If you're interested in learning how to create electronic music you should try these 3 Masterclasses:
Grammy-winning music producer Timbaland takes you behind the boards to teach you his process for creating iconic tracks with artists like Jay-Z, Missy Elliott, Justin Timberlake, Beyoncé, and Aaliyah. In his first-ever online class, learn how to collaborate with vocalists, layer new tracks, and create hooks that stick. Step into Timbaland’s studio and learn from one of the industry’s most innovative hit makers.
Every week, Armin van Buuren puts 41 million listeners into A State of Trance on his radio show. In his first-ever online class, the platinum-selling DJ breaks down his hits and builds a track from scratch to show you how he produces, performs, and promotes dance music. You’ll learn his technical process for using samples and plug-ins, mixing, recording vocals, and how to DJ a set. Your crowd is waiting.
Before he was deadmau5, all Joel Zimmerman wanted for Christmas was old toasters to take apart. Now, you can watch him take his music apart. In his first-ever online class, Joel teaches you how he approaches melodies, mixing and mastering to make unique sounds you can't find in a cookie cutter sample pack. You'll not only get his lessons, you'll learn how to create your own music without spending money on million dollar gear.
Lessons include topics like: Making beats, creating songs, layering drums, chord progressions, manipulating samples, musical influences, melodic inspiration, building a home studio, working in the studio, working with pads and leads, creating a groove, working with bass, mixing and mastering, arranging, working with lyrics and vocals, singles, club mixes, and edits, mashups, advanced techniques, performance tips, hosting radio shows, growing your career, working with synths, and the future of electronic music.
Start slow, go easy on yourself. Acknowledge you're not going to be fantastic with your first efforts unless you're a musical prodigy. Jimi Hendrix didn't pick up his guitar and instantly record Hey Joe his first time playing.
Anything worth doing takes time and practice. I gave up several times and regretted it so much I always came back. Create to create until you learn the ropes and finish a project you like. Save everything, sit on it and come back to it. I had stuff I was ready to trash but liked months later.
This is what you should do:
The more you know about music theory the better but in a lot of cases the basics will do to begin.
I recommend starting with FL Studio or Ableton to most people. Ableton has a steeper learning curve, but is more advanced. This is an amazing list of tutorials that you can learn FL Studio from:
Other than music theory and structure, I'd say good quality drum samples and at least one synth you really know inside and out.
Lastly, really knowing how to make a track sound full but not having different sounds occupy the same space.
Lots of people will disagree with me, but the truth is, you NEED the technical skills now more than ever. EDM today is so crisp, powerful, clean, full, and energetic. You can only achieve that level of quality (and therefore compete professionally) by having incredible technical skills. In my opinion, it's technical skills first, musicality second.
If you have amazing technical skills but 0 originality/creativity, you can just copy song structures/sounds/ideas from other producers, and you could produce generic house, trap, dubstep, etc. and land yourself on Trap City, Proximity, etc.. You won't be the next Skrillex, but you'll do pretty well.
Conversely, if your originality/creativity is on point but you have 0 technical skills, well... you're pretty much out of luck. Not much you can do with that. No one wants to listen to music that's horribly mixed, muddy, unclear, dull, harsh, etc. even if the ideas are good.
Here's how we do it at my home studio.
Load absynth get a sound scape. Basic idea is a single short press of root note and it has long release, it will fill out the spectrum and be random not lopping stale letting you get out of loops from the very second you open a synth.
Load up absynth again. in Playlist I set a time marker. First one is intro. Second one is chords and I'll right click and set "srart" on this time marker so fl thinks this is the start position for now. (careful anyone who sound designs this will change your LFO's)
So we have the first soundscape playing one note lasting about or under 4 bars. I'd paste this to 16 bars long.
In the middle (so 2 patterns in) I added that chord / set start on time marker. lay down a chord progrssion that is 8 bars long. Maybe 16.
Copy the 8 bars of chords and soundscape to 32 bars.
Then I'll grab a piano and play a lead solo over it too in seperate pattern. Usually 16 bars. (Half of our intro do far. time marker added if u want)
Doesn't have to be perfect just get something down for now and move to next part. I'll change it later.
Then I'll load up an 808 I usually make them myself in serum with a self oscillating filter. I'd probably remove lead solo. get drums too. make a fat bassline that works with my drums while pads and soundscape play in background. Also 16 bars long nor repeating the fills.
Then I'll google accapella dub. Find a phrase I like. Load it into Playlist last one I used said like "and the world keeps burning"
Place it at end of the drum loop before the measure ends.
I'd shift the bassline over so it don't play over the intro drums or this vocal phrase (so it gets moved just after for drop)
Then I'd play with reverb automation on my intro drumz. Maybe cut up that lead and play little bits over,the drums.
Ok confusing mess above so it's soundscape pattern pasted throughout. pads start on measure 8.
Measure 16 drums reverb lead sprinkles. like 20 has that vox ending at 24 24 you cut away the reverb maybe filter the drums too a bit.
Have vox phrase sing into drop. You'll want to match your pads cadance with the vocal by pitching it half steps till it works. Makes drop more profound hard hitting.
At drop 808 drums lead soundscape pads. Pitch edit drums to make it less stale.
The machine library with battery 4 has nice dance drums that aren't processed (so u can still pitch them etc) but are very loud and snappy. Makes everything easy.
This is how u write a track. Then go back and sound design it better or use the presets call it a day and make a new one. It's fun sound designing I think I do it well. But it's also hella fun finishing a song without touching an eq.
If you have the budget - a trio of pocket operators by Teenage Engineering would do. I've seen a couple of kids on youtube get to grips with them no problem. They look like calculators.
Korg Volcas are easy to use too. More expensive though.
The cheapest option is music software. Something like Ableton Live Intro is the cheapest, and iirc can be used with the many free VST (a file format) instruments and effects.
Propellerhead's Reason is more expensive and well loved. The kid could probably pick that up easily too.
I know others say "dont buy pro/semipro music software, for a kid" - don't assume they won't be able to pick it up! Kids are more clever than you think!
There are TONS of tutorial videos on youtube for each bit of software (usually refered to as a DAW). I've been writing electronica for about 25 years and I'm still learning, as I am sure we all are.
Jon Hopkins is an obvious example for me. He creates some of the most organic-sounding electronica I've ever heard. It's not about using samples of real-world sounds (though he does that much and masterfully as well) but about making the synthesizer textures sound and behave organically. A good example from the world of techno/house/minimal is Stephan Bodzin.
Listen to this piece, Phobos (Synthapella), created by Marc Romboy and Bodzin:
This is a purely electronic piece, but to my ears it sounds profoundly organic and rich.
For the record, there are of course many artists who use more "nature-y" sounds, and incorporate them into an electronic setting. Here, I'm more concerned with artists that are able to make traditional digital/electronic sound sources sound organic.
There were very few daw options in the 90s as the home computer hardware of that era did not have the processing power to do much and external co-processing and recording cards were necessary to get any true multitracking done.
Cubase didn't add proper digital audio to pcs until windows 95/98 with cubase vst. In windows 3.0 it was just a sequencer, I used it for my 90s live shows. In the win3 era the only digital audio stuff you could do was mostly 2 track editing with programs like SAW. I used that to compile albums prior to sending them off to press. There was cubase audio for windows 3.0 for a brief minute but it really sucked and it came out just as windows95 was taking over from 3.0 and cubase vst came out like a year later.
Synth wise there was rebirth from Propellerheads which was very cool but that's more of a stand alone emulator (two 303s and an 808/909). In the 90s macs had a bit more of an advantage for digital audio with pro-tools but it was more of a multi-track recorder rather than a full DAW and you needed external hardware to use it. pro tools never really worked well on PCs until late in the xp age. we used to call it "slow tools".
So Cubase is really the only program during the late 90s that could be considered a Daw as we know them today, but it was pretty clunky both in os8 and win98 and I remember faceplaming a lot and just going back to hardware synths and my Adats. It really wasn't until the post year 2000 xp/os9 era that daws became usable at all.
Mass acceptance means there's more people trying to make a buck and the people who are doing it for the sheer love have a harder time making ends meet, so I'm not sure about any golden age existing in the first place.
There still aren't massive amounts of people flocking to small electronic gigs; the EDM moneymakers pick very certain, easy to digest, energetic forms of electronic music to promote and the real envelope pushers get even further ignored than they did before "mainstream acceptance" as standing out from the crowd is harder and more expensive than ever.
Record sales for people in the long tail are still very minimal, and in a lot of artist's cases even smaller than they were when they started as labels get polarized towards certain types of music that sell better. It's a mixed blessing for sure.
Electronic Music is always evolving. As an European born in the 90s, I've seen so many Electronic music waves, usually starting from the underground, then reaching a mainstream level, then slowly dying. Then a new trend appears and the same thing happens again.
It's funny to see how Dance Music took over America. For the most part, American people have just been exposed to the mainstream side of that Music. Now what happens is that people who love Electronic music dig deeper and find a niche genre they like. Electronic genres have become so much more fragmented. You have so many sub-genres or trends. Internet amplified that phenomena.
Also, what drives Electronic music are technologies and fresh ideas. As long as some people develop new synths/plugins/programs/tools... and artists that push the thing forward and come up with novel ideas, break the mold... then the music will continue to evolve and be different.
A lot of it seems pretty cyclical to me. Like dubstep was kinda out for a few years and it's making it's way back in now with fresh new sounds. IMO, as long as there are fresh new artists, EM can't really die.
There's a bunch of tricks you can use to make music feel more natural:
Is it "real" music?
Electronic music is real music, absolutely.
So if your view is "electronic music is equally music to physical music" then of course it is.
What I want to change your view on is your opinion that both are equally difficult to perform, I think this aspect of your argument is weak and is only used to cover for a portion of your post that you know is weak compared to your other points. Looking at a "physical musicians" hand eye corrodination, dexterity and general physical use of body on top of already performing music that is created just the same as EDM already puts it a leg above. Electronic music is created in a studio, it comes from the mind, while physical music comes from the mind and body.
Also, the idea that an EDM artist has so much more potential sound to work with (endless possibilities on an empty track) is also silly. The human ear only likes certain notes (sounds) that go together. As you said, an EDM artist still needs to know about music. This already confines them to a certain extent. At this point they aren't offering any melodies or sounds a guitar or keyboard offer with effect pedals which are essentially creating the noises and sounds that are used to alter and create sound in a studio by an EDM artist.
Despite what your grandparents might say, electronic music truly is an art-form. It can range from pleasantly simple to incredibly complex. It allows for the ultimate self-expression, the crowd is loving and accepting, and the songs can go from incredibly happy to dark and brooding.
I've never had a bad experience at a live show (knock on wood), in fact I would even say that attendees at an electronic show are more likely to look out for each others well being. People here don't care what you wear, they're ultimately there for the music. It's a pretty amazing community to be apart of.
I love Linux and use it from time to time, and though the learning curve is pretty steep, I actually now prefer it to anything else. The JACK sound server alone is worth the hassle in my opinion, and the available software for production on Linux has really come along in the last few years. I'm quite fond of Renoise, and Ardour is good too. ZynAddSubFX is hands down the most powerful synth I've ever used and it's native to Linux.
The downside definitely is lack of VST support, and I don't see that changing any time soon, so if you've invested a lot in VST software you may want to consider that.
The other thing, and this is neither a drawback nor a benefit in my opinion, is that the Linux attitude to production is different, there's less reliance on having one DAW that does absolutely everything and more of a modular approach of using different tools for different jobs.
There is a small yet quite active community of Linux musicians, and as a whole, the tracks that come out of it are just as good as anything else you might find. I think Linux production probably suits the kind of person that likes tinkering under the hood and has a bit of a DIY ethic. If simple, out of the box solutions are what you're after, I'd stick to OS X or Windows.
As a guitarplayer you often sit in positions not comfortable for using both hands on your keyboard/mouse. The damn guitar is constantly between you and your keyboard, and on top op that I often sit a bit angled, to avoid having my pickups, picking up noise from motherboard and monitor. This gives an annoying workflow.
You won't to have as many of the most important shortcuts available for your right hand without having to move it around so much in weird finger yoga positions on the keyboard. Or having to constantly reaching for your mouse. In that way Studio One has some better planned native shortcuts, that just works out of the box first time you launch it.
But after tweaking around and experimenting with bitwig shortcuts and stealing ideas from my other DAW, I managed to get a pretty good workflow for the way I record. I do most stuff in the Arranger timeline, like traditional daws, and only use the launcher for multitakes, and then move them to the Arranger right after.
I love Bitwig, but in my experience it needs a lot of tweaking and experimenting if you have these "one hand needs". And therefor I find it best suited for the more producer oriented workflow where you have both hands close to your keyboard/mouse/midicontroller. With this statement I primarily have focus on having a comfortable, fast and efficient workflow as a guitar player.
I started producing many years ago, but was able to generate a steadier revenue stream mixing/mastering and mobile recording for people. It's not a great career. You can't bet your life on becoming the next deadmau5.
You work when you're needed, there is no retirement plan besides your own, and your income can fluctuate greatly.
I've honestly entertained going back to school as someone who's "aging" in the industry but, that being said, there are ways to make it a career. Post-production can always be a more steady avenue. Just some stuff to think about.
If you're interested in becoming a filmmaker, I would recommend you give these 3 Masterclasses a try:
Watch, listen, and learn as Martin Scorsese teaches his first-ever online class.
Spike Lee open the doors of his Brooklyn office to teach filmmaking through scripts and storyboards from some of his greatest films.
From storyboarding your vision to collaborating with actors, learn filmmaking from an Oscar-winning Hollewood legends, Jodie Foster.
Lessons include topics like: film education, filmmaking process, filmmaking influences, developing your style, directing and technology, working the the script, discovering a story, casting actors, production design, working on locations, costume design, understanding cinematography, shooting on a budget, working with crew, film editing, color grading, black and white, sound design, the power of music, marketing and promotion, the future of film making, finding your own way, the art of storytelling, improvising with actors, vision and big ideas.
One of my favorite quotes is from Darren Aronofsky when he was talking about making The Wrestler. He said it was the first time he realized all you need is one camera and one actor to tell a story. He made that movie with resources, sure... but it was a skeleton crew and with actors working for scale.
If you have an iPhone and a $90 microphone, you can make a a small feature. You just need a great story that uses locations you can get for free. Then, you just need to discover local talent. It costs nothing to hold open auditions.
Rian Johnson spent years trying to make brick for $3 million until his longtime producer Ram told him “there’s no difference between a 3 million and $300,000 movie except what people get paid.” That inspired him to make Brick for $300k and they still shot on film. He had a great story to tell and that’s what ultimately mattered.
Go make movies, don’t let money stop you, but make sure you have a great story first. Get people to give you honest feedback on your script, and when enough people tell you “oh my God, you have to make this” then you’re ready to go make it no matter what equipment or crew size you have.
I think the point is with today’s technology you don’t need the $300k anymore. Robert Rodriguez made his first feature in the early 90s on film for $7k. Image what he would have done with an iPhone and a cheap microphone?
Be creative and make cool shit. Stop trying to figure it out and just go do it with whatever it is that you have. No one cares what camera you shot with or what actors you have as long as you can connect to them with relatable characters and a compelling story.
Look around you. What do you have? Can you write a story based on what you can get for free? Do you have friends you can use as crew and teach them to hold a mic or drag a camera around for you even if they’ve never done anything on a film before? If you have a story to tell, go tell it. Even if no one ever sees it, go record hours and hours on your iPhone, and cut it together on your iPhone (yeah, there are real editing programs on mobile phones now that rival software used on desktops).
A camera, a microphone, an actor, and a story that connects.
Oh, and food. Pay for lunch. That’s it. Go shoot your story. Practice your craft every chance you get.
Don't spend too much money on gear just yet. Find another job and during this time you should read, write out your screenplays, study film history and technique, watch films, and live your life while grinding out the bucks.
