4 ms·

I see a lot of skeptical comments on here and I suppose that's healthy, but generally I find news items like this encouraging. We need to find more ways like th

I see a lot of skeptical comments on here and I suppose that's healthy, but generally I find news items like this encouraging. We need to find more ways like this to use technology to fight deforestation, pollution and the erosion of the natural environment.

philipps 9y ago
I agree that it’s encouraging to see engineers and scientists focus their efforts on important societal issues. However, we need to find more thoughtful ways to use this technology. A good place to start is trying to deeply understand a context and need, before coming up with a solution. We just ran a workshop in Jordan with engineers who want to develop education technology for refugee learners. On the first day we took our teams to NGOs who are working with refugees and interviewed the learners. As a result most team scrapped their initial ideas. I wish learning to analyse a challenge through the lense of the user was a more integral part of engineering education.
- mstipetic 9y ago
  What makes you think that these companies didn't go through that process?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127 Also, the usual rule of thumb: "drones". Flying means constantly expending energy to fight against gravity. Unless the particular problem solved requires flying (to e.g. reach otherwise unreachable spots), solutions involving flying machines are almost always bad. And I don't see anything in reforestation that requires flying. This is doubly important if you're trying to make the world a better place, instead of just making a quick buck. If all you care about is money, you can make it so that someone else pays the energy costs. But if you truly care about doing something good, then you have to factor them in (they almost always involve non-renewable sources and pollution) and ask yourself, if your plan is even a net improvement for the world.
    - credit_guy 9y ago
      I can see two alternatives to flying, sending a person, or a remote-control/autonomous ground based machine. The first one is not as productive, the second one is much more complex, and so more expensive.
      - daemin 9y ago
        If cost and fuel are major concerns then sending a person is by far the cheapest option. Not the most productive but in the areas that need reforestation (i.e. where they burn or clear cut, Asia / Amazon) the labour is not that expensive. Though there are a lot of other factors involved. These kinds of projects remind me of Juicero, where it combines a few things western (middle/upper class?) people care about with technology and expects a great result but end up a middling disappointment.
      - manicdee 9y ago
        A ground based drone is orders of magnitude simpler than a multirotor. There is nothing magical about multirotors except being the latest fad for tech geeks. A ground based drone — eg a modified bulldozer — can carry far more plants as cargo, meaning planting a field of a thousand sapling might require one trip where a flying drone will require a thousand trips. The only catch is access: for a remote region with no trails of any kind it might be difficult for a large vehicle to navigate through the forest. In this case clearing a path for the planting machine might be a lower cost to the environment than the energy required to fly a thousand sorties with flying planters. A ground based drone will also be able to plant more robust saplings, since payload weight is far less of a concern.
HenryBemis 9y ago
I remember reading a couple of years ago about swarms of drones that would be used to police an area, and I feared that some governments around the world would REALLY love this idea.. mass control, mass spying protests etc. Reading about deploying a swarm of drones to make this planet a better place makes me restore a bit more faith over human kind.
jdowner 9y ago
Agreed! As a mathematician/software engineer I have been looking for environment/ecological projects to work on, but it is really hard to find opportunities. Does anyone know of good places to find opportunities to work on projects like this one?
- dagw 9y ago
  All the large (and many of the smaller) civil engineering firms have an environmental/ecological division and GIS, remote sensing and mathematical modelling is kind of trendy in ecology right now, so that would be a good place to start looking. Ecologists that know GIS and can code are quite rare. The downside is that environmental concerns are largely considered a cost for civil engineering projects so much of your work will involve putting together models the 'prove' that the project under consideration will have a low environmental impact. But occasionally you will get a chance to work on a more 'positive' project as well. Either way it's probably a good place to start and to get experience with the realities of the field.
z0ltan 9y ago
Seconded. Also, the conceit inherent in some of the replies is absolutely disgusting to say the least. The gall of these people to imagine that we, mankind, actually know what's best for the planet. The planet is not the problem, we are. I say we plant these trees, and let Nature take over. We can barely predict an earthquake and these cretins have the gall to suggest that we implement a comprehensive algorithm to optimise the benefits for Nature. Get the fuck out of here!

