THINKING BEYOND THE HORIZON
New ideas in the fine arts, social, behavioral, or natural sciences, business, and the humanities are impacting our understanding of everyday life and the general welfare of civilization. Where do we go from here? It is important to explore and criticize probable, possible, and preferable futures by creating and thinking about speculative, and often provocative, scenarios. Past and present events may continue unabated into the future, resulting in some realistic outcome ("tomorrow's reality today"). Or the future may belong to black swans, low probability but high impact intervening events, should they occur. Frances Bell, itinerant scholar and past senior lecturer in the University of Salford (UK) Business School, asserts that "the future is no longer regarded as predestined. It is now seen as the result of the decisions, discoveries, and efforts that we make today. The future does not exist, but a limitless number of possible futures can be created." While most futurists appear to offer mundane models and predictions, the greatest results are achieved from views of the future that are presented as representative stories; stories that plant seeds that germinate, mature, and pay dividends in a more distant future.
A Critical Analysis of Solitary Confinement
Mariam Elassal
When William Blake appeared in a New York Courtroom in 1987 having been arrested on drug charges, he fatally shot and critically wounded two officers in a failed effort to escape. The judge gave the 23 year old a sentence of 77 years to life, saying to Blake that he deserved “an eternity in hell”. Branded a potential flight risk, he was solitarily confined and subjected to near complete deprivation of human interaction for the next 34 years.
On any given day, over 122,000 people remain in solitary confinement in the U.S. The practice is a well-debated method of punishment that severely limits an individual’s contact with other human beings, most commonly endured in a closet-sized cell for 22-24 hours a day; for solitarily confined people, it is standard to be deprived of environmental stimuli in addition to visitation/phone calls, personal property, and exercise. Average assignments to solitary start at 30 days, but countless people have spent months, years, and decades in total isolation.
In Blake’s essay “A Sentence Worse Than Death,” he discusses how the stimuli that confinement was intended to deprive him of was often replaced by the pervasive scent of urine and feces, or the screams of inmates on such a cognitive decline from being in solitary that they could no longer control themselves. Blake would go without sleep for months due to the belligerence of his cell-neighbors. The noise would become so unbearable that unfulfilled prayers for sleep led him to craft an igloo during his recreation time in a blizzard. Blake slept in the makeshift shelter until his mandated recreation hour ran out, but this desperate display for rest had no influence on his return to the incessant noise chamber of his cell.
One could criticize the men or even believe they deserve further punishment to deter the disruptive behavior, but it is far more helpful to critique the practice of solitary confinement than to criticize the problematic behaviors it fosters. In the same way that research indicates how a person's environment influences behavior in regards to offending, it is imperative to recognize that the average environment imposed on solitarily confined people shapes behavior as well. Blake details that the men who were covering walls in waste, banging on cell bars incessantly, and screaming without refrain were mentally sound when their stay began: confinement produced a devastating mental decline, stripping them of their humanity and making them unrecognizable. In Blake’s perspective, “nothing is sacred in [solitary confinement]. It is an environment that is so grossly abnormal, so antithetical to normal human interactions, that it twists the innards of men all around who for too long dwell there. [...]. Day after day, perhaps year after year, the anger grows, fueled by the pain caused by the conditions till rage is born and burning so hot that it too hurts.” This claim is not only evident in personal anecdotes about solitary confinement, but one supported by mounds of research.
Across the nation, people reside in filthy, pest-infested cells with minimal opportunity for cognitive or physical stimulation. A report by the Vera Institute compiled 150 years of literature in “psychiatry, psychology, anthropology, and epidemiology” to contextualize the impact of solitary confinement. The deprivation of social interaction and “forced idleness” in confinement has repeatedly been shown to produce negative cognitive effects like anxiety, depression, hallucinations, problems with impulse control, anger, OCD, insomnia, paranoia, psychosis, and PTSD; all issues that people continue to suffer from post release. The risk of suicide and self harm is also remarkably greater for confined populations than general ones; confined people are 3.2x as likely to harm themselves physically. Individuals in solitary make up just “6% to 8% of the total prison population,” but they represent half of incarcerated people who die by suicide. People who experience even one stay in confinement are 55% more likely to die by suicide post-release; individuals with multiple placements in are 129% more likely. Also, spending any amount of time in solitary increases risk of premature death post release.
