Imagine you’re at a football game. But this isn’t just any game. It’s a match between two big teams: Team Science and Team Religion. These teams are attempting to unravel the mysteries of our world and existence.

Some people root for Team Science, believing in what they can see and test. Others cheer for Team Religion, trusting in spiritual truths. But which team do you think needs more faith? Is it Team Science or Team Religion? Let’s dive into this interesting match, exploring how these two teams play their game, and see if we can find an answer to our big question.

The Intricate Dance of Faith and Science

The interplay between science and faith, represented often by religion, need not be seen as mutually exclusive, despite frequent portrayals as opposing forces. They represent different, but not mutually exclusive, approaches to understanding life and our place in the universe.

Driven by a deep curiosity, science aims to uncover our world and the broader universe’s governing mechanisms through empirical evidence and reasoning.”
Scientists gather data through experiments and observations, test hypotheses, and continuously revise theories based on new evidence. This method, known as the scientific method, underpins our understanding of everything from the laws of physics to the complexity of biological processes. However, science primarily seeks to answer “how” questions—how do planets orbit the sun? How does a caterpillar transform into a butterfly?

Religion, however, extends beyond physical phenomena, offering moral, ethical, and spiritual guidance while addressing ‘why’ questions—our existence and purpose. The teachings of various religions can shape a person’s sense of purpose, influence their values, and offer comfort during difficult times. Unlike science, religion often relies on spiritual experiences, sacred texts, and faith, which is belief without empirical evidence.

While science and religion have different methodologies and seek to answer different types of questions, both are driven by a desire to understand. They are two sides of the same coin—the human quest for knowledge and meaning. It’s also important to note that many individuals find personal reconciliation between their scientific understanding and religious beliefs, viewing science as a way to understand the workings of the world and religion as a way to understand the meaning and purpose within that world.

In this context, a “centrist” viewpoint could be one that acknowledges and respects both science and faith as valid approaches to understanding without needing to pit one against the other. It recognizes that science and faith can coexist, each fulfilling different human needs—science quenching our thirst for empirical understanding of the universe and faith satisfying our need for purpose and moral guidance.

Understanding the Realm of Faith

The debate between science and religion can easily escalate, becoming a polarizing issue. On one side, some individuals firmly adhere to scientific knowledge, using the robust process of gathering and analyzing empirical evidence as a tool to argue for their stance. Their arguments often center around the rigorous methodology that science applies, in which ideas and theories are continuously scrutinized, tested, and updated based on the evidence. This approach provides an evolving understanding of our world, and they argue rightly, that it’s a powerful tool for unveiling truth.

On the other side, there are those who place their trust in religious beliefs, utilizing spiritual experiences, interpretations of sacred texts, and tenets of faith to build their case. These individuals often argue that science is unable to answer fundamental questions about purpose, morality, and the spiritual aspects of human life. They suggest that religious faith provides guidance, comfort, and a sense of purpose that empirical evidence cannot offer. They emphasize that faith has been a cornerstone of human societies throughout history, shaping cultures, philosophies, and personal identities.

Both parties often vie for a ‘higher moral ground’, perceiving their perspective as superior. Each uses its brand of logic as a weapon, either the empirical logic of science or the spiritual logic of religion, in an attempt to establish dominance. This can lead to a standoff that resembles an “I’m right, you’re wrong” scenario.

However, it’s essential to remember that both science and religion play vital roles in human society. They serve different but equally important functions: science helps us understand the physical world around us, while religion provides a framework for personal meaning and moral structure. The ongoing debate doesn’t need to be a battle for supremacy but could instead be an opportunity for dialogue and mutual understanding, acknowledging the valuable contributions each brings to human life. It’s not a matter of one being superior to the other but recognizing that they offer different perspectives on our existence and understanding of the world.

Science and Faith: Two Sides of the Same Coin

The idea of the “separation of church and state” is a fundamental principle in many democratic societies. It guarantees the independence of both religious institutions and the state from each other, thereby ensuring religious freedom for individuals. However, when we consider the relationship between science and religion, we find that there are no analogous boundaries.

