this not scientific? The example is just to explain my view further. So the ecosystem is just more than a participant.

I am creating time to read other articles and learn from others, and yours will not be an exception. This is a 'knowledge creating' forum which makes it more exciting!

Thank a lot more

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Apr. 14, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Thank you for the answer.

It is like you also mention the word : SATISFACTION, that is leading to egoism and short-time thinking for the on the spot PROFIT...

I hate the word PROFIT accompanied by the word "costs"...this will lead us to the abyss...

Maybe mankind in the future will discover that the REAL treasure is the consciousness, where we are touching TOtal Simultaneity or GOD...

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I am sorry for the delay in replying your most recent comment.

I do not understand why you said that you hate the word profit accompanied by the word "costs"...this will lead us to the abyss... Could you provide some explanations to comprehend the impulse of your message?

Thanks and regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Interesting essay. I totally agree that science and technology can provide humanity with a better world.

Best regards,

Mohammed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 21:19 GMT
Thank you Mohammed.

Best regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Priscilla Alebiosu wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Your essay is analytically prolific. I hope it meet the cut in the long run!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Priscilla Alebiosu replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 18:45 GMT
You wrote about misuse, disuse and abuse of technology, please provide more insight about the use of technology.

Regards

Priscilla

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear Priscilla,

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you also for your question.

The correct use of technology is actually highlighted as the main topic of my article, "STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM". My theory revolves round keeping the ecosystem in a state of balance between the activities of man, other living and non living components, including its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Priscilla Alebiosu replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Ok! I got your concept and idea.

Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 04:42 GMT
Gbenga,

Thanks for the heartfelt wishes for harmony in our world. I agree that dynamic equilibrium with nature is possible only after we have successfully addressed the issues of our own humanity, and the place that technology should occupy within it.

Best wishes in the contest, and thanks also for the kind comments you left in my essay forum.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear Tom,

You comments are appreciated.

Thanks and regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

I am pleased to read your essay with concrete ideas and program of action. I fully agree with your conclusion:

«The dream of a better world is a reality. The theory of human's invention should provide innovative technology which he can freely relate with and interplay proportionately with his ecosystem in such a manner that he gets a reward for his technology and no harm is done to humanity and his general environment: this is a model by which humanity can steer his future. »

Necessary to strengthen the activities of the UN in all directions, especially to minimize the global risks of the nuclear threat and terrorism in all its manifestations.

We need a new "Big Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Let's all work together in building up a more sustainable future of Humanity and hope for the best! It's time we start the path ... The New Era and a New Generation demanded action.

Best Regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your comments. I found them absorbing!

As you rightly summarized, "We need a new "Big Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity". "Let's all work together in building up a more sustainable future of Humanity and hope for the best"! It is in our working together. We all have our individual contributions in saving our world. And then continue to HOPE for the best I a better world.

Thank you for creating time to read my article. Wishing you all the best in this competition and your endeavors in life.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi,

You suggest that we must "establish a balance between physics and the physical law of existence." You also note that the cosmic earth "is in equilibrium", which seems to support the use of the thermodynamic model, as I do in my essay and as you do in discussing the relationship between ecosystems and thermodynamics. In this analysis we both agree that "any form of dystopia leading to dehumanization, totalitarian government and environmental disaster will be injurious to the (eco-) system."

I also note that you observe "the world literatures and films are saturated with horrific scenes and our minds are being programmed to view the future with gloom and doom." It is apparently taken hold in many minds, even in this essay contest. You note that much of this is "false experience appearing real" (fear).

In summary, I find your message positive and believe that you have a very good perspective on the problems. I will give you a higher score to increase the visibility of your work.

I very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for creating time to read my article. I appreciate it!

As earlier noted, the thermodynamics principles were used by both of us to establish a common goal.

In my view, I think the projected message from our media houses, films and literature wish could pose potential fear in the my of the viewers and readers alike are just false experience appearing real (FEAR).

Thanks for your comments once again and wishing you the very best in this competition and in your future endeavor. See you up!

Regards.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 09:35 GMT
Please kindly disregards the typo- errors contain in the previous post.

I mean the following!

In my view, I think the projected message from our media houses, films and literature which could pose potential fear in the minds of the viewers and readers alike are just false experience appearing real (FEAR).

