In the interview with Firestein, he mentions that the simulations of human biological systems are pretty good at simulating sensory systems, but not the nervous systems. I wonder how humans interacting with these simulated sensory systems could potentially teach us about how the nervous system works. For example, using virtual reality or augmented reality to control a subject's sensory systems, could we then see how the nervous system reacts to certain types of stimulus?

When Firestein talked about how humans can only associate smell with emotional experiences, I was thinking that it seems to somehow imply we are mainly emotional creatures. However, I thought it was also interesting how we highly value non-emotional abilities, such as memorization or time keeping. Do we value these abilities since they are so uncommon? Do we value uncommon abilities more than we value being extremely skilled at a common ability?

In the interview with Meade and Murphy, Professor Goodman mentions that it is difficult for the public to understand how prediction systems work. Meade mentions how difficult it is to convince the public of the severity of natural disasters, citing the misunderstanding of the uncertainty with climate change. On the other hand, Murphy mentions that it is easier to convince individual people of predictions regarding their health. I would like to ask, do they believe that the public will only spend the time understanding predictive systems when they have a more personal stake in the prediction, or is it because of bystander effect, or maybe both? Is part of their job finding the best way to relay their predictions to the public in a way that is most understanding and creates action, even if it is not the most technically descriptive and accurate?

I never realized that earthquake preparation could be so difficult, maybe because I never knew you had to replace a bicycle helmet after crashing! If earthquake-proof buildings are not meant to be reused after withstanding an earthquake, is the same true for other natural disasters? For example, are bridges and buildings close to the ocean meant to withstand multiple hurricanes? I had assumed that they would need repair over long periods of time, but I never realized the impact that a singular large natural disaster could have on a building, even if it visibly remained stable.

In the interview with Jill Tarter, I was surprised to find out that SETI is no longer government-funded. I did consider that the government has stricter policies on what type of research is allowed, and how that research may be restricted, but I think it may be extreme to completely remove funding for SETI. I was of the belief that understanding life, such as looking for traces of life on Mars, was an important part of space exploration. Therefore, is SETI, not the pinnacle of this search?

In the interview with Jill Tarter, she mentions how science fiction sometimes forms the basis for later scientific innovations. I wonder what she thinks about how science fiction may be important or hindering for students interested in astrophysics. Is it more important for students interested in astrophysics to learn about the current state of research, in order to later develop new scientific innovations? Or are there benefits in having students, unbiased by previous astrophysics results and instead inspired by a limitless creativity of science fiction, come into the field?

In this interview, Dan Gilbert mentions the difficulty in predicting whether or not we will like certain events, even if we knew they were going to occur. I never thought about how difficult it is to predict whether or not we will appreciate things. Sometimes, you think you'll dislike a certain type of food but end up really liking it, other times, the reverse occurs. Maybe this is why we like receiving gifts, because other people's ability to perceive what we will enjoy is unbiased.

During the interview with Dan Gilbert, Professor Goodman asks if children have become less imaginative. In response, he says that Professor Goodman's perception of children, shaped by Harvard students, may just be skewed. However, I would like to ask if technological advances have changed the way that children's imagination has changed. Is the presence of more visual stimulus for children inhibiting their ability to use imagination? Or is it potentially increasing their imagination, now that new movies or animations can create alternate views or ideas about our world?

In the McCarthy interview, Prof Goodman asks a question regarding younger generations' impact on action for climate change. In response, McCarthy focuses on the fact that young students and adults are able to coordinate and have massive outreach to the government and corporations through social media and other online resources. She also notes that it is good that young generations are attempting to enact better environmental action, but that it is important that the actions they are asking for align with scientific research. I would like to ask how education plays a role for the future of our environment. Will better education increase our public's understanding of climate change, and potentially eliminate climate change skepticism? Will better education make policymakers more trusting and willing to work alongside scientific researchers?

Throughout the course of this interview, I feel like the relationship between the scientific studies on climate and what kinds of tangible actions individuals and larger groups could take to affect climate change, was highlighted. I think Kammen recognizes that not everyone can interpret and understand the results of climate change studies, or may not even have the time to, and so he underscores the importance of scientific experts working in tandem with government officials to make the appropriate actions. Kammen also recognizes the small impact individuals may make on the climate, and notes that small daily changes such as modes of transportation and diet can allow us to impact the climate. To what extent do these actions have on the climate, and are they as effective when only some of the population is making an effort? I recently read that recycling centers in America are inefficient, due to the vast amount of waste that is sent to these facilities. It seems to me that these recycling centers are only beneficial when everyone uses them appropriately. Thus, I would like to know how important it is that our society make a unified effort in changing our environmental impact, as opposed to separate individual efforts?