Ramani: Manifesto

We should no longer use plastic in fifty years.

In fifty years, we should replace plastic with biodegradable alternatives. In recent decades, the widespread use of plastic in our everyday lives had led us to an environmental crisis. It is estimated that Americans alone throw away 35 billion plastic bottles every year.¹ These bottles often end up in landfills or our waterways and affect wildlife in detrimental ways. Plastic constitutes 90 percent of all trash floating on the ocean’s surface, with 46,000 pieces of plastic per square mile.¹ Plastic takes over 1,000 years to decompose and we are using plastic at an alarming rate with little regard to the environmental impact of our waste. At this rate, it is unlikely that future generations will be able to enjoy beaches untouched by plastic. If we continue to use plastic at such a rate, wildlife will continue to suffer and die off, wreaking havoc on the balance of the ecosystem. Though it is hard to reverse the damage that has already been done, the elimination of plastic usage will prevent further pollution and degradation of our waterways and our environment. I believe this issue should be included in the collective manifesto because the prevention of further damage to our environment is essential to ensure the survival and success of future generations.

We ought to have laws that define and limit the role of Artificial Intelligence technology in our society.

In the next fifty years, we are likely going to see a technological boom of artificial intelligence technology. Though the prospect of widespread AI use is exciting and futuristic, we must tread carefully. If unregulated and unmonitored, AI is likely to spiral out of control despite our best efforts. When creating AI, it is important to align the AI’s goal with ours, which is surprisingly difficult. Even if AI is programmed to be beneficial, it could learn to use destructive methods to achieve its goals, which could have devastating consequences.² The self-improving and self-renewing quality of AI is a double-edged sword. On one hand, AI is constantly learning and absorbing information in order to better itself. On the other hand, this self-improvement could go beyond what we imagined and cause a boom in intelligence that would surpass our intelligence and limit the way we can control AI. Because of this, I believe that we must draft laws to limit the scope and ability of AI before the technology advances to the point of no return. These laws should be malleable in order for the law to be changed as advancements are made in the AI field. This issue should be included in the manifesto to ensure that AI technology does not become a runaway train.

We should limit the extent of genetic modification on humans to ensure a level playing field.

The prospect of widespread genetic modification on humans is an appealing idea. The elimination of debilitating genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease would allow a larger number of humans to live long, healthy, and fulfilling lives. However, genetic modification could soon become used to change cosmetic things such as height, skin color, eye color, face shape, etc. These modifications could be bought by the richest in our societies, who would be able to afford gene editing technology more readily than the average person. Such modifications would give an unfair advantage to the ultra-rich, who would be able to buy beauty and health. In order to limit exploitation of genetic modification, we must limit the extent of genetic modifications available to humans. Only debilitating diseases and conditions should be eliminated using genetic modification. Intellect and cosmetic changes using genetic modification should be limited in order to ensure that humans are not able to gain an advantage due to their socioeconomic status. Though some argue that we have already been using socioeconomic status to our benefit through the use of SAT tutors, personal trainers, dieticians, plastic surgery, etc., these advantages are not passed genetically to our offspring.³ Over time, using CRISPR/Cas9 to endow generation after generation with genetic advantages will only increase the inequality gap between the wealthy and the poor. Though genetic manipulation to save lives is a sensible and beneficial use of technology, the process should not be used to further benefit those already born into socioeconomic advantage.

We ought to only use electric cars.

The increasing availability and affordability of electric cars has led to an increase in popularity for fully electric cars. Despite this increase in popularity, traditional fuel-consuming cars still continue to dominate the current market. Companies continue to make gas-powered cars due to their profitability. Unlike gas-cars, electric cars are not as profitable for car companies from the get-go. For example, Tesla stock is worth more than General Motors or Ford, but the stock has yet to produce a profit. This is because producing electric cars still costing companies more per car when compared to traditional gas-consuming cars.⁴ Despite this, I hope to see electric cars increase in popularity and eventually phase out traditional cars. Electric cars are not only better for the environment, but also most cost-efficient than traditional cars. The average electric car costs the consumer $485 per year, while a traditional car costs on average $1,117. This translates to long-term savings despite the higher up-front cost of purchasing an electric car. Furthermore, since electric vehicles do not have an internal combustion engine, there is no need for costly repair to engines during the lifetime of the car.⁵ Given the monetary advantages that come with owning an EV, I hope to see only EVs on the road in fifty years. The only way to implement this change, is to incentivize purchasing an EV over a traditional vehicle, which is why I wish to include this in the manifesto.

We should largely use renewable resources and should eliminate coal usage completely.

The continued usage of outdated non-renewable resources such as coal has devastated not only the environment, but also communities located in coal-rich regions. I took a class last semester that focused on coal mining in the Appalachian region and reading about first-hand accounts of the devastation coal mining brings to communities opened my eyes to the greed and immorality that plagues the coal mining business. Because of this, I hope to see coal usage completely eliminated in fifty years. Not only is coal usage detrimental to the environment in terms of CO2 emissions, but also “mining coal disturbs the land and modifies the chemistry of rainwater runoff, which in turn affects stream and river water quality.”⁶ In fifty years, we ought to eliminate coal usage completely as well as incentivize the usage of renewable resources such as wind power, solar power, or hydroelectricity. Other countries have already begun generating a large portion of their energy using renewable energy sources. In fact, the UK now generates almost 1/3 of their electricity using renewable energy sources. Furthermore, in 2016, Portugal made history by running on renewable energy alone for 107 hours.⁷ These statistics prove that developed countries can fully rely on renewable energy if they invest in the infrastructure needed to sustain their usage. In fifty years, I wish to see America overcome its greed and invest in renewable resources instead of coal.

We ought to have more affordable healthy food available to the low-income American consumers.

For a developed nation, America has a problem with access to healthy food options. This issue is particularly acute in low-income neighborhood and disproportionately affects low-income communities of color. Approximately 30 million Americans live in low-income areas with limited access to supermarkets with fresh food options.⁸ Research indicates that access to fresh and healthy food promotes better eating habits and overall positive health outcomes while also decreasing rates of obesity and other diet-related dieseases.⁸ Despite the clearly outlined benefits of access to healthy food, a large portion of low-income Americans don’t have access to healthy and/or cannot afford it. In a system where a single bag of Doritos is cheaper than an avocado, it is hard for low-income families to purchase fresh veggies and fruits over junk food. Furthermore, access to supermarkets offering fresh produce is severely lacking in low-income neighborhoods, which are often littered with abandoned supermarkets. This was brought on by decades of disinvestment that led to the systematic abandonment of low-income neighborhoods. Often, these neighborhoods only have convenience stores and fast food options within a reasonable distance.⁸ In order to promote a healthier lifestyle for all Americans and to address our ever-increasing obesity rate, we must invest in offering low-income consumers accessible healthy options. Within the next fifty years, we ought to recognize our responsibility to all our citizens and invest in their well-being.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/05/technology/electric-cars-vs-gas-cars/index.html Links to an external site.