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Gbenga

I enjoyed reading your essay - you have touched on many subjects and at the end it is clear that the globe is facing challenges that we must meet with a new attitude. Your Whitman quote makes it very clear that the new attitude must be humane, realistic and an embodiment of "act locally think globally". I found the detailed examples of physics laws somewhat unnecessary for your main thesis, but they are not wrong in themselves of course. Congratulations for keeping our humanity firmly in mind - not everyone in this essay contest put humanity on Earth first - some examined a future robotic humanity, or an escape into space...

Best wishes for you and for all of humanity!!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for creating time to read my article. The reason for those Physics laws is simple- There is connection between Physics itself and nature. It is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. And those laws find their simple expressions in my little explanations. So they are not wrong as you have asserted!

Thanks once again!

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 16:29 GMT
Gbenga,

I found that a well balanced view of the balancing problem. It was right to stress the potential damage from the results of technological advancement. My own feelings are that it is our choices that decide if advancements bring good or bad effects, and normal; both are possible.

Do you think that improving our understanding of how nature works from the bottom up will not bring the potential to better understand and protect our ecosystem? I feel it will and our focus should be on preventing the downside effects. It seems that poor understanding can lead to far greater damage. Also natural disasters can be better prevented and mitigated. To steer we must understand how a rudder works, what it really does, and gain adequate control (as I found to great cost when the tiller broke when my yacht was leading a race last year!)

In the UK we now have to provide environmental assessments for all major proposals and planning applications, judged against identified criteria. They are presently at a poor and basic level. 'Health and Safety' and 'Risk assessments' are also de rigour for almost everything. Much is needed, but too much red tape is itself now a problem. Do you agree better understanding may perhaps allow a better focussed system?

Well done for handling an important topic well. Thank you for your comments on mine. Our scores are close and from our responses I'm sure we can both buck the poor practice of marking down neighbours that plagues the scoring.

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for finding time to read my article. And thanks for your comments most especially! It is well appreciated.

I know, the destiny of the world whether good or bad is in our hands: and thus this is my emphasis in this article. If you are from the developing world and of course sporadically it happens in other advanced countries too, the threat to humans and the environment inform of bombings, totalitarian government, dehumanization and many host of others. This is what I called the misused of technology which universal law of nature will punished. So even though it is a choice to kill others but according to the law of nature you will also be killed for murder. All these I propounded a principle for in my article.

Yes the bottom up approach is always the best strategy of sustaining our environment. But it is not an absolute! There is also the top bottom approach strategy. And they both have their pros and cons. But either of the strategy, one thing is that the environment should be made better. I suggested a way forward about this. And your UK approach is a concept. Just the instinct to balance the ecosystem as it is being used- RECIRCULATION.I

However, natural disaster cannot be mitigated and prevented altogether! I made a reference to Fukushima of Japan in my article. Natural occurrences like earthquakes and tsunamis which require the intervention of the forces of nature. Some countries with many of them from the developing world are still depending on aids because of the devastated effects of some of these disasters. I found natural disaster as a constant in the equation. Our telescope only provide the time to escape but cannot prevent it! We can develop more knowledge on this anyway.

Thanks for making my day. God bless you.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 09:00 GMT
Gbenga,

I know it's hard to track other essay blogs so I re-post my response to your questions on my blog here (I also confirm I've rated your essay).

Thank you kindly Gbenga, I'll certainly read and rate yours.

~

"The end note table showed actual results of a subjective 'classroom experiment' where students simply gave opinions on whether the random colour shown was 'closer' to red or green. It showed the highly non linear quantum correspondence, closely modelling the energy distribution change as a line moves across a circle, or rotational speed with increasing latitude on a sphere surface.

It was impossible to work into the narrative, but the real classical particle interaction result is anyway far more important and a more perfect cosine curve.

But it seems the quantum description of singlet states has now acquired the 'real' quality of embedded doctrine, and that physics is largely about beliefs and status not the scientific method. See the torturous discussions on the 'Classical spheres' blog if you're in any doubts. The likes of Richard Gill seem willing to ignore all logic and evidence and argue that black is white to maintain their beliefs and block advancement.

I wonder if it may not be for the best until we're a better intellectually evolved species."

~

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 23:50 GMT
Gbenga,

I'm sorry if I've offended you, but if you read through many of the posts on my thread, I do go back and read and mention the topics of those who chose to converse on my thread and no one else has been offended by it.