These two domains are not neatly separated but rather overlap and intermingle in many ways. Despite their different approaches to life’s profound questions, science and religion frequently struggle to coexist peacefully.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence and reason, focusing on physical realities that can be observed, measured, and tested. In contrast, religion typically relies on spiritual, metaphysical, or divine revelations, focusing on the realm that transcends the physical and the observable.

Scientific findings sometimes challenge religious teachings, such as in the cases of evolutionary biology versus creationism or cosmology versus divine cosmogony. In these instances, tensions can arise between religious communities and the scientific community, creating a sense of struggle and disagreement.

Nonetheless, science and religion converge and offer valuable insights in areas like the ethical implications of scientific advancements, including genetic engineering or artificial intelligence.

Note that the struggle between science and religion is not a universal experience. There are numerous individuals and groups who reconcile their scientific understanding with their religious beliefs. They find ways to interpret scientific findings within their spiritual framework or see their religious beliefs reflected in the wonders of the natural world unveiled by science.

The intricate interaction between science and religion can’t be reduced to a mere dichotomy or a zero-sum game. It’s a dynamic interplay, sometimes characterized by conflict and other times by mutual enrichment. Recognizing this nuanced relationship can help foster more constructive dialogue and understanding between the scientific and religious communities.

The Crucial Role of Perspective

In the ongoing discourse between science and religion, there is often an unfortunate tendency for individuals and groups to employ “us-versus-them” thinking. This can lead to the erroneous belief that the value of one’s perspective is inherently superior to the other. The dispute often devolves into a contest of “my logic is better than your logic.”

In reality, however, both science and religion have their unique strengths and limitations, their triumphs and their shortcomings. For instance, science excels at investigating the natural world and providing empirical explanations for observable phenomena. Yet, it is inherently limited in addressing metaphysical questions or providing moral guidance, areas where religion often plays a pivotal role.

On the other hand, religious beliefs can offer profound insights into questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. They can provide a framework for community, ethical behavior, and personal comfort in the face of uncertainty or adversity. However, religious beliefs, when taken literally or dogmatically, can sometimes conflict with empirical evidence or discourage open questioning and exploration, areas where science shines.

Moreover, both science and religion can fall prey to human foibles. Scientific progress can be hindered by bias, unethical behavior, or resistance to paradigm shifts. Similarly, religious institutions can be marred by dogmatism, intolerance, or abuse of power. Recognizing these pitfalls is essential to foster humility, openness, and ethical responsibility in both domains.

The key is to move beyond the simplistic narrative of science versus religion and recognize the potential for dialogue and mutual enrichment. After all, both science and religion spring from the human quest for understanding, meaning, and transcendence. They are different yet complementary ways of engaging with the world, and their interplay can enrich our collective wisdom and human experience.

The Reliability of Faith in Our Daily Lives

Science and religion, historically viewed as opposing forces rather than coexisting concepts, have generated friction due to perceived incompatibilities.

Just as we don’t separate politics from society or art from culture, there are no “separation of church and state” policies between science and religion. In theory, the two should be able to coexist, supporting each other in explaining different aspects of life and the universe. However, the reality is often more complicated, as both realms have different ways of approaching and understanding the world.

Science operates through the scientific method, observing the natural world, forming hypotheses, and conducting experiments to test these hypotheses. On the other hand, religion tends to operate on the principles of faith, trust, and divine revelation, which may not always align with empirical evidence. As a result, there’s tension between these two approaches, and they can find themselves at odds.

This is not a new struggle but a continuous challenge throughout history, from the times of Galileo and Darwin to the present-day debates on evolution and climate change. However, it’s important to remember that the goal of both science and religion is, at its core, a pursuit of truth. While their methodologies and philosophies may differ, they both seek answers to fundamental questions about our existence and the nature of the universe.

In many ways, the “battle” between science and religion is less about the systems themselves and more about our human tendencies towards tribalism and divisiveness. It’s about our struggle to navigate and integrate diverse ways of knowing. The challenge, then, is not to “win” the battle but to cultivate a more nuanced understanding and respectful dialogue between these different perspectives.

This not only fosters intellectual growth and inclusivity but also paves the way for more holistic solutions to the complex issues we face in our world today. Whether it’s addressing environmental challenges, ethical implications of new technologies, or questions of meaning and purpose in an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world, we need all the wisdom we can get – from science, religion, and other sources of human understanding.