Solitary confinement causes profound “physical changes in the brain and how it functions.” Understood as early as 50 years ago through psychological experiments in rodents, as little as one week in isolation and sensory deprivation “can lead to significant changes in electrical activity in the brain” exhibited through declined cognitive ability. Different areas of the brain which dictate learning, memory, and emotional regulation were physically altered in rodent brains, similar to humans in their neuroanatomy.
People in solitary confinement also face physical health problems during confinement and post release. Confined populations can “experience heart palpitations, shaking, weakness, deterioration of eyesight, sensory hypersensitivity, and aggravation of pre-existing medical problems.” The chronic stress of isolation has been shown to produce long term health issues such as hypertension, reported by 47.5% of confined and 16.5% of general populations. The recreation time awarded to confined people typically entails a “concrete enclosed yard by oneself [...] no TV, no balls to bounce, no games to play, no other inmates, nothing” as told by William Blake.
Contextualizing issues with solitary confinement in the United States necessitates an examination of who it is used for. The already stark racial and ethnic disparities observed in incarcerated populations are further reflected in confined populations. Incarcerated people of color are more likely to be placed in solitary, more frequently, and for longer lengths than white counterparts. This can be theorized in connection to a presence of un/conscious bias in the discretion correctional staff have when using the sanction.
In the same vein, solitary confinement disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups like the LGBTQIA+ community and people with disabilities. Incarcerated individuals belonging to these populations are commonly subjected to solitary confinement through rationale that segregating them prevents victimization by other inmates. The legitimacy of using solitary confinement as a safety measure must be critically questioned given the negative impact on health in addition to the reality that the core function of confinement is disciplinary, not protective.
Blake is not alone in his experience of prolonged & indefinite solitary confinement. U.S. correctional facilities’ use of solitary confinement grew an astounding 40% from 1995 to 2000. Federal law, which once ruled the practice cruel and unusual, does not currently regulate correctional facilities’ use of the sanction. The corrections departments of each state largely determine how solitary confinement can be used, but there remains a lack of uniformity among prisons in the same state.
To alleviate the prolonged imposition of solitary confinement, the Supreme Court held in 2017 that individuals subjected to such conditions must undergo a comprehensive health assessment every 30 days to gauge their fitness for ongoing confinement. However, the decision to continue confinement is left to a committee whose interests lie with the facility rather than the wellbeing or rehabilitative success of individuals, rendering the ruling ludicrous. There is no federal law for how long someone can be solitarily confined or a standard of what constitutes sound justification for confinement. The U.S.’s use of solitary confinement, and its lack of regulation, contradicts global recognition of the practice as torture when exceeding 15 days.
Though there is increasing conversation on the use of recidivism as a measure of success post-release, experiencing solitary confinement is alarmingly associated with recidivism rates. Sixty-eight percent of the overall incarcerated population recidivates within 3 years of release, an already devastating statistic. For people who experience solitary confinement, the same statistic is 92%. It is impossible to deny the plethora of evidence that indicates even short stays in solitary confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and the impact on recidivism indicates its threat toward public safety. Solitary confinement is simply another problematic layer to this already failing and heavily criticized institution. It is also, however, an easily understandable example of how inhumane practices in criminal justice, funded by tax dollars, often create more problems than they solve.
William Blake turned 59 this year, marking 34 years spent in solitary confinement since he was 23 years old. After the New York senate passed a bill restricting the use of solitary segregation, Blake received news that he would be released back into the general incarcerated population, where he’ll remain for the rest of his life. This transfer took place last July, he stated there are “no words in the human language to describe how he feels” to finally be amongst other people again.
What You Should Drive to Save the World
Ian Moran
Competition is a core principle of the automobile industry. The contest for manufacturers is similar to many global industries. Who can produce the best-looking and best-performing product for a more affordable price? Unlike other industries, however, automobiles cost a premium for parts, labor, and insurance which causes high-end car companies to raise prices knowing customers would pay extra for the stature and recognition of their brand. As the world is transitioning away from fossil fuel use in all areas of transportation, personal automobiles have a unique customizability of engine type, body type, and materials used to make them.
