Dear editor,
The Coalition has landed on a new energy plan that is “all about affordable energy and responsible emissions reduction”.
This is no more than a vague idea seeking emotional appeal to some of its lost voters.
To those of us who give more credence to scientists than politicians, Coalition spokespersons repeatedly attempt to reassure us that they do ‘believe in climate change’.
I wonder if they also believe that the earth is spherical or that when an apple naturally separates from the tree it will fall to the ground?
The science of climate change has been known for at least a hundred years.
One of its main drivers, the burning of fossil fuels, has been growing exponentially along with the growth in human population since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
At that time, 250 years ago, the human population of the earth was around one billion. Now it is more than eight billion.
Natural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity – just ask governments and insurance companies who deal with the aftermaths.
These facts alone should be enough to convince any rational person that climate change is not a matter of belief, like a religion, but a matter of knowing, like the shape of the planet and the force of gravity.
The Coalition’s primary focus though is on energy affordability. But the cost of energy in isolation is virtually meaningless.
Power bills are one of the many factors comprising the widely acknowledged ‘cost of living crisis’.
That crisis is all too real for many people, employed and unemployed, who live hand-to-mouth, stressful lives.
But for the increasing number of billionaires, millionaires and wealthy people in the upper echelons of the economic tree there is no such crisis.
In fact, their growing wealth is on the back of those struggling to survive in an economic system designed to favor the wealthy.
The necessity of energy in our daily lives should make its provision a human right, like housing, and sufficient food – hardly a revolutionary idea in our naturally wealthy country.
But so long as it is just another commodity that only the wealthy can afford then it will be scapegoated by politicians trying to fool us that they have answers that their opponents do not.
The ‘cost of living crisis’ is largely the result of political decisions over decades.
And increasingly, such decisions are made at the behest of more powerful interest groups such as big corporations, driven relentlessly by the profit motive.
It does not have to be this way – if human ingenuity and imagination were valued above dollars the inequalities and injustices in our society could be a lot less in crisis mode.
Nick Carroll, Streaky Bay
AI has negative consequences too
Dear editor,
Albert Einstein’s quote, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination”, highlights the crucial distinction between genuine and artificial intelligence.
The development and introduction of AI have been frenetic and are heralded by techno-zealots as the best thing since sliced bread.
The advantages of AI have been identified as increased efficiency and productivity through the automation of repetitive tasks, improved decision-making due to its ability to analyse large datasets and increased accuracy with reduced human error.
It is also claimed by many that AI systems can provide 24/7 availability, undertake dangerous tasks, personalise experiences for users and drive innovation across various sectors.
The danger of AI is exposed in the article ‘AI blunder in custody battle’ (The Advertiser, 15 November) where a lawyer used AI-generated paperwork citing evidence that hadn’t happened and had been ‘hallucinated’ by AI.
The advantages of real intelligence include creativity, ethical and moral reasoning, adaptability and social-emotional understanding, which enable innovation, complex decision-making and learning from a diverse range of experiences.
Whilst I acknowledge that AI can make a valuable contribution to each of our daily lives, I am concerned that, like with many new developments, the negative impacts and consequences will be ignored, or not considered and eventually, we will have to wind back its web of intrusion.
One only has to consider: the introduction of plastic, the use of vapes, the social media addiction, online cyberbullying, and social isolation directly related to digital technology, to witness our lack of foresight and the damage it can cause.
Real intelligence and the human touch are required to implement AI in a socially responsible manner.
Ian Macgowan, Ceduna