The Inherent Mystery of Life’s Big Questions

Embracing a World of Multiple Truths

In 2015, I was speaking at a Quebec Transportation Authority event in Montreal on the future of transportation. The attendees included transportation experts from around the world, including Colombia Transportation Minister Natalia Abello Vives, whom I happened to sit next to at lunch.

Meeting her was a unique opportunity for me to discuss one of my favorite topics – the Darién Gap, a 60-mile-long, nearly impassible stretch of jungle, mountains, and rivers between the nations of Colombia and Panama that stands in the way of land vehicles traveling between South America to North America. About half of the Darién Gap lies in each country.

In 1937, the Pan-American Highway agreement was signed by 14 countries, including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Canada, and the United States. These nations agreed to build a highway that would extend from the southern tip of South America to the northern tip of Alaska – a 19,000-mile-long continuous highway.

Eventually, all the sections were built – except through the Darién Gap.

The Historical Obstacles

Back in 2015, Minister Abello explained that the Darién Gap was an environmentally sensitive piece of land, and it would be impossible to build a highway through it. She has a point. Much of the land along the completed highway segments on either end of the Gap has been stripped of trees and other vegetation to allow for cattle farming.

The last major effort to build a continuous road through the Darién Gap was in the 1970s when the U.S. proposed to put up two-thirds of the cost. Environmentalists concerned with deforestation and health experts concerned about the spread of hoof-and-mouth disease raised their respective objections, and the issue was dropped.

The More Recent Obstacles

The Darién Gap, connecting Yaviza Panama on the north end and Turbo Colombia on the south side, can be traversed on foot in a four-to-six-day, very arduous, dangerous trek. The once-desolate jungle is no longer a no-man’s land. A steady stream of migrants from Haiti, Venezuela, and other countries make their way through it as they try to reach the southern border of the U.S.

Along the way, they’re preyed upon by drug smugglers, exploited by both right- and left-wing guerilla groups, and threatened by deadly insects and snakes. Bad people and bad things seem to be attracted to the lawless nooks and crannies of the Darién Gap.

But while the Colombian government may have been (and maybe still is) open to the idea of a road or other means of transit through this stretch, apparently, the Panamanian government and the people of Panama are less excited about it. They see the Darién Gap as a fortunate buffer that keeps the criminals on the Colombian side, even if it’s increasingly porous.

It would be interesting to know the U.S. government’s current position on the completion of the Pan-American Highway, given how it could make migration from South America easier.

Bridging Around the Gap?

I asked Minister Abello if all the options had been explored for spanning the Darién Gap. As we discussed some engineering concepts, she suggested that building a series of bridges over the ocean waters off the coast was a possibility.

Of course! If you can’t go through it, go around it! We could call it the Darién Gap Bypass.

Currently, the longest bridge-tunnel system in the world is the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, which is 34 miles long. The bridge around the Darien Gap would need to be roughly twice that long.

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge

I have no doubt engineers could figure out how to construct this massive series of bridges, and yes, the cost would be astronomical. The bigger issue would be the political pros and cons of making it easier for illegal aliens and drug trafficking problems to make their way through Central and South America as well as the southern borders of the U.S.

Costs and Benefits

Is there a good reason to span the Darién Gap or bypass it with a bridge system?

Would a completed Pan-American Highway promote commerce between North and South America, for example? Perhaps, but the vast majority of intercontinental trade with South America happens by ship, and it’s doubtful that it would be economically feasible to replace that with truck traffic to reach North America.

However, there may be many other ways of looking at this. A single truck from Central America could make dozens of stops along the way into South America, replenishing supplies at all the businesses along the way. From a micro-economic viewpoint, truckloads of goods traveling 100-200 miles could cause local economies to grow in ways we may not understand.

And what about the psychic pleasure of being able to take that uninterrupted 19,000-mile road trip? Is that reason enough to make this kind of expenditure? That kind of expedition would quickly make its way to my bucket list, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

But there are bigger and better reasons for taking this on.

Moonshots

We seem to have grown beyond the idea of doing big things “because we can.” Taking moonshots for the sake of simply achieving moonshots just doesn’t seem right these days for many of the pragmatists among us.

Just over 60 years ago, President Kennedy inspiringly justified the nascent NASA mission to the moon, saying, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” How long ago and far away that seems today.

