Dual future technology matrix: an example of books adding value as a cluster

This is a brain dump that on a document that I’ve kept open for a month now. I need to move on so here it is. It is a long post where I’ve done a first attempt to show how a transformative shifts differs from a incremental by using narratives from four books. The four books are:

1. Ted Kaczynski’s “Technological Slavery” with
2. Bill Joy’s “Why the future doesn't need us”
3. Ray Kurzweil’s “The Singularity Is Near”
4. Kevin Kelly’s “What Technology Wants“

The background to this post is that I often get questions about what books I would recommend regarding different issues. I have always found the question difficult to answer and one main reason is that most interesting books are more interesting in a broader context, not on their own.

As long as the author has an interesting question and argue in a reasonably coherent way I often find the book interesting. Still most ideas presented in books do not break any new ground, but they can open up new ways of thinking when you see them in relation to ideas in other books. I picked a book that I found people had difficulty understanding the value of, “Technological Slavery”.

Ted Kaczynski’s “Technological Slavery” as part of a cluster When I discussed Ted Kaczynski’s “Technological Slavery” (Kaczynski is probably better know to many as the "Unabomber") I realized that referring to the book as interesting and well worth reading for those interested in technology´s role in society was controversial. Many seem to think that if a person gets “different enough” and have acted in ways they do not agree with, then the ideas they have written about in a book are not worth exploring, even without knowing what’s in the book.

For me the more radical a person thinking is, the more interesting it is in most cases. I understand that the way media use the word have resulted in a situation when “radical” to many is the same as a person that is impossible to understand, mad, or even dangerously aggressive. The relation between Kaczynski’s ideas and his actions is an interesting topic, but for me the ideas in themselves and how they relate to different perspective of technological development is even more interesting.

I want to point to the obvious fact that the word “radical” comes from the Latin word “radix” which means “root”. What is interesting in a book are radical ideas, a radical person might also interesting (someone that goes to the roots of something), but that is another issue and when I read books it is the ideas that I focus on. Although I have to admit that people not walking the talk are not as interesting as those actually doing what they talk about.

Technology matrix: A standard approach I think Kaczynski’s book has some merits on its own, especially as it is rough/written during difficult times and is a mix of different texts. There is a theme he never departs from when it comes to our relation to nature that I think should be taken more serious in a time where environmental organizations are falling over each other trying to put a price on nature (eco system services is just one of many concepts that is used by people how claim to know the price of nature, but not the value). But it is when the book in seen relation to other books that interesting things emerges.

Below is just an example of the kind of patterns that I find interesting to explore when I read a new book. By creating a matrix, in this case different ways to approach technological development, individual books can become part of a larger picture that often can result in tools to understand certain aspects. By putting Kaczynski’s book together with three other, well-known, books it highlights some interesting aspects. (I added some quotes from each book representing the core ideas I wanted to contrast). The books have more layers than those I highlight here, and this is the case with most interesting books. It is important to understand that the authors themselves are more complex (or in some cases more simple) that the matrix. The matrix is based on ideas, not individuals.

Initially when I read and thought about Ted’s book I created a matrix for how the future of technology can be approached. In this “Standard” matrix the tension is between: Pessimistic and Optimistic on one axis and between Enlightenment and Deterministic on the other.

Ted’s book moves beyond the rational and put nature above human society and he tools created by enlightenment. He also has a pessimistic view on humanity and see a small group bringing down the current society as the only way forward.

For me he helped create a pattern regarding how we approach technology and that people like the enlightened discussions (the rational) and tend to lean toward the optimistic. Policy makers and business leaders would not agree that they support the views of Kurzweils Singularity, but their fear of “the mad engineer” throws them in the arms of the “happy engineer”… This is the system that brought us nuclear power (soon so cheap that we can give it away according to scientists in the 60’s), chemical agriculture, GMO’s, etc and when pressed for solutions digs deeper holes/higher smoke stacks (CCS, nuclear waste storage, etc).