Don't spend anything untill you are comfortable with a few completed scripts and then is the time to go into production. You will be better prepared and will perhaps be able to spend more money (time) on your work. Listen to music. Particularly classical as a great deal I believe is public domain.
Buy a DSLR and learn photography in your free time. This will be very helpful in understanding the fundamentals of image making and will apply to cinematography.
Forget that film school is out there. Watch films, write, read and learn about film production and the business end. Be curious about everything and apply yourself with great pressure to your passion. Arguably, and this my well be false, but you are 28 years old and may have more life experience then the younger welps that are able to attend film school (i'm not knocking it or trying to offend). Do not relent and continue to study and envelop yourself in film.
Books to Aid:
Painting With Light by John Alton
The 5 C's of Cinematography
American Cinematographer Manual
Film Technique and Film Acting by V.I. Pudovkin
|STANISLAVSKY DIRECTS||4 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Painting With Light||63 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Five C's of Cinematography: Motion Picture Filming Techniques||200 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|American Cinematographer Manual Vol. I: 1||16 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Film Technique And Film Acting||14 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Lost in La Mancha
Hearts of Darkness (Apocalypse Now making of)
Burden of Dreams
The Making of Alien
The Making of Star Wars
|Lost in La Mancha||110 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Hearts Of Darkness||85 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Burden of Dreams||62 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Making of Alien||128 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Making of Star Wars (Enhanced Edition)||363 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
If you truly want it, never relent. Peruse with honesty and a irrevocable passion.
Oh, and having a grounded perspective of both what is likely to not happen for you and what possibly could is important. You need money to live, but it's not everything you NEED.
"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light" - Stanley Kubrick
Oh, and buy this, get you phone out, and start making films:
If everyone is in it on a shoe string budget, then it’s an amateur project and no one should expect to be paid as a professional as long as they’re willing to volunteer. Now, if that movie ever gets sold by some miracle, then a good producer should make sure everyone gets a part of that for their efforts. You can defer pay, it’s completely ethical to do so (as long as you make good on the deferment if any money is ever made) and is often the only way a no-budget movie gets made.
Slamming your fist down and saying “fair pay in every situation” is righteous indignation and gatekeeping that completely removes context of the production. A group of people getting together and equally deciding “let’s just get this movie made” is not taking advantage of professionals or only offering exposure. It’s a group of artists coming together and deciding not to let money get in the way.
That’s why I’m also saying to do most of the work yourself as well. YOU can grab a camera and shoot, direct, light, edit, mix with today’s technology. You often don’t have to involve a lot of people, and certainly not many professionals that should be paid.
You’re not a Daniel Day-Lewis level director yet, so you shouldn’t expect your actors to be yet either. Remember, someone gave DDL his first shot at some point, and I bet he wasn’t that great... but maybe he was pretty good? You’ll challenge yourself as a director as well on how to pull the best performance out of the actors you do work with. Have an open audition for actors and non-actors. You never know some person that always dreamt of being an actor but never had a chance walks through the door and you discover the next Jennifer Lawrence.
The great thing about young and hungry actors and shooting on a cheap medium is you can do 100 takes until they get close to that place in your head. Wear them out, keep tweaking, keep working. If you saw something special in them at the audition, you know you can get it from them.
I’d also say don’t be too precious about what’s in your head. Truth is truth, and what’s in your head might not be the truth of the scene in the moment. Know what you’re trying to say emotionally and story wise with the moment, and then go discover the performance with your actor. Even if you had Daniel Day-Lewis to work with, he’d never want to conform to what was in YOUR head, he’s want to go with what was in the character’s head (if that makes sense).
Kevin Smith got a bunch of local knuckle heads together and made Clerks. Robert Rodriquez found a dude with a cool look that had never acted in his life to be the bad guy in his first movie.
Go audition people, go find that waiter or waitress that has an interesting look, pan for gold. The point is, you can at least make something for no money and you never know where it’ll take you. Just make stuff.
Yes, it’s good to pay people, but artists will often lower their wages to minimum wage happily to help a new young filmmaker. You can also make a movie with a skeleton crew with the right script.
It’s always good to watch out for people, but you’re also promoting a type of gatekeeping by discouraging people from making movies until they can pay professionals a “living wage.” I hear you, I agree with you that it should be the norm... but guys like Adam Wingard went out there with friends and a handful of actors they knew and made feature movies for less than $20k to get their start. Now they’re in positions on giant studio features where they can hire people at full rate.
I’m talking about getting out there with friends and shooting a no-budget feature as amateurs for practice and if things go magically maybe you get noticed and get a small release and some money for your efforts.
I volunteer happily for no or little pay on passion projects all the time as long as that person is willing to do the same for me some day. It’s called community. You’re conflating greedy indie producers with struggling artists and that’s wrong headed.
No one can force someone to work on a movie. If someone agrees to work voluntarily or under scale then that’s their choice. Even the unions have low budget agreements where people can even work for free. It’s not entitlement to get out there and bust your ass to make something happen. Thankfully there are artists out there willing to help others and not gatekeep people from entering the cinema arts.
Pay when you can, yes. Ask for help when you can’t, but go and do it. It is possible and there are people happy to help if you’re upfront and honest with them.
The ones who want to make films have been making them since they were kids without people telling them to "just go out and make movies." From my experience, most people in film school were either rich kids who didn't know what they wanted to do, or people who thought that going to film school is a free ride to becoming a director or major producer.
Here’s the thing, a lot of film students don’t realize truly the work you have to put in as a filmmaker. They all want to be directors and to do none of the work that comes with climbing up to that step. And with film school, EVERYONE writes and directs. So what happens when these students go out into the real world and realize they can’t just become a director overnight or write a film and sell it for millions? They leave to do other things.
“I didn’t go to film school, I went to films.” - Quentin Tarantino
I dropped out of FS after I realized that it does absolutely nothing for you in the real world. Nobody on a film set is checking your resume or cares about your emphasis. If you're truly dedicated in the field, you've already taught yourself the basics you learn in film school through genuine interest and research, and what you don't know, you'll teach yourself on your own. In the end, the people who aren't passionate will weed themselves out.
Film school teaches you the basics like lighting, editing, etc. It doesn't teach you how to be creative, and it doesn't teach you passion for filmmaking. If you have passion and creativity, it has already pushed you to understand most of those things on your own and what you don't know, you will learn quickly on set. Unless you don't already know those things, then film school will be useful but if it's something you're genuinely interested in and you don't know the basics of lighting and editing, what have you been doing the whole time?
What I'm saying is you get all of that same experience on set for free and there is no reason to pay for it. You're not going to be looked over for a job because you don't have a degree from a film school - you're more likely to miss out on a job because you don't have experience. A natural interest will drive you to look at your work and compare it to the films you admire, to see how you can get yours to the same level whether it's lighting, sound, composition, storytelling, etc. Film school is good practice for that stuff, but it is not a requirement and that's all I'm saying. I left film school my second year in, finished at a state university for my BA, got a job as a PA on set and worked up from there. I promise you, nobody has EVER asked about my degree qualifications regarding a film/TV job. Not once.
I’d trade one amazing story for all the money in the world. Those are the things that are truly hard to come by. So many people try to make movies that are “cool” or “look amazing” but at the end of the day that will ALWAYS fail on a no-budget shoot.
What will succeed is truth, characters dealing with life and emotions (love, sex, fear, poverty, humor). Try to be human not hip. Tell a story that breaks someone’s heart, uplifts them, or makes them feel like they cheated death and got away from the killer. If you can tell that story, you can make it for zero dollars and still move people, then you’re a filmmaker.
Although I don't think this is what most people like to hear, but, as with any creative field (or most fields in general), your ability to NETWORK vastly outweighs your actual skill in the field. It's truly a sad thing, but actual ability doesn't mean much when you are looking for a lucrative job in the Film Making industries.
Think about it this way: say you saw a terrible, terrible movie trailer. It was so bad that you had to open up three other tabs and go on Facebook and Twitter while the audio was playing in the background just because you couldn't stand to actual watch the horrible thing when, all of the sudden, you get a call from a good friend who's opinion you entirely trust.
He told you that this movie is a must see in theaters, and the trailer doesn't represent it at all. He tells you how amazing the movie is and you have to go see it while it's in iMAX. Chances are, you're going to go see the movie in theaters if you really trust his opinion. This is the way the industry works.
Most of my gigs went down through this scenario in the early years it took me to get a lucrative film making career off the ground: I made friends with a guy, let's call him Joe. One day, Joe grabbed lunch with Sarah, who told Joe that her boss, Scott, was looking for someone to film something for him. Joe told Sarah that he knew a person (Me), and gave her my number.
Sarah gave my number to Scott, who, in turn, was actually asking on behalf of his friend Charles who was getting married. Charles calls me up, and I get hired to do his wedding. At his wedding, I meet John, Rick, and Kate. And the cycle begins again, and again until a bunch of people are telling their friends, who trust their opinions, to hire me - which gets me more gigs than any film reel or killer advertising could have ever done for me.
The sad truth of the matter is, if you are not good at making friends and being able to network, you will (most likely) not make it in the industry. Even now, I have friends calling me about opening positions at networks like NBC-Universal, Hallmark, El Rey, etc - and, chances are, if I applied to any of those positions, I could easily get it due to the recommendation of my friend who already works there. It's an unfair advantage that screws people who may have more talent than me out of a well paying position, but talent doesn't pay the bills.
Now, since you are asking "How" to become a Professional film maker - here's a quick little cheat sheet that'll help you start to roll out a network:
But remember, never stop aspiring to chase your real dreams. If you want to make movies, always jump for those gigs, even if they pay less. Nothing is worse than being stuck filming things you absolutely loathe for the rest of your life - at least, in your free time, always try to do what you actually want to do. And remember: at first, any gig is worth taking as long as it pays - but as you become established, you need to take gigs in the industry/path you wish to take. You aren't going to make movie connections filming a wedding video, nor are you going to make music video connections filming a documentary. Plot a course to take you where you need to go.
The list of ways is ever growing because there is no real set 'way in'. Every single person who has gotten into a position like that has done it slightly differently than the person before them.
Lots of people get in on account of money and nepotism, but for those of us who don't have that luxury, we have to rely on things like the internet -- make short films, get them out there. Tons of directors have made their way in starting with a short film that got just the right attention - and the internet has only widened that window.
Other folks have written scripts that turn heads, although this often requires the help of at least an agent or a connection who can get it on the desk of someone who can actually do something with it.
Others have transitioned from smaller careers directing commercials and music videos (although this is no easy feat to enter either)
And still others have entered the business through strokes of luck and coincidence - (James Cameron stepping in to direct Piranha 2 after the original director left).
At the end of the day you have to find your own way and it's going to be uniquely yours. It may be like some others, but it won't be the same. Network, strategize, read, study, but most importantly, make shit. Go film something!
You need to know someone. But it's not that hard to know someone. I got one of my first jobs because I struck up a conversation with a dude at a bar. Boom. But anything higher than a PA on something like Star Wars is unionized and getting into those unions is a whole other conversation/clusterfuck.
And to be in an above-the-line creative position you most certainly need an agent. I don't know specifically Dan's story (and everyone's story is different and there's no one way to break in, mind you) but if I had to guess I'd say he worked his ass off as a crew member on a few shows, put together his short, got it done, it attracted the eye of an agent, who signed him and got him work doing 10 Cloverfield Lane. Yes, it's a lot of luck, but you can create your own luck in this business as well.
If you want to be a director, and it truly seems like you have the skillset of a director - understanding a little bit of everything so that you know your limits, possibilities and the medium you are working on, but understand little enough to let the actual professionals to master the specific areas, according to your wishes, you'll be bouncing back to this insecurity of "what next" constantly. It's the blessing and curse of our profession: you're never satisfied, and you should never be satisfied.
What I suggest you need more than anything is a producer to team up with. Head over to film festivals and meet with producers. Forget everyone else, forget the writers, composers, actors, distributors, even agents and managers, and whoever flock the festivals who have very little to do with your next step, and focus on meeting producers and talking about films with them. Not necessarily your films, but films in general. Find a person with whom you click together. Establish a relationship. More than going to the forest with a mushroom book in your hand, as we say in Finland, see what comes to you - most important is to find the person you feel comfortable with, artistically, financially, sense-of-humour -wise, someone you feel you can trust (you never know, but you have to take a leap of faith during your career a few times).
Then, see what this person has. Maybe he/she is looking for a director for his project he can finance; maybe he/she has a script he'd like to develop with someone. And he/she will for sure turn to you and ask: what do you have in mind. Maybe he/she has a writer you can team up with and develop your stuff.
This doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be a lone battle, team up with someone you can trust and go fight the world together. Even if you get burned, which probably will happen few times before you find the right one, you're on the right track.
Nobody makes films alone.
I think it really comes down to what YOU want.
Do you want to have a family of your own? Kids?
What exactly do you want to do in film? Get into a festival? Make it big and get a million dollar maker? Win an Oscar?
I think you really need to figure out you point A to point B first. The fastest way you get from point A to point B is a straight line. But if we don't figure what exactly what we want our point B to be, than that line will be full of turns and curls before ever reaching to the point or drifting you to a new one that has nothing to do with it.
Once you figure that out, you have to figure if the commitment is worth it because for anything in life there will be scarifices. That's why I ask the family question, this could takes years to get there and hinder relationships for example. Or by trying to get to where you want, you might be sacrificing your livelihood for example, Ang Lee was a poignant filmmaker during his NYU days and getting a lot of recognition. Once he graduated he was stuck with nothing. Married and having a child he didn't earn much if not, nothing at all. Lee spent years just writing scripts before getting his first feature made. But in the process made his family go through a lot.
And ultimately if you decide to not put up with the sacrifices that need to be made then that's fine there's nothing wrong with that. Ultimately we will always have to choose what's best for us in our own interests. And even if you decide film isn't the career path you want to take you can still enjoy it as a hobby certainly. I remember listening to an employee for Fiat saying he had a chance to go pro in soccer but ultimately decided not to. Even though he doesn't play soccer professionally and does a completely different line of work he still plays the sport every other weekend so he's still able to enjoy the sport he loves. He just doesn't get paid to it. If anything film making can still be a hobby you can throuoghly enjoy.
Ultimately I think it really comes down to this. What is your dream? And I don't mean a career. But a dream. I don't mean to sound pretentious but from experience and helping my friends and colleagues' thought process figuring that out first can really help out with any life decision.
I do not know any other way to break in as a content creator without creating your own content and getting an agent to rep you as a director. But I'm sure there are a plethora of other ways to do it as there is never 1 path in this business.
Shorts and web series are basically commercials for yourself and the other creatives involved. If the story is part of something bigger, it could also be a commercial for a feature or tv show idea, but you will likely never profit off of the short itself. Think of it as a tool to get yourself a job or a rep. And making shorts is a hell of a lot harder than it sounds (or it can be anyway.)
I used my position as an AD (also a freelancer, welcome to the fucking suck) working with some tiny companies to rub elbows enough with the producers to get them to hire me to direct a couple shorts. And the shorts were basically commercials for these tiny companies as they build their own networks and body of work to move up to doing bigger and better things. (3 shorts with 2 different companies, almost done with post on all, they vary in quality from "brilliant" to "shit, what was I thinking?")
So if I were you, as you dive into this freelance world, try to build a relationship with the above-the-line folks that's close enough to where they will take you seriously when you say you're a creative. And also definitely try to make your own shit. Find a friend who can write, a friend that can shoot, etc.
Before I could afford rates, I only worked crews for half a day and supplied beer afterwards. (Because of this, the content was obviously short, but some of those dumb short-shorts played a part in the aforementioned tiny companies trusting me with their shit) So I'd say unless you're sitting on a war chest of funds, just do something super simple and clever.