But doing the hard things is only part of the reason for building the Darién Gap Bypass. Some incredible advances in science, manufacturing, and engineering have been tertiary results of seemingly unrelated major endeavors, including the space program.

The Darién Gap Bypass wouldn’t be just a long, expensive bridge. It could lead to major breakthroughs in bridge design, metallurgy, off-shore platform design, and many other less-apparent areas that could make a huge difference over the coming decades.

At the moment, though, we have a lot of immediacy on our plates, and we’re not willing to invest in seemingly impossible tasks and moonshots. We seem obsessed with solving the problems of the day, paying scant attention to advancing civilization as a whole.

But let’s hope we get back to a time and mindset where we stop living solely for the day and do a few hard things that have the potential to vastly improve our future.

After 3+ years of delay due to pandemic-related supply chain issues, Elon Musk has announced that the first deliveries of the Tesla Semi will happen before the end of this year. This truck is still an operator-driven vehicle, not fully autonomous yet, although the Tesla Semi will have semi-autonomous driving technology built in to improve safety and driving efficiency.

In spite of Musk’s statement, many industry observers believe the release date will be in 2023. He has a lot on his plate at the moment, but many of us watching this space hope his trucks hit the road sooner than later.

Regardless of the date, this is welcome news. The extraordinary economic and environmental benefits of this technology certainly suggest a rapid transition to electric semis in the very near future.

Tesla isn’t alone in this space. Volvo Trucks, Nikola, and others are preparing to deliver their own electric trucks and Daimler already has their version on the road.

The Operational Economics

A back-of-the-envelope calculations making the rounds in the blogosphere demonstrates the incredible economic benefits of the Tesla Semi, and by extension, Tesla’s competitors as well.

At today’s fuel prices, the cost to move a block of freight 200 miles in a diesel-powered semi is $170, compared to $28 in electricity costs for a Tesla Semi. That’s an 84% savings, which yields a payback period of around two years, according to the company.

Tesla claims that big rig maintenance and repair costs will be reduced as well, given Tesla Semi’s simpler, less-mechanical operating systems.

Tesla Semi batteries will initially provide a range of 500 miles and can be recharged in roughly 2 hours using Tesla’s Megacharger, a technology the company promises to deploy widely. By 2025, the range will likely double and the recharge time, cut in half.

Government Incentives Add to the Value

Musk claims he doesn’t need government incentives and tax credits to make his Tesla Semi cost-effective. But provisions in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act certainly will make the economics even more appealing, provided the vehicles from Tesla and the other U.S. electric semi-truck manufacturers qualify with respect to their use of parts and batteries made in the U.S.

Under the new law, purchasers of a qualifying heavy-duty electric truck will be eligible for a $40,000 tax credit – which may represent as much as 15% of the cost of the typical diesel-powered semi-truck – although the sticker price for many of the electric versions still remains a bit murky.

Additionally, major states, including New York and California, are offering voucher programs to rebate a portion of the cost of heavy-duty electric semi-trucks purchased in their states.

Where Will All That Electricity Come From?

Some observers are skeptical about the environmental benefits of electric vehicles (EVs), and they may have a point … up to a point. How is generating the electricity to power an electric semi-truck necessarily less environmentally damaging than the operation of the diesel-powered big rig itself? That depends, of course, on how the electricity that’s charging the electric semi-truck is generated.

We dove deep into that issue in a future of energy column earlier this year. And since that time, given Russia’s increasing weaponization of oil and natural gas, I’ve become more convinced than ever that our future energy sources must be centered around nuclear power – especially the new technologies related to thorium-based reactor systems. If the electricity delivered from our vehicle charging stations comes from nuclear and other non-polluting sources, we truly will reap all the environmental benefits from shifting to electric semi-trucks.

Those benefits will be huge. Commercial freight and trucking account for one-fifth of the fuel used in the U.S., and that proportion is on the rise. This transportation mode is on track to account for 40% of the increase in demand for oil in the next 10 years, according to International Energy Agency, an international non-governmental organization.

