fresh thoughts

  • About Me
  • Professional
  • User Experience (UX)
  • Random
  • Archive
  • RSS
  • Ask

The Future Of Work Maria, yammer.com
There’s been a lot of talk about the future of work. But what exact­ly is it? Although the future is tough to pre­dict, espe­cial­ly at the speed with which we are all mov­ing, there are some com­mon ele­ments that have start­ed to emerge. A…
View Separately

The Future Of Work
Maria, yammer.com

There’s been a lot of talk about the future of work. But what exact­ly is it? Although the future is tough to pre­dict, espe­cial­ly at the speed with which we are all mov­ing, there are some com­mon ele­ments that have start­ed to emerge. A…

(via emergentfutures)

Source: futuramb

    • #work
    • #future
  • 1 month ago > futuramb
  • 37
  • Comments
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
curiositycounts:

Simple, tasty explanation on the differences of User Experience vs User Interface
(via)
Pop-upView Separately

curiositycounts:

Simple, tasty explanation on the differences of User Experience vs User Interface

(via)

(via mirfaan)

Source: curiositycounts

  • 1 month ago > curiositycounts
  • 56
  • Comments
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
futurescope:

MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030

Forty years after its initial publication, a study called The Limits to Growth is looking depressingly prescient. Commissioned by an international think tank called the Club of Rome, the 1972 report found that if civilization continued on its path toward increasing consumption, the global economy would collapse by 2030. Population losses would ensue, and things would generally fall apart.
The study was — and remains — nothing if not controversial, with economists doubting its predictions and decrying the notion of imposing limits on economic growth. Australian researcher Graham Turner has examined its assumptions in great detail during the past several years, and apparently his latest research falls in line with the report’s predictions, according to Smithsonian Magazine. The world is on track for disaster, the magazine says.
The study, initially completed at MIT, relied on several computer models of economic trends and estimated that if things didn’t change much, and humans continued to consume natural resources apace, the world would run out at some point. Oil will peak (some argue it has) before dropping down the other side of the bell curve, yet demand for food and services would only continue to rise. Turner says real-world data from 1970 to 2000 tracks with the study’s draconian predictions: “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here. We are not on a sustainable trajectory,” he tells Smithsonian.
Is this impossible to fix? No, according to both Turner and the original study. If governments enact stricter policies and technologies can be improved to reduce our environmental footprint, economic growth doesn’t have to become a market white dwarf, marching toward inevitable implosion. But just how to do that is another thing entirely.

[via] [more] [picture credit: Linda Eckstein]

I always thought the economy has to collapse/crash at some point. The foundation is shaky to say the least. However, I do hope that we (and our governments) can change and adapt to try avoid this somehow.
Pop-upView Separately

futurescope:

MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030

Forty years after its initial publication, a study called The Limits to Growth is looking depressingly prescient. Commissioned by an international think tank called the Club of Rome, the 1972 report found that if civilization continued on its path toward increasing consumption, the global economy would collapse by 2030. Population losses would ensue, and things would generally fall apart.

The study was — and remains — nothing if not controversial, with economists doubting its predictions and decrying the notion of imposing limits on economic growth. Australian researcher Graham Turner has examined its assumptions in great detail during the past several years, and apparently his latest research falls in line with the report’s predictions, according to Smithsonian Magazine. The world is on track for disaster, the magazine says.

The study, initially completed at MIT, relied on several computer models of economic trends and estimated that if things didn’t change much, and humans continued to consume natural resources apace, the world would run out at some point. Oil will peak (some argue it has) before dropping down the other side of the bell curve, yet demand for food and services would only continue to rise. Turner says real-world data from 1970 to 2000 tracks with the study’s draconian predictions: “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here. We are not on a sustainable trajectory,” he tells Smithsonian.

Is this impossible to fix? No, according to both Turner and the original study. If governments enact stricter policies and technologies can be improved to reduce our environmental footprint, economic growth doesn’t have to become a market white dwarf, marching toward inevitable implosion. But just how to do that is another thing entirely.

[via] [more] [picture credit: Linda Eckstein]

I always thought the economy has to collapse/crash at some point. The foundation is shaky to say the least. However, I do hope that we (and our governments) can change and adapt to try avoid this somehow.

Source: popsci.com

  • 1 month ago > futurescope
  • 37
  • Comments
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
Tired of staring at a computer all day? Well, go back a 100 years and you’d have been working in a grueling factory all day. Go back another century and you’d have been tending a field all day. Go back 500 years and more than half of your children would have died before the age of five. And yet you’d *still* be using all kinds of human-made objects and systems. As we read yesterday, humans may have been deploying fire for 1 MILLION YEARS. No matter how far back you go, you’ll find us shaping our environment. It is technology all the way down.

Alexis Madrigal, on why the alternative to 21st-century technology is not “nature” but some other technologically-mediated reality.

(Also, read Lindy West’s excellent essay on the subject.)

Comforting.

(via futurejournalismproject)

(via futurejournalismproject)

Source: The Atlantic

  • 1 month ago > theatlantic
  • 443
  • Comments
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet
← Newer • Older →
Page 3 of 38

About

Avatar I am Nate Kettles and these are my thoughts.

On The Web

  • @NateKettles on Twitter
  • Facebook Profile
  • Linkedin Profile

Following

Good Stuff

  • Quote via rianvdm
    “Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do...”
    Quote via rianvdm
  • Photo via janks

    40 Innovative UI Concepts from Dribbble
    Photo via janks
  • Photo via springwise
    Brazilian fashion retailer displays Facebook ‘likes’ for items in its real-world stores

    Bridging the gap between the online and offline worlds is...

    Photo via springwise
  • Quote via world-shaker
    “The truth is that everything you do changes your brain. Everything. Every little thought or experience plays a role in the constant wiring and...”
    Quote via world-shaker
See more →
  • RSS
  • Random
  • Archive
  • Ask
  • Mobile

Nate Kettles | Fresh Thoughts. Effector Theme by Carlo Franco.

Powered by Tumblr