In 2007, I joined the board of the X PRIZE Foundation, inspired by the way the group encourages people to dream big, tap into their own fearlessness and creativity, and change the world. These qualities have become even more important in the years since I joined, given our continuing national jobs crisis and the inability of our leaders in Washington to bring about the changes we so desperately need. In a world of multiple crises, sub-optimal solutions and a lack of urgency from our elected officials, the X PRIZE's mission of seeking bold answers to our biggest challenges is essential, inspiring and -- hopefully -- contagious.
So I'm delighted that, starting today, HuffPost will be featuring blog posts about the latest and most innovative X PRIZE projects. We're confident our readers will identify with X PRIZE's commitment to spurring innovation in areas ranging from space exploration and science to education and energy.
Earlier this year, X PRIZE Foundation Chairman and CEO Dr. Peter H. Diamandis co-wrote a book called Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think, offering solutions, perspective and optimism at a time when all three things are in short supply. That theme of abundance goes hand in hand with the recognition that, increasingly, startups, entrepreneurs, nonprofits and ordinary people are taking on big challenges -- often with stunning results. In an X PRIZE blog post in May, celebrating the successful SpaceX Dragon mission -- the first private craft to dock with the International Space Station -- Shell's Russ Conser wrote, "Governments no longer have to be the only ones who can do really big things on their own, and neither do large companies like my own... In the 21st century, big achievements can be pursued by startups founded by people like you."
In the coming days, we'll feature blog posts including X PRIZE Vice Chairman and President Robert K. Weiss on young inventors; Nokia's Henry Tirri and Qualcomm's Don Jones on revolutionizing digital healthcare; and X PRIZE Senior Director Grant Campany and Boston University's Tom Perls on genes, health, and longevity.
In Abundance, Diamandis and co-author Steven Kotler write, "The net is allowing us to turn ourselves into a giant, collective meta-intelligence." By showcasing some of X PRIZE's boldest new ideas -- and inviting you to join the conversation -- we hope to help prove them right.
Add your voice to the conversation on Twitter: twitter.com/ariannahuff
Dan Froomkin: Obama, Romney and the Low-Wage Future of America
How about - The inability of the Republicans to be concerned for the public good? And - how about the media and Americans inability to care about critical thought and becoming better informed?
The role of the 4th estate is to objectively create INFORMED PUBLIC OPINION. However, to continue to present different sides - when too ofter there is only one side - allows one side to argue the world is flat - which confuses too many Americans who either do not have or have misplaced the ability to think critically.
The X factor is a band aid when 40% our economy is devoted to financial investment to maximize fees to create pile of net worth to satiate Wall St Greed. We need a giant mega intelligence that recognizes we are in a depression, and we must understand all the parts to see the whole truth - to know the root cause is the return of Social Darwinism that metastasized into Financial Darwinism. And this disease cannot be fixed until the root cause is abundantly clear.
Understanding is not abundant. To learn what Congress and Wall St do not want us to know and what the media does not understand well enough or have the courage to properly address: www.howwegotswindled.com
The fact is there's still a big role for governments in the world; countries can pull together to establish national goals, and challenges that ARE beyond any individual, or even corporate entity.
We absolutely should be encouraging new ideas, and I've got nothing against a lot of these projects. But, for example, "private space exploration" seems to have given the government the excuse for killing off the most of NASA's next generation rocket programs, and consequently any further moon exploration, mars missions, and even the next-generation space telescope. Things like the Dragon rockets are barely toys compared to what was being built by the government 50 years ago.
We're using the magic wand of "entrepreneurship" to abandon responsibility for driving forward any big ideas, and taking responsibility for their success or failure. Yes, a major project is a gamble. Nuclear power, space exploration, and the internet paid off; meanwhile, fusion so far hasn't. But nothing will ever happen if we don't try and aim for something big, and put our money where our collective mouth is.
one unique personalised rendition of reality at a time.
"the inability of our leaders in Washington to bring about the changes we so desperately need."
When under the heel, or actually a member, of a mob. Any remedy may need to be administered mob handed.
"Governments no longer have"
a one-way megaphone. Vague quotes are now increasingly likely to be greeted by questions, requesting clarification.
"genes, health, and longevity"
of our kind.
"The net is allowing us to turn ourselves into a giant, collective meta-intelligence."
Oh what a tangled web we wove. Before we chanced on means to commove.
but your tech section is iffy and buried in the back
what century do you live in?
peace
This kind of macro or meta-shift is extremely difficult to pull off, and typically doesn't happen until the pain of staying the same is much, much greater than the pain of changing.
