It’s rare that the opportunity to preserve resources, recycle resources, enhance quality, and improve cost efficiency all come together to deliver an important, improved product that the world uses in abundance every day.

We live on a finite planet with a finite atmosphere, and we have a finite quantity of resources at our disposal. At certain points in history, our human capabilities scale past the point of reason, where our busy work begins to take an excessive toll on planet Earth.

That’s exactly what’s happening in the concrete industry. But there’s a very good story is percolating to the top of the construction world.

Traditional concrete, the building material made from a geopolymer known as Portland cement, isn’t glamorous. It’s not high-tech. It’s not taking us to space. It’s not forming the metaverse – it’s quite the opposite of the metaverse, in fact! Instead, concrete is literally providing the foundation for our real world and for virtually every finished, hardened structure we need to build – our roads, buildings, bridges, and more.

Contrary to popular belief, Portland cement doesn’t owe its name to the beautiful port city in Oregon. Two hundred years ago, the inventor of an earlier version of the material named it after Portland stone, a similar-looking product that was quarried on the Isle of Portland in England.

Today’s concrete has evolved over the years to include lime/clay cement combined with aggregates like clay, shale, sand, iron ore, bauxite, fly ash, and/or slag. Concrete, in the end, is essential that Portland aggregate cement product + water + sand + gravel … all natural resources.

As of 2021, 4.4 billion tons of concrete were produced worldwide, and that number is projected to increase by 25% by 2050.

Researchers are perfecting a variety of eco-friendly, green concrete alternatives made from unique combinations of geopolymer cement components. What makes the resulting concrete “green” compared to traditional concrete products is the fact that each, to one degree or another in the manufacturing process:

1. Uses recyclable material
2. Utilizes a less energy-intensive manufacturing process
3. Generates a lower amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and wastewater

In addition to those benefits, many varieties of green concrete are proving to be more durable, stronger, and less expensive. They can also be set up quicker with less shrinkage.

All of these are positive attributes, so what’s not to love?

A Better Recipe of Raw Materials

Natural sand is a critical material used in traditional concrete. Natural sand, though, is a limited resource, and it’s also used in the fracking process. This material is mined from open pits, inland dunes, river beds, and other geologically fragile environments. There’s a similar story with gravel, which is another aggregate and another critical component of Portland cement-based concrete.

In contrast, many varieties of geopolymers that make up green concrete use natural fibers and industrial waste products like waste glass sand, fly ash from coal-fired power plants, and blast furnace slag, a by-product of iron and steel production.

Additional research is being done on integrating aggregate from demolition waste and other recycled concrete, forming a closed loop for this important construction material.

A Better Use of Our Energy Resources

At the risk of getting into the weeds and dredging up more detail than you ever wanted to know, green concrete also reduces energy consumption.

First of all, sand mining is very energy-intensive, and any reduction in that activity is a big step in the right direction. Second, the heating process for making traditional Portland cement requires massive amounts of energy. But formulating green cement with fly ash, for example, reduces that significantly.

Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Due to its chemical processes, Portland cement manufacturing accounts for 7% of the global release of CO2, according to the International Energy Agency. If the concrete industry were a country, it would be the third-largest CO2 emitter, right behind the U.S. and China.

Alternatively, green geopolymer cement production can reduce this by 90%. That’s pretty stark, not to mention compelling.

Making A Better Cement Product

As a result, these new green processes and formulations are not only making concrete in a better way, they’re making concrete better.

• Using natural fibers like hemp or bamboo for reinforcement instead of synthetic or steel fibers is not only cheaper but also adds tensile strength and reduces corrosion.
• Lead slag is proving to be an ideal additive to green concrete to reduce drying shrinkage.
• Green concrete containing waste glass sand (as opposed to natural sand) has been shown to be stronger and less porous than other varieties.
• Finally, thanks to many of the features mentioned above, green concrete promises to be less expensive than traditional Portland cement-based concrete.

The next step for this technology is to incorporate it into 3D-printed buildings and other structures, reducing waste during construction. It’s too early to say if construction will ever be considered a “green industry,” but it’s definitely taking major steps in that direction.

Focusing on the Positive

This is one of the best good-news stories I’ve had a chance to talk about in a long time. Futurists tend to spend a lot of time exploring new frontiers and breakthrough industries and less time exploring the implications of advances in current practices that can be just as or even more impactful in the long run.

And too many observers and pundits tend to focus on the seemingly insurmountable challenges all around us instead of rolling up their sleeves and picking away at today’s problems.

The emergence of green concrete demonstrates that doing the right thing from a sustainability perspective doesn’t mean we have to compromise the quality of life or, in this case, the quality of building.

We need more of these kinds of breakthroughs and more researchers working in big areas like this to help ensure our world is on the best possible trajectory into the future.

A few months ago, my son Kyler asked me, “How many people do you think live their entire life without understanding what their purpose is?”

