The younger generation of today’s society has grown up with technology as an integral component of their daily life. I felt that interviewing a fellow student whose interests and studies differ from mine could prove insightful. My close friend Lavin Kumar was an ideal candidate as an Arts Languages student at Sydney University. Lavin’s passion for politics, history, and languages keeps him well informed on global issues beyond his coursework. My intentions for this interview were to gather Lavin’s opinion on the future, as well as share some insight on how his studies relate to the topics we have explored in Interdisciplinary Lab A.
I began the discussion by presenting Lavin with the concepts I had explored in previous blog posts. He seemed to share a similar concern about the inefficiencies of our current food production and distribution model. However, he seemed to have a stronger faith in biotechnology than I. Lavin felt that to feed the skyrocketing human population, GM farming is worth considering. Despite this, Lavin did feel that GM crops needed refining. Our conversation progressed to the issue of Colony Collapse Disorder, where again Lavin felt that bio-technological advances could remedy the possibility of mass CCD. He pointed out the fact that current farming techniques like irrigation and genetically modified crops have allowed for productive harvests in adverse conditions, inferring that some sort of manual pollination could be explored. Turning pollination into a mechanized process was something I hadn’t really considered until he mentioned the idea. However, we both agreed that the best way to maintain our current food surplus was to act now in the changing the wasteful cycle of production that currently exists.
Next I asked Lavin to elaborate on the relationship between politics and the anthropocene. He felt that international co-operation was essential in working towards a sustainable future. Furthermore, the regulation of resources by governing agencies was of importance to him. Lavin made a good point, “[that] people don’t like change.” Ultimately people have to be willing to change their lifestyle if we want to see the state of the anthropocene improve. Lavin was optimistic about solar and nuclear energy sources, and hoped to see policy changes in countries like Australia and Canada, where political leaders deny global warming.
Our final topic of discussion was the relationship between humans and technology. Lavin made an excellent point about the integration of technology into our daily lives; technology is driven by connection, convenience, and making life easier. Looking ahead, he envisaged technological integration as being driven by these factors. More specifically he argued that mobile technology being the centre of communication could expand to holograms and live translation. Furthermore, he suggested that technologies like Google glass exemplify the greater interconnectedness between humans and technology. Pushing this to an extreme he alluded to the possibility of virtual reality of our daily lives.