Depending on the length and whatnot it'll either live on the web or do the festival thing, whichever route it takes make sure A) that it's good and B) that you tell every person with a goddamn pulse who might be in a position to hire a director either now or someday about it. (And C) if it's not good, go back to the drawing board and try again.) And then you do something else that's a little bigger, and bigger, and then who knows maybe you're in the running to direct Avengers 9 some day. Or you're sitting next to me under a bridge begging for change. The biz is crazy.
So yeah. There's probably different/better/easier ways to go about this but that's what I'm rocking over here and I haven't starved to death yet so somethings working.
If you're serious about learning acting, there are 3 amazing Masterclasses you should check:
Oscar-winning actor Natalie Portman teaches her process for creating complex characters through psychology, voice, gesture, and movement.
Helen Mirren brings you behind the scenes to show you the secrets of her acting technique.
Come and listen as Sam L. Jackson teaches his first-ever acting class.
Lessons include topics like: creating characters, physical characterization, acting case studies, breaking down a script, character biographies, character voicing, body acting, emotional acting, developing characterization, acting practice, auditioning, acting career, Hollywood tips, the future of acting, theater acting, choosing roles, choosing your characters, hair and makeup, rehearsals and preparation, acting techniques, working with writers and directors, improvisation, green-screen acting, and active empathy.
A few things off the top of my head that you can do towards studying acting/becoming an actor:
You can't learn acting just from reading books! You can supplement to the nth degree and this doesn't mean you shouldn't be reading books, but without any practical experience the books just won't help you. This is because the books will teach you things but until you have felt what they're referring to you won't know how to use the knowledge of the book correctly.
I would recommend reading some actor biographies like Jenna Fisher and Bryan Cranston. These will help you understand a little more concretely what a life as an actor MIGHT be for you.
I also recommend this done by one of the co-founders of the Royal Shakespeare Company, John Barton, including some of the top Shakespearean actors ever, including Ian Mckellen, Judi Dench, Patrick Stewart, and others whose names are not so well known but should be. Even though the focus is for performing Shakespeare, I think this should be required viewing for every actor. It's long and definitely not something to just kick back and watch but it is so worth it.
It's like anything. There's always somebody who is pretty bad. There are people who will naturally be good or bad at the start with no training. We're all different and have different talents, and skills, and experiences.
But none of that fucking matters. If this is what you like to do and what you want to do, then just focus, work hard at it, make sure it's fun, and try to get better.
It's like any sport. Michael Jordan used to suck ass at basketball. He didn't even make varsity. But he was pissed off and determined and he worked at it and he became fucking great.
Now, with that being said, if you see somebody who sucks at basketball but is naturally amazing at football, you might try to point them in that direction. Because there are paths and potential possibilities here. Take this guy who sucks at basketball and if he continues basketball, he might play D3 college and then that's it.
End of the rope. He plays that, graduates, gets a real job, and hoops in his spare time. Whereas if he switches to football, and he's naturally a god at that, and now all of a sudden he's playing D1 ball and goes pro and becomes like a fucking Tom Brady or some shit... you see? It would have been disingenuous to push that guy more towards basketball.
But if that's his choice and what he wants, then hell, support that.
You can only improve if you want to improve. That comes with any skill. Not just acting. Utilize every resource for this skill that you can and stop doubting yourself. Give yourself time and don't have a negative mindset. You will improve greatly if you let yourself. I know that sounds like some blanket statement but if you really want it get it. It's your life to make. There are plenty of resources to look into and try.
It's great that you want to improve, but it's important that you are translating that into actual skills you want to acquire, rather than beat yourself up about it. To grow as an actor is to grow as a person and vice versa. Your emotional and creative life are vital to your acting. Can you be moved by a good poem? Can you breathe in what you're experiencing? Can you observe your own behavior and why you do what you do, and others? You want to have wit, physical flexibility, emotional availability, and a voice that reveals who you and your characters are.
A good place to start is reading some basic acting texts. I think Uta Hagen's are the most beginner friendly, but also a book that is escaping my mind, it has a very simple title, but it's by william h macy and it's about verbs if IRC (embarassing lapse of memory). Meisner/strasberg/michael chekhov would be useful. I think the most helpful books would be freeing the natural voice, and how to study the alexander technique.
Most importantly, stop being so down on yourself. It's hard to be creative while you're telling yourself you aren't. Same thing with good acting. How can you be available to a spontaneous response when you're thinking about how you suck? Learning to listen, inside and out are important. Remembering how to have breathing be a whole self process is important. You should be proud of not wanting to be a bad actor. Most people aren't even aware they are.
Can you teach yourself acting?
As an actor myself I like to ask questions and learn the most I can. One of those questions was, "Do I NEED acting classes?" An actor I met responded with... you don't NEED acting classes. Most of the time, those who cast actors usually cast you for you.
They like your personality and what you bring. He added, it's always good to learn a thing a two, but don't stress acting classes. This was a famous actor who blessed me with his wisdom.
You can. Some people are naturals or they have the self-awareness to micro-correct themselves and teach themselves. But, you won't know if you are a natural or someone who can correctly teach themselves until you get in a class and find out in the heat of it. Learn and study and practice all you can until you can afford classes.
Classes are still good if you are one the these. There is always something you don't know and they build you professionally. They teach you tough skin, taking direction, and basically learning how to deliver in situations that aren't ideal. So, yeah, learn on your own and stay teachable.
You're going to learn bad habits in or out of classes, so don't let that stop you. The more you understand about the philosophy of acting before you get into classes, the better. Just stay plyable and be willing to be wrong as well as being willing to be right.
Last year at 24 I decided to pursue acting. It was something I wanted to do since I was young, but was never fully encouraged to do it (plus my parents would of never of been able to afford drama school). A lot of things stopped me from doing it as I got older, from judgemental peers to family trauma, but then I realised I could use what i went through emotionally and mentally and use it in acting.
Anyway I signed up for an evening creative acting class, for adults for 3 months. That led me to do a method acting class for a year, which I'm on now. Both are just once a week, but I know with the course I'm on now we'll eventually go in a few more times in the week as we do more work.
One thing I suggest is to join some acting groups on Facebook, I'm surprised with the amount of work that's posted! Last year I did a music video, now I'm looking to more voice work as I've got a brace (in all fairness that could help me with teenage roles, ha!).
Honestly doing a short course may just be all you need. Just network, be open to anything. Do stuff for free and be willing to travel. I go to the Birmingham School of Acting and it's amazing! I know it's more tough in the UK but again I think it's better to throw yourself out there. I've also gone into film making myself, so don't be afraid to approach indie film groups too.
I think it was Hitchcock who said most of acting happens in the eyes; it's nonverbal.
Since then I have paid attention to actors I think are skilled, and I gave watched their eyes. He was right. There is a boatload of information communicated by good actors through their eyes. Between one line and the next, sometimes you may see several emotions and thoughts flicker though their eyes. You just can't add that to the dialogue in a script. Sometimes you just have to shake your head in a 'wow' moment, amazed at what complexity an actor can bring to a scene.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there are tons of really good actors out there. They aren't all stars. There are lots of opportunities to see quality acting but often they are in character driven roles.
The eyes reveal the heart of the character.
It's also about whether the actor can actually "act as an character". Worst actors are the ones who are not portraying a character but rather being just themselves. For example: Arnold Schwarzenegger will always be Arnold no matter what movie he plays in. He is not acting as a character, he is just Arnold.
Watch several movies with Nicolas Cage, you will notice he is always Nicolas Cage, looks and behaves just like himself. You can say he acts the same way, but he is just really himself, doesn't act. Good actors don't bring their own personality / style to the role, rather try to be as close as you can get to 100% just being the character / not themselves.
The best actors are these who can play two or even three roles in the same feature unnoticed. For example Chia-Hui Liu and Michael Parks in Kill Bill. They both played double roles. Master acting.
Bad actors play the role, instead of the person. For example, if someone was given the role of police officer, they play a police officer. That is wrong. What you should do, is play a person who just so happens to be a police officer.
If you want to see good examples of bad acting, watch that Marvel S.H.I.E.L.D tv show or DCs The Flash. Basically, do the opposite of what they do and you will be fine.
I think a big problem is that they cast attractive young people who have just come out of acting school, instead of casting people who are actually good at their craft. That's why you get a bunch of young 20 year olds playing parts of head scientists (the flash) who can't act for shit.
I'm in the same exact boat. I love acting. I literally spend my entire day working on characters, finding auditions, reading books, etc. and I never get bored of it. My friends are very supportive. My family is very against it. I understand where they're coming from: they want the best for their children and they see how little money actors make. But what helps keep me from giving up is confirming with myself that I'd rather be broke but pursuing something I love than settle into a 9-5 that I never wanted in the first place because I was too afraid of making my family upset.
It's your life, and at the end of the day the only one who has to live with it is you. I say, go after your dream. One of my favorite Disney quotes (I believe from Fox and the Hound, not sure though) is "sometimes the right path is not the easiest one" and I think that definitely applies here. I feel like I'm speaking to myself right now lol. At the end of the day, you only get one life to live, and I say live it to the fullest and give your dreams a shot. Best of luck!
I’m gonna be the one who will say yes— you can, to a point.
I learn by imitation, so a lot of things I do for my on camera work are basically just mimicking certain traits or tricks of various actors in different roles.
You can never learn the technical parts of on-camera acting from just watching unless you’re on set doing it. I do take in person class as well, which keeps me comfortable in front of an “audience” (which will be the Crew on a film/tv set)
You can’t learn everything from just a watching, but I do believe you can learn quite a bit.
I memorize as much as possible immediately, then when I take a shower I don't let myself leave the shower until I've correctly said each monologue 5 times. Moments where you're totally by yourself (which for me, I find in the bathroom) are great to rehearse and force yourself to think about your lines.
One thing that helps me is to find the inner storyline or structure of the monologue, and break it down into its component sections. The places where the monologue transitions from one idea to another are usually the most troublesome spots; being aware of those transitions helps to prevent me from getting lost.
Beyond that, I use the brute force method: I learn the first line; when I can say that line ten times without a mistake, I add the second line; when I can say those two lines ten times without a mistake, I add the third line, etc. Once I've got the whole thing more or less memorized, I alternate between doing the monologue with nuances and gestures and speeding through it robotically.
Other memorization tips:
I make my lines into a song because for some reason, I remember songs better?
I also play an audio I took on my phone (if you have an iPhone, the "Voice Memo" works fine) over & over & over again. Like... while I'm working out, cooking dinner, cleaning, hell doing homework!
Also, writing out my lines on paper and saying them aloud??? Tedious, but it works for me!!
Finally, I just kind of try to think less about the words in the moment, and focus how my character is feeling. How am I feeling in this situation? The more I "feel" what my character is going through, the easier it is to recall lines associated with those feelings.
How not to sound flat and monotonous?
This is definitely a weakness I need to work on as well.
Here’s some suggestions you could try.
Watch your body posture - have your feet planted in the centre of the stage. Don’t be rigid but not so flimsy either. I was told by my coaches I would move my hands and arms frequently out of nervousness.
Just find a spot where you can stand up straight comfortably, as if your moving around during your performance it affects the tone at which you speak.
Speak from your diaphragm - From my observation most people are not really to conscious of how they speak and do this on autopilot.
In our increasingly technological world we live in, we don’t engage in frequent good quality conversation.
In this case being aware of your breathing and really working your diaphragm rather than speaking from your chest which most of us do, I’m guilty of this.
By working on this, your speech should be more clear and project more. Speaking from your chest causes you to rush and mumble your speech. Be conscious of your breathing.
Side note (breath from your nose, keep your mouth closed, and rest the tongue at the roof of your pallet when resting if you don’t already - this is more for just general posture, but it relates to speech. Search Orthotropics in your own time.
Read aloud - Again going back to the technological world we live in, people are hardly reading physical books anymore. Is it tedious? Does it take us back to school?
Yes, it feels that way but only because we’re on our smartphones so damn much. Before all of this existed, it could be universally agreed that reading books was genuinely a fun thing to do.
Try and train yourself back into those habits, you don’t have a to read a novel but give yourself a goal of a book a week to read and increase it from there.
Read some paragraphs out aloud so you can be conscious of the way you sound when you read the text aloud. Record yourself. If there are some new words that are unfamiliar to you, research them, find out the definition, practice pronouncing them.
I was trying to get my way around pronouncing ‘adieu’ and ‘melancholy’ today.
Look after yourself - Drink enough water. Have a water bottle with you on hand whenever you can and just keep hydrated. Tea with lemon and honey in morning, soften up your vocal chords.
Again, if you want, search into Orthotropics in your own time. It covers being conscious of the way you chew, using as much of your jaw muscles. Have chewing gum on hand.
Get enough rest and...keep a book by your bedside so you can READ when you get up!
It won’t be overnight, but IF you consistently practice and hold yourself accountable to actually working on your weaknesses, you will notice an improvement in these areas.
Have you started reading a book of your choice? (and reading out paragraphs aloud and recording it)
We all start somewhere.
Instead use that as fuel to give yourself a wake up call of, ‘yes I understand that I will be working with actors who are younger than me, and have gained more experience due to an earlier start in their acting career’
‘Now I can look at this as a setback, or as a means to say to myself I need to put in as much effort, if not more effort than my peers in order to match their skill level or even exceed it and be the best possible actor I can be.’
It’s all on you, just push yourself and use the factor of your age as a positive incentive to get the wheels in motion for your acting career.
Better late than never!
Identify them and find a better class ASAP!
I was trying outdifferent acting studios a year ago. There was this one studio that had very cocky and narcissistic teachers. Like there was this one teacher in particular who tells everyone’s work sucks/terrible/“so bad”, then he saves it by saying, “that’s why you’re in class, right? I’ll fix it. This is how you do it.” And some students are so naive, encouraging him to berate their work, so they’d learn better. Wtf.
The funny thing is, this guy ups his own “achievements”. I looked him up, and he literally has ONE short film under his belt on IMDB. I’ve never heard of any of those “teachers’”names.
The studio itself felt very cult-y. I went there for a while, then moved on to a better studio, and I told them about that studio. Apparently no one takes that studio seriously, because they’ve heard those before. Can’t believe I stuck with them that long, it’s wasted time. All I learned there was the technical side. I know how to act, I graduated theatre.
Another thing is, after the very first class, they asked us to review and rate the studio 5 stars on Google. Lol. After one class. We don’t even know if we’ll feel the same way after the second class. So basically, we gotta BS things, saying we “love” it, and we “learned a lot”. Lol. They’d check it as you head out the door. I didn’t rate, nor review, because it’s ingenuine for me to say good things, especially if we’d only been there for 1 hour.
I almost signed up for a class with a guy in Denver and he called me before the class started I guess to get me hyped up for it or whatever but I could tell over the phone that he was a pompous ass.
Drama Centre London hands-down. If you can get accepted and afford it. It's a full-time degree granting program that gives you experience in using what you're taught in full-length plays in-house plus makes an effort to get you and your classmates who were accepted through a highly selective vetting process in the first place seen by the London industry through an apparently well-attended showcase.
This is versus Esper's which is a part-time conservatory that will admit just about anybody with some cash and a pulse and costs just as much as most American collegiate drama programs when you factor in cost of living in New York and lack of financial aid and which offers none of the same kinds of perks nor performance experience as Drama Centre.
I think you have a mistaken notion about the training at Drama Centre as well. It isn't just classical theatre and even if it were, going there wouldn't limit you to only that as evidenced by three of their recent graduates booking series regular roles on American tv pilots just this year. Actually, to even be accredited, UK programs must offer contemporary theatre and on-camera as well as voiceover training as part of the curriculum. In fact, their accreditation standards are partially governed by their professional actors union to offer as best they can the skillsets a professional actor needs in the real world market.