Increasing pressure from international environmental and climate organizations on car companies to produce renewable-energy-powered cars has created a new category in the automotive industry. However, the addition of the electric car industry has led to increased competition between car manufacturers, making it hard to tell exactly what cars are better for the environment than others. A critical distinction between “eco-friendly” vehicles is the type of powertrain they use, which include the percentage of electric or battery-powered, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell, and natural gas vehicles. I have analyzed various car companies in their attempt to create renewable-energy-powered vehicles along with "Greener Cars" statistics by ACEEE which incorporate environmental damage done through production as well as usage into a “Green Score.” I then used that information to compile a collection of the cars you should drive to help save the planet.
Not everyone can be classified as a typical consumer, especially when it comes to buying a car. Starting with everyday drivers who commute to and from school/work and need to travel to places nearby, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) including the Toyota Prius Prime and Hyundai Ioniq Plug-In Hybrid would be ideal “green cars”, both receiving the highest “Green Score”. For those who prefer more traditionally inspired car designs crossed with modern “green” technology, the all-electric (EVs) including the Nissan Leaf and Mini Cooper SE are ideal candidates, both receiving the next highest “Green Scores”. Many car lovers seek the thrill of fast speeds and quick acceleration, which can be found in the Tesla Model S Performance and BMW i, both all-electric.
A large percentage of automobiles purchased consist of pickup trucks, a heavy fossil fuel consumer which the all-electric Ford F- Lightning and GMC Hummer EV are attempting to disrupt, and would be an ideal “green car” for pickup lovers and those that need to transport any equipment. Other forms of renewable energy that are used to power cars of the future include hydrogen and solar power. Hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars including the Toyota Mirai and Honda Clarity are said to be “greener” than electric battery-powered cars, but current technology isn’t where it needs to be for a truly sustainable power source. Another alternative fuel that has been successfully transformed to power a vehicle is solar, as the solar-powered Lightyear and Sono Motors Sion, production in , are changing the industry even further. With increasing competition and discovery of sustainable resources, the first truly sustainable, “fully green car,” which no EV or alternative fuel vehicle today is, may be created in the near future to solve the air pollution problems of personal transportation.
"Moral Integrity" and Digital Communication
Grace Gordon
I will not deny that I am on my phone a lot, because I am. I know I am on it for roughly three hours a day, according to my iPhone’s screen time feature. I am on social media for the bulk of my screen time. Based on what I have observed from people my age, the majority of us who are using social media are not using it for the purpose of basic communications. We are using it as something to look at when bored, or when we want to escape the world around us. Spending time on social media takes no effort; you can simply scroll until you're so exhausted that you can no longer keep your eyes open. Once I click onto apps on my phone, such as Instagram or Snapchat, I slowly enter into this lazy, lackadaisical state where I am not thinking at all. I’m like a brain-dead vegetable. All I am doing is absorbing the content I see on my screen. My use of judgment disappears and I enter a state where I’m not thinking, just scrolling.
Tristan Harris, a former product philosopher at Google who is now an advocate for “bringing moral integrity to software design," believes scrolling through social media puts us in a sort of hypnotic state. Based on my own experience, I believe that it's true. I never really noticed this until I spent days without my phone at a summer work camp. The little moments during the day when I would have grabbed for my phone having nothing else to do, were unavailable. Instead, I just sat, bored. I realized that I was not using social media as a form of communication, but as a tool to escape boredom, or a tool to make me feel more in control of a situation. The Instagram app is designed to keep track of friends and family and stay connected with them, but I was not using it for that. I realized on that day at work camp that instead of caving into the boredom, I should be communicating with others.
Today, it is so easy for us to create your own little personal bubble, and choosing not to communicate with others. When I am with a group of people I don’t know well, I find myself reaching for the phone in my backpack, just so I can hold it in my hand. It’s like a security blanket, and it makes me feel in control of the situation. I do this instead of openly and honestly communicating with others. However, I believe it is important to push yourself to converse with others and live in the moment. This is something I had to realize. I had a problem and forced myself to change.
What I have gathered from my own experience with digital communication technologies, such as texting and social media, is that they prevent me from having real conversations, even though this is the opposite of why they were created. I value non-digital conversation, because it forces us to live in the moment and be vulnerable, which is becoming something increasingly difficult in today’s world. If we as a society choose to do nothing and submit to the addictive technologies of our phones, this will only hurt the world. We must stop, because the tech is preventing us from living our own lives to the fullest and being engaged members of society.