Other Benefits from Electric Semi-Trucks

And if the economic and environmental benefits aren’t enough, consider these other advantages of electric semi-trucks:

1. We’ll have reduced noise pollution in urban areas, not to mention the highways.
2. With that reduction in noise, it will be possible to develop housing communities closer to city centers along highways and major routes. This will slow the encroachment of suburbs on vacant open spaces.
3. The Tesla Semi and its counterparts will be easier and more comfortable to operate, likely increasing the attractiveness of the truck-driving profession. According to the American Trucking Association, the U.S. was short 80,000 truck drivers in 2021, which is expected to double by 2030. Electric semi-trucks will slow and possibly reverse that trend.
4. The fuel efficiency and reduced operating costs of electric semi-trucks will put downward pressure on consumer prices since transportation costs can represent as much as 10% of the price of a consumer good.
5. Electric semi-trucks reportedly will have improved torque and acceleration, so they’ll keep better pace with personal vehicles along the highways and especially on hills. This will reduce traffic backups and make the highways safer overall.
6. Many municipalities prohibit diesel truck operations at night, including loading and unloading, because of noise. With the quieter electric semi-trucks, those noise restrictions won’t be an issue and trucking transportation will become a more efficient delivery option.
7. With these more flexible delivery and pickup options, retailers will be able to minimize inventories, to an extent, operating more efficiently to improve profits or allow for price discounts.
8. Given the massive amounts of energy electric semi-trucks can store, in the event of a disaster with power outages, truckers could band together to create microgrids to power hospitals, communication centers, and other essential services.
9. The new electric truck designs will have a lower center of gravity, resulting in fewer rollovers. This means improved safety and fewer accident-related road closures.

Clean energy is all around us. It won’t be long until the range for an electric semi-truck is augmented with solar panels arrayed on the trailer and the top of the cab. That energy will also be tapped to maintain refrigerated trailers.

The challenge for the EV industry today is the demand for more range and more and faster-charging stations. But this is no different than what we have today.

Until then, electric semi-trucks will have to remain on shorter, closer-to-home runs and roundtrips, the same dilemma their smaller EV siblings face today.

When it comes to outdoor space, we tend to think in terms of urban vs. rural and natural settings vs. city boundaries.

“Natural,” though, is the default, dominant state of our planet. If we leave a suburban household yard alone for a year or two, we don’t get blacktop; we’ll find natural vegetation and maybe some mice and snakes. If we leave a square mile of urban land alone for a decade or two, a factory building doesn’t magically appear. We’ll see the re-emergence of small prairies and groves of trees, along with rabbits and deer.

This was the case in many large neighborhoods in Detroit following the city’s dramatic economic downturn and resident outmigration several decades ago.

What is Rewilding?

The rewilding movement is an attempt to shift all areas of our planet closer to their natural, pre-human state. In remote settings, the goal of rewilding is to create interconnected “big wilderness” areas that are kickstarted with the re-introduction of “keystone species,” the plants and animals that help ensure a thriving eco-system complete with large predator animals.

In contrast, urban rewilding takes a more modest tack. It’s the effort to invite nature back into our cities. Instead of large vibrant ecosystems with wolves and bears at the top of the food pyramid, urban rewilding focuses on increasing biodiversity and creating oases of natural space. In place of manicured lawns, urban rewilding encourages the proliferation of natural plants that can, for example, support the pollination needs of butterflies and bees. Patio backyards would be replaced by vegetable gardens.

Often it entails demolishing something manmade first – an unneeded structure, a row of condemned homes, or the concrete lining a river channel. Over time, nature might destroy these anyways, but urban rewilding pushes the process along so nature can flourish.

That’s the defining criteria of appropriate urban rewilding—the light human touch. Yes, there might be planting, watering, and light weeding in the case of a community or rooftop vegetable garden, but whatever is planted should be native to the area.

And since it’s not possible to create a “big wilderness” in the middle of a city or a suburban neighborhood, the reintroduction of carnivores isn’t a goal – urban rewilders happily settle for more birds, beneficial insects, squirrels, an occasional raccoon, and other native species.

The Benefits of Urban Rewilding

Urban rewilding inserts nature everywhere possible – every street corner, rooftop, backyard, and vacant lot – to provide a better balance between humans and nature. As if being surrounded by nature isn’t enough of a benefit in and of itself, there are many other positives related to urban rewilding for urban residents now and into the future.