You will also learn a variety of acting techniques from which you can pick and choose in forming your own process at Drama Centre while Esper only teaches Meisner technique which is by no means right for everyone. Meisner was actually an important part of my own drama school training, but I'm certainly glad it wasn't the only thing I was taught ...
I would also suggest that you apply to more UK schools if you can because as I understand it, the acceptance rates are in the low single digits and people often try for years to gain a place without much success, so it's best to widen your net. Also, if you think finances will be a concern, maybe look into some UK drama schools outside of London like RCS and RWCMD where they don't share London's crazy cost of living although they still conduct well-attended industry showcases in London at the end of the training.
Here's a compilation of things I've gathered over the years. Use what you will. I have this all typed neatly in a word document which I have printed out and always in my briefcase.
I. Play Analysis
II. Scene Analysis
A. Given Circumstances: (Whom What, Where, When)- A clear description of what has happened to the character you are playing in the scene just before your scene begins. This description should include emotional-mental state =, and the physical description of the character just before the scene begins. Evidence from the script should be offered where support is needed.
B. Intention or Objective: A description of the character’s overall motivation, what he/she wants throughout the scene- the characters Super-Objective in the scene.
C. Obstacle: A clear description of what is bloking the character from achieving his objective.
D. The Score: Mark your script indicating beats, objectives, tactics, and obstacles.
E. Result: A brief statement of the outcome or resolution of the scene
III. Character Analysis
A. Physical Description: A full description of the character, justifying the characteristics where necessary with textual references. This information includes information on the character’s age, what he/she looks like, what he/she must wear in the scenes. It also includes more active dimensions such as how thee character walks, moves, sits, gestures, talks, etc.
B. Emotional Profile: A full emotional profile of the character including habitual disposition and specific moods in the scene
C. Relationships: What is his/her relationship to the other character’s in the scene and to the central conflict in the scene.
D. Back Story: Create a statement of the most important and influential details about the character’s past history based on the given circumstances but enhanced by your own imagination.
E. Secret: Unshared- Shared-
GOTE: Basic information about the character Name Sex Age Marital status and history: Educational level: Economic/Social status: Goal: What do I really want? When do I wantit? Other: From whom (in the play) do I want it?Who in the play can help me? Who in the playcan hurt me? Who is an obstacle? Why? Whatare my deepest fears? Tactics: How can I get it? How (and whom)can I threaten? How (and whom) can I induce? Expectations: Why do I expect to get it? Whydoes it excite me? What will I do when I get it? Briefly describe the setting for your scene.
This job does require an ongoing investment, so you need to address your financial situation. This might not be the best sub for specific advice on that point, and in some ways what's done is done--$600/month in student loans for a degree that isn't earning you an income is a tough position to be in, but there isn't too much you can do about it now.
If you can sell your car, pay off the loan, and buy a cheap beater, that's one way to quickly save some money. $125/month for insurance is also incredibly high, unless you have a really bad driving record (not asking you to share that detail here, but you should be able to find much better if you shop around a bit and get the minimum required coverage).
In the end, though, you need a job that makes you more money and keeps you flexible, or you need to start living in your car (I have two actor friends doing this right now--one actually has a super small RV, the other a van, and both claim to be content). It's a problem every actor has to solve, and there are solutions. You might need to get more creative than looking at who's hiring in your area.
Guess what happened when I had to go back to a 9-5 bc my bank account was tanking? A few months in, I booked my first recurring on show you'd definitely know the name of. 7 episodes. I think it was because I was calm and part of me had been like, "If acting happens, it happens.
Right now I gotta eat and pay rent." It's almost like how when you stop looking for a boyfriend you get one. So many actors have to do what we're doing in NYC. We have to act, so act and say you have a doctor's appointment, pet emergencies work well, friends in town from Singapore for the day, food poisoning is great, and of course use your PTOs. I used my PTO to shoot our days on set.
Also write your own stuff (I wrote my own play that won a few awards and made it into a film which is getting me noticed at different festivals.) Oddly enough, you might find yourself hustling more with a 9-5. Creatives need a schedule. It helps. During downtime at work ideas will come to you. The only bummer is plays and I've booked some but that's daytime rehearsal so I can't do them. If they are adjustable that's dope. Break a leg!
Since I work professionally now, have a steady paycheck, and am somewhat established in my career (done with college and grad school, have professional work experience), it is easier for me to pursue other avenues like acting.
It also makes it easier that I'm in the Atlanta-area with a lot of creatives and film people attracted by Georgia's film industry. Thus, it is a bit easier to collaborate and work with people.
However, I must confess that I'm nowhere at the level I need to be at. I have way more learning and growing to do before I really feel that I'm as successful of an actor as what I do professionally.
If you're serious about developing your creativity, give David Lynch's Masterclass a try:
David Lynch is a revolutionary director best known for movies like Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, and Mulholland Drive. He also created the famous Twin Peaks tv show. He is widely regarded as one of the most creative and visionary director in modern cinema.
Lessons include topics like: pursuit of creativity, catching ideas, the writing process, educating yourself, working with people, buliding worlds, breaking the rules, sticking to your ideas, and the future of creativity.
What works for me is to focus on one medium for a bit and express everything that I can through it. Usually I'm increasing my knowledge and skills related to that medium at the same time, which allows the ideas to flow because the rest of my mind is occupied with improving the means of expression and is therefore kind of out of the way.
Once I've communicated all I can through that particular 'language' - music, writing, painting, videography, animation, ceramics or whatever - I'll find myself naturally transitioning into the next. My cycles only last around two years so I've learnt to work pretty intensely once I'm in the zone since I never know where I'll end up next!
Don't be too hard on yourself.
For example, music creation is supposed to be an enjoyable process, not something to get stressed over. Of course, that is how I see it only because I'm not a professional musician and I don't use music to pay my bills. But still, creativity, being such an internal process, is not something you can rely on being 100% satisfactory all of the time. And that is why we all just have to keep playing, being mindful of what we do when we play (by not getting into useless habits) but at the same time saving the criticism (not judgement) for whenever there is something concrete to improve on.
Having said all that. Different things tend to work for different people. If you're more of an analytical person, getting into music theory and leveraging it to transcribe, understand and improvise over your favorite songs may be a good activity. You may be surprised when you find yourself playing those improvised bits in completely different contexts.
If you're really interested in the topics, you should give these six books a try:
|The Creative Habit: Learn It and Use It for Life||516 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: The Definitive, 4th Edition||1,141 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The War of Art||4,892 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Artist's Way: 25th Anniversary Edition||1,681 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Steal Like an Artist: 10 Things Nobody Told You About Being Creative||3,249 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Art of Creative Thinking: 89 Ways to See Things Differently||38 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Is it a skill or a talent? Can it be taught?
Start simple. Simply start. Every oak grows from an acorn.
You kind of have two choices: rely on innate ability (talent) or building music foundations through training and practice, typically over a period of years. I went the latter route: guitar lessons, piano lessons, vocal coaching, college level music composition classes, and years of continuing practice. It kind of comes dow to you and what it means to you.
Creativity is, like a lot of basic skills, innate to a degree, however without a working knowledge of theory your progress will be unfocused.
Theory is a structure that informs you of what notes are available and serves as a template. Without theory knowledge it's not impossible but your creativity is going to be blindly noodling around on a keyboard or piano roll versus deciding a key, a progression and working from there around a structure that's used by the majority of western musicians.
As for the motivation to prevent stalling that's on you - you either have the determination to persist in spite of the challenge, or maybe you need a structured course & tutor to make progress if you can't find sufficient resolve to continue otherwise.
Convince yourself that theory will free your creativity and trust that it will - it's a lot easier to move a piece forward when you've the full range of options afforded by theory over not knowing how to get by 8-bar loops played by ear with no sense of why it works.
Creativity is not pure talent or a "lucky day". You can learn tecniques on songwriting and production that will help a lot. Sure, sometimes it just strikes you and you are starting to whistle a fantastic melody that just popped up in your head. Also it is probably easier to write a super happy song when you are not having a horrible day. However, you can also learn what it takes to make a melody sound happy - or sad. And also more general stuff like what makes a good melody in the first place.
Melody is just an example. Since people have been making music for ages there are theories and books on just about everything.
So yes, the more you practice and learn the more "creative" you will get!
I’d say problem solving skills are the most important, and creativity can really help in that you will approach solving certain problems from multiple angles that people who lack creative thinking may not have thought of (outside the box approach basically).
Remember that, in general, succeeding is 90% about the execution and 10% about the idea.
Pick one of the many things you're interested in and actually stick with practicing one of it.
Literally not a single person in the world can just sit down and hammer out an award winning short story on their first try.
Spending the minimal amount of time on tons of different hobbies is probably the fastest way to get discouraged.
Also worth noting you're probably greatly overestimating the quality of the stories and stand up bits you did when you were way younger. Not trying to be a dick, but it'll be easier to stay on track of you stop comparing yourself to "back then" with your rose colored glasses on.
"I have to go look stuff up on google to get ideas for how to make simple things look better but then it's not even my idea."
Actually, that is a large part of how learning to be creative works. The other one is experimenting. You can't create something out of nothing, you need a source, an idea. Your mind can't create an idea out of nothing, you need inspiration. Just keep looking for good stuff, copy them, modify to your likings until you get your own, perfect creation.
If you have problems with creating, try to do it in small steps. There are many ways. For example, playing guitar does not just make you creative by itself. At first, it requires creativity, it drains it from you, then leaves you with a miserable song which you then need to expand using all your ideas and inspiration.
How to get out of a rut when it comes to creative endeavours?
It seems like a lot of people need to work on confidence and overall mental health. I get it.
Playing in bands stressed me out for a long time. So, I finally quit and while I still get occasionally guilty feelings or nostalgia. Overall, my life has gotten so much better leaving that part behind. At least for now.
I focus on recording and mixing for other people now. I think one thing that stresses people out is the pressure from having to to everything. Writing, recording, mixing, mastering etc. not even taking into consideration the promotion and release on various formats. I’ve done all that too and it’s stressful as hell. It might cost more but there is some real freedom that comes with just showing up to track and being “done” with it.
I think sometimes people get this idea that greatness comes from dark times. To me, it doesn’t. It might happen in spite of dark times. But mostly dark times just take from people, it doesn’t give. So it is important to work on our perceptions and mental health just in life in general.
It’s alright to just sit on the porch and plunk around on an acoustic. Just chillin and enjoying music without having to stress about it it’s something “good”. You don’t even need any ideas, just play around. It’s all good to relax, something good might come of it. Or take time to refocus.
One last thing. It’s ok to want to make music that just “sounds good” to you and is fun. It doesn’t have to be super deep or have a story to tell or anything else. I think that’s one reason people feel trapped and stuck. Well, fuck it. When I’m jamming with my buddies that’s the story... we are having fun being creative. It’s ok to just enjoy creating things. Then keep moving forward.
I do feel that more reps makes you better at any thing you are gonna want to do, so yea, “fucking around” is making you a better player. Sitting down paralyzed because “nothing I write is good enough” isn’t. Like I told my band mates; “I’m serious about having fun and if it’s not fun I’m not doing it”. It wasn’t fun for a long time before I stopped. I’m still creative, just doing it in other ways now that suit my pace and mental health.
In the US compared to other countries we do not do a good job. The first two years of college are spent relearning everything you were supposed to have learnt in high school.
You need a foundation, but creativity can be taught. The foundation doesn't invalidate the creativity of the individual.
Our schools do a poor job at even building the fundamentals, let alone creativity.
There are things that should be abandon in high school, things that have little practical application in life. Things like advanced mathematics, it's necessary to have a foundation in mathematics, but what I've seen is math being used as a tool in high school to separate the wheat from the chaff. Math is not open to interpretation or bias, so it makes math the easiest way to determine rankings.
A student that would otherwise excel in another area is being tortured by learning something that has no practical application unless they go into a STEM field, even then, they are most likely not doing advanced mathematics on a daily basis.
Of course programming is creative. Ask any programmer about elegant code. The root word is create. Are we not creating something?
I always thought programming as a creative outlet because you're able to make something out of it. Most softwares/apps we use starts from someone's idea. Programming is just a tool like a paint and brush is to a painter.
Being a graphic designer also does not mean you can go all out and disregard rules. I'm not a graphic designer or anything so don't take my words for it but I think the one that allows you to be really liberal is fine arts. Graphic design is applied arts.
I'm a programmer and a musician. I apply the same creative process in music and in computer science.
Another part of the creative process is acquiring new tools.
There's a saying "inspiration is for amateurs" - meaning that creativity can come in flashes of sub-conscious brilliance - but those people who do it for a job consider it a skill.
They wrap themselves in a process which can be summarised as understand, explore, ideate, iterate (or more / less steps).
In short if you want to do creative work;
These are some of the ways the professionals drive their creative work.
I disagree strongly with those saying that creativity can’t be learned. Creativity is about practicing new ways of thinking to look for novel solutions to problems. Like everything some people may be more predisposed to it, but it’s a learned skill like all things. Look into design thinking or try something like improv, creating art, etc.
Some resources are the Stanford d.school crash course, Creative Confidence TED talk and book.
Weed makes me procrastinate too much personally. I also can't think as quickly. Doing any upper level math or science stoned just didn't work well.
So I stayed using it as a reward system. I'd only smoke once a week at night after I finished my assignments. But over the years, I realized that smoking really messes with my REM sleep. The quality of my sleep is so bad, it doesn't matter how many hours of sleep I actually get. I am just fatigued and hazey the whole next day.
I know this is anecdotal, but I think there's something to it. I've often heard from people who smoke every day don't feel like they dream much. I hope this will be researched in the future.
I'm a math guy. Maths is my first passion and will always be.
All people are different and learn at different pace. Some people can make shortcuts here and there because they are naturally good at this or their upbringing set them up for that, whatever. Some don't and have to work their way up.
Lower the level you are trying to learn. That's a great advice for learning anything. Practice the fundamentals.
Now, how do you beat the fact that you are not really creative enough? Read a lot of code. Like really. Tons of it. Rewrite it, change it up.
Always expose yourself to different concepts and approaches.
Backend guy? Read design book.
Constantly challenge your mind.
The thing is when you approach a certain problem, firstly your mind tries to apply knowledge and solutions it already has/used in the past.
By consistent acquiring of new knowledge you set
up your mind for the future.
But don't forget to relax and have a rest, that's the most important thing in learning/practicing anything really.
Gamedev taught me that I know very little about gamedev. For real.
I thought that knowing programming and design would be enough. It's not. I feel like a babe in the woods when I start working on a game. Even though I published 4-5 (small-ish)games and worked on 4-5 other and abandoned countless prototypes.
The more gamedev I do the more I realize I know so little about the RULES of making a good game.
Well, that's something that's about to change cause I'm reading through "Game Design Workshop" and it's an eye opener. It's the theory and rules that are very welcome to my brain's eternal question: "How the fuck do I make this game good?". There's no definitive answer but that book has started to shed some light.
Do you feel you're losing your creativity?
Or perhaps through this feeling, you're on the way to finding your creativity for the first time.
The trick is not to fight it, or consider it an obstacle to struggle against - but to realize these moments of total despair and helplessness as part of the process underlying the equally inexplicable moments when everything is working and effortlessly aligned. (and these moments will come again, if you simply trust the process..)
You can’t lose your creativity. We use creative solutions all day in small ways. It’s a matter of focusing your creativity towards art. It might be good to spend some time in reflection learning more about yourself and what gets you into the zone.
There are some things that you can do to your workspace to facilitate creativity. Even making the lighting warmer has put me into the zone, or artwork on the walls that I like. Even having a movie on mute in the background for some stimulation.
You can be creative with any gear, but it’s also good to know what gear makes you less creative. For example, I like to play the piano so gear that has full size keys is going to get me into the zone faster, etc. Hope you get out of the slump, and you will!