No one who want to be more than a marginal figure in public discussions today will chose to challenge both enlightenment and see problems, but you can challenge one of them. The easiest to challenge is the rational/enlightenment and turn technology into God (or God into technology) like Kelly does in What Technology Wants“. This is entertaining and the “crazy engineer” makes the “happy engineer” looks like a sober choice.

Every once in a while someone with a more pessimistic perspective is allowed some room, but interestingly those ideas, like the text “Why the future doesn't need us” by Joy are never taken serious. Only critique that require incremental changes tend to become part of the discussion. “Why the future doesn't need us” is interesting as it is radical and still managed to become part of the discourse… But still the ideas in the text are not addressed at all. The fact that Joy had a background as a “happy engineer” allowed him some room in the discussion.

Technology matrix-Standard

[Technology future matrix: Standard]

Technology matrix: A transformative approach When the standard matrix was done I started to think about the changes needed and what happens when society moves from one state to another (beyond the incremental).

If we just change the values on the axis slightly we can get a matrix that helps us explore the transformative with the help of the same texts.

Pessimistic => Realistic Optimistic => Naïve Enlightenment => Incremental Deterministic/Paradigm shift

The most important shift is the one on the y-axis where the two shifts move the matrix from a situation where current thinking is the norm (enlightenment) and those challenges this are dismissed (I used “deterministic, but could have used irrational/emotional or any other value that is used to polarize against the enlightenment).

The challenge is of course that those using the “enlightenment” often use it in a narrow sense, especially in economics where assumptions about linear development and rational humans (rational from a monetary perspective) result in very. It is also part of media situation where current influential companies, such as the fossil companies (oil, energy companies and car companies in particular), but also PR/lobbying companies and business consultants with media create an environmental where few transformative changes are discussed, and even fewer are promoted, even if they could help solve many of the

I want to stress that a paradigm shift does not have to be something that is against enlightenment, but it will most certainly challenge what many today take as common wisdom.

Two areas in particular: 1. How the economy/society is organized and related to that (or determining that to a large degree) 2. The ethics in society.

technology Matrix-transformative

[Technology future matrix: Transformative]

A better example of the “bought engineer” is a less well known person called Matt Ridley. He is the classic voice of “reason” desperately fighting the idea that disruptive change will happen. Mainstream media love this kind of simplistic message. What is very interesting is that they usually call themselves “rational” in an attempt to signal that any criticism is not rational. Still they are almost never doing a rational assessment where they define the parameters and put numbers on the risks and opportunities. Beside a lack of knowledge regarding the underlying issues http://www.rationaloptimist.com

Kurzweil 1: [Could not find the notes and only have a hard copy of the book, will add later] Kurzweil 2: [Could not find the notes and only have a hard copy of the book, will add later]

Kelly 1: “The universe is mostly empty because it is waiting to be filled with the products of life and the technium, with questions and problems and the thickening relations between bits that we call con scientia – shared knowledge - or consciousness.” Kelly 2: “The technium is not God; it is too small. It is not utopia. It is not even an entity. It is a becoming that is only the beginning. But it contains more goodness than anything we know.” … and on the last page “we can see more of God in a cell phone than in a tree frog”

The last made me laugh when I thought about what kind of God Kelly have, and maybe also what kind of mobile phone… ;) Then it made me sad as it is obvious that this kind of thinking is contributing to the mass extinction we see today.

K-god

[Image of frog]

Kaczynski 1: “And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.” Kaczynski 2: “Clearly, anyone who feels it is important to preserve human cultural achievements up to the 17th century will be very reluctant to see a complete breakdown of the system, hence will look for a compromise solution and will not take the frankly reckless measures that are necessary to knock our society off its present technology-determined course of development.”

Joy 1: “Given the incredible power of these new technologies, shouldn't we be asking how we can best coexist with them? And if our own extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn't we proceed with great caution?” Joy 2: “The new Pandora's boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open, yet we seem hardly to have noticed. Ideas can't be put back in a box; unlike uranium or plutonium, they don't need to be mined and refined, and they can be freely copied. Once they are out, they are out. Churchill remarked, in a famous left-handed compliment, that the American people and their leaders "invariably do the right thing, after they have examined every other alternative." In this case, however, we must act more presciently, as to do the right thing only at last may be to lose the chance to do it at all.”