My initial response was, “I’m guessing it’s around 98%.” After I thought about it a bit more, I revised my answer. “Actually, I think it’s closer to 100%.” 

With few exceptions, most people live their lives without considering where humans came from, so they have very little perspective about why we’re here on Earth, let alone our purpose and direction in the short time we’re here. 

So, it’s important to stop and consider some fundamental questions. Why is it we were born to our exact parents, at this time in history, and placed on Earth at the spot we were born? Why is it that we have these aptitudes, these skills, these genetic flaws, and these relationships? Why is it we’re interacting with this set of information, delivered to us by these particular devices, generated by these writers, at this particular intersection of time and space?

Digging deeper, it’s important also to consider whether we’re fulfilling our intended purpose, assuming there is a purpose. Or are we simply a pawn or placeholders in someone else’s purpose? Do we indeed have control over our own future? If we fail to discover our own purpose, does that mean it’s being defined by others – for example by those people who do know what their purpose is? 

Like many aspects of our world today, the subjects of human origin and purpose can be polarizing … as well as humbling. The possible options seem always to be defined by polar ends: either we were designed and placed here thanks to the work of a divine force … or our bodies, cognitive abilities, and our world itself all came together and further evolved due to randomness, and chance meetings, at some perfect moment in time in the cosmos.  

Is randomness ever truly random?

What the Experts Say About Signs of Intelligent Origin

Some of our greatest thinkers have opined on truths related to life and purpose – often framing their thoughts regarding these immediate questions in the context of bigger issues related to supernatural, non-random forces outside of science that founded our world and sustain it.

As far back as the fourth century B.C., Aristotle was pondering his own life’s purpose and, at the same time, developing his own theory of teleology, which is the idea that everything in life has a purpose.

Much more recently, Tony Robbins, a popular life and business strategist, has spent a lot of time thinking about life and purpose. Through a series of surveys, he concluded that people who don’t have a strong sense of meaning in their lives were more than twice as likely to die prematurely as those who had figured out their purpose.

Lex Fridman, one of the world’s most influential podcasters, often encourages his guests to consider these matters, asking them a series of questions about the meaning of life. Their answers give us a lot to think about. 

In response to Fridman’s question, Jordan Peterson first asks, “Do you believe in a transcendent reality? You cannot move forward into the unforeseen horizon of the future except on faith.”  

Others, like podcaster Joe Rogan and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, do not think there is any one overarching meaning but many meaning that result from family and friends.

However, when Fridman raised these issues with Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist and a pioneer behind string theory, he responded by saying, “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” 

I have to agree with Michio. There are too many signs of intelligent origin. We’re not here by accident.

When Our Math Comes Up Short

Whenever the topic of universal rules comes up, I take exception to those who try to use mathematical probability to describe the likelihood of populated alien planets in the universe. Alien planets do not equate to aliens.

Every life form on another planet will have been raised with a different gravity, different plant life, different atmosphere, different levels of oxygen, different kinds of liquids, different day-night cycles, different weather patterns, different magnetospheres, different magnetic fields, different soil quality, different food sources, different predators, different illnesses and diseases, different systems, different forms of communication, different forms of learning, different senses of touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing, different organs, different biologies, different glands, different skin, different abilities to sense danger, different relationships, different family structures, different ways to reproduce, and perhaps ten thousand additional differences that I can’t even imagine.

The odds of discovering a planet full of beings that significantly resemble a human is, for all intents and purposes, zero, as I have mentioned before. There may be similar plants, insects, or even single-cell organisms, but certainly not human-like creatures.

Somewhere, somehow, by some master intelligence, there is a control panel filled with what we think of as switches and dials that was used to formulate, design, and create planet Earth. With literally millions of variables to formulate, define, and apply, each had to be precisely dialed in to give us the planet and ecosystems we enjoy today. 

Is there another compilation of variables “out there” that some intelligent force has shaped into another self-sustaining world? Possibly. But it wouldn’t be anything like ours, and it wouldn’t have magically happened by chance. 

Don’t Rule Out a Master Intelligence

Back here on Earth, though, for those who think we exist because of some cosmic fluke, where a tiny intergalactic organism floating through space happened to land on an empty-canvas planet Earth and somehow evolved over millions of years into what we have today, that remains pure conjecture … among those who are full of conjecture.

Here are a few observations from recent, respected scientific leaders on the subject of a divine explanation of life on Earth.

“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” – Isaac Newton.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein.

“The gift of mental power comes from a divine being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.” – Nikola Tesla, inventor and futurist.

These days it’s not fashionable to assign rationales for seemingly unexplainable things to anything but science. Many of those who think that way simply aren’t as brave as Newton, Einstein, and Tesla were in admitting the science they were so passionate about doesn’t have all the answers. Especially when science seems to have a way of reinventing itself to fit the narrative, not define it.

The Drake equation was formulated in 1961 by Dr. Frank Drake, an astronomer and astrophysicist, for purposes of beginning the process of quantifying the number of civilizations that might exist in the universe.