Pro tip: Don't pay attention to Youtubers at all, and don't take any 'advice' you read on forums seriously unless it pertains directly to a question or problem you've been having. The internet and especially Reddit is for know-nothing know-it-alls trying to act smart for an audience. Listen to your feelings when thinking about what you're creating.
Disavow yourself of the notion the design is solely or even primarily about aesthetics. Design is fundamentally about problem solving. While aesthetics can play a role in design, it is often much less important than most web designers and/or clients think.
Next, recognize that web design is much more complex than mere visual and/or graphic design. We have to deal with interaction design, interface design, visual communication design, user experience design, navigation design, information architecture, and so on.
Finally, recognize, as others have noted, that the design process tends to be very iterative in nature.
This is demonstrated in several ways.
Play close attention to the iterative process. They try several different things and choose the one which seems to best solve the problem (e.g., communicate a specific sentiment).
In this talk, Bierut talks about how the many iterations his firm went through in designing a logo for the MIT Media Lab.
Alternatively, look into art history. Particularly look at the studies performed by the great artists before they actually undertook large works. They'll sometimes draw scenes or parts of scenes tens if not hundreds of times before they put it on the canvas.
We have this misconception that design is natural, and people simply bang out good design with easy. That's not true. Some people might be able to produce good looking work, but if it hasn't been vetted, studied, and compared with other possible solutions then you should seriously question if its good design.
Templates are generic. They rarely solve the visual communication problem well. That's because they start with visual and graphic design and are unaware of the content which will be placed into them. If you start with content and have content and visual/graphic design work with it, you will create a much more cohesive and effective message. Few web designers do this well.
Copy. Copy until you understand the process. Then abstract the process and apply it in different contexts. Seriously, go watch tutorials on YouTube for Photoshop. Practice what you see. You'll eventually start to abstract the integrated techniques and start using them in unique ways on your own work. Do the same with interaction design, visual design on the web, etc.
No skill is only for the "naturals." In fact, research on expertise shows that through deliberate practice, anyone can essentially erase the advantage naturals have over others at a skill.
Check out the The Futur on YouTube. They have an excellent channel covered many aspects of design.
Check out Jesse James Garrett's book on the Elements of User Experience.
Learn the basics of graphic design. You can find numerous websites on it. You can also take a few courses on Coursera. I recommend the ones by the CalArts guys.
Also, there is a course on drawing nature on edX. Anyone can learn to draw. I highly recommend that course for getting your started.
Anyway, that's just some quick thoughts off the top of my head. There is hope. There is hope if you're willing to put in the effort and time.
I've had discussions around this with colleagues before. Our consensus ended up around:
I have spent 14 years trying to self teach guitar, bass, and to a lesser extent drums.I played in crappy punk bands, I took guitar classes in high school taught by teachers who literally didn’t play the instrument(choir teachers) I took a mediocre community college class in guitar, a slightly better one in piano, and I was in choir for two years as a kid. I was never what I’d consider “good” at any of it. In the past year, after not even picking up any of my instruments in a few years, I started jamming with a friend and we got kind of serious.
Then I started seeing his vocal coach, and on a whim bought a piano and signed up for lessons with a retired college professor who taught jazz composition. In less than a year I’ve gotten way better at piano and vocals than I ever have been at any other instrument. The vocal coach probably taught me more in a month than 2 years of choir practices (i guess my choir directors must’ve sucked) and learning piano and theory and practicing it constantly has gotten me to a point where not only am I starting to feel kinda decent at piano but I’m getting better at guitar and bass as well just from knowing my theory better.
My teacher put a lot of emphasis on breaking the rules, writing my own stuff, and improvisation.
I know part of it has to be that I’m just different now, more focused at this age. But seriously having formal instruction, preferably by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about, and preferably private instruction over trying to pace a class of 30-40, is soooo much better and faster than trying to go it alone. It’s not that it’s impossible to learn alone but my instructors know what order to teach things in so they make sense instead of just randomly trying to learn whatever I think I might need to know next and being super confused by it. Now I’m more confident and creative than I’ve ever been before.
Practical application is everything. Learning the basics only serves to make all other things easier.
Let's say I'm writing a book.
I take a work-ethic oriented approach. Today I came up with 100 character ideas. Just a big list of one liners that briefly describe a possible character. Most of it is going to absolute garbage, but you can usually find something interesting in this exercise. It's the same approach that freewriting takes.
A lot of them are just really plain, boring, cliche stuff like:
Others are just bad:
A woman with enormous breasts, like james and the giant peach enormous
It's important to write these horrible ones down anyway, because you'll find some that wouldn't work if you took them straight:
That would be a terrible thriller, but I could see a comedy there. Finally some I think might have potential:
This one got me thinking something like, if Audrey Hepburn were still alive and incredibly desperate, there are probably fans that would want to sleep with her no matter how old she was, so what would that fall look like? Someone who used to be an icon of glamour and sophistication forced into such a debasing situation? That's an interesting character. Maybe a bit dark for the kind of writing I'm looking for, but interesting.
This brings up so many questions. How is he still alive if he was deposed? Why are the people taking care of him? How has he handled his fall from grace? Is he bitter and spiteful, or has he changed, reborn from his once subject's graciousness?
Neither of these will necessarily end up as good characters once fleshed out, but they're interesting enough to me to see where they lead.
I take this approach with pretty much everything. Don't like a sentence? Five variations of the same sentence.
You just dig up everything, exhaustively, until you find a turd worth polishing.
If you're serious about learning to develop a business strategy, give Bob Iger's Masterclass a try:
From managing risk to leading with courage and optimism, Disney CEO Bob Iger teaches you the strategies behind his success.
Lessons include topics like: using your time effectively, strategy and priorities, business acquisition, the art of negotiation, creating brand value, expanding your brand, anticipating consumers needs, risk-taking, industry disruption, rules for success, and the future of business strategy.
The only business plan you should have is "make money fast" or "fail fast". Don't take years just scraping by with your business. Time is money.
Find out what you can sell, how and to whom, fast. I used to work for a company that was very successful and our company president got us managers together to instruct us - these were his first words. I followed this religiously when I started my own business and it paid off very well.
"Perfect' is the enemy of "Good".
Develop a business plan. You need a business plan that will get you started, so you can get to work, learn and come back to it. It's a living document.
Keep it simple.Read this one book.
|The One Page Business Plan for the Creative Entrepreneur||80 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Google some detailed templates. I have a business degree and wrote some plans in school. I dug those out of the archives for my plan and just rewrote it all.
Think of who the audience is for your plan. Is this for a bank loan? Investors? To keep yourself organized and on track? Tailor the plan for that.
My first plan was pretty detailed because of the audience(applying for a loan). You'll need estimated financial statements and a lot of detail on how the business will operate. At the end of the day though the banks are incentivized to give this loan out so work with the bank as well if you plan on going that route, ask what they want to see.
Don't bullshit. If you don't know, say you don't know. These thinks are meant to be early stage. Its more important that you are passionate rater than an expert.
Remember you don't have years to put everything together, so go to the core of the problem. Even if you think the business could be broader, its better to really narrow for now.
Most people confuse investors because they present a huge issue and assume the investors are technical experts and know what they are talking about. In 90% of the cases they don't and it's you who need to make sure everyone will understand your business plan. Write so that a 12-year old will understand what you're talking about.
With regards to whether you should go ahead and do the Masters, I can't make that decision for you! For me, I have no regrets about doing it, however there is one caveat I'll touch upon in a second.
It has taught me a lot about business, particularly the theory behind it. It wasn't particularly applied, although they did their best to make it that way.
More importantly, though, exposed me to all sorts of awesome topics and subjects. We did modules in Industrial Economics, Management Accounting, Globalisation and Business, and numerous other things.
However it also taught me that business was not what I wanted to do with my life. It just seemed too fuzzy, and to be quite honest, I felt far more challenged and interested in the non-business modules.
It's lead me to a Big 3 company in SF for a training contract now... so take from that what you will!
I'd think carefully about what type of business you want to do before you settle on a specific course
However, a more general business course will set you up with a stronger all-round business acumen, and understanding of marketing as a more of a philosophy, as opposed to a practice, which is something awesome to get to grips with. It'll also give you more diverse exit opportunities, and set you up for a later career in something broader.
However, if you do want to do that - I'd recommend going for something which'll give you maximum exposure to lots of types of business types, or even marketing. That way, you'll both learn about them so can go into them, but also you'll learn what you enjoy, and what you're good at. Pays not to pigeonhole yourself early in your career, in my opinion.
No, unless you're applying for a loan or talking with investors, you don't have to do it. Most business plans aren't grounded in reality anyway and are an excuse for inaction. However, several years later, I am now working on one. I know what kind of business I'm building, what the needs of the market are, how my numbers need to add up, etc. I have years of real, historical data to base projections on.
If I had started a business with a well-defined business model and large capital requirements (resturant, auto repair shop, etc), a business plan would have made a lot more sense in the beginning.
In general, learning programming, data science, and automation were the things that helped me the most with my career.
Been doing this type of work in a business intel/data analytics type of role. Picking up data science techniques (already know Python, always learning though) has helped me identify, for example, certain insights within our customer base that would make our digital marketing initiatives more efficient. This reduced our CAC by like 30%. Also able to increase conversion.
Outside of marketing, its similar to market research to see what opportunities are out there that could make us money and what markets to penetrate. Been very interesting so far.
You also do some vendor management on the operations side. Helps with financial planning and analysis somewhat too.
There are a few different ways to exit. Regardless of that, everybody will exit at some point.
Either you sell it, you close it, you pass on to a younger family member, OR you simply won't be there anymore (as in walking away feet first). As an entrepreneur, one way or another, someday in the future you ARE going to exit. The big question is: How.
Having an exit plan well designed doesn't mean there's no commitment. In fact I see a good exit plan as a goal and a motivator to get committed and build that business strong. You need to:
If you don't do this, you'll exit anyway, but your exit might be a sad one.
Oh - and figure out in advance whether you need to exit asap next, as in market shifted and your business might not be there soon. Happens.
If you ever go on one, or even do the online self-taught ones, you will soon see why.
You get what you pay for.
And they don't care about everyone learning their language to do SAS projects in their spare time in the dorm room, they care about getting as many corporates and government agencies on the books as possible.
Check their Youtube channel. They got a lot of awesome free content:
Ifyou're serious about improving your leadership skills, give Howard Schultz's Masterclass a go:
Howard Schultz is an American billlionaire. He was the CEO of Starbucks who lead the company to its glory.
Lessons include topics like: values and profits, self-doubt, curiosity, how to disrupt the market, finding the right investors, work/life balance, value-based teams, how to lead, staying ahead of the competition, how to handle crises, and the future of business leadership.
Can I convince you to read six books?
|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us||1,929 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful Groups||914 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Loonshots: How to Nurture the Crazy Ideas That Win Wars, Cure Diseases, and Transform Industries||339 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't||2,455 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World||1,138 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy||67 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Treat people like human beings and not numbers.
Be genuine with them and do not hesitate to either stand up for them when they need help, or correct/guide them out of trouble if necessary.
Treat the entry-level worker and the top manager the exact same way.
There's two ways to lead - by politics or by example. Whichever way you got to your position, keep doing it. Don't suddenly go from leading by example to dictating what people have to do or else, for example. If you're suddenly too busy to effectively lead by example and you think ordering people around is an effective shortcut, you need to reach up to whoever promoted you and explain the situation. Hopefully you can delegate better in the future before it gets to that point. It's possible they gave you the promotion more to get you to work harder than to actually learn to lead better, tho. if so, that's on them and you'll need your friends even more to help you get through it without burning out. You won't know for sure until the shit hits the fan.
Being alpha doesn't make you a leader. A true leader doesn't need to always be in the spotlight. A true leader doesn't need to have a hierarchal position to be a leader. A true leader is someone who keeps a straight head, can make good decisions in tough times, keep in mind his friends/co-workers/significant other and make decisions that benefit and protect them (not just himself), and whose ego does not get in his or her way. A true leader isn't worried about being popular, or fitting in with the majority or popular opinion. A true leader has his or her beliefs firmly fixed, and stands by them.
Your personality type has little to nothing to do with being a good leader. Stay focused on your goals and on understanding and improving yourself. Know your strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats. Find a mentor. Listen to people and treat them with kindness and respect. If you have a spouse or close friend, their feedback can be tremendously valuable over time. There are many different effective leadership styles, it's not necessarily about "being assertive and powerful over people."
It's not something you learn explicitly as much as it is something you live: have hobbies you do just for the enjoyment of it, be a decent person, and know how to read a room. Basically, do things together with other people. If you're in school, for example, join organizations that do things you like, whether that be building robots, playing sports, or whatever.
These things take time. Building soft skills especially.
You can't make a leader. You either are one, or you aren't. The time you will spend "learning" leadership is really time spent discovering if there's a leader inside of you. You need to be predesposed to do this thing well.
That's one of the biggest problems I encounter in the work-a-day world. Too many incompetent people promoted simply because they've put in the time. Not because they have demonstrated real competence and/or leadership.
Being a "leader" is a lot easier than becoming an job expert. The people that figured this out are at the top, and have reinforced a system that doesn't reward task proficiency or competence.
First off "leadership" depends on perspective and goal. There's no generic answer.
Once you've figured out what you may want find out who does that thing best and go with them.
It's also important to note that the concept of leadership and corporations has changed and giant monolithic entities are falling out of favor.
It’s never to late to learn! It’s not about being late, it’s about whether you tried or not.
These skills are very useful and I’d recommend you learn them because they improve you life in ways you may not consider.
I will say for some it’s going to take more work to become a good leader than others. But what’s important is not who the best leader is, but who makes the effort to be one. Do your best! And learn some awesome things!
There are millions of great books and articles out there. One that stands out that I liked was Good to Great, summarizing how successful business leaders made it to their positions. Basically, the most successful people in business were humble, unassuming and were good at picking great teams (subordinates).
I think it actually gets easier as you get older. When you're young, you care so much about what others think of you, but as you grow older you stop caring. Letting go of that fear of judgement is what I think is key.
A teacher leader or leader in general, is someone who leads with others in mind. A successful leader leads by serving the needs of the stakeholders involved through building relationships and trust.
Good listener, empathetic, persuasive, trusting, mentally and emotionally strong, good relationship builder
Factors that can inhibit school/teacher leader are a lack of mission or vision. Someone that is not goal oriented. An overbearing central district office. A toxic school culture, lack of community, relationships or trust among staff and peers.
The army doesn't teach you how to be a leader at all. In fact, unless you're doing it for free education later, or some other welfare scheme, I would strongly advise against joining the army. And I'm not talking about moral reasons. It's just a waste of time for mostpeople, and a big risk for your mental well-being.
Leadership skills come with time and experience. Army methods are authoritarian and regressive.
The army teaches you how to manage people, not lead them. This will work on a battlefield, but will not work at a startup in California, where your workers don't have to be where they are.
I'm quiet and shy, but I know what needs to get done and I convey it to my subordinates.
I also impart my knowledge on them when they have a legit question.
I still hide in the back because the only people I should be comfortable around is my section and my shop.
I have ADHD-Combined, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. I also suspect that I have a sensory disorder but I'm not diagnosed and it doesn't really matter at this point lol. I am medicated and have regular therapy, and have had everything from behavioral therapy to ADHD coaching to alternative schooling throughout my life.
Sometimes I feel like I'm kind of cheating in life because I landed in my dream job. I wake up every day excited to go to work and I enjoy most of the time I spend there. I didn't always want this career, but since I fell into it, I've really blossomed there and love it.
I am a manager of an office that supports individuals with a wide range of disabilities in their quests for higher education (which happens to be a love of mine as well!) So I think the career/industry that you're in has a HUGE part of whether or not you may be successful.
I find that having specific goals is more of a motivator than in a position where I am just, say, hanging up shirts for a retail shift and then going home. Having goals means I can break those goals down and then have stepping stones to get to the end of the path and I, personally, am highly motivated to complete tasks. (Whether or not those tasks truly get completed depend on many other factors of course!)