Crucial Shifts in Global Power
Ian Moran
The global warming phenomenon has worsened. We are witnesses to the destruction of natural habitats. We are fomenting disastrous living situations for millions around the world. Yet, large well-established companies are still squeezing everything they can out of the fossil fuel industry. National and international organizations are showing businesses how to shift to renewable resources for power. Still, some corporations are holding out. They are not giving up on the ideological profits of coal and gasoline. In order for the world to reduce the pollution of our atmosphere and groundwater, a complete shift away from fossil fuel use to renewable energy use is crucial. The existence of the human species and Earth’s ability to support life is at stake.
Earth is an extremely unique and rare interstellar object: it is the only planet that today’s top scientists declare can 100% support life as we know it. Life as we know it on any planet requires stable and beneficial atmospheric gas concentrations. We humans can upset this delicate balance. The percentages of carbon dioxide and other toxic chemicals in the atmosphere have greatly increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Environmental activist groups and international committees lobby for change by protesting the use of fossil fuels and submitting climate accords that strictly monitor carbon emissions. New regulations have proven effective in some of the world’s leading industries, but we have not solved the climate change issue in a comprehensive way.
I have analyzed global wind patterns and investigated recycled materials. I believe expanding wind power is a crucial step toward a more sustainable future. Wind energy is one of the least polluting methods for producing sustainable energy. More work needs to be done to harness this renewable resource in a truly sustainable fashion. Areas of the planet with the highest average wind speeds should be utilized for new, large wind turbine groups—called “wind farms”—to capture the most wind for power conversion. Wind power has seen massive improvements in recent years, with more efficient turbine structures and less polluting methods of installation being implemented globally. But more can be done to maximize the power potential of wind energy.
Currently, most wind turbine towers are made from steel, whereas turbine blades are made from fiberglass and petroleum-based epoxy which has a lifetime of around 25 years. They are sent to landfills or incineration sites after disassembly. More sustainable materials that can be used to build the wind turbine’s tower and blades include recycled steel, wood, and thermoplastics. Continuing to research sustainable materials for new wind turbines, I found that lithium hydroxide has been used on rocket ships for years to absorb carbon in the atmosphere. My insight is that lithium hydroxide can be used on wind turbines to amplify the amount of carbon that is absorbed around the world, leading to less carbon escaping into the atmosphere, water, and ground.
Beyond the Horizon in Healthcare
Kelly Bradshaw
I have flashes of memories from the Outer Banks as a child. I can feel the sand in my toes, my father’s hand in my mine, the smell of saltwater, the crashing of waves, and a big bright sun over the horizon. I don’t really remember much else, just the peaceful moments with my family on vacation. But the state of our world now is nowhere near the perfect vacation state I experienced as a child. Our world is caught in a chaotic riptide with no obvious means of rescue. Innovators and leaders need to look beyond the horizon straight into the sunlight, and find a blinding vision more promising than what we have been experiencing since March 2020.
Living through a global pandemic has focused our attention firmly on the health care industry and also personal health. I am fascinated by healthcare as someone who is passionate about service processes and experiences. I must say that I am amazed by how digitally immature the healthcare industry remains. According to The Technology Fallacy (MIT Press, 2019) the health care industry scores a 4.67/10 in terms of digital maturity based on average maturity responses from the healthcare sector. Out of the 18 sectors surveyed, health care ranked 15th. The pandemic is forcing the healthcare industry to flex some digital muscle on a macro level, but there is so much room for digital disruption and innovation to redefine how we view and experience health care.
Marrying my interests of health care, service operations and delivery, customer experience, and technology, I have started to look beyond the horizon at what the future of health care should be. For my Computer Information Systems 490 Project advised by Dr. Diane Lending, I have been investigating and analyzing the health care industry in terms of where technology can improve overall patient experience and patient journey. I have investigated three spheres of “PX” or patient experience: frictionless CX, digital ecosystems, and hyper-personalization. The future of health care is closer and more familiar than you think – you might even be holding it right now. It’s your mobile phone.