We all come from extremely different worlds, with many different ideas and it is very difficult to develop a helpful and coherent response to every one of these papers. There are many I've read and not commented on, both ones I've generally agreed with and those I haven't. The only criteria I have to speak is if I feel I have something worthwhile to add, whether it is a criticism, a compliment, or a suggestion.

As I said in my thread, I do like your overall logical and reasonable approach. There are certainly enough here which are completely out in space. Literally.

I just did not have a response to your paper that wouldn't have simply been to promote my own observation that we need to reform our system of financial exchange that has become a giant vacuum, sucking up value out of everything and everybody. That is the mechanism, to monetize everything, which is at the core of our destructive technological march across the planet and if we were to understand it better, the light shining on it would help to control it. Yet since you did read my essay and the only part you commented on was "energy to be conserved," I didn't know how to explain it further.

Regards,

John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear John,

Thanks for your explanations. I was not offended. Really, this platform has brought a combination of diverse backgrounds together. But we can continue to learn from one another especially on the subject of the theme that has united us together.

Thanks so much. You are great!

Best regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 21:32 GMT
The liveliness of this forum is in our diversities!

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your interesting Essay. Here are my comments/questions:

1) I think to understand what you mean with the sentence "humanity should establish a balance between his Physics and the physical law of existence", but I prefer re-write is as "humanity should establish a balance between his Physics and the law of existence", i.e. without "physical".

2) Proof of your model arises from Newton’s second and third laws of motion. But Einstein's Relativity shows that they are only approximately valid. I invite you to find a relativistic proof too.

3) Which is the role of nuclear energy in your proposal of global balance between Physics and peaceful ecosystem? Clearly, it cannot be used for wars and terrorism,and, in general, for violent actions, but do you give it a potential role like source of energy?

You made a good work, which enjoyed me. Then, I give you an high score.

Best luck in the contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Christian,

Thanks for creating time to read my article. I really appreciate it.

About your question on nuclear energy. I wrote that it uses as nuclear weapons in any sorts will be a threat to humanity and the ecosystem. When used for wars and terrorism,and, in general, for violent actions as pointed in your comments it becomes harmful. But we have record of its usage by some governments and terrorists. Hence, the article discourages such. But also, natural disaster occurring on its own can become more devastating and deadly when it involves nuclear energy like the case of fukushima in Japan. I think you remember, 2011 earthquake in Japan as I mentioned?

I found no problem in your re-writing the topic based on your perception. Remember you have a strong physics background. And that can influence your judgment.

Thanks for your contributions. Well appreciated.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

I would like to support your view against Christian Corda's suggestions.

1 In my understanding, existence of mankind is always its physical existence.

2 Einstein's relativity has certainly not much to do with your essay. Nonetheless, I recommend reading carefully the questions on it I included in my essay. Christian did here not demonstrate his allegedly strong background by proving me wrong.

3 We both understood Christian's question for nuclear power a hidden suggestion. Those like he tend to ignore the costs of nuclear waste, risk management, unavoidable remaining risks, and the costs of getting rid of nuclear plants after disuse. Well, Nigeria is rich because of exploiting natural treasures, and this will not go on forever. However, I am sure, Alfred Nobel and Alan Kadin did and do, respectively, show better ways if seen from the perspective of mankind.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thanks for following up on my reply to Christian,

However, Einstein's relativity has a lot to do with my article. Since I used thermodynamic principle, some people felt my idea was entropy but I never made reference to any entropy in my article. But rather the first law of thermodynamic which is the law of conservation of energy and this is in conformity with Einstein's relativity principle of time, mass and space. Although, this might not be directly quoted in this essay but find its application in my explanation and write up.

I have attached a pdf document to help clarify this idea. But for emphasis, I will still attach it here.

attachments: 2_Some_clarifications_on_the_article_fqxi.pdf

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Gbenga,

There is a natural poetry to your appeal that makes our energy part of universal energy. I like your approach, for it draws the reader into your scheme better than most that I have read.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thanks for your kind comments.

Wishing you the best in this competition.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Jim,

Kindly provide a direct link to your essay so I can also read. It is my personal commitment to read the essay of every author who can take the pain to read mine. Thank you once again!.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 00:06 GMT
Gbenga,

I don't know if my tardiness in returning to your essay is misuse, disuse or abuse, to use your terminology. Certainly misuse, disuse and abuse of scientific innovations does seem to ring true in bringing about positive results. I would like to see your comments on my essay, "Looking beyond and within to steer the future."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008.