It’s a very imprecise, back-of-the-envelope equation – I doubt he would disagree – that simply multiplies all the factors he deemed important, that would need to be in place for another civilization to come into existence and survive somewhere else in the universe.

The Drake Equation

While the Drake equation was intended to be a mathematical formula, it is less a string of numeric values than a series of scientific unknowns and vague generalities.

It reads like this: N = (R∗) (fp) (ne) (fl) (fi) (fc) (L)

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible
R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our Galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Each of those variables has their own level of uncertainty and, therefore, a wide range of values. Multiplying ranges of uncertainties results in an even greater range of uncertainty, to the point where Drake’s colleagues plugged in the most widely accepted values known at that time and came up with a range of between 20 and 50,000,000 civilizations in the universe capable of human-like communications. I should note that 20 is just that, not 20 million.

The Scientific Method

As with all good applications of the Scientific Method, Drake put his equation out there so other scientists could tweak it – fine-tuning the numbers, discarding or discounting some variables, and adding others. To his credit, Drake had the courage to try to quantify the unquantifiable – he knew he’d be second-guessed and his primary goal was to get the debate started.

Sure enough, scientists today are still pointing out the fallacies and weaknesses of some of the assumptions within Drake’s equation. Others are zeroing in on the degree of unknowns within many of his variables. They claim this makes the calculation worthless – not only for that reason but the fact that the equation doesn’t help us discover the truth and actually find the hypothetical civilizations.

More simply put, my primary question is whether Drake’s equation is even trying to answer the right question.

Naturally, science has marched on over the past 60 years – an eternity when it comes to the evolution of scientific truths – and while it’s possible to zero in more precisely on some of Drake’s variables, it’s clear today that his version of the equation is simply not meaningful.

Thus, other versions of the equation have been proposed … and I’ve taken a crack at it as well.

Is There Anybody Out There?

These are the factors I would plug into a formula to help us determine the likelihood that our universe has life forms and civilizations similar to ours:
The total number of planets in the universe (use any estimate, because as we’ll see, it really doesn’t matter). Multiply this times:

1. The percentage that are located close to the same distance from the sun as the earth
2. The percentage that have close to the same gravity
3. The percentage that have close to the same atmosphere
4. The percentage that have close to the same air composition – oxygen, nitrogen, etc.
5. The percentage that have close to the same air density
6. The percentage that have close to the same weather patterns
7. The percentage that have close to the same rotation and, therefore, day/night cycles
8. The percentage that have close to the same food sources
9. The percentage that have close to the same proportion of water and oceans
10. The percentage that have close to the same predators
11. The percentage that have close to the same level of technological advancement

I’m sure I’m missing other criteria that could be equally critical to defining the true likelihood of faraway civilizations. It’s a fun exercise, though, and it’s a bit mind-blowing to consider all of the unique conditions on planet Earth that need to stay in alignment to support human life.

But the more variables we come up with, the more we find how unique our planet truly is and the less likely it has been replicated to any degree anywhere else. In fact, I’d dare to say the likelihood of finding another planet with human-like aliens approaches zero very quickly.

Our False Assumptions

It’s a predictable cliché, as many people are quick to point out, and rather arrogant and myopic of us to assume there are no civilizations in our universe other than our own. And it’s also natural to assume those beings to be far more benevolent and enlightened than we are.

Similarly, many people would reject my conclusions because they’re too quick to equate “life” with “civilization.” After all, NASA found fossilized bacteria on Mars, so it must be true that there’s civilization somewhere else in this universe. That’s as much of a leap as anything Drake calculated.

I’d be more excited about the possibility of other civilizations in our universe if we had found signs of ancient life on Mars that met the criteria for “living things” established by NASA:

1. Living things need to take in energy
2. Living things get rid of waste
3. Living things grow and develop
4. Living things respond to their environment
5. Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring
6. Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment

I’d be even more convinced about the existence of other civilizations if these life forms were discovered in the ruins of a community or village.

That brings me to my other major reservation about the Drake equation. It’s asking the wrong question.

What’s the Right Question?

Recall that Drake’s peers calculated that the number of advanced civilizations in our universe was between 20 and 50,000,000. Rather than be upset by the massively huge range of uncertainty, I would simply focus on the 20.

No matter what Drake’s equation or more refined iterations, including mine, tell us, we’re not going to discover these civilizations by crunching numbers. N=0 is not the final answer. At least not yet.

To me, the existence of other civilizations is a “yes/no” question, not a “how many” question. And if that’s the case, how do we find the answer? By looking for any one of the 20.

We’ll discover them, if there are any, by exploring – in person eventually but looking and listening for now – and trying to be found. And until we get to “yes” fusing any of these methods together, we’ll have to stick with “probably not.”

Taking this one step further, color me skeptical, but when it comes to finding human-like aliens, the number is definitely zero.