And a final from Joy as he is the one of the four that for me represent a voice that aspire towards wisdom rather than sensationalism and simplicity:

“My continuing professional work is on improving the reliability of software. Software is a tool, and as a toolbuilder I must struggle with the uses to which the tools I make are put. I have always believed that making software more reliable, given its many uses, will make the world a safer and better place; if I were to come to believe the opposite, then I would be morally obligated to stop this work. I can now imagine such a day may come. […] I'm still searching; there are many more things to learn. Whether we are to succeed or fail, to survive or fall victim to these technologies, is not yet decided. I'm up late again - it's almost 6 am. I'm trying to imagine some better answers, to break the spell and free them from the stone.”

The rainforest The Secret to Building the Next Silicon Valley, by Victor W. Hwang and Greg Horowitt.

I guess the sad truth is that this is another book contributing to “speculation innovation”, i.e. innovation without purpose beyond making money and/or being famous. Still, this is a very good book as it is so weird it is hard to know if they are trying to provoke by ignoring sustainability, and all other important global trends, or if they are just so focused on getting consulting work in old sectors/policy makers that they just sprinkle some trendy words and try to pretend that Silicon Valley is a role model for the 21st century and that they know a lot about innovation.

Already before you start you have an empty page with only “Rainforest™” written on it. Yes it looks like someone tried to trademark the word rainforest… obviously you would expect the trademark to be a brilliant comment on the stupidity in todays financial system, or the tendency among many consultants to think that they invent something by borrowing (and often fundamentally misunderstand) basic concepts and ideas from other fields. But after the book you realise that they might have thought they have a new smart model they want to trademark.

The book is filled with anecdotes that at best are rumours that are half correct and sometimes just wrong. Often not very important things, but enough to give an impression of a book dictated to and from presentations, based on googeling, rather than something that the authors spent time thinking about or actually understand.

I’m actually not sure what kind of book this is. Part of me still think it is so stupid that it must be an way to wake up the financial sector and get people to laugh about it. But looking at their webpage and the comments/reviews about the book I think it is meant to be taken serious.

In a situation where investments and innovation is needed to avoid a global catastrophe by ensuring radically increased resource efficiency a book inspired by the Rainforest sounds like a great idea.

Maybe it is a cultural thing so let’s get the style issues out of the way so we can focus on the content.

Style issues Some people might be impressed when they try to tell us how important they are. I find it amazing how fascinated they are by themselves (where they work, where they travel, who they meet, etc) and how little time they spend on explaining what they mean by innovation, what innovation they have supported/want to support have/can delivered/deliver. The result is a book that is very much about image and very little about content, but many American airport books/bestsellers have such a tone and I can understand that it might be a culture where you have to inflate yourself in order for people to think that you have something to say…. The whole culture of TED presentation and the new “media” fame is very much based on trying to sell yourself as interesting (not based on deliverables and serous research, but more posing and make references to other people/ideas).

Like so many smart consultants they pick up a lot of interesting stuff, from development in brain science (the idea of a isolated self that social scientists have dismissed for more then 100 years is validated by neuroscientists is making it into mainstream now) to macro political changes (the role of emerging economies that too many are still ignoring)... But as many of the consultants they ignore what these issues actually say and the challenges they pose, instead important issues are turned into “toys”/”metaphors” for innovation clusters.

Content Vague analogies without empiric backing might be nice and can be inspiring as poetry. However I really struggle to see what new they bring to the table. It actually feels like this kind of text is part of the dumbing down of society where people do quick googles and try to look smart without actually understanding/caring about the major issues of our time. Then people quote this text in another simple book and we have the equivalent of a speculation economy but with ideas/knowledge.

They might help some theoretical economist and die-hard free market fanatics (such as many advisors for the chambers of commerce and the like) that dislike anything related to governments, so it might help move the agenda forward for that small group.