Health

Studies show that urban rewilding is good for the body and the mind. Being exposed to, if not surrounded by, nature is mood-enhancing, reduces stress, and increases immunity to certain diseases. Urban gardens also can be a source of natural, fresher produce.

Interpersonal connection

Community gardens, walking trails, and natural parks can bring people out of their cocoons and face to face with random neighbors. This kind of interaction with people outside of our normal sphere is healthy, and much needed these days.

Introducing nature to urban children

There’s a fascinating account of how inner-city children in Detroit reacted to the natural rewilding that took place following disinvestment and abandonment of properties in the core of the city. At first, there was resistance and resentment. The kids understandably viewed the rewilding encroaching on their neighborhoods as a manifestation of neglect and a sign of urban decay … until they had a chance to explore the areas with the help of naturalist guides. Many developed a lifelong connection to nature at an earlier age than they might otherwise have.

Environmental

Mother Nature views roads, parking lots, plazas, and rooftops as hostile environments. She does her best to break these down since hard, impervious surfaces radiate heat and add to polluted water runoff that forms urban rivers on the streets and urban lakes in basements. On the other hand, natural surfaces promote rainwater absorption. Urban vegetation also is an environmental plus – drawing down carbon, providing habitats for threatened insects, and attracting pollinator insects.

Is There a Downside to Urban Rewilding?

Not everyone agrees, though. There is some public resistance to urban rewilding – mostly centered on the aesthetics of these natural zones. That’s not surprising. Urbanites are conditioned to prefer well-kept, weed-free green space and gleaming outdoor plazas. Many of us view insects as pests and natural growth as weeds. We’re also uncomfortable with the thought of a raccoon in our backyard or a wolf trotting down the street at night on the prowl.

Other critics of urban rewilding point out that urban space is finite. With growing populations, they ask if can we afford to set aside urban land that would otherwise be needed for housing, retail, and other commerce. Further, they point out that rewilding prevents that space from generating any economic activity or property tax revenue.

The issue of losing out on the commercial value of the rewilding space is understandable, but it can be argued that those losses might be partially offset by higher values for land near the rewilded space. Additionally, rewilding can reduce public expenditures related to things like flood management and disaster recovery.

Implications of Urban Rewilding for our Future

Our future is clouded with environmental and health concerns. We need to solve them. There’s room to apply new technology and complex solutions in these areas.

But our quest for progress and answers should never rule out reverting to what was successful in the past. We can take some huge steps forward in solving these challenges by making our earth look just a little bit more like it used to.

That means in the future, we’ll remove vacant construction blight faster than we’ve done in the past. Highrise building rooftops will be designed to promote urban gardening. Plazas will have more trees and flower boxes. City parks will look a bit more wild, with “grass growing a bit mad in places,” as one scholar put it. More and more homeowners will let their yards go natural and it won’t always be due to lazy neglect. We’ll see more community gardens. As long as mankind is living on planet Earth, rewilding will be an important part of meeting our biodiversity and climate goals.

It’s interesting that reverting just a bit to the old way of life and a historic view of land usage would be a futurist topic. But sometimes, Mother Nature is the best engineer, and she knows best. And that’s as true in the future as it has been in the past.

Investors seem starved for investment/gambling opportunities. The stock market is at record heights. Meme stocks are routinely sent soaring thanks to social media-generated hype. Cryptocurrencies are trading at record highs as well.

What’s the common element? None of these valuations, and only some of these phenomena, are completely understood.

Now we can add one more to the mix: “non-fungible tokens,” or NFTs. The concept itself can be explained, but that doesn’t make the phenomenon any more explainable.

NFTs are a piece of code on a blockchain. Nearly any kind of property can be tokenized in this way, including real property like land, a classic car, or a pair of sneakers, as well as intellectual property (IP) like a song, a video clip, an image, or an historic Tweet.

The big news these days has been about NFTs that are tied to digital art pieces, a development we’ll try to get our hands around in this article.

What do You Own?

Digital art NFT holders own something … but what? That’s where things get a little fuzzy. Some describe the NFT ownership as having a stake in the art piece itself. In some instances that’s true, but not usually.