To truly drive and improve patient experience is through patient engagement platforms. To qualify as a patient engagement software, it must "provide a method of active patient engagement such as patient portal, patient surveys, digital intake forms, improve or provide insight to healthcare organizations on ways to improve patient satisfaction, track and measure improvement of patient experience” (G2, 2021). The benefit of these platforms is increased patient satisfaction, better quality of care, and streamlined communication. Many of these platforms have been around for a while, with the market leaders being Solutions Reach, WELL, and MyChart (G2, 2021). But they face roadblocks in reaching ubiquity like lack of patient engagement, issues with integration with other tools, regulations in the industry, or even lack of trust where their data is going. We can do better, and we must. Our patients and providers are counting on it.
Living in Hell
Kearney Quillen
We live in hell. Our world is quite literally on fire in 2020, and a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan has just broken off from the Arctic’s largest remaining ice shelf. I have lived through three economic collapses, and I’m not even old enough to drink. Wages are no longer rising in proportion to productivity, leaving the full-time minimum wage workforce unable to afford rent anywhere in the United States. One out of every eight Americans live below the poverty line. Meanwhile, the number of billionaires has more than tripled in the span of ten years. People are paying up to $700 a month for insulin that costs less than five dollars to make, or $600 a year for an EpiPen® that costs less than $15 to manufacture, because we as a society have decided that it is more important to protect the intellectual property of a patent than a human life. There’s nothing any individual can do to combat climate change when a hundred corporations putting out 71% of total greenhouse emissions refuse to change their practices. It becomes clearer and clearer with every passing day that this is not working. Capitalism is running itself into the ground and it will take us with it if we let it.
But we don’t have to let it. Capitalism run amok is not the only option available to us. We just happened to be born into it. Our society’s mode of production has changed before, and it can change again. In fact, it must change again. We are fast approaching the point of transition to socialism or descent into barbarism philosopher and economist Rosa Luxembourg warned about in her 1915 Junius pamphlet. A change is coming no matter what. It is up to us to choose our direction.
By studying leftist movements that have come before us, we can understand the conditions out of which they emerged, and the faults in their methods that lead to their downfall. It is this understanding that I believe will allow us as a society to learn from past mistakes and succeed where our predecessors have failed. We must understand our history in order to ensure that we do not repeat it. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the same old pitfalls of scapegoating, opportunism, and prioritizing vengeance over justice. We must build a society that values human life and wellbeing over property. We will not survive if we continue to idolize the pipe dream of infinite growth from finite resources. We cannot afford to continue regarding human suffering as something we cannot change; we must change it. We must rebuild our communities, starting from the principles of egalitarianism and cooperation: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Jake Pinello
In today’s political climate, our electorate has two options: (1) speak their mind and deal with the resistance, or (2) keep it in and continue to be frustrated. We have reached a point in our society where we are losing the ability to communicate with those who reside on the other side of the aisle. This is not a problem with the left, this is not a problem with the right. This is a problem with the United States of America. A two-party political system like ours certainly allows issues like this to be possible, but I believe this to be less of a problem with the system and more of a problem with us. This is about our people. It is about the way we interact with each other, the way we think, and the things we value. In order to get past this point in our nation’s history, we must reflect on the way we as a people function and make the changes necessary to enable our democracy to flourish once again.
A few key characteristics of our country have played into the divisiveness that we are currently experiencing. The first of these characteristics is the individualistic mindset that many Americans have. Being an individualistic nation means that our citizens are more concerned about the well-being of the individual than the well-being of the collective. This is a very powerful phenomenon in American culture, and it has played a major role in all of the economic successes that we have experienced. Politicians have figured out how to use this characteristic of our nation’s people to serve their political interests. This is what happened in the 2016 presidential election. It is happening again in the 2020 presidential election. President Donald Trump’s campaign emphasizes issues that call upon people’s individualistic tendencies, such as the controversy of wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID-19. This causes people to be less empathetic toward people in different situations than themselves. When that happens in a democracy, divides begin to widen, causing social and cultural distress.
Another driver of division in our nation is found in our own brains. Humankind’s psychological shortcomings are not specific to Americans, but they certainly have an effect on our politics. Consider a topic in psychology known as heuristics, the shortcuts that our brain has developed to complete certain mental tasks in our daily lives. For the most part, these heuristics allow for our mental processes to function smoothly and more efficiently. Sometimes they malfunction. One type of heuristic that is used often in politics is the availability heuristic. When it does not function correctly, it causes human brains to overvalue the likelihood of an event’s occurrence when that event is more easily accessible in our mind. This is what motivates politicians to use vivid details and to repeat the messages of their campaigns over and over again. The more vividly we remember something that the candidates say, the more likely we are to believe it to be true. Given that all of our media and social media is biased, the vivid and repeated things that people hear come from the political group that each person already supports. This creates an environment where half the population hears and believes horrible things about the right from the left while the other half hears and believes horrible things about the left from the right.