I find that I rated yours on 5/13.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
Gbenga,

Enjoyed reading your essay on the two-edged sword that much of invention based on science is.

Am I correct that your message is simply this: While science-based invention is the key to humanity's future, we must keep both eyes open to avoid any misuse of the invention." If yes, I totally agree.

Your idea of relating technology to the global ecosystem appears to be the right idea. Any thoughts on the following:

- Your words "Invented technology must relate proportionately with the ecosystem" are right but 'how' can humanity do this? How do we 'outlaw' guns and still have them when we need one?

- Your words on the greenhouse effect are true today because we now are experiencing the effect. How can we know, in advance what the long term impacts of any human invention are?

By the way, on a lighter side, I loved your FEAR explanation as "false experience appearing real." Did you invented this, or is this how the word 'fear' came about? I study this kind of stuff as a hobby and here is how two words originated:

- the word 'news' actually stands for 'north, east, west and south'

- the word 'posh' actual is an abbreviation of "port-side out, starboard in' - the best cabin locations for a ship leaving and returning to the UK.

Please read my essay (here) and let me know what you think of my hope to steer humanity.

-Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Ajay,

Thanks for creating time to read my essay. I also appreciate all your comments.

I found answer for the following:

"While science-based invention is the key to humanity's future, we must keep both eyes open to avoid any misuse of the invention". I SAY YES THAT IS MY INTENTION!

"Your words "Invented technology must relate proportionately with the ecosystem"...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Back to the concluding answer.

"Your words on the greenhouse effect are true today because we now are experiencing the effect. How can we know, in advance what the long term impacts of any human invention are?"

One thing to do is to respect nature- If we respect nature, that is the Carbon cycle, Nitrogen Cycle and Water, a forestation accompanied by cutting down of trees for industrial uses, making use of the waste bins every time and always rather than blocking the water ways with our wastes. These and many others strategies according to my article are possible ways of respecting nature, that is the environment. Human’s inventions and activities must be seen obeying the dynamics of water, nitrogen and carbon cycles and being friendly to the green leaves which support his existence. Any indiscriminate use of natural resources and environment will not support Walt Whitman of an ideal nature, hence striking a balance between technology and ecosystem.

All these will have impact on the global world.

"By the way, on a lighter side, I loved your FEAR explanation as "false experience appearing real." Did you invented this, or is this how the word 'fear' came about? I study this kind of stuff as a hobby and here is how two words originated"

That is just my style of writing. I call it alliteration. It flows naturally and inbuilt. I think the more all of us develop our writing skills the more others skills are generally developed. The examples you gave are also correct provided they convey an idea to the readers.

Thank so much. I found your questions and comments quite entertaining. I will read your essay as promised- This weekend. We just have electricity problem.

Best regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 06:00 GMT
Some clarifications on the article, “Striking a balance between technology & ecosystem”.

I am compelled to clarify the thermodynamics aspect of my article following the various comments and questions asked. No reference is made to entropy, which is the degree of randomness of an enclosed system in the article. I based my theory on the 1st law of thermodynamics which is the law of conservation of energy. Kindly follow my ideology stated below.

As propounded by Einstein, the theory of relativity establishes the relationship between space, time, mass and energy: which found it expression in the law of conservation of matter. That is, the total quantity in the universe is fixed and cannot be increased or decreased by human agency. This is the same to the law of conservation of energy which also state that the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and can be neither created nor destroyed. This is popular known as the first law of thermodynamics.

My emphasis is on first law of thermodynamics and not entropy change which goes for a closed system. This should be consciously noted as the readers read the article. My explanation on conservation of energy received from the sun to be used by humanity and other living components of the ecosystem follows the theory of relativity and not entropy.