I’m really surprised why they do not make a stronger case for venture capital in relation to other parts of the financial system that only engage in speculation. But that would require them to focus on reality and have a coherent argument. Now instead they try to present that VCs are as important as the entrepreneurs that have the ideas.

With such an important area (how innovative clusters can be supported) I felt they did not differentiate between the drivers of innovation.

A lot of focus has been on innovation as a very general term, but there might be valuable to look into what the basic drivers are for people to innovate.

I could see at least four different drivers, where two seem to be the focus although I think that three and four are actually more important for those actually innovating. Making money and be given the opportunity to stand on a stage and talking about yourself is however something that our current society seem to see as the most important driver.

1. Innovation as survival... (homo nutrition)
2. Innovation as posing (homo social)
3. Innovation as curiosity (homo ludens)
4. Innovation as trancendance (homo explore)

The whole aspect of “the dark side of creativity” is also lost in the book.

In some areas it would be great if they took some time to read. For example their idea of a “social contract”.... Not sure if I should smile or just feel sad... The vision of a social contract they present is reduced to level one of game theory, i.e. do not only look at the direct short-term impacts, look at your long-term benefits. I’m not sure how deep does this stupidity/simplicity run (I'm not sure if these consultants are just not educated, or if they are afraid of the more important questions.)

If that is the kind of contract they would like to sign with their friends and close collaborations I hope I will be far away from that network). As all good bad books this obviously require me to draft my own social contract in relation to future generations, other species, knowledge, aesthetics, etc. Then realising that it was my “legacy matrix” in another format…. (Note to self: must find time/resources to develop a “legacy app” where people can track if they become better people according to their own definition)

In order to make sure that the book feels like a disappointment and that they are way over their head the authors chose to name the last heading in the book "Fighting pussies, saving the world”. I guess the “world” that want to save is their “world view”. There is nothing about the problems the world is facing (from poverty to climate change) and the fact that the kind of approach they authors have help accelerate development further overconsumption and monetisation of every aspect of human life/nature.

Maybe this book will be an example of the blind stupidity at the 21st century? As such book it is inspiring, interesting but also very sad.

Kill Decision, by Daniel Suarez

In some ways this book could be seen as a prequel to Daniel’s two earlier, and brilliant, books. Unfortunately not just because it deals with issues are more likely in a very near future, or are already happening (The two earlier books is about a distributed AI taking control of the world, compared with the new book that is about drones with new software), but also because the book feels more shallow and have less of a coherent world. Not sure why this is the case, but hopefully it just Daniel trying some new ideas before he writes the next amazing book. To be honest the book almost reads like a Hollywood movie directed by Michael Bay, including the romantic sub-plot that makes you cringe. Too many parts are written as the kind of slow-motion action scenes that all big budget movies now are forced to include (when did this slow-motion become mandatory?). Even more frustrating is that the detailed descriptions of the technologies are too shallow and simplistic this time.

But it is still a book by Daniel so it is a must read and much better than 95% of the airport literature. The geopolitical implications of drones, let alone the autonomous drones along the lines described in the book, are not discussed enough and although simplistic it is still a book that will make you think.

More interesting might be the “dark side of biomimicry” described in the book. Today biomimicry is often used as a vague positive romantic that nature is good and that we should use it to guide us. While there are many things we can learn from nature, there are also things in nature that can be used to make current destructive tendencies spin out of control. The fact that technology now is so advances that it can mimic nature is often seen as an opportunity for a sustainable and more ethical development, but it is time that we realise that the opposite is probably more likely.

The idea of using weaver ants (Oecophylla longinoda) behaviour for high-low technology is interesting as an example of what could happen when technology meets in a way that could result in drastic changes.

The books focus on insects (or ants to be more specific) reminded me of an idea I have (in less destructive ways that the book I hope) to explore the idea of how a city could be built based on “insect logic”. Using solutions, speed and patterns from insects in ways that would allow us to live with minimal impact on the planet and other species.

