Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic by David Quammen

Sometime a subject can be so important that it can benefit from a style you might not initially consider, this is such a book. The book is a paradox for me, it is written by a journalist, about a complex issue, and it is actually quite good. For a person who thinks that books written by journalist should have warning signs on them, this book was a pleasant surprise. Obviously David, like most journalists, has a tendency to write about himself a lot more than necessary. And obvious he adds the journalistic trademarks and write about unnecessary details that is not related to the story (what T-shirt a person is wearing, what food he had when he met someone). Note to teachers on journalist schools: These things are very tiring (at least for non journalists who wants to read about the subject of the book and who is not into really TV shows. I think there are a few of us left).

If you can stomach some of the traditional journalism writing, David actually pulls of something very interesting, turning the tendency to write as a movie script intro something good, a story about how infections move from animals to humans. We almost get a detective story where we try to find, and then follow, the "killer" (mostly a virus) as it jumps from an animal and spread though human populations.

The way of describing infections as the spread through society in a way where you can see a camera moving slowly in the beginning between a few people, and then gradually picking up speed. But also noticing that it is not a simple equation, but on that is highly dependent on key individuals, called “superspreader”.

However, the really interesting parts could probably fit on 20 pages and are two things: 1. What are the drivers that can/might trigger