The final driver of division in our nation has contributed to our national success more than any other: the economy. Capitalism creates the most efficient and effective type of economy the world has ever seen. It stimulates invention and has propelled higher quality of life for the world’s population. The weakness of American capitalism, however, is that we see it to be the one-stop shop for finding out what things we should care about as a society. We refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it is possible that there might exist better options for certain situations. When politicians start talking about jobs or the economy in general, the worst in all of us comes out. While the unemployment rate and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index are just numbers on a teleprompter to these politicians, they represent jobs and livelihoods for everyday Americans. When you make this acknowledgment, it is not surprising that people get so polarized when the economy becomes the topic of discussion. It is one of the governmental responsibilities that could have the greatest direct effect on our lives. We will not be able to fix this problem until we stop parading around political campaigns and throwing economic figures out to people who are not experienced enough to understand what their true meaning is. This leads to people interpreting these figures incorrectly, getting defensive because they believe their livelihoods are in danger, and then lashing out against people who they now believe are supporting policy that will negatively impact them. Unless every citizen of the United States is to become a macroeconomist, we should start treating capitalism as our economic system rather than our way of life.
Political polarization is one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s democracy. People need to reflect on the way they view and treat others. We must begin to acknowledge that we as a country are far from perfect and that acting like it will only strengthen the negative effects of our shortcomings. It is time that we respect people for who they are rather than for who they support. In a system that remains reliant on the collaboration of its participants, we must work to mitigate all of these different factors in order to form the more perfect union that we so greatly value.
Exploring Interstellar Communication
Morgan Rhudy
No topic has a hold on my brain quite like outer space does. Ask any of my roommates and they’ll likely roll their eyes at the thought of my outlandish nightly ramblings, where I ask questions like “Why can’t we just go to other universes?” As a person who has always struggled through physics and engineering courses, my insatiable curiosity about the multiverse has caused no end of internal conflict. My inability to wrap my head around the foundational knowledge of the universe—from aliens to black holes—is exasperating.
Earth offers endless opportunities, but knowing there are concepts and ideas so foreign that no one here could comprehend them feels so limiting. Similarly, it is alarming that the richest people in the world (right now, this is Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk) have become so invested in space travel and exploration. Perhaps it’s due to my realization that their life's work contributes so directly to massive climate destruction. But why are the people who have access to anything and everything they could possibly want on Earth seeking escape to experiences beyond the horizon?
As an aspiring corporate communicator, it will one day be my job to communicate ideas to a wide variety of audiences. What would communicating across planets, or better yet, across universes, even look like? Would it be possible? How long would it take? Would anybody on Earth be equipped to facilitate interstellar communication? Space communication in its current state is so widely misunderstood due to the unrealistic, sensationalized representations of film. While the technology is far from simple, the concept of communicating with humans sent to space by other humans is easy to grasp. Currently, these messages are bound by the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. The nearest known galaxy is an estimated 2.5 million light years from the Milky Way. If one light year is equal to about 5,878,625,370,000 miles, it would take an incomprehensible number of light years to reach that galaxy (essentially that number multiplied by 2.5 million).
There are major challenges within current space communications, including bandwidth, networks, and interference with the quality and content of a message due to radiation and long distances. The nature of the work also lends itself to many external strategy-based challenges, specifically what NASA chooses to share with whom. As a bureaucratic agency, their work is often secretive as new discoveries hold massive international power. Not all countries are developed or wealthy enough to contribute to exploration. Power structures coupled with confidentiality present many unique public relations challenges given the risk of misinformation and mass hysteria.
Einstein’s theory of relativity implies that we could never travel faster than the speed of light. But could we anyway? Probably not. But who knows. It's hard to imagine that we won’t ever see or communicate with exoplanets or other galaxies before the end of time. Let's consider a global interdisciplinary effort to think beyond the horizon, so that one day we can think beyond other galaxy’s horizons.