Back to the book: What I really lacked in this book is the structural perspective, , where the patterns in society are discussed, that I thought Daniel captured brilliantly in the two earlier books. By using an “on-the-ground” perspective with a “soldier” and “scientist” David is only able to make a lot of interesting micro observations, but I don’t feel he really make use of the potential in the book.

Maybe a follow-up book starting where this book ended, with a person dealing with the consequences once the technology is in the open. This book could explore how other bio- AI- nano- etc. challenges converge in ways that challenge physical violence in and between countries. Extreme asymmetrical warfare with the tools of tomorrow, where the technology and implications for power structures are explored.

Global Risk Indicator: The dialogue has now begun

Did a keynote presentation during China’s Economic Forum and had many interesting discussions/interviews about the initiative to establish a global risk indicator. To long-term goal of the initiative is to help create global risk indicator that help support an understanding that humanities welfare, at least in ways most would find acceptable, are at risk. Such a global risk indicator can also be used to develop regional and national indicators to assess the specific risks that different counties and regions face. A greater transparency regarding risks can also help ensure that relevant measures are implemented to address the problems that seriously threaten global welfare.

Public documents will soon be available and more details regarding a workshop/panel during COP18.

Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

A book that gives hope on so many levels. A book that dares to bring the basic human feelings together with the major challenges in society in a way that captures the imagination. A book that brings back story telling and not posing as the key element. There are parts that feels as if David tries to hard to find a smart solution, or to rushed to help the reader understand where they are in the story, but these are minor things and I feel reluctant to mention them. In a way they add to the human element, and when he adds the year of a bottle of wine it almost feels that he does it with a smile. The mix of stories are brilliant and more then one time I thought about the book G.E.B. (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid), in a good way. The book is almost the opposite as the narrative is driven forward by emotions and personal stories, but there is a harmony and circular movements that few books even attempt, and even fewer manage to pull off.

I would almost call it a utopia, but an unwritten utopia. The stupidity and insensitivity of humanity is exposed in a way that is both brutal and fragile. All though history does not give us much hope, we have the opportunity to change, or is it too late. Would we have to rewind and start on a new track much earlier ? Or is it never too late if we date to look beyond the next step?

The way the book has an almost unlimited number of contrasts makes it sometime difficult to read.

One of the contrasts that I like is on the one hand the story about Adam (Ewing). It brings us back before industrialization, where choices about fundamental ways of lives existed, but was not even discussed. The book start and ends with Adam. And Adam is given the opportunity to give us some word’s of advice. “If we believe that humanity may transcend tooth & claw, if we believe divers races & creeds can share this world as peaceable as the orphans share their candlenut tree, if we believe leaders must be just, violence muzzled, power accountable & the riches of the Earth & its Oceans shared equitable, such a world will come to pass. I am not deceived. It is the hardest of worlds to make real. Torturous advances won over generations can be lost by a single stroke of a myopic president’s pen or a vainglorious general’s sword.

On the other side, and in many ways a much more interesting story as it has not been told so often is Sonmi-451 when she steps outside the story and looks beyond. “We see a game beyond the endgame… As Seneca warned Nero: No matter how many of us you kill, you will never kill your successor. Now, my narrative is over.”

It is not hard to see that this book would attract someone that wanted to tell the story visually. The fact that the Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer got together and raised independent funding moved this book up from “to-read” to “READ”… If Aronofsky would have been involved as well I’m not sure I would have dared to watch it. Now I can only hope that the movie will have story telling that is not afraid of pauses, and that they stay away from the Nolan artificial sound track. I like it for Batman and Inception but this movie has a human side that require more of a Zbigniew Preisner or Michael Nyman.

David Mitchell is really someone I look forward to read more of, but if this was the only thing he wrote worth reading it is more than most authors can even dream of.

Update 2013-05-14 I finally came around to see the movie version of the book. Interesting take on the book as they turned the books meandering poetry into a more straight forward story and brought it together as a call for action (revolution) in a way that is very much less straight forward in the book (that is an understatement for those who have not read the book). I would say that the movie is like a good cover of a song you like. It include elements from the original but brings a totally new feeling to it in a way that makes you see the book in a new way.