A lot of videos on YouTube complain about how China’s bike sharing had become a problem since the sidewalks are littering with unused bikes. This gave me an idea, why not replicating China’s bike sharing problem into something good for car drivers! Imagine cars could be available everywhere so everyone can use their smartphone to unlock, pay, and drive away for a day. After a person is done with the car, he or she can just park the car in any parking lot nearby.
Of course, car sharing might come with more problems for the car operators/lenders than the car renters because cars are more expensive to maintain. Also, car operators need to make sure each car needs to be covered by insurance policy. This could also get rather expensive for the car operators. Nonetheless, if someone could use some good math skill or an artificial intelligence algorithm to figure out the bottom line, then I guess if the bottom line is good then there shouldn’t be a problem to allow car sharing en masse.
I stumbled on a Quora’s question “How do you fix a corrupt country?” and so I decided to give my two cents on Quora in regards to how I think such a country could fix its problems. Well, I will quote myself fully right after the break. Nonetheless, you can also visit Quora for this specific answer too, but you may have to go through countless other answers that were given to this same question.
Here I quote myself:
When a country is being weakened by a weak leadership or a weak governance structure — having both would be a disaster — such a country needs to find a way to exert law and order so everyone in the country could recognize a corruptive behavior isn’t acceptable. When people are actually supportive of a measure against such corruptive behavior, the government could slowly gather strength through the recruitment of a strong leadership to carry out the enforcement of rules and regulations to curb the corruptions.
I think many forms of corruption could be very subtle too, and so corruptive agents could actually thrive in almost all governments — doesn’t matter what form a regime is actually practicing. For example, a democratic country is relatively poor, and so such a country will not be able to have strong leadership even though it got a democracy. Without a strong leadership, things tend to slip in and out between cracks, and so the corruptive agents could easily use such opportunity to do corruptive things out in the open.
In a dictatorship regime, corruptive agents in the position of power would be unchallenged since there won’t be enough checks and balances to curb such power. If a dictatorship regime got a weak leadership, the country could experience widespread corruptions that go unchecked. A good thing about the dictatorship regime is that if a country got a strong leader who actually cares for the people, such a leader could use the absolute power to weed out the corruptions really fast and effective. Basically, there are pros and cons to a different form of governance and style of a particular government.
I think to fix a corruptive country, the most important things are to find the right leadership and enhance or rebuild a governance structure so the country could thrive on rules and order. As long the rules and order are making sense and the people could feel safe, then other good things may come eventually. For example, a strong economy is a must for a leader to keep the people happy and healthy. When people are happy and healthy, they tend to do the right things and be supportive of the government. With strong support from the people, the government could exert enforcement to weed out corruptions without much of any opposition. Heck, when a government is being loved by the people, the government could take a lot more risks to achieve its aspirations.
I’m curious anyone else thinks this is the right approach to fixing a corrupt country? Please leave a comment or two in the comment section if you agree or disagree with my suggestion. Thanks.
Just a quick thought on why we’re alone or at least we think we’re alone! If you have read the Three-Body Problem sci-fi trilogy, then you may compel to agree with the author that other aliens don’t want to be seen at all costs! The idea is that once an intelligent world is being discovered it could be the end of it.
Imagine an intelligent world that is being developed to the point that it needs to colonize other planets to sustain its population and civilization. This world thus would go out of its way to strip resources of other planets and stars. The hungriness of such a world would not be stopped and it would grow infinitely until their technology got so great that they could outstrip an entire galaxy for resources.
Aliens might not want to see such a world to develop to such capacity that would compete against their own world, and so destroying an undeveloped world as fast as possible would be the easiest thing to do. Of course, we could not know what the aliens would think. Perhaps some aliens out there prefer peace over war. Perhaps, some aliens prefer to see the whole universe teems with colorful civilizations.
Personally, I think there could be aliens out there that are so developed and advanced to the point that they could hide in plain sight and we just don’t have the technology to see them. Some aliens could be so advanced that they don’t need to colonize and change the ecosystem of a planet for survival because they could modify themselves to fit into any environment! For all, we could know they could fly in a poisonous gaseous environment and would still feel like taking a stroll on a warm Sunday afternoon.
As we’re looking for a Goldilocks solar system to test our theory of finding existing alien life, these aliens may just be in plain sight but we won’t know it as we’re too focusing on the wrong environment. In short, we’re guessing but we could be off for miles. Perhaps, aliens don’t live in a Goldilocks environment? Perhaps they are and they have the technology to prevent us from seeing them or seeing their solar system?
Some supercars of today cost more than a couple cool million dollars to own, but how comfortable could you be in such cars when you got a Volvo 360c? Unfortunately, this is only a concept so far, I think! Nonetheless, I hope something like this could come sooner rather than later! After all, I hate driving between states and prefer playing video games, watching movies, and listening to music while on move. Often time I could find myself preferring to sleep than drive while on the move from one point to another point. At the moment, driving means seriously limiting yourself while on the move. Your eyes gotta be on the road 99.9% of the time to avoid any serious but avoidable accident so you could make to your destination safely! I think something like Volvo 360c could definitely allow me to avert my eyes away from the traffic and allow me to concentrate on something else that I could enjoy while on the go. Check out the video right after the break to see how cool a Volvo 360c could be!
So, I’d just finished reading “How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist’s surprising answer” article and I was amazed that his answer is just only 98 healthy people. Afterward, I scratched my head in doubts. Obviously, these 98 people would band together to produce more offsprings so the population could grow larger. Also, we could imagine that these 98 healthy people are the sole survivors of the planet earth since an apocalyptic event had wiped everyone else off the planet earth. So, is it true that it would take only 98 healthy people to start the new seed of a lost civilization for generations to come?
I don’t think it is possible for 98 healthy people to redevelop a lost population/civilization! In my opinion, if an event that could wipe out 99.999 percent of earth’s healthy population, how could we be so sure that the other 98 healthy people would last? Furthermore, a much smaller group of people is going to be more susceptible to extinction since any number of unfortunate circumstances could reduce this small group into an even smaller group. Of course, you can argue that these 98 healthy people are special since they survived the apocalypse and got a very good protective shelter such as they’re escaping the planet in a very capable spaceship. Then again, the universe is so huge which harbors all sorts of danger — how could one know that these people would survive through one generation?
Of course, you could argue that space is very safe for a generation of people who travel in a very capable spaceship to begin a repopulation program which could last for generations to come. Here I begin to doubt even more! How could anyone know how long a spaceship would last? Unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t think you could really know how long a spaceship would last. I imagine a spaceship got some moving parts and all sorts of things that could go wrong at any moment. I also imagine that space is a very lonely place, and so these 98 healthy people could suffer all sorts of depression. It takes only one crazy depressive person to dwindle this group into a smaller group. Thus, extinction is very near and dear!
I don’t like how one would think it takes only 98 healthy people to repopulate earth or sustain human species because this would encourage the crazies to believe that the other 99.999 percent of earth’s population is dispensable. My argument is very real for the reasons I stated above. Basically, I don’t think 98 healthy people could sustain a human species for there are too many variables that could dwindle this small group. From human emotions to outside variables, any one of these variables that turn negative could greatly reduce this small group. My answer is that I don’t believe 98 healthy people could actually sustain a human species!