These notes could have been part of the footnotes of the article, but for oversight

attachments: Some_clarifications_on_the_article_fqxi.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Michael muteru wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 11:58 GMT
hello Michael

Splendid artwork.very well crafted.Green is the future.maybe 8/10 will do.I feel maybe that we come from the same continent Africa.I am from Kenya.I feel proud we are all represented in this global village here at fqxi.please take you time to read/rate my essay here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101 titled LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru i describe how our ecosystem fits the gaia Hypothesis by j.lovelock(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis) and the cosmos using M-theory.All the best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Michael,

Thanks for reading my article and for your comments. Of course, I am from Africa. I am also delighted to see a fellow African brain participating in this intellectual forum. I have also identified few Africans in this forum. I will create time to surely read your essay and add to many other essay I have also rated. At your age, I am glad to see many exploits you are reaching out for.

Wishing you a very great reward for your efforts in this competition.

Thanks and regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 10:12 GMT
Hi Gbenga,

I have finished my program, so I now have the time to read all the wonderful essays here. I will have to somewhat agree with John Hodge, when he indicated there was a lot of "should" but the means to accomplish the balance you were referring to was not as apparent. I sensed indications in that direction, but I would have liked to have seen more emphasis.

I don't know if anyone else made this comment, but I felt it was a little off-putting to use the male pronoun when referring to humanity's future in the article's title. Women are certainly part of humanity, thank goodness, so I don't think it is right to call our future "his future."

Also in the spirit of helpful commentary, I found the use of the past tense in the abstract to be odd. After all, this is the first thing readers see. Then, in the next sentence, you employ the present tense. It is important to be consistent in tense. My advice is to not use the past tense at all at the beginning of a work. The past tense could be useful at the end of a work, however, if one is referring to an earlier part, e.g., "in the third section above, it was argued that..."

I also suggest that you should try to avoid referring to yourself at all in any essay. One of my favorite professors once told me, "do not write, 'in this essay I will state x,' instead, just write 'x.'" I have always found his advice to be valuable and effective.

I realize that you are primarily hoping to get content-related comments, but I feel that the above critiques will go further to improve your future work than any observations I could offer about the content of your paper.

Lastly, I have rated your paper above its previous score, so you may see a slight increase. I wish you all the best, Gbenga. Thank you for your sincere efforts to help improve this world.

Warmly,

Aaron

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 16:47 GMT
Thanks Aaron for reading my piece.

Your comments are noted and I will like to address them one after the other.

On the article "should" as pointed by John Hodge. You will notice, he was the second author to comment on my thread and I have provided an answer to his comments. Should was not so predominant in the essay as John Hodge pointed. If you actually read my article well you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 19:55 GMT
Hi Gbenga,

I just lost a long response to you when I pressed backspace while trying to edit, but I was outside the little box, so the browser "thought" I wanted to go back, and that's how I lost all of it. I can't spend thirty minutes again, so I will have to offer you the condensed version.

I hope I did not offend you in any way, by what I wrote before. It is clear that you are an...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT
The author "Gbenga Ogungbuyi" was the one that provided the response to the comments of Aaron above. I was not actually anonymous has been referred to. I guess the system signed me out without my awareness before posting.

I guess the same applies to my colleague, Aaron as above.

Thanks for your understanding.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT
Thanks for your comments. I am fully back from a demanding trip that almost kept me away from my PC. I will respond to all the comments and make contributions before the end of this contest.

Thanks and God bless.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 23:24 GMT
Hi Gbenga,

I read your essay some time ago.I have just reread it. It is a pleasure to read, well written, nicely expressed but I feel it is based on wishful thinking rather than hard and fast solutions to to World's many problems.

There needs to be a balance between being paralyzed by fears of things that may never come to pass, as you say FEAR, and living a hedonistic life oblivious of the problems in the World. You have indicated a good direction to steer towards.I liked Peter Gluck's notion that we should not aim for unattainable perfection or expect the worst but strive always to improve things.{My description based on my understanding of his words}

I like that you argue for balance between technological advances and care of the ecosystem. It does seem that very often it is our technological solutions that cause more problems.

Good luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thanks for reading my essay again and again. I will look out for yours and try to read before the contest is over.

However, it is not just a wishful thought. It is a model that is achievable. If the global world is seen as a unit community which indeed it is. The sum total of all activities that happen within this community must be beneficial to everyone including the personality steering the activities, his neighbour, other living and non living things, and finally respect the environment where he exist. Obedience to the law of universe/nature is his perimeter of operation. Failure to keep the law makes him a nuisance to other biodiversity of the ecosystem as mentioned above, and the environment for which he will be punished for the consequence of not obeying the law. This is a normal way of life. So therefore, our technology must be proportional to the benefit of other biodiversity in the ecosystem and the natural environment in general.

