The City of the Future According to Elon Musk

Elon Musk is on a mission to transform the way cities are powered. We look at how his plans could shape our future world, and whether we want them to

Elon Musk wants to change the world. Almost inarguably, he has done so already, both in past endeavours with the creation of PayPal, and more recently with his Space X efforts, as the CEO of the first private company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station.

But the future, as partially laid out in the Tesla Master Plan Part Deux, holds even more promise and, if Musk is successful in his ambition, could see the entrepreneur change aspects of our lives almost beyond recognition.

The question thus begged is: do we want him to?

The Potential of Power

In the aforementioned Master Plan Part Deux, it was announced that Tesla would be merging with SolarCity, both Musk companies that have thus far run separately. By combining the two, the intention is to bring together Tesla’s power storage technology with SolarCity’s panels. Or, as he put it in the Master Plan, “create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage”.

These solar roofs will not just be a module on the existing roof but act as the roof itself. And they will inevitably be operating in conjunction with Tesla Powerwall, the home battery designed to charge from solar during the day then power your home during the evening.
Ultimately, the intention seems to be for Tesla/SolarCity equipped houses to go off-grid, achieving a net zero energy rating in which their consumption is only as much as their production.

Image courtesy of OnInnovation. Featured image courtesy of Jag_cz / Shutterstock.com

Image courtesy of OnInnovation. Featured image courtesy of Jag_cz / Shutterstock.com

In Musk’s words: “The point of all this was, and remains, accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, so that we can imagine far into the future and life is still good. That’s what ‘sustainable’ means. It’s not some silly, hippy thing – it matters for everyone.”

The importance of the continued development of sustainable energy is obvious and, with innovations such as Harvard’s ‘bionic leaf’, the plausibility of large-scale replacement of fossil fuel dependency is increasing. To take the idea to its furthest conclusion, we must imagine a future in which houses, possibly even entire cities, are powered by sustainable energy alone.

At most, the grid would act as a sort of backup generator in case of emergency or excess demand. Perhaps the grid will not exist at all, supplanted by greener measures.

Means of Production

Musk is in the energy game on multiple fronts but it’s the way he’s applying it at Tesla that is perhaps most revelatory. We already knew that Tesla planned to expand its product line and that it was working on autonomous vehicles.

What we didn’t all know until the latest entry in the Master Plan was that the product line expansion will see Tesla offering commercial vehicles alongside affordable cars, and that the autonomous development has far loftier aims than a base level of self-driving vehicles.

The next few years may well see the roads filling up with Teslas, all of which will, by one means or another, ultimately be recharged by solar power

To look first at the expansion of Tesla’s product range, it has announced development of both heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport. Both will of course be electric.

Alongside cornering the market on affordable-to-run municipal vehicles, Tesla is expanding into vehicles aimed at the standard consumer, with the new Model 3 starting at a price of $35,000.

As a result of the expansion into low-cost vehicles, the next few years may well see the roads filling up with Teslas, all of which will, by one means or another, ultimately be recharged by solar power.

Beyond its own vehicles, though, Tesla is looking to lead on a broader scale of manufacturing and sooner than may have been expected, beginning work on “designing the machine that makes the machine” as they start on factory machines that claim to be first-version-ready in 2018.

Autonomous Automobiles

With Tesla leading the way on the vehicle side of affordable electric, as well as enhancing the means of manufacturing, the vision of a nation of Tesla drivers is not so farfetched. Except, that is, for the fact that Tesla doesn’t plan for you to be driving the car.

As a leader in the development of autonomous vehicles, Tesla’s goal is to put a car on the road with a self-driving capability that is ten times safer than a human driver. And more than just driving itself, the car will be summonable at the touch of a button and, when not in use, can be added to the shared Tesla fleet to earn you money.

The importance of the fleet is multi-faceted. Aside from earning you extra cash, when your car links into it your vehicle will, in a sense, be improving itself. As the larger the Tesla fleet grows, the more data the company will have to improve between-car awareness and other fleet AI technology.