When I first started working in this industry, my boss also had ADHD. She suffered from a lot of executive functioning issues and I was able to use my coping strategies to help her (and all of us) function better. That expeirence has lead me to a lot of processes that make it easier for me as a manager although I know a lot of my employees sometimes don't like it.
For example: Working Memory. We work in a very busy office, and are interrupted all the time. Many of the processes we do have an insane number of steps like creating client or student folders. The process I've implemented is that there is a cover sheet with a list of all the steps and when each step is completed, it gets checked off. That way when I (or whoever) is interrupted, it is easy to resume the previous task without having to remember which steps have been completed.
Maybe specifically in my industry because I do work with a lot of individuals that have issues with executive function I can use my experience to truly be empathetic and non-judgmental to both client/students and my employees.
I hate the phrase "overcoming" and perhaps "making peace" is a better term. Someone who is short and can't reach the top shelf in the kitchen never "overcomes" their "weakness". They can either find a step stool or they cry about how disadvantaged they are compared to tall people. Now, I'm not trying to say it doesn't suck to have weaknesses where others have strength, but everyone has their own burden and ADHD is one of ours. And where others see our disorganization or our "laziness", there is actually true creativity, flexibility, ability to multi-task, broad focus, incredible problem solving and ability to think quickly on our feet. Wait, what was the original question? Oh, right.
I think connecting with others comes from experience with others, not necessarily from my ADHD. But it does help that I empathize with people more and maybe that does come with my experience with ADHD. I'm not going to be judgmental if an employee forgets what task they're doing. But I will more more so frustrated with them if they lack the willingness to better themselves and their work.
Anyone can be a good manager and anyone can be a shitty manager. I don't thing ADHD puts you in either category automatically, it just depends on you as a person.
Don't get me wrong, you can still be a bad leader with ADD. Just wanted to add that perspective.
Am I a better leader than others? My latest employee just thanked me for helping so much with her professional development. I've doubled the $ coming in within a year of leadership. Would I be a worse leader if I didn't have ADD? I have no idea, but probably not. I compensate for my ADD with raw intelligence and I would probably feel less stressed if I was more organized.
So there you have it, an answer that's less self-indulgent, but as honest as I'd never be if I had my name on it.
Followers follow rules. Leaders break them and make them.
I became a leader when I learned not to follow anymore, break and change the rules, be willing to do what others don't have the guts to do, and start making my own way instead of following other people's way.
Once you're in the leadership, you need to be an effective leader that inspires people, and commands respect. Don't try to be their friends, don't try to be too harsh, just be someone they respect. If you're not sure how to do that, start by being consistent.
Treat people like adults.
Ask first and order second, I found great results (and this goes back to the adult thing) when assigning work and such. You use phrases " hey got favor" or "I would like you to" before telling them what to do. You then follow up and if you find they were fucking around then you escalate.
Tell people they are doing good jobs(if they deserve it). Praise in public, punish in private.
Last but not least, keep being an asshole to when you absolutely have to. If you scream all the time people tune you out.
Also, the quicker you learn to delegate, the better off you'll be.
If you're fascinated with economics, check out Paul Krugman's Masterclass:
Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman breaks down the economics behind taxes, teh health care market, income inequality, and international trade.
Lessons include topics like: fundamentals of economics, major developments in economics, how the 2008 crash happened, theory of crises, solutions to crises, growing inequality, divided society, understanding taxes, technological progress, healthcare problems and solutions, hyperglobalized world, China and economic geography, learning economics, writing economics, and the future of economics.
|Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science||541 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Naked Economics is THE best and most comprehensive book for learning about economics for the first time. It covers all the topics you need to get started and it is written as if you don't know anything about it already.
|Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)||2,415 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Freakanomics is kind of pop economics focused on entertainment, which isn't inherently a bad thing. It probably won't help you understand real economic theory fully or any entrepreneurial endeavour. That said a proper economics textbook isn't gonna be that useful for entrepreneurs either, better off reading books on startups/starting businesses.
|Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Uses-and Misuses-of History||84 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Hall of Mirrors by Barry Eichengreen is a good book for an aspiring economist. The book covers the parallel stories of the banking crisis and Great Depression of 1929-33, and after, and the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2007-10, and after and all that central banks and governments have done to stimulate economies in the last decade or so is in stark contrast to the errors and confusions of the previous era. This might be a good place for you to start as it covers one of the most intresting time periods in the American economy and it shows how taxes, gdp, budget and recession affect the economy in some of the most extreme circumstances and how that has influenced politcs as we know it.
Also this provides you with the opportunity to do your own research into economics and will help ask the right questions as it gives you an opportunity to familarise yourself with the economic jargon whilst still keeping you captivated.
I think this is extremely tough to find a middle-of-the-road, centrist, unbiased approach. You could:
The reason that it's hard to learn about economics from an "unbiased" source is because there isn't one. Economic theory and practical arguments are descriptive and no one can provide a "one size fits all" solution. I apologize if this is discouraging, but in my opinion you have to take all the facts and theories and decide for yourself what the is the best course of action.
Getting the concepts down, then moving to current events, then educational arguments seems like the way to go. It's imperative in social sciences to identify and analyze an author's argument. I remember an old professor who likened the level of complexity of theses from "basic->intermediate->advanced" as descriptive->explanatory->predictive."
Khan Academy has full video courses on both Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. It's a little slower than I liked but it sticks to the facts and principles. Sal Khan is an amazingly good explainer of everything.
Using only Khan Academy I passed the CLEP tests for both Micro and Macro.
This is a surprisingly difficult question.... I find that a lot of the material available is not particularly good, at least in the sense that it often stresses theory (often enough, sort of old and simple theory) over the modern empirical work that actually constitutes economics as it is done today. This is a problem even with textbooks: they often serve to cover the basic theory, which then gets amended and supplemented with empirical references by faculty.
I can think of quite a few books, podcasts, etc. that will expose you to modern economic thinking on various topics, but it won't be systematic of course.
One option you might consider is would be an online course of some sort. I've heard good things about Timothy Taylor's economics courses in The Great Courses.
Smelser and Swedberg's Handbook of Economic Sociology seems to be a common starting point at the graduate level, and I've seen bits at the undergrad level, too.
Keynes often gets a nod, too, but when I've seen him pop up in this context it's more the "animal spirits" Keynes and less the more policy-oriented Keynes. It's a good reminder that he was a political economist, not what we see as an economist today (i.e. it's more accurate to say he practiced political economy, not "economics," just like Adam Smith, Marx, and so on). I guess behavioral economics is popping up, but still...
I should also add these two papers. The first one (the Brian Uzzi piece) is a good place to start, given your interest in the empirical side of economic sociology.
If you're interested in globalization, Peter Dicken's Global Shift is a good place to start.
These guys aren't all strictly "sociologists," but that isn't a problem in my book. Economic geography and similar work in other fields is great.
I'm no authority on the field, by any means, but these are all sort of related to what I see as the core of economic soc. As far as further empirical literature goes, I think that would depend a lot on the problems that interest you. Stratification, for example, is a huge area.
Another direction economic sociology goes is into more constructivist concerns - for example, putting a price on a person's life didn't fly for a long time, but now we don't think twice about life insurance. I can't recall the name or author of that paper, though, and the brief googling I felt capable of didn't find it.
I think another important thing remember besides what others have pointed out is that economics is not a hard science (yet) so the models are contested and there are different schools where people totally disagree with members of other ones. In American universities we're taught mostly neoclassical economics, which is the academic consensus in much of the Western world, but not everywhere. But even here we offer courses that look at alternative systems, which I think are useful in situating the knowledge here
Definitely need to narrow down your question far more -- what is your goal? What are you trying to achieve by learning it? We all have our interests, so what are yours? Why did you get into this? Economics is also huge and one of the biggest fields for interdisciplinary studies, so it will take a bit of homework to form the question to ask.
I’d say there’s no difference in what you take first. But I would coordinate so that you’re taking micro when you have an easier schedule. I personally took macro first and while the professor will sometimes make comments assuming everyone has already taken micro, it didn’t impact the class because he would do a review of a topic you needed to know from micro.
And it helped when I went on to micro because I already had a mini lesson on a lot of the chapters. So basically, take micro when you’re schedule is easier, and if you can, take macro first.
How would someone enthusiastic and well educated about behavioral economics come to the point of view that behavioral was somehow in competition with economics, rather than a part of economics and the natural extension of economic theory? Even stranger, to come away with seeing the rest of economics as sort of bankrupt and even hostile to behavioral economics, and to have little or no broader awareness of behavioral's place in actual economic research as well as little awareness of empirical work in the rest of economics.
It just seems so odd, because to be well educated about behavioral economics you'd need to have been taught I'd think, to have read things written by behavioral economists and the like. And surely, behavioral economists wouldn't promote those kinds of attitudes in their op-eds, NPR interviews, AEA presidential lectures, and business school type book tours... would they? I mean, deliberately misleading students and the broader public in the interest of self-promotion or whatever other motive would be a rather rude thing to do, and I would have to assume that that would be beneath at least the kind of behavioral economist that manages to win a Nobel prize.
At any rate, all snark and vitriol aside, I genuinely think economics education would be better served if the small pool of behavioral economists who adopt an outsider branding in their public facing activities toned it down. It's problematic because that branding is crack for MBAs, physics majors, and a certain type of journalist - regardless of its relationship with the truth - and so has outsized impact on public understanding of economics. And I don't think the result of the continual drip drop of "rogue behavioral economist says..." pieces is a positive increase in awareness of behavioral economics or development of a more nuanced understanding of economics. I think it's mainly just causing people to confirm their priors that they should go with their gut on whatever economic issue since they're smarter than the so-called experts who either don't know or are currently struggling to understand the fact that drunk uncles make bad choices (or insert here whatever outrageous observation that the egg heads in Littauer will never understand).
Anyway, I don't mean to advocate for some twisted form of collective punishment for behavioralists because they have a few bad apples with irresponsible press presences. Heck, I don't even think there's a good way to regulate this - there are strong incentives in the form of media coverage and B school book sales for anyone that plays defect here. But it's still bad and that might as well be pointed out, little good it does. (I suppose on the other hand, it might be better to leave that to the real experts. Econ Twitter dropped a lifetime worth of shade during Post Nobel Twitter, after all.)
It wasn't that my professors had an outright agenda to get us to believe things like a minimum wage is bad, they let us form our own conclusions. Problem was, they didn't emphasize that these were models, or highlight instances where the model failed.
Before econ, I would have considered myself left leaning politically... not cause I knew anything or had any informed opinions, it was just by default. I think you learn about things like activism in highschool and that just influences you toward left leaning views... especially since this was in California.
After Econ, I was definitely more conservative, maybe libertarian. It took a few years after college where I began reading more and seeing actual situations where these models are not adequate to explain what is going on, that now I have a more informed liberal stance. Not to mention one of the key assumptions in these models is that people make rational decisions... no they do not!
But the biggest takeaway for me from Econ and why I still think it is incredibly valuable for anyone to study, is that you learn that 1+1 can equal 3. Which gave me hope for humanity... here now we have proof that there is a benefit to cooperation and trade beyond just moral reasoning. We don't all have to be selfish bastards looking out for #1.
I think academia is trying to turn economics into a science like Chemistry and Physics, where laws govern all behavior. But it has just become a joke. The models they teach in post-graduate economics are so far removed from the real world... they are very elegant and mathematical, etc... but don't actually have any application for the real world.
For example, economists have made the assumption that people have rational expectations / behavior. This assumption underlies pretty much all of university economics and is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
There are a few economists who know the trend towards a hard science is bullshit, but they are the minority and are pretty much ridiculed by the "theorists".
It's a way of dismissing socialism used by people who don't really know what socialism is.
Seriously, go take an economics 101 class. Better yet, take some advanced economics courses, too. Although these courses have a very pro-capitalism bend, you will find that the material taught doesn't conflict with socialist theory, as much as libertarians want to believe. There will be times in class that you cringe, like when you read about how evil planned economies are, and how socialism is North Korea, but all that aside, it's not like it proves Marx wrong or anything like that. Let me put it this way: I've taken several economics classes, and not once have I read something that has made me think "Oh shit, maybe capitalism really is the best we can do!"
I'd say the biggest difference between mainstream economics and socialist economics, and biggest reason why socialism seems like it's for people who "don't understand economics", is that mainstream economics never dares to think outside the box of capitalism, while socialist economics is all about that. That's why people who don't understand socialism say things like "you don't understand economics!". The idea of thinking beyond capitalism is so foreign to them, that when they here of an ideology that suggests such a thing, they are completely unable to grasp it, and respond with nonsense. It's just not an idea they have been introduced to, besides when the professor tells the class that socialism is North Korea during the first day of class.
For instance, if capitalism is allowed to run its course it could be described as akin to survival of the "richest" and [the richest company] eliminate the competition that threatens its profits. Once that happens and only a few have monopoly over it, if the population decides to no longer purchase their products to save money or decides to boycott, then would it not be in the best interest of that company to provide incentive (in a way that includes the population) in order to keep itself going? Then, once innovation is achieved citizens have purchasing power again. And the cycle would continues but perhaps with another company that dominates instead? All of this only works if the company won't control the government and media using lobbyist tactics.
Of course population size would be a huge factor. For instance, in a family, altruism (socialism) is a functional unit and acts are done because they are obligated in order for the greatest good for the family to be achieved. However, once there are more families doing this simultaneously, the burden of obligation decreases and people from different families become "free" from obligation because the greatest good becomes arbitrary or is shifted to a smaller focus (ex. greatest good for a company, greatest good for XYZ..) all while competing for the same finite resources (cue in capitalism).
For instance, why can't economists see the reality of class? For one thing, they have only a crude understanding of capital: in most situations it's all combined and added up to a single dollar figure (which is more or less an educated guess) and all the details are handwaved. The idea that those with capital can dictate what's produced first requires you to recognise that capital is not identical with money.
Likewise, income distribution is not given much attention. An outcome where 1 person has $100 is considered just as good as an outcome where 100 people have $1. When capital and money abstracted to some phenomenon totally separate from human experience, the concept of class is unhelpful, so economists won't use it. What's more, economics is founded on a "rational", "self-interested" individual. The concept of class isn't even coherent in econ. Think of Thatcher's quote, 'There is no such thing as society.' If you think that society is just the sum total of individuals, social forces don't exist.
This is just a quick example I've typed up, but you can imagine how many examples of this there might be. Once we're familiar with the arguments and rhetoric, we can better understand how to fight it.
Plus, I don't think economics is utterly useless! It trains you in systemic thinking: given certain assumptions, what outcomes can we expect? The problem with economics is they spend practically no time questioning those assumptions. As critical thinkers, we recognise that concepts like "human nature" and "profit" are intrinsically tied up with social, historical circumstances. Thus, we can't take them as universal truths and hope to arrive at universal conclusions. And in certain cases, capitalist economics is good at describing certain phenomena in capitalism (eg., why tech companies concentrate in Silicon Valley). With a discerning eye and knowledge of radical economics, we can determine when these cases apply.
Aggregate capital is a huge, mostly unresolved problem in economics. Tons has been written about it, but there are few satisfying solutions and definitely no consensus. When it comes to actual applied economics (as opposed to just pure theory) it's usually handwaved.
Likewise, the constitution of the economic subject isn't really questioned. When people don't behave in line with the model, of course economists try to update the model. But they do so by adding more rules, talking about cognitive biases, etc. Examining the fundamental assumption that people behave out of rational individual self-interest doesn't occupy much time for economists. They just assume that in most cases that's how it works. I guess the major exception is when economists start talking about households.
Generally, there is literature examining the problems I identified (and other problems I didn't), but even at the professional level they are not really resolved. The fundamental axioms of economics are more or less static. Since Ricardo, economics has followed physics in attempting to mathematically model reality rather than to describe it qualitatively.