The only thing that could upset the ecosystem and its balance is natural disaster which even though can be foreseen through cutting-edge technology but may not be avoided altogether.

It is therefore an implementable model. The UN is adopting this model to curb dehumanization, totalitarian government and all forms of insurgencies in the world today.

Thanks for your comments. I will look out for your essay to read as well.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 00:02 GMT
The above reply was from me. The system signed me out unaware.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 04:43 GMT
Hello Gbenga,

This essay is a good start, but only a start. Your goal is admirable, and your main thesis is reasonable, but your explanation is weak while the subject and a contest like this one demand well-fitted and compelling arguments. I admire what you are trying to do, and I feel like you that it is absolutely necessary to strike a balance between technological progress and respect for the natural environment - if humanity is to survive. The question is how Science links in, and if you have been just in assessing its role.

I am reminded of the story of Buckminster Fuller, who almost committed suicide when he realized that if he persisted, his inventions could almost certainly be used for war destruction, but he decided not to jump and instead to design things that couldn't be built yet - in hopes that future humans could sort out some of the day's problems.

Pete Seeger once shared a story with me about his father - who was a happy go lucky man most of his life, but became terror-stricken in old age, over the destructive power Science was putting into the hands of despotic rulers, and discouraged that he couldn't convince them to stop. Pete was more optimistic, and he reasoned that only learning more still could get us out of the mess we are in. A little of this kind of perspective would help your essay greatly.

I attach slides for the talk I was slated to give at FFP12, which discuss some of these issues.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: Do_people_in_Physics_have_a_responsibility.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 05:04 GMT
I should add this..

The Pete Seeger story is recounted in his book "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" on pages 282-283 where Pete says about his father "If he were alive, I'd argue with him 'Remember Hegel? He said there is always thesis, antithesis, and synthesis'," and then he went on to quote FDR who said "If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all people, of all kinds, to live together in he same world at peace." I think we can all agree that we need that kind of Science.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for finding time to read my article. Your comments were noted with deep appreciation. However, I disagree with you on “but your explanation is weak while the subject and a contest like this one demand well-fitted and compelling arguments”

If there is only one straight jacket approach of explaining “HOW HUMANITY SHOULD STEER THE FUTURE” I am sure this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 15:34 GMT
Thank you for addressing my concerns...

I appreciate the time taken to further explain your aims, Gbenga. My critique is not meant to take issue with your main points, and is more about how it is presented.

I agree that those who abuse their power to create an unnatural advantage for themselves must be balanced by restraining forces that can take a despot down or prevent further abuses. I also agree that many of those who are terrorists or despots feel that they are above natural law, and that this will automatically be countered by the actualities of nature. The ruptured pipe that spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico for months is a good example of how ignoring natural law leads to catastrophic consequences. To underestimate the risk of such use of technology, by ignoring the actual Physics, invites tragedy.

However; your essay does introduce some confusion about where nature's law is at work, and where man-made laws are a reflection of the natural order. It is true that every action leads to an equal and opposite reaction. When applied to human affairs, this is called the Law of Compensation or Karma. But in every case; we must be the vigilant ones who make our leaders respect the laws of nature, or else nature's answer to our abuses comes down on our heads - instead of the ones who did the abusing. Nature is presently holding all of mankind accountable for the excesses of a few powerful and power-hungry people. But the rest of us are the ones who must bring them down or compel them to respect the laws of nature, or we will all suffer.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Bros, I dey hail o! No vex, NEPA dey show me pepper join.



You say: “Invented technology must relate proportionately with the ecosystem such that the energy available from the sun for both humanity and his environment in the ecosystem (cosmic world) is conserved.”

Makes me wonder may be we should as a matter of convention simply go ONLY as far as renewable energy can take us. And why not?

Also: “All forms of terrorist attacks, suicide bomber and global tyrants abusing Physics or using applied technology to threaten global peace and its ecosystem should be brought to order or judgment at once! The law of retribution must hold for such inhuman aggression.”

I actually think the world would be better if it took an ear for an ear, an eye for an eye but problem to me is HOW to reliably and fairly get the world to do so (instantly?) without somehow punishing the innocent or engendering selective justice.