Here's a hint: If some guy from Big Oil thinks what you're doing is great, it's not so great after all. These mega-corporations and their leaders have the greatest possible investment in preserving the status quo, which is defined (in our society) by social darwinism and the profit motive.
That's not to say I'm not happy about incremental innovation. But that's really not gonna cut it.
If I understand on it correctly, the X-Prize Blogs are aimed at putting forward new and comprehensive ideas and opening the field to Huffpost Readers to ascertain how they feel about them. In doing so you are also suggesting that the readers offer potential beneficial suggestions to alter the flow of the thoughts to make them more revelent and universally acceptable. If this is the aim, where's the problem?
Constant complaints are heard on the subject of a US Congress that does not listen and, as such are incapable of coming to an acceptable consensus (or compromise) of the important bills before them. People all around the Globe are gnawing the ends of systems that have run their course relative to current Society, their needs and desires to progress beyond our current civilization (?). THESE are exactly the reasons we need such blogs.
If the authors of the blogs and the readers can approach these subjects with truly open minds, WHO KNOWS You might just have found a way to cure some of the ills that plague Humankind; That is IF (yup, there's that pesky qualifier again) The politicians of the world will close their eyes to the past, listen to the present and approach the potential of the ideas of those who hired them and keep them in office. GOOD LUCK with this idea; Good Luck to All of Us in the World and those following us tomorrow.
In MY opinion, relative to CNN's problems... the are JUST a LITTLE too worried about trying to be the first ones with the news, rather than being accurate and complete. Another problem I see that would be valuable for them to hear...and I believe that YOU would be a good one to pass this thought along to them...CNN has over the past few years become pretty good at 'Keeping Them Honest' relative to political ads and proclamations. HOWEVER... IN MY OPINION... they could do even better. The people of the USA have NO credible source they can count on to fully analyze all the 'blustering' that goes on and do the kind of vetting that we all need.
The rhetoric and blustering is more deafening NOW than ever before and getting worse each year. I believe that the Republicans are doing this for a variety of reasons, including the purpose of turning off the average person and trying to keep them from participating in the democratic process.
I ALSO believe that the media is doing a VERY poor job of reminding the people that references to Obama's failed promises from the the 2008 campaign needs to be put into perspective. ANY promises made then went out the window once 'the crash' happened. Any goals or objectives he and others had THEN were replaced with the dire needs of the country to REPAIR our changed and injured economy.
The first X-Prize was kind of a failure. Even though they accomplished suborbital flight, they did so using a platform that cannot be extended to orbital flight. In order to take that next logical step, they'd have to start over with a completely different approach. Which is basically what SpaceX is doing now.
Similar issue the automotive X Prize for a 100 MPGe vehicle. The winners of that contest were vehicles that are laughable impractical for everyday use.
And the money still has to come from somewhere. It's estimated that over $100 million was spent by teams competing for the Suborbital X-Prize in order to win a $10 million award. No one who expects a return on their investment would put money into one of these contests.
This is, of course, no reason for future X Prize goals to be as narrowly focused. Hopefully, those in charge of that organization are learning from their successes and failures, too.
But I do think there's something very important at the core of what you said: X Prize and private industry goals are narrow in focus (both in project scope and timeframe). They are not well suited to solving larger problems (ie. they can build a better car, but not a better Interstate Highway system). Those larger problems are the ones that government should be tackling and there's no way that an X Prize format can take the place of government initiatives for problems of that size.
Isaac Asimov (/ˈaɪzək ˈæzɨməv/ EYE-zək AZ-i-məv; born Isaak Yudovich Ozimov, Russian: Исаак Юдович Озимов; Yiddish: אייזיק יודאָוויטש אסימאוו; c. January 2, 1920[1] – April 6, 1992) was an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books. Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.[2] His works have been published in all ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System (although his only work in the 100s—which covers philosophy and psychology—was a foreword for The Humanist Way).[3]Raymond "Ray" Kurzweil (/ˈkɜrzwaɪl/ KURZ-wyl; born February 12, 1948) is an American author, inventor and futurist. Aside from futurology, he is involved in fields such as optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, speech recognition technology, and electronic keyboard instruments. He is the author of several books on health, artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanism, the technological singularity, and futurism. Kurzweil is generally recognized as a public advocate for the futurist and transhumanist movements, due to his stances on life extension technologies, his efforts to forecast future advances in technology, and his interest in the concept of the technological singularity. At the same time, he has attracted significant criticism from scientists and thinkers.
sorry....
peace