Image courtesy of Tesla

Image courtesy of Tesla

Additionally, outside of the customer-owned fleet, Musk has asserted that Tesla will operate its own fleet in cities where demand exceeds the availability of customer-owned cars, meaning that there should always be a Tesla available to take you where you want.
There have already been suggestions as to Tesla aiming to compete with Uber using its autonomous vehicles, and the idea certainly seems to fit with the emerging vision of a Tesla future. However, it is important to take note that this is still very much a future concern.

The recent death of a Tesla test-pilot is indicative that there is still plenty of work to be done with the technology. Yet we must also take into account that the wide-reaching approach is not a typical ‘business’ move, but instead an extension of Elon Musk’s apparent desire to save the world.

It is unfortunate that, as of now, saving the world consists of ‘beta-testing’ potentially dangerous technology with average consumers. While it is easy to be blinded by the potential of the autonomous car, it is important to remember that it’s failings in arguably simple areas resulted in a man’s death.

And, as pointed out by the director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences group Dr Patrick Lin in an article for IEEE Spectrum, these are failings that the average consumer is likely to be susceptible to. “Over-trust and inattention are known problems that technology developers need to design for, and simply telling customers not to do what comes naturally is probably not enough” he said. “It’s as if Tesla said, ‘Don’t ever blink,’ and customers promised not to: they just don’t understand what they’re signing up for.”

Ozymandias complex

There’s something more than a little comic book about Elon Musk. His plans practically scream “I want to save the world”. He was the partial basis for Robert Downey Jr’s portrayal of Iron Man. And he has the money, intellect and world-spanning plans of a super villain.

While his aims are certainly impressive and almost indubitably for the good of the world, it’s hard not to wonder if that kind of concentrated power is a good thing

There is no doubt that this is a man that wants to change the world and, more importantly, a man who has the capability to. His success however, could see control over our energy and driving needs placed largely in the hands of one man. While his aims are certainly impressive and almost indubitably for the good of the world, it’s hard not to wonder if that kind of concentrated power is a good thing.

It is not to say he is a man without rivals. Fisker was supposedly birthed from designs originally intended for Tesla’s Model S. Other big-name manufacturers are also getting into Tesla’s market, whether with hybrids or pure-electrics.

Autonomy, too, isn’t a project unique to the Tesla vehicles as everyone from Google to Mercedes has a stake in the technology.

SolarCity, meanwhile, certainly isn’t the only solar company out there, even if it may be one of the biggest. Both in the US and abroad, there are companies nipping at its heels. Furthermore, rivals aside, it is entirely possible that Musk’s companies will implode long before their rivals get a chance at them.

As pointed out by a CNN Money article: “SolarCity’s net loss grew to $250m in the second quarter from $156m in the same period a year earlier, the company announced in its earnings report ‒ before talking up the solar roofs. Likewise, Tesla revealed last week that its losses for the second quarter ballooned to $150m, more than twice what Wall Street had expected”.

However, assume the businesses hold out. Assume that their plans pay off and that the hybrid of Tesla/SolarCity becomes the largest in the clean energy field. The Elon Musk future then is one in which entire communities, perhaps cities, are running off SolarCity panels and Tesla Powerwalls.

A future in which the roads swarm with a fleet of autonomous Tesla cars, earning money for their owners during the day and available to provide a lift at the touch of a button. The hyperloop train carries passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in just 35 minutes.

factor-archive-28These are cities that hum with electricity, all of it off-grid and cleanly generated. And all of it, ultimately, is in the hands of one man. It is a brilliant future. It may well be one to fear. For one company to have so much influence is an idea worthy of concern. But a future where Tesla fails may well be an even worse one.

Advances in genetic technologies mean that it could soon be possible to de-extinct our closest relative. But even if we can, does that mean we should? We investigate

45,000 years ago our species was not alone on this planet. Alongside us, Homo sapiens, was a second member of our genus, Homo neanderthalensis, with its own tools, society and cultural practices.