In most cases, holding an NFT shouldn’t be confused with having a certificate of ownership in the intellectual property. NFTs are sometimes described as certificates of sponsorship or certificates of appreciation. I also think of digital art NFTs as bragging rights – a way to express the fact that you’re familiar with, and appreciate the work of, a certain new-age, obscure artist.

The intellectual property asset and the NFT co-exist independently. NFTs are assets and can be bought and sold in their own right using cryptocurrency, most often Ethereum. Thus, they have a monetary value that’s based on the market’s supply and demand for that NFT, which in turn can be influenced by social media.

Support Your Digital Artist

By nature, digital art is legally copyable. Whether it’s created in a jpeg, a pdf, or another program, once it’s put out on the Internet, anyone can download it free of charge if it’s not copyright protected in some way as in the case of some stock image outlets. And the downloaded version is as high quality as the original.

But now the average digital artist finally has another significant forum to monetize their art – and they don’t even have to give up ownership of the piece to do it! They benefit from the sale of an original NFT and then arrange to receive ongoing royalties in the form of a small percentage of each subsequent transaction for that NFT.

The Environmental Impact

To put it mildly, blockchain technology – the dispersed servers running these underlying software programs – requires a lot of electricity. A single Ethereum transaction can use as much electricity as a typical household uses in one day, according to one estimate. Some environmental watchdogs are saying that a single popular NFT could, in just a few months, add hundreds of tons of carbon to the atmosphere, and significantly contribute to pollution.

Experts are working to create more efficient blockchain programs, but until they do, the impact on electricity production and consumption from NFT transactions could prevent us from reaching global climate goals.

Other Future-Related Issues

Digital art may be one of the most significant art forms of the future. It’s a fantastic medium and people can create some truly incredible images using tech art tools. And if digital art is an artform of the future, does that mean NFTs represent the future of art ownership?

As we noted above, owning an NFT connected to an image doesn’t give a person any special rights to use that underlying image in any way for personal gain. For example, only the photographer can authorize or sell the rights for their work to Shutterstock and only the digital artist can authorize a corporation to use their creation in a marketing campaign.

Further, owning an NFT doesn’t come with the psychic satisfaction of saying “this art piece is mine.” There’s only the satisfaction of supporting the artist, making a statement about yourself, or speculating on it as investment.

I like the analogy of being an art patron, though. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, patrons would commission work from a favorite artist. But patronage also included supporting the artist financially in other ways – providing a studio for example or introducing them to others. I see a parallel patron-like benefit to the purchase of NFTs. This supportive arrangement could offer the same or even more psychic benefit as the purchase of the asset itself.

NFTs are here to stay. They’ll prove to be no more a fad than bitcoins and blockchain technology. For some, NFTs will always just be a speculative investment, at least until too many bubbles burst on them. In the broader sense, though, NFTs give artists and the average creative person the opportunity to monetize things they otherwise couldn’t. And best of all, it will spur art appreciation and new interpretations of art.

The longstanding trend towards urbanization – urban areas growing faster than non-urban areas – was proceeding unabated until it turned on a dime in 2020 due to the COVID epidemic. The trend for the foreseeable future is now in exactly the opposite direction – deurbanization.

Those who doubt this – primarily commercial real estate property holders – are left to rebut it only by saying things along the lines of: “People have predicted the decline of cities in the past, but the lure of city life always proves too strong.”

I don’t think that will bear out this time because technology is the difference-maker.

Regardless, the short-term data supports the current reality of de-urbanization. Full service and self-service moving companies report that household move volume in 2020 was heaviest out of New York and California and into Idaho, North Carolina, and Maine.

And if people weren’t making interstate transitions, they were moving to nearby suburbs. This was especially apparent in New York City and all three of Texas’ major cities, according to national realtor data found in that same report.

The trend is continuing. According to the real estate website Zillow, residents of Los Angeles and New York City are still pursuing housing availability primarily in Boise, Phoenix, and Atlanta.

It’s driven by work-from-home

Until recently, work-from-home was viewed as a perk or an exception. It’s been the norm for nearly a year now, and many service companies have indicated it will be available for a sizable portion of their workforce for the foreseeable future.

And why not? Communication and information technology strongly support it. Many workers really like it. And many more will like it once they don’t have to balance work with monitoring their children’s homeschooling.