Python makes perfect sense here.
Python is a lot easier to learn and more widely applicable than R and Java. Both have their merits, but Python will be more useful imo. R and Python are hands down the best, but from my experience, Stata (government and academia) and SAS (everywhere else) are going to be the most prevalent, like it or not. Eventually get good at R and/or Python, but I'd also recommend a working knowledge of one or both of the latter two. Understanding SQL would be useful as well.
Voyager 1 has a 22.4 watt radio transmitter. By the time that signal gets to us it has been reduced to about one-tenth of a billionth of a billionth of a watt for us to detect.
See the images of gravity and imagine a wave less than the width of an atom. That’s what the scanners are detecting. It still blows my mind.
We have sent several probes through Saturn's rings without concern because the debris is so far spaced apart. If you were to be flying through Saturn's rings, it would not look terribly different than the night sky here on Earth. The rocks from the debris would simply appear as small points of light like stars.
There is more ways to configure a deck of cards than there is stars in the Universe.
In 1969 the technology to put a man on the moon existed, however the camera and film technology needed to fake the moon landings didn't.
The center of the Milky Way is LOADED with bright stars but we can't see 99.9999% of them. Our night sky would be way, way, way brighter if not for the Great Rift and associated dust and gas clouds blocking out their light.
If the Sun were to somehow vanish, and all of its mass with it, we would still orbit it the vanished star for nearly 500 seconds, or until we see the Sun blink out in the sky. This is because the speed of light has nothing to do with the light, but rather with the speed of causality in our Universe. It's like there's a lightbulb at the center of our galaxy and a lampshade around it.
I like talking about how when they sent the New Horizons probe to Pluto. They didn't shoot it at Pluto, but rather where it was going to be in 9.5 years. I think it gives a good perspective on how much we can determine with the scientific method, especially since Pluto still hasn't gone around the sun once since we discovered it.
We're all made of stardust, but so is garbage, so don't get full of yourself.
Not space related, but 2049 is closer to now than 1990.
Hydrogen (more specifically Deuterium) first made it's appearance around 10 minutes after the big bang. Then eventually Helium isotopes around 10 minutes later.
On one of the Apollo missions, the rocket was struck with lightning and grounded itself via its fuel plume. The electronics were fried and nobody on ground control knew what was going on. The data they were getting was all over the place. One guy happened to remember a scenario they did about a year ago and said "Switch SCE to AUX". You can hear someone say "What the h*ll does that mean?" (Or something to that effect).They switch the SCE (or signal conditioning equipment) to auxiliary and everything is fine. That guy single handedly saved the mission.
Take a look at the Big Dipper. See the middle star of the handle? Well, that's really two stars: Mizar and Alcor. Alcor is very faint and was (allegedly) used to test people's eyesight in ye olden days. But those two stars? Well, Mizar, the bright one, that's really FOUR stars, all orbiting each other in a quadruple system. And Alcor, the faint guy, that's really two stars in a binary system. So there are six stars in the middle of the handle of the Big Dipper. And they're about a third of a light year away from each other
Unconfirmed theory, believe I heard it on Neil degrasse Tyson’s podcast. If you were being sucked into a black hole and could somehow stop, turn around and look back out into space you could see the entire future of the universe play out before your eyes due to time dilation. You could watch the birth and death of stars in the blink of an eye.
If you fold a piece of 0.099mm-thick paper 103 times, the thickness of the paper will be larger than the observable Universe: 93 billion light-years, to be exact.
Voyager 1, in case it is encountered by extraterrestrials, is carrying photos of life on earth, greeting in 55 languages, and a collection of music from Gregorian chants to Chuck Berry. Including “Dark was the night (Cold was the Ground)” by 20’s Bluesman, Blind Willie Johnson, whose stepmother blinded him at 7 by throwing lye in his eyes after his father beat her for being with another man. He died, penniless, of pneumonia after sleeping bundled in wet newspaper in the ruins of his house that burned down. But his music just left the Solar System.
The reason why so many things in the universe travel at the speed of light - all electromagnetic waves and even gravitational effects - is because the speed of light is actually the speed of causality, the speed at which cause and effect become one. Going faster than this speed would be travelling back in time.
The Aestivation Hypothesis: Advanced alien life might be inactive until the universe gets colder, because computation becomes more efficient as the cosmic background temperature decreases. 1030 times more efficient, in fact, meaning you can eventually do the same amount of computation with an Earth-sized computer as you could do today with a universe-sized computer.
When a photon is created and speeds against the universe because it is going at the speed of light it experiences time dillation. We may see it take millions or billions of years to reach us from our relative perspective but to the photon, the moment it came into life, it ended its life at almost the exact same time. No matter how long it looks to take that beam of light to reach you, the beam of light thought it just came into existence and then ended it right away. Light experiences no passage of time.
There are more planets in the universe than all the grains of sands on earth
Light is created inside the very core of the Sun. It takes these photons millions of years to reach the surface of the Sun. Light interact with everything. This voyage to the top, this odyssey, is called a "random walk" in astrophysics. Once photons reach space, they take about 8 minutes to reach your eyes
Space is closer than you think, and the international space station is the equivalent of a 4 hour car drive straight up.
There's two factors of time dilation, gravitational but also relative velocity. As you travel faster, you actually age slower, which is the reason astronauts age more slowly as they travel around the Earth at such a high speed, rather than faster as you might imagine because of gravitational time dilation since they're further from the Earth. (The relative velocity time dilation has more of an effect than the gravitational time dilation)
There's a dwarf planet named Haumea in the outer solar system that's so elongated by rapid spinning that it's almost frisbee shaped -- approximately two thousand kilometers in two dimensions but only one thousand kilometers in the third.
Between galaxies, there is less than one atom per cubic meter.
Easily the most mind-blowing realization for me was understanding where the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) came from. There is microwave radiation all over the universe, but it wasn't always microwave! Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was a big, glowing, dense plasma. Bright. Like brighter than we can imagine bright. Since the universe itself is expanding, so is the light. What was once photons have had their wavelengths stretched out with the expansion of time and space - and is currently in the form of microwaves. That's why it's everywhere.
I always thought it was pretty amazing that the emergency landing site for if something went wrong in the first few minutes of a space shuttle launch from Cape Canaveral, FL was located in Spain.
If every conceivable bitcoin private address was represented by a single particle of flour that is a perfect cube then the space required to fit them would requre the equivalent of 8 milky way galaxies wide by 8 milky way galaxies high.
The circumference of a black hole is not its diameter times pi. It’s diameter is much larger than C/(pi), because spacetime is warped near its center.
There's a group of asteroids called the "Hildas" that orbit the Sun in a triangular shape. Yes, they form a triangular ring around the Sun.
Crossing the Milky Way to the other end and back at the speed of light takes as long as humans have existed as a distinct species.
There is a neutron star that spins 716 times per second. At it's equator, it's spinning roughly 24% the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J1748-2446ad
All the stars in all the galaxies are getting further and further apart and eventually one day in the far distant future their light rays will cease to be visible.
There’s nothing in space. I mean there’s no air, no gas, nothing. It’s vacuum, empty, nothing. The true meaning of nothing. That alone still blows my mind. I’m a simple man.
In 2004, a giant "Starquake" coming from a magnetar (A neutron star on steroids) released in 200 miliseconds the equivalent of the energy produced by the Sun in 250,000 years.
The first law of geography is that every thing is related, but objects that are closer together are more related than objects that are farther apart. These relationships are things like parcels contained within counties contained within states contained within countries. To put it in terms of outer space, our planet is contained in this solar system in this galaxy in this nebula (etc etc). So to the farest extent of the universe there is a form of spatial relation. But then it just ends. The universe has no spatial context. Is it contained within a larger void?
Space smells like burned matter. This makes total sense since it originates from an explosion. You can essentially smell the Big Bang.
There are more rouge planets drifting in interstellar space then there are stars in the known universe.
That earths orbit is elliptical and not circular, which is why we have seasons. Surprisingly simple fact but a lot of people aren't aware of it.
Everyone knows that much of the light reaching earth from space is from stars that may have died a long time ago, but what some people often overlook is that all the stars you see in a single gaze are an incredible range of distances from earth. With one look, you are looking through millions of years of time, and taking it all in at the same moment.
Time takes space to propagate. Before the Big Bang, there was no space therefore, no time.
That if you could stand on a planet that's many light years away from earth with a figuratively infinitely powered telescope looking at earth, you would be able to see back in time depending on the distance in light years from your position to earth, cos the light from a long time ago on earth will only just be reaching your planet.
In a black hole, the gravity is so strong that time slows down significantly. Scientists theorize that deep within a black hole, there is practically no time.
If you can fold a piece of paper 42 times, it'll reach the moon.
Not really a space fact, but when a hydrogen bomb detonates, every element in the universe, and then some, are created in the centre.
If all of the planets in our solar system were lined up, with their surfaces touching, they would fit in the space between the earth and the moon.
6 Quadrillion 520 Trillion Earth volumes make up the same volume as the largest known Star, UY Scuti.
The Moon has less square mileage on its surface than Russia.
The light that comes from our sun is white in space, not yellow.
There's no atmosphere in space, and space ships can't bank or turn like you see in Star Wars or Star Trek.
There are more trees on Earth than stars in the Milky Way.
If the Andromeda Galaxy was brighter it would show up in the sky six times wider than the moon.
Every star you see is actually just in our own galaxy. It's kind of obvious once you really think about it, you can only see other galaxies as ghostly blobs in the right low-light conditions, but it's still mind-blowing to me.
You are a few (hundred?) kilometers away from where you were when you began reading this sentence.
A lot of people still can't comprehend that it takes time for light to travel, and that the light from other stars can be millions of years old when you see it.
A company called SpaceX can launch a rocket roughly the size of the Clock Tower (in TST, Hong Kong) to space, then have the satellite(s) separate from it to float around space, then adjust its falling angle to aim at a barge roughly the size of a football field, then land on the X mark of the barge upright, and to be reused at a later time, just like how we reuse a 747 after flying from one city to another.
When Carl Sagan was discussing the universe, he said "Of course, it may be a single electron in a much larger structure." Now that's thinking big!
The density of gas inside the stellar envelope of red supergiant stars (think Betelgeuse) is less dense than not only the air on Earth, but also the best vacuums we can achieve on earth. Yes, that's gas inside a star. Really goes to show how relative density is in the universe. Conversely, the density at the cores of the most massive stars is as much as 30 million grams per cubic centimeter.
At the dinner table: “The fork and knife you’re using for dinner are made from steel. Steel contains iron. Iron is only made at the very core of stars. Because iron requires a ton of gravitational pressure to be created. You are holding in your hand right now, pieces from the center of a star.”
Given that Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way, the Milky Way races around the Virgo Supercluster, and the Virgo Supercluster screams across the universe, not only were the Pyramids of Giza build 4,500 years ago, they were build about 10 light-years away from where they are now.
NASA has the 2nd highest return on investment for govement spending. Right after interstate highways.
Gravity on the ISS is about the same as on the surface of the earth. (90% earths surface gravity) The reason astronauts fall, is because the ISS is in a state of constant free fall. Turns out the ISS is moving at about 17,000 miles an hour and keeps itself from hitting the planet by traversing the circumference of the earth so quickly it "misses" the Earth during its "fall"
It's called the dark side because radio communication with Earth is impossible. Dark in the signal sense. The side of the moon facing away from Earth receives the same amount of light as the side facing Earth, just at different times.
Venus is beyond toxic! Sure, the dense fog of sulfuric acid would get to you pretty badly, but there's also intense heat and air pressure. A human on the surface would turn into a fuming goopy pancake. Think putting an iron skillet on high heat, then tossing in a marshmallow peep and smashing it down with a spatula.
The nearest stars light besides our own takes 10,000 years to arrive, so if for some reason all the visible stars in the galaxy disappeared we would have no idea for 10,000 years. For all we know, they could have disappeared 9,000 years ago
A hundred years ago, Einstein came out with the theory of relativity that ultimately predicts that gravity travelled at the speed of light. Only was it a year or two ago that scientists discovered the physical proof that it happened, via gravitational waves. Check out LIGO/advanced LIGO.
NASA was voted into existence by the Congress, its funding comes from a small portion of the US national budget. NASA, a civilian agency, was always involved with the US army(early astronauts, security and surveillance). NASA is not a private anything, the government has a lot to say in it.
Black holes have no means of dissipating thermal energy, but generate mass quantities of it from their strong gravitational field and they are likely incredibly hot. We can't detect this though because that thermal energy isn't escaping from the gravity well.
If you're seriously interested in the topic of space exploration, give Chris Hadfield's Masterclass a try:
Learn about the past, present, and future of space exploration with astronaut Chris Hadfield.
Lessons include topics like: physics of rockets, the International Space Station, leadership in space, astronaut training, spacesuits, spacewalks, and the future of space exploration.
Get it. Play it. Love it.
Get these two books as a companion to the game:
|Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering)||162 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
|The Kerbal Player's Guide: The Easiest Way to Launch a Space Program||24 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Huge percentage of this generation’s aerospace engineers were brought to the profession by this game.
Don't forget to install Realism Overhaul, RSS and RP-0.
Another game I'd recommend is Orbiter 2016.
If you wanna play this game you are forced to learn rocket science and orbital mechanics. Seriously this game doesn't play around and is a great way to learn orbital mechanics and rocket science.
Do not stop playing this game unless you can get to Mars from low earth orbit, land on a landing pad, then return to Earth and land. Once you manage to do that do it 20 times and you know orbital mechanics and rocket science.
The Very Real Threat of Comet and Asteroid Bombardment by John S. Lewis. Lewis was a planetary scientist for the University of Arizona. Near Earth Asteroids are a super interesting topic and Dr. Lewis' writing style is readable and entertaining.
|Rain Of Iron And Ice: The Very Real Threat Of Comet And Asteroid Bombardment (Helix Books)||18 reviews||Check Price and Reviews|
Our biggest issue right now is the power source. In the inner Solar System you always have the option of Solar but by the time you reach Jupiter you have 3.7% of the light you had in Earth Orbit. RTG's are ok for small systems that use 400-500w but you will need something like a Kilopower Reactor for Shipboard Power to run life support and ships systems in the outer Solar System.
Fuel/Engines: the two primary candidates seem to be SpaceX BFS and Blue Origin's New Armstrong (Believed to be a direct answer to BFS) the Engines will probably be Methane (Raptors and BE-4s). On planets and Moons with CO2 atmospheres you can have robotic missions set up Megapower Reactors (https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2017/power/Ananth19349.pdf) to run Sabatier Fuel Processors (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120001775.pdf) before you send any humans to explore. This opens up all of the outer Planets to refueling on their Moons.
Jupiter - Callisto has a CO2 atmosphere and Water Ice, Callisto's orbits outside Jupiter's Radiation Belt. Europa, Ganymede, and Io orbit through Jupiter's Radiation Belt causing much higher radiation levels than open space.Europa's Ocean may have CO2 dissolved but no actual Exploration under the Surface has happened, any manned missions or Colonies will need to proceed directly into the ocean using the Ice Crust as a Radiation Shield against Jupiter's Radiation Belt. Ganymede has no atmosphere and no other sources of direct Methane.
Saturn - Rhea has a thin CO2 atmosphere and Water Ice. Titan has it own Methane lakes and Water ice.
Uranus - Umbriel may have CO2 and Methane trapped in water ice.
Neptune - Triton has Methane Ice and Water Ice.
