Alternatives to ancestral domains

There is a social dilemma in many places that needs an immediate solution. I am here to offer a solution, and I hope that the civil society will listen. The problem is that not all indigenous communities are able to qualify for Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) and because of that, they do not have places that they could occupy to live on, and to derive their livelihoods from. In the meantime, there are plenty of vacant lands around them that are owned by the government, but they could not apply for titles to these lands, because they do not have the proper historical claims to these areas. The solution is right there underneath our noses, but we have not thought of it, because it simply did not occur to us.

According to the laws, any natural or juridical person for an Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA), or any other similar government program under the DENR. What that means is that any indigenous community that has registered an association of any kind could apply for an IFMA, as an alternative to applying for CADTs. They can do this anywhere there are vacant forest lands. There are many advantages that could be derived from this approach.

Firstly, their agricultural production could contribute to food security. Secondly, their tree growths could contribute to claims for carbon credits. Thirdly, the same tree growths could also be used to claims under the debt for nature swap scheme. Fourthly but not the least, the tree growths could also prevent erosion in the mountains. Of course, the trees could also contribute to water retention. Since the IFMAs are valid for 25 years and are renewable for another 25 years, that should give them enough time to earn enough money to eventually buy their own lands that will economic security for the long term. If you know of any indigenous community that would like to avail of this approach, please let me know.

 

Controlling artificial intelligence

I have always said that technology is neutral, and whether it is used for good or for bad depends on who is using it. The basic truth is that artificial intelligence (AI) is run by a computer software program that will do what it is programmed to do, depending on the command that the programmer gives it. So, if the programmer has bad intentions, it would of course perform bad or damaging actions. However, the truth is that the real instructions may not come from the programmer himself or herself, but whoever is paying him or her to do the programming.

We have observed in so many dystopian and superhero movies that there is always a mastermind who is the evil mind behind the robots and the androids who are fighting the forces of good. Therefore, these masterminds are the ones who have instructed the programmers to write the instructions that are making the robots and androids obey the evil commands that have been issued to them. Generally speaking, we should not be afraid of AI. We should be afraid instead of the evil masterminds who will bankroll the production of robots and androids that will commit acts of destruction.

Of course, we know that these masterminds are no other than the madmen who emerge to become the despots and dictators of evil regimes. There is no way for us to control the emergence of despots and dictators, but there are many ways for us to control the development of AI in its many forms, including robots, androids, drones and even apps. We could create policies, programs and projects that would ensure is always used for the good of our country in particular, and mankind in general.

On my part, I am already involved in developing and promoting AI for use in education, healthcare and agriculture. The possibilities of AI are endless, and we are only limited by our visions and our imaginations. If your private company or government agency needs guidance in developing and promoting AI, please let me know and I will help you.

 

Recycling versus upcycling

What is the difference between recycling and upcycling? It seems that not too many people know the difference between the two. It would also seem that the government has not come out with an official differentiation either. In the absence of that, please allow me to offer my own definitions. Although my definitions might sound like common knowledge, let me just bring it out for the record, for whatever purpose it might serve.

I think that recycling should mean the reuse of a recyclable material back to the same purpose. For example, a used plastic packaging could be recycled into another form or shape of plastic packaging, or even the same form or shape. Another example is to recycle aluminum cans back to aluminum cans again, also for packaging purposes.

On the other hand, I think that upcycling should mean turning a used material into another useful product that is completely different from its original design or purpose. For example, used plastic packaging could be upcycled into plastic chairs, plastic hangers or plastic roofing materials. As another example, used aluminum cans could be turned into auto parts and housing components.

To be consistent with the mantra of "reduce, reuse, recycle", let us just say that upcycling is the fulfillment of our desires to "reuse". But better still, why don't we improve the mantra by adding a fourth activity, so that it would now read as "reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose"? I think that repurposing would open the door to more upcycling initiatives. We should now make it our goal to produce more upcycled products in order to support our other sustainable development goals, such as social housing and school chairs for public schools. Many upcycled materials could also be used for food production and food processing. As they say, "if there is a will, there is a way". Let me know how I can help.