Trends vs. future implications

Trends are easy to observe and somewhat easy to predict until things like a pandemic happen. But assuming de-urbanization is not a passing fad, what does this mean for our future? How will society change? What could a less dense (from the spatial perspective!) population mean for our economy, environment, political dynamic, and much more?

That’s where the futurist in me kicks in. Here’s what I see as the long-term implications of deurbanization:

Broadened perspectives

One of the benefits of de-urbanization is the economic “sprinkling effect,” in which higher-income workers move to outlying locations and support their local economies and tax bases.

I would take that a step further and predict that these transplants will also sprinkle other positive things – like ideas and diversity. This isn’t to say they won’t learn or benefit from the ideas and lifestyles of the long-time residents of their new hometowns as well.

I’m pretty certain that a transplant moving from downtown Seattle to Boise will encounter more people with a wider range of viewpoints in their new hometown. Granted, the differences might not be as pronounced as when the relocation is from Manhattan to the Hamptons.

Tribalism fades as people are exposed to more lifestyles and new ways of thinking. While you can certainly find diverse viewpoints within a major city, in an urban setting you may also be less likely to “have to” engage with “others” since your own tribe is so readily nearby.

Weakened geography-based political densities

Political affiliations vary dramatically when you compare major urban centers to the suburbs and then to rural America. Regional differences mute this somewhat (e.g., Houston vote tallies will look different from those in Los Angeles), but relatively speaking there is a measurable difference.

De-urbanization will diffuse those geographic voting densities, if only by degree. We’ll have less-polarized districts – even states. The red-blue congressional district maps on election night will be somewhat more blended. The further implication? A shift toward the center by our leaders who must appease a more diverse body of constituents.

An increased environmental impact

Environmental issues are a national challenge. Unfortunately, a shift to the suburban areas to experience rural life will not help on that front.

City-dwellers who used to count on mass transit will drive more. They’ll live in larger homes with a bigger footprint. The energy needed to heat and cool these homes will be significantly more than it was for their smaller city dwellings and apartments.

This will move us one step back in achieving our pollution abatement goals. We’ll need to adopt more significant, dramatic emission reduction policies if we’re going to reduce emissions to the level most experts call for.

Improved corporate efficiencies

Today’s news is full of accounts of tech and other companies in B2B industries who had strong years in 2020, despite the pandemic. That’s due in part to the efficiencies they implemented during that period, including maintaining smaller inventories and benefitting from more productive people working from home.

This employee productivity was enhanced thanks to the absence of commuting snags, fewer work-related distractions, more tightly run meetings, and a dramatic reduction in travel. No doubt some of those practices will continue to some degree post-pandemic, even in office settings, as travel and meetings will need to pass an “essentialness” test. And home-based employee productivity will soar even higher in the months and years ahead, when their children are back in school.

There’s one other corporate trend that will enable de-urbanization, instead of just reacting to it. Companies will continue to move away from major high-rise headquarters in Tier 1 cities and shift to multiple regional offices and campuses in Tier 2 locations.

Diffusion of the arts

Some have argued that de-urbanization will lead to a loss of cultural vibrancy – as they presumably focus only on the loss of vibrancy for residents who remain behind in big cities. That strikes me as somewhat elitist, and I would encourage those observers to think about the other side of this zero-sum tradeoff.

When it comes to culture and the arts, a Dallas socialite’s loss is an Omahan’s gain. What could possibly be wrong with urban transplants bringing additional resources and artistic expertise to support the arts in smaller cities and rural areas? In the future, the arts will flourish – for many more people.

De-Urbanization is De-Homogenization

The common theme in all of this is that voluntary de-urbanization will stir the pot. It’s like knocking over the Monopoly board once someone has accumulated most of the money and properties. “Whoops! Now we have to start over!” De-urbanization isn’t as dramatic as that of course, but it is a small step in an invigorating new direction.

COVID is a horrible disease. If a family member, friend, or loved one of yours suffered or lost their life because of it, no one can expect you to consider any silver lining.

But COVID has triggered macro-level changes in our world – multiple distinct adjustments that will play out and forever change the trajectory of certain trends into our future.

De-urbanization will be one of those changes for the better – right along with 2020’s other positive divergences in healthcare, pharmaceutical research, corporate social responsibility, are others.