2. One question I would ask Stuart Firestein is if scientific progress would eventually slow down. One would think that eventually society will gain such a high level of understanding of science that progress will no longer be made at the same. However, one could also argue that with the improvement of technology more scientific progress will be possible than ever before. Does he think that the rate of scientific progress will continue at a high right, or even increase, or does he think it will eventually slow as we learn more and more. (site is down so using app, unsure how to do hyperlink on phone)

1. The most surprising thing I heard from the Stuart Firestein interview was that in science revision is victory. It is surprising to hear him say that science is not completely true, and that it can always be revised in the future. Normally when I think of science I think of facts that set in stone, so it is quite surprising to hear him say that science is always evolving and continues to improve. However, it makes sense that he views every scientific revision as a victory, for revision is the only way scientific progress will continue in the future. (site is down so had to use app, unsure how to do hyperlink on phone)

One question I would ask Susan Murphy is what do you expect a person to do if they are in an area that is at risk for an earthquake. For example, I am in California and we have been told for decades that we are at risk for a large earthquake. However, I do not know anyone who actively changes their daily life in response to this risk. Would you suggest moving out of an at risk location of an earthquake, even if the dangers are relatively uncertain? It is difficult to imagine anyone moving homes in response to a potential earthquake risk that is still uncertain and may never occur. I think it is more likely that instead of people moving away from their hometown, that they take active measures to protect themselves from the risk of an earthquake, such as creating more sturdy buildings that will fare better in the event of an earthquake.

The most surprising thing I heard from Brendan Meade was that over 2 billion people live within 250 Kilometers of an earthquake fault. Normally I think of only a small margin of the population being affected by earthquakes, such as those living in California. I was surprised that roughly a quarter of the population lives close to a fault, and thus has the potential of being affected by earthquakes. I wonder the severity of these faults and if they all have serious risks and dangers, or if some of them pose no threat and only are prone to small earthquakes that can't be felt. Also, I wonder how much an earthquake would affect someone who lives 250 miles away from the fault. Even if the earthquake is large, would 250 miles be a great enough distance to lessen the effects of the earthquake and minimize damage?

One question I would ask Avi Loeb is when he thinks humans and current life will no longer exist. He stated that it is likely that we will die out and a more durable creature such as robots or aliens that will take our place. I wonder how far out in the future he thinks this will happen. https://www.labxchange.org/library/pathway/lx-pathway:34dd3b2c-3aec-460a-817f-da4af2ed1577/items/lx-pb:34dd3b2c-3aec-460a-817f-da4af2ed1577:lx_simulation:1a066234?source=%2Flibrary%2Fclusters%2Flx-cluster%3AModernPrediction

One of the most interesting things I heard from Jill Tarter that was very interesting was that they incorrectly thought they found extraterrestrial intelligence on two separate occasions but that on both occasions they where man-made aircrafts. https://www.labxchange.org/library/pathway/lx-pathway:34dd3b2c-3aec-460a-817f-da4af2ed1577/items/lx-pb:34dd3b2c-3aec-460a-817f-da4af2ed1577:lx_simulation:e9099212?source=%2Flibrary%2Fclusters%2Flx-cluster%3AModernPrediction

One of the most surprising and interesting things I learned from Dan Gilbert was that crows and corvids act in plan for the future. Corvids specifically ration and prepare their food in preparation for the future. This is amazing as you would think that it would take a much higher intelligence than birds in order to plan for the future. https://www.labxchange.org/library/pathway/lx-pathway:53ffe9d1-bc3b-4730-abb3-d95f5ab5f954/items/lx-pb:53ffe9d1-bc3b-4730-abb3-d95f5ab5f954:lx_simulation:5e3f229f?source=%2Flibrary%2Fclusters%2Flx-cluster%3AModernPrediction

One Question I have for Dan Gilbert is about humans predicting the future. He said that humans are not always looking at the future in an attempt to figure out what will happen, but instead think optimistically and dream about the future for fun. My question would be is it more common for people to dream optimistically about the future or to worry about what could go wrong in the future? https://www.labxchange.org/library/pathway/lx-pathway:53ffe9d1-bc3b-4730-abb3-d95f5ab5f954/items/lx-pb:53ffe9d1-bc3b-4730-abb3-d95f5ab5f954:lx_simulation:5e3f229f?source=%2Flibrary%2Fclusters%2Flx-cluster%3AModernPrediction

One question I would ask Peter Kraft is whether he thinks it is immoral to withhold newly discovered health information related to a participant in a study. While it may be important for that person's health, scientists might be reluctant to inform the participant in the study because they do not want to interfere with the results of the study. How would you draw the line for when study participants should be informed? Is it when the health information is urgent and needs to be acted upon immediately, or when something very important that might not be detrimental in the short term but poses great risk in the long term is discovered? https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:15f6a2e5:lx_simulation:1

1. One of the most surprising and interesting things I learned was from Ben Shneiderman about Google's embarrassment and failure with the flu trends. I had never heard of this story before and was extremely interesting to me because I would think that google would have more information to predict flu outbreaks than anyone else as a result of their access to search history. However, google searches actually were detrimental and as such google stopped the project. https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:1006ac6a:lx_simulation:1

One surprising thing that I learned from Dan Kammen was that the Day After Tomorrow Movie is not an exaggeration and that we could have real life serious consequences towards our actions regarding the climate in the near future. It was also somewhat surprising that we have never seen changes in the climate as rapidly as recently, as humans have caused the earth to change rapidly. I had previously thought that a doomsday scenario was not likely or possible in this century but more likely several centuries from now. https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:72cb75ba:lx_simulation:1 One thing I was left curious was from Gina McCarthy was how she said that in order for people to have the motive to make significant changes in their daily lives to better the climate, they have to make it relative to their lives. Is it possible for the general population to take action if the negative consequences of their actions were mainly felt after their time as passed. For example, theoretically, if people did not start dying from climate change until several generations from now, would it be possible to have the general population concerned about the harm they are inflicting on the climate? https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:b0b1d3dd:lx_simulation:1