Dwarf Planets Beyond Neptune - tend to have both Methane Ice and Water Ice
The Trip itself goes from many months for Mars to hopscotching around the Solar System for many years on end from fuel stop to fuel stop at our current levels of Engine Technology. Massively long trips would require a small fleet of ships in case of emergencies but still at the extreme end of doable until we develop Torch Ships that can produce some portion of 1g thrust for weeks at a time, Scott Manly has an excellent video on travel times around the Solar System using ships with constant thrust. (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120001775.pdf)
Space Radiation: Galactic Cosmic Radiation - GCR and Solar Particle Events - SPE will always be an issue but is primarily a matter of shielding. This research on Martian Radiation gives a good breakdown of Radiation hazards. https://spaceradiation.larc.nasa.gov/nasapapers/NASA-TP-2013-217983.pdf Hydrogenated Carbon Composites should be pursued for shipboard shielding along with water storage around select locations.
Food will become an issue on multi year missions. Small effective greenhouses will need to be developed for shipboard use during long missions for a small crew.
My conclusion is - to Colonize Mars and then use Mars as a base to launch future manned missions to Jupiter(Callisto) and the Asteroid Belt from a developed Martian Colony. Since our Moon has no ready source of Carbon to be processed into Methane as fuel for Methane Powered ships, fuel will have to be delivered from Earth beforehand anyway. Lop-G is a waste of our time and of our Taxpayer Dollars and will be unable to operate as a fuel stop. In between the 2 year windows for Martian Missions we can use the BFSs and New Armstrongs to establish bases on the moon and at Lagrange-1. Anywhere beyond Jupiter will need far more unmanned exploration to locate resources, before locations to place robotic fuel processors can be established, and long before Human Exploration.
For a Space Station or a Colony solar is an option with large solar arrays and concentrators such as giant mirrors focusing sunlight on the solar arrays, but any solar power on a Spaceship needs to be stored inside the Spaceship for launch and landing. The BFS architecture uses 2 100kw rated solar panels producing 200kw in earth orbit, since its design is based on operations as far out as Mars generating 44% power or 88kw the BFS probably needs 80kw for full operation. As you move farther out Jupiter has 3.7% solar available compared to Earth so you would need 22 100kw rated solar panels to produce 80kw power. As you move even farther out to Saturn at 10 AU you have 1% solar power available, so you would need 80 100kw rated arrays to produce 80kw power around Saturn. On Mars there will be an architecture installed prior to human arrival with nuclear power available due to global dust storms to power the BFS.
For exploring the outer planets you will rely on pre-installed fuel stations with Megapower Reactors to power the ships while producing fuel, but after initial refueling they will be travelling within the Planetary system and need power on the ground for operations longer that a day or two on battery power. Shipboard nuclear power would require enough radiators to dissipate heat from a 100kw class Kilopower Reactor, these radiators would be much smaller than the 22 Solar arrays needed at Jupiter or the 80 Solar Arrays needed at Saturn.
Strong expertise in C++ and Python will serve you well if you want to work in space field.
And as a side benefit, those 2 languages will serve you perfectly, for game programming as well, if you're into that.
So your education will be like getting 2 for the price of 1!
Once you graduate, and feel fairly confident with Python and C++, the next thing you want to do, is immediately begin applying for entry level jobs in ANYTHING related to aerospace (space or aircraft).
Next take whatever job they offer!
And if you don't get a job offer right away, just keep applying over and over again. One of my friends kept applying for EVERY job opening at a particular aerospace company.
And after 2.5 years of him constantly applying they hired him! The person in the HR department said that she hired him, even though he wasn't fully qualified (didn't have the past work experience they were looking for) simply because they admired his passion and tenacity in never giving up on his dream of working for that company. But he really excelled at the job position they gave him, and worked his way up.
Further, if you can't get a job offer right away, and no one wants to hire you immediately after school, then next try contacting as many managers as you can in the industry, and tell them that you would like to work an internship-position with the company.
Internship means... well... it means you have to work for free for a few months, up to a year... but if that's the only way you can get a foothold, then go for that.
But while you're working your internship, at the same time don't give up on sending applications to other companies, and again: just keep submitting multiple applications for EVERY job offer that is suited to you, at any company you want to work with.
I know a lot of astrophysicists and astronomers who work at various universities around the world, are DESPERATE for people willing to help them code simulations in C++ and Python.
So... once you get comfortable with C++ and Python, you can then contact the head of the Astrophysics or Astronomy department at various universities around the world.
Tell them you are fascinated with space, and that you have some good skills in C++ and Python, and that you want to volunteer some coding time help.
You can then work remotely to help a PhD level scientist in the field of astronomy, which would look amazing on your resume/CV when it comes time to apply for jobs!
Also if you work on one project with that scientist, and they like you, then they'll usually hire you and pay you money for the next project. I don't think they'll pay you a fortune, but at least then you can start getting some money and payment for your work.
FINALLY... once you graduate, you can also consider maybe applying for a Master's degree program at a school in the USA or Canada, just to get your foot in the door, to North America (where a lot of the Aerospace action is taking place now).
But of course, ESA (European Space Agency) also has lots of great projects going on as well.
I think there is a significant benefit to be gained in tasking NASA with greater responsibility and funding for devising long term solutions to global warming/climate change and continued habitability on Earth. Some notable focus areas could include:
Bootstrapping orbital construction capability with asteroid survey, capture, in-situ manufacturing
Developing a functioning laser broom for LEO debris mitigation
Constructing solar power satellite constellation infrastructure for beamed power generation
Expanded research into Solar Radiation Management technologies for future deployment
Continued refinement of life support systems, operations in pursuit of closed-cycle habitation
Meanwhile, continue robotic exploration and aeronautical research to help explore the boundaries of our knowledge until such time it becomes necessary and viable to go there and stay in those regimes ourselves. The ultimate goal should be to make humanity a multi-planet species, but unless anyone can live there sustainably its largely a fruitless effort.
For as inhospitable as the Sahara or Antarctic is, they're both far more habitable than anywhere else not on Mars. If we can't live in either of those extreme biomes for long term, then we can't realistically do the same off-world.
So... real life isn't Star Trek.
The thought of space travel is definitely enthralling and I couldn't imagine how wonderful it'd feel to be apart of a movement that theoretically could jettison the human race into a new era, but the reality of space travel is that it's bleak, takes forever, and your chances of dying are exponentially greater than they are here on Earth.
Not only that, but the amount of human contact you'll have will necessarily diminish, and you'll eventually get to a point where (assuming you've made it far into deep space without dying from unforeseen causes or old age), communication won't even be very practical anymore given how long it'll take transmissions to reach you.
You wouldn't be able to go outside and stretch your arms as you inhale sweet air. You'd never see a sunrise again from Earth. You'd never know the feeling of relaxing in the grass or floating in water. You'd never be able to go to the supermarket for food or venture out and do whatever you wanted to do when time permitted. You'd be in an area no larger than your bedroom with, possibly, one or two other people, and given that even with lightspeed travel it'd still take far too long to explore interstellar space, you'd be in for a very, very miserable life.
To me, that's not worth it. This planet isn't without its issues but it's still home, and life here precious only in the context that it's surrounded by a hostile void that would erase everything from existence were it not for our magnetic field and atmosphere protecting us.
Earth shouldn't so easily be taken for granted just because it's already familiar.
If the goal is growing our civilization (econmically, scientifically, and geographically) then industrializing the 3rd world was a major step we needed to take. Develping computing and the Internet was a major step. Avoiding a NATO/Warsaw nuclear war was a major step.
We dropped the ball in several areas. We created a dependant class of ungrateful eaters in the West. We believed that we needed to kill our children to control our population. We let militaristic Putin gain control of Russia. We allowed slavery to continue in the parts of the world under Sharia Law, and terrorist attacks are our just desserts for our callous, uncaring negligence. We failed to develop underwater bases, or to explore space.
If we had done better we could have a planet of 15 billion people, united in our desire to expand into space. Our undersea colonies would be the blueprint for underground / undersea colonies on the Moon, Mars, Europa, Pluto, Ceres and everywhere else there is mass that can rest on top of water.
Funding NASA and other space programs would help achieving these goals because of technological breakthroughs. I guess that as the ability to travel to other worlds and to build hospital environments in space improves, humanity will more easily give up on caring for and preserving the Earth. Humanity will move on to colonize other worlds and forget about its reckless and destructive behaviour on Earth and abandon without hesitation the planet that created and nurtured it into existence.
NASA has an economic return of between $8 and $15 for every dollar spent.
I'd be down with doubling (or more!) NASA's budget. As long as they have a mission that isn't going to change. I'm sure they are tired of spending money on a project, only to change it when the president changes.
Our universe is about 13.8 billion years old right now.
In 4 billion years, Milky Way and Andromeda collide to form a big "Milkdromeda" galaxy. The chances of you leaving the galaxy are very low at this point.
In 8 billion, Sol no longer exists.
In 22 billion years the Universe will end if the expansion of the universe continues to increase exponentially.
In 100 billion years, the expansion of the Universe cause all the galaxies to disappear from the observable universe from our local galactic group. For all intents and purposes aside from the few galaxies around, nothing else exists. You won't be able to leave at this point (the universe, for you at least, contains not much else either way).
In 450 billion years, all the 47 galaxies in our local galactic group converge into one big star soup. You should have fallen into the gravity well of a star at this point. The local group contains billions and billions of stars; the supergiant galaxy increases your chance of encountering one.
In 800 billion years, star formation in this supergiant galaxy ends.
In 1 trillion years, stars stop forming in most galaxies.
In 100 trillion years, the last of the stars (usually very small Jupiter sized Red Dwarfs) die out. Only stellar remnants remain. Black holes and white dwarfs roam around encountering nothing. This marks the beginning of the degenerate era. If nothing has killed the universe at this point then this is where it starts dying (the Heat Death scenario).
Too me it's a mindset, a curiosity and a need to explore, but also a vision of our future and the desire to advance as humans.
I see the opposite in groups such as ISIS. The beheadings and executions don't scare me, but that backwards mindset does. They don't want a future, they want to have power in a world that doesn't question them so they can reign through fear and idiocy.
To me space exploration isn't just about sending rockets to space and discovering the technological advancements, formulas and concepts, but it´s about having that 'mindset' that also trickles down into the other layers of our society.
Artists begin fantasizing about our future and create sci fi books, movies, music and art. Look at recent technological advancements that were inspired by these mediums. Holograms, tablets, stun guns, mobile phones, internet, androids and robots, futuristic cars, nano fiber clothes and so on.
Earth is a part of the universe so we can't stay in our cave and not question that which is around us. Looking up at space gave us the most basic technologies such as watches and the basic principles of momentum and gravity.
There is a lot that we as humans don't even know yet and exploring the universe can give us answers. We just need to ask the questions.
Another thing: research. There's a research station at the south pole. It's cold, nothing around, dark for 6 months straight, no resources, but the point of view is entirely different so it's a unique location to research... whatever it is they are researching over there. Likewise, and even more so, Mars offers a vantage point that is out of this world.
Mars has the most important resource; planets to live on. Right now we have one, and our technology is reaching the point where world leaders are starting to have access to real, unstoppable doomsday devices. We must get to two.
We arent really racing for it, if we wanted to go there we could have already have a base their or at least plant a flag and make an Apollo like mission.
However we will get a lot of technology out of it just because we will be forced to innovate due to the trip requirements.
There will be no big advancements but they wont be small either.
The universe is way too vast, to the point were space exploration is pointless. The nearest solar system to ours is 10.5 light years away. We can currently travel at 760 miles per hours tops. That is 0,00000113 times the speed of light. Let that sink in, that is 5 zeros after the comma.
It would take a million years to get there, hell even if we could travel 10000 times faster it would still take 800 hundred years. Oh and by the way, that solar system has only ONE planet and is absolutely un-interesting. Can you imagine anything man made surviving that long in space? It would get blown to pieces before it got half the way there.
We have a near infinite power source conveniently parked next to our planet, all we need to do is to stop spending money on pointless space expeditions and focus on making life on earth more sustainable.
Also, anything that could be done on Mars could be much more easily done on earth. There is no miracle terraforming technology, the amount of resources we would have to put towards making the red planet habitable would be prohibiting and could be put to better use on Earth.
The real reason why it’s important is because eventually the planet will no longer be habitable or a large threat from space could make it uninhabitable, be it a gamma ray burst or extinction level asteroid impact and the sooner we start the less chances we allow for going extinct. The second reason is to do science and try to answer long standing questions like are we the only life in the Universe or does life pop up whever the conditions are right and the first place to search is our own solar system. Last but not least is resources, we live on a planet with finite amounts of metals, minerals etc.
The universe is as far as we can tell infinite, each one of us could lord over their own solar system and again the sooner we start venturing outwards the better for accessing those riches. Environmentalists should also be onboard as off planet resource extraction pretty much replaces Earth extraction and exploitation and if done at scale could vastly reduce ground and water pollution. Religious people should also support the effort, more resources means more people which equals more followers and it’s only right that man should explore the heavens left to us by the Creator.
I have been listening more and more to Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku. Like them or not, both of them have brought up interesting points on the topic of the future. Ray gives estimates and predictions, which may be right or wrong, about humans surpassing our biological limitations on our lifespan. We are a long way from achieving that, but science and technology advances at exponential rate, and the gap that you now see will start to close up quickly.
You have nothing to be sad about. You were born in the perfect time. By the time we are able to fix our biological limitations, you will have had a full life, and many chances to gain more wealth and opportunity in comparison to other generations.. The only thing weighing you back, is dying too early (within the next 20ish years).
Each year that passes, the chances that we will be able to extend our life by just a few years increases. Once technology gets smaller and faster, more doors open up, and we will find a better way to preserve and manage our biological functions as humans. Literally this is the most exciting age to be born into, so I just do not get why you should feel sad.
I don't reddit too much, but everything I have said cannot necessarily be proven without a doubt. But many people do agree that this is generally where things are headed, even if you do not agree with the claims. The uncertainty, and the hope is what makes this present time so awesome.
Just know that most interpretations of what we think the future will be like, are not always spot-on.
There is so much about our own world beyond "the microchip" to be excited about. We live in a truly magical age when our world has been shrunk down in a way that makes most things accessible to most everyone. Watch this, and tell me if you still feel this sense of sadness. I doubt that you will.
If I can get a bit science-fictional on you for a moment... AI is coming. Nothing short of an all out world war will stop it and even that may not be enough. When it arrives... Well, you can expect everything to change. At that point, expecting humanity to avoid an increased presence in space is like expecting a man to buy a car so he can sit in his driveway. We'll be out there, and we'll be looking for ways to move farther and faster than we ever have before just because we can, and because there are things out there we haven't seen.
Cavemen probably believed nobody would ever cross the desert. Then we thought nobody could cross the sea. After that it was flight that was considered impossible and then a landing on the moon.
It took us millions of years to develop culture, from there it took tens of thousands to develop the written word. It took another few thousand before someone discovered the concept of electricity and a few hundred before they could readily generate it. From there it was only a bit over a hundred years before it was readily supplied to the populace and a few decades after that it was in every building in the civilized world. A few decades later and it was being used to process information on computers that cost millions and took up entire rooms just to run simple math equations. A couple more decades and the computers cost thousands and took up a desk. A few more and they cost hundreds, they can access almost the entirety of human knowledge, and they fit in your pocket.
The point is, technology grows exponentially.The first flight occurred in 1903, the first commercial airline opened in 1949. The first man flew into space in 1961, the first commercial spaceflights should be any day now, right on time. There's no reason to believe we'll be confined to this planet for more than the next 50 years and no reason to believe we'll be confined to this solar system for more than 100. And sure, that sounds optimistic, but if you disagree then you're betting against the full weight of human history that says we refuse to stand still. Why would we start now?
Radiolab ran a beautiful episode on Voyager mission featuring Carl Sagan's wife. It's called 'Where the sun don't shine'. There's something about that episode that makes me go back and listen to it anytime that I am down or depressed.
I sit back, close my eyes, put on my headphones and think about how irrelevant my worries are. But most of all, I think about the love as Carl Sagan's wife describes it and how I think it's the most beautiful little love story I have ever heard.