“Rather than following the path of destruction above why not down-play the side effects of science and fully think about it rewards and fulfilment?…….. At least good was first created before evil ever surfaced.”

Good one. Just like the FQXI essay guide suggests, there is no control over the fact that BOTH good and evil exist but we can consciously choose which side to emphasis (hoping that one man’s good does not still end up as another man’s evil!). BTW, why is the world such a tangle and resistant of balance? Or is it?

Am proud of the spirit of your essay and the spirit in which you have run in this contest. To the best of my tiny ability I hope to be your buoy.

Best wishes,

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 20:35 GMT
Dear Chidi,

Thanks for appearing on my thread. I could not hold my JOY when I saw your essay posted bc I knew from the name this is from Naija and quickly read and rated high and of course the score card should be high from the quality of the essay. Let's encourage others to join in such competition considering the level of IQ we have in Nigeria.

The power problem hinder active participation especially when I have the time for it. But let's hope things will get better.

I will like we continue even after this contest is over. We will get to discuss that later. Still power problem.

God bless you and stay lifted!

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 13:46 GMT
Dear Gbenga,

Very beautiful essay. I like the way you support scientific progress as a tool that should be used for our planet and for mankind, and to avoid its misuses and abuses. Good luck in the contest!

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

Thanks so much for finding time to read my essay. I am exceptionally elated by your comments.

Wishing you a great reward as well.

Thanks and regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



George Gantz wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 15:33 GMT
Gbenga - I enjoyed your essay and the basic notion of ecosystem dynamics as the guide for steering humanity – and, as you noted in your comment on my essay (The Tip of the Spear), there are some similarities to the evolutionary concepts and the importance of cooperation in my essay. You have also included many interesting quotes in your essay. I did not, however, find your analysis easy to follow or compelling. For example, I did not follow how the paragraph on Newtonian mechanics actually supported the ecosystem concept. The discussion on misuse and abuse of technology was interesting, but I was unsure how that related to your conclusions. In summary, it is an interesting essay, and I support the overall message of optimism and cooperation (e.g. the principle of ecosystems) that you espouse, but the essay did not provide a coherent and well-articulated pathway to get there.

All the best – thanks so much for your efforts! - George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear George,

Thank you for your comments, but I perceive your interpretation of my essay is from your business background. I have provided a concept between innovation or technology and the ecosystem and how they interrelated using the various laws of thermodynamics (also known as relativity of EINSTEIN) and Newton laws. The universe which I described as a unit community called ECOSYSTEM is supported by some principles of Physics which I explained.

The misuse, disuse and abuse of technology were provided to describe the effect of scientific explorations on humanity, other biodiversity and to the ecosystem in general where biotic and abiotic components are found. Within each of the sub-titled, I provided the means by wish humanity can steer in line with my goal of striking a balance between technology/innovations with the ecosystem. The whole concept is rooted in OUR WAY OF LIFE which I can called philosohy, this is why I asserted that the ecosystem is in a state of stable and balance equilibrium. All the assertions were supported by Physics. It is difficult to examine my essay from the lopsided view of business. But you found it applications in almost every sense of humanity.

Thank you and regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 22:09 GMT
I was not anonymous. The system signed me out.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Member Marc Séguin wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
Gbenga,

Among the essays of this contest, your very original essay is certainly the one that takes the most time to explicitly state physical laws, in your attempt to link them to the question of humanity steering the future. You invoke conservation of energy and Newton's third law to justify the importance of keeping our world in equilibrium (p.3), you take the time to fully work out a basic example of conservation of momentum (p. 4-5), you explain in detail the mechanism of the greenhouse effect (p. 6), you optimistically state that, as falling objects obey "g", suicide bombers and global tyrants must obey the laws of physics or be brought to judgment (p. 7), you compare the spreading of a gloomy future to a sound wave... and even feel the need to give the equation that relates frequency, speed and velocity (p. 7-8)!

In the end, you state that humanity should "steer a better world by allowing the force applied to be proportional to the rate of change of momentum that should take place in the direction of the force". Since we don't really have a choice (Newton's second law will remain true no matter what we do), I suppose this means that everything will turn out all right. Let us hope you're right!

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 05:12 GMT
Thanks Marc,

That was the comprehensive summary of my concept. I appreciate you for finding time to read through and doing a comprehensive review.

You are blessed.

Regards

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.