philipps 9y ago

I agree that it’s encouraging to see engineers and scientists focus their efforts on important societal issues. However, we need to find more thoughtful ways to use this technology. A good place to start is trying to deeply understand a context and need, before coming up with a solution. We just ran a workshop in Jordan with engineers who want to develop education technology for refugee learners. On the first day we took our teams to NGOs who are working with refugees and interviewed the learners. As a result most team scrapped their initial ideas. I wish learning to analyse a challenge through the lense of the user was a more integral part of engineering education.

mstipetic 9y ago
What makes you think that these companies didn't go through that process?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16264127 Also, the usual rule of thumb: "drones". Flying means constantly expending energy to fight against gravity. Unless the particular problem solved requires flying (to e.g. reach otherwise unreachable spots), solutions involving flying machines are almost always bad. And I don't see anything in reforestation that requires flying. This is doubly important if you're trying to make the world a better place, instead of just making a quick buck. If all you care about is money, you can make it so that someone else pays the energy costs. But if you truly care about doing something good, then you have to factor them in (they almost always involve non-renewable sources and pollution) and ask yourself, if your plan is even a net improvement for the world.
  - credit_guy 9y ago
    I can see two alternatives to flying, sending a person, or a remote-control/autonomous ground based machine. The first one is not as productive, the second one is much more complex, and so more expensive.
    - daemin 9y ago
      If cost and fuel are major concerns then sending a person is by far the cheapest option. Not the most productive but in the areas that need reforestation (i.e. where they burn or clear cut, Asia / Amazon) the labour is not that expensive. Though there are a lot of other factors involved. These kinds of projects remind me of Juicero, where it combines a few things western (middle/upper class?) people care about with technology and expects a great result but end up a middling disappointment.
    - manicdee 9y ago
      A ground based drone is orders of magnitude simpler than a multirotor. There is nothing magical about multirotors except being the latest fad for tech geeks. A ground based drone — eg a modified bulldozer — can carry far more plants as cargo, meaning planting a field of a thousand sapling might require one trip where a flying drone will require a thousand trips. The only catch is access: for a remote region with no trails of any kind it might be difficult for a large vehicle to navigate through the forest. In this case clearing a path for the planting machine might be a lower cost to the environment than the energy required to fly a thousand sorties with flying planters. A ground based drone will also be able to plant more robust saplings, since payload weight is far less of a concern.

HenryBemis 9y ago

I remember reading a couple of years ago about swarms of drones that would be used to police an area, and I feared that some governments around the world would REALLY love this idea.. mass control, mass spying protests etc. Reading about deploying a swarm of drones to make this planet a better place makes me restore a bit more faith over human kind.

jdowner 9y ago

Agreed! As a mathematician/software engineer I have been looking for environment/ecological projects to work on, but it is really hard to find opportunities. Does anyone know of good places to find opportunities to work on projects like this one?

dagw 9y ago
All the large (and many of the smaller) civil engineering firms have an environmental/ecological division and GIS, remote sensing and mathematical modelling is kind of trendy in ecology right now, so that would be a good place to start looking. Ecologists that know GIS and can code are quite rare. The downside is that environmental concerns are largely considered a cost for civil engineering projects so much of your work will involve putting together models the 'prove' that the project under consideration will have a low environmental impact. But occasionally you will get a chance to work on a more 'positive' project as well. Either way it's probably a good place to start and to get experience with the realities of the field.

z0ltan 9y ago

Seconded. Also, the conceit inherent in some of the replies is absolutely disgusting to say the least. The gall of these people to imagine that we, mankind, actually know what's best for the planet. The planet is not the problem, we are. I say we plant these trees, and let Nature take over. We can barely predict an earthquake and these cretins have the gall to suggest that we implement a comprehensive algorithm to optimise the benefits for Nature. Get the fuck out of here!