At one time it is thought that there were around 70,000 Neanderthals living on Earth, mainly in what we now know as Europe and southwest and central Asia. How much our species interacted with this sapient cousin is not fully known, but there was certainly some interbreeding: while Neanderthals are long deceased, their DNA lives on in many Europeans and Asians.

But now, with the advances of genetic technologies, Neanderthals could return. Recent advances of gene editing tools such as CRISPR, as well as the sequencing of DNA taken from the bone of a female Neanderthal who is thought to have walked the Earth some 50,000-100,000 years ago, mean that what was once pure science fiction could soon become a reality.

Legendary geneticist George Church, the Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School who is currently spearheading the project to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, has said that he thinks the de-extinction of Neanderthals will occur in his lifetime.

“The reason I would consider it a possibility is that a bunch of technologies are developing faster than ever before,” he told Spiegel Online in 2013. “In particular, reading and writing DNA is now about a million times faster than seven or eight years ago. Another technology that the de-extinction of a Neanderthal would require is human cloning.

“We can clone all kinds of mammals, so it’s very likely that we could clone a human. Why shouldn’t we be able to do so?”

Bringing Neanderthals back from the dead

When we consider de-extincting Neanderthals, it is important to note that we would not be bringing back a precise, perfect copy of the Neanderthals that lived on Earth up until their extinction some 40,000 years ago.

As Douglas McCauley, assistant professor in the University of California Santa Barbara’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, explains, the question of whether we can bring Neanderthals back from extinction “depends upon how much of a purist you are about the definition of Neanderthal”.

I expect we will be more interested in engineering bigger brains than bigger brow ridges

In the simplest terms, any scientists who set out to de-extinct Neanderthals will do so by cobbling together modern human and extinct Neanderthal DNA.

“The technique that many de-extinction scientists are now using to bring back extinct species is to sequence the genome of the dead species – line it up next to the genome of the nearest living relative – then use CRISPR gene editing techniques to modify elements of the genome of the living relative to approximate elements of the genome of the dead species,” explains McCauley.

This is the approach being taken by the Harvard team currently attempting to de-extinct the woolly mammoth.

“Here they are using the genome of the extinct woolly mammoth and the genome of a living Asian elephant. The goal, however, isn’t to bring back a perfect replica of the woolly mammoth. A success would be to genetically engineer a hairy, cold-tolerant Asian elephant.

“This would also remain the same strategy for any group attempting to bring back a Neanderthal. Again, this would be more like engineering increased Neanderthal-ness into the human genome – not like cranking out a carbon copy of a Neanderthal.”

This approach should be technically possible for Neanderthals in the near future. But, as McCauley explains, that doesn’t mean it will actually happen.

“Technically engineering more Neanderthal into the human genome will indeed be possible very soon,” he says. “Practically, I don’t really see this happening. People will most certainly use CRISPR and next-generation gene editing techniques to edit the human genome – but I think this is much more likely to be tuning humans up, rather than tuning down.

“I expect we will be more interested in engineering bigger brains than bigger brow ridges.”

Criteria for de-extinction

De-extinction is, in general, a topic that is set to be the subject of ever-greater discussion in the coming years, as hypothetical concepts become scientific reality.

“It is on the precipice of moving from a crazy idea we once mused about over coffee, to a real possibility we can actually make happen in the lab. From science fiction to real science,” summarises McCauley.

However, with such abilities come significant moral questions. De-extinction could be a vital tool for conservation, but it could also be used to produce creatures that are more reminiscent of science fiction horror stories than of scientific value.

As a result, efforts are already being made to build a moral framework within which de-extinction scientists can work. As part of this, McCauley authored a paper along with several colleagues that recommended using three specific criteria for the selection of candidates for the de-extinction process.

“I am a conservation biologist and an ecologist. The three criteria we issued were created from that vantage point: what species would we bring back if we genuinely wanted de-extinction to combat the ecological crisis being created by the ongoing human-driven mass extinction?” he explains.

“We suggested recovering species that: 1) performed ecological jobs that were highly unique and were not replicated by other surviving species; 2) recent extinctions for which the technological and ecological barriers for recovery and restoration were lower; and 3) species that we could meaningfully recover to historic levels of abundance.”

If following this approach, scientists would therefore favour species to de-extinct that could not only fulfil a role in the ecosystem that another species had not taken over, but were likely made extinct fairly recently and would survive and flourish in the current environment. And under these criteria, Neanderthals would be a poor choice.

“Neanderthals most importantly fail the first test,” explains McCauley. “Their ecology is very similar to another species that survived and thrived – our own.

“To put it bluntly, from a conversation biologists point of view: the last thing our planet needs right now is more hungry Hominids.”

Neanderthal revival: the moral issue

This is not to say, as some have suggested, that Neanderthals would pose any particular threat to modern humans.

“Quite the opposite,” argues McCauley. “The greatest challenge would be keeping de-extincted Neanderthals alive and safe from us, not worrying about them taking over.”

As these newly engineered Neanderthals would not be true replicas of their past equivalents, they would be likely to suffer from genetic issues, as well as being potentially highly ill-suited to the human-occupied modern world.

There are likely to be a host of developmental issues associated with looking after imperfectly genetically re-engineered Neanderthals

“There are likely to be a host of developmental issues associated with looking after imperfectly genetically re-engineered Neanderthals (e.g. birth defects), they are likely to be quite susceptible to modern disease, and it is unclear what habitats they would slot back into,” he adds. “Our species has taken over all of the once prime habitat of Neanderthals.”

Then there is the matter of Neanderthals’ original demise; something that could easily play out again if we were to bring back a group of the species. It’s hard to see the scientific value of de-extincting a species that would be at high risk of quickly becoming extinct again.

“It is important to remember that we likely played an important role in the original extinction of Neanderthals,” explains McCauley. “We competed heavily with them for food and homes and we may have given them lethal diseases. Reviving Neanderthals might simply be an act of recreating history.”

Value in de-extinction

For McCauley, there is currently no circumstance under which bringing back Neanderthals would be a good idea. But that does not mean that de-extinction as a wider practice does not have value – in fact, it could offer significant benefits, provided we select the right species to focus on.

“There is a very long list of other species that I think would be smarter to bring back before we started in on Neanderthals,” he says.

“As an ecologist that looks out at a world with species being driven extinct in all directions around us, I am all ears for smart new conservation tools.

“The challenge here will be carefully selecting targets that meaningfully help the planet, not using this new-found power to create oddities for zoos or bio-bazaar.”

School will use facial analysis to identify students who are dozing off

In September the ESG business school in Paris will begin using artificial intelligence and facial analysis to determine whether students are paying attention in class. The school says the technology will be used to improve performance of students and professors.

Source: The Verge

Company offers free training for coal miners to become wind farmers

A Chinese wind-turbine maker wants American workers to retrain and become wind farmers. The training program was announced at an energy conference in Wyoming, where the American arm of Goldwind, a Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer is located.

Source: Quartz

Google AI defeats human Go champion

Google's DeepMind AI AlphaGo has defeated the world's number one Go player Ke Jie. AlphaGo secured the victory after winning the second game in a three-part match. DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis said Ke Jie "pushed AlphaGo right to the limit".

Source: BBC

Vegan burgers that taste like real meat to hit Safeway stores

Beyond Meat, which promises its plant-based burgers bleed and sizzle like real ground beef and is backed by investors like Bill Gates, will begin distributing its plant-based burgers in more than 280 Safeway stores in California, Hawaii and Nevada.

Source: Bloomberg

The brain starts to eat itself after chronic sleep deprivation

Brain cells that destroy and digest worn-out cells and debris go into overdrive in mice that are chronically sleep-deprived. The discovery could explain why a chronic lack of sleep puts people at risk of neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: New Scientist

"We can still act and it won’t be too late," says Obama

Former US President Barack Obama has written an op-ed piece in the Guardian giving his views on some of the greatest challenges facing the world – food and climate change – and what we can do about them. "We can still act and it won’t be too late," writes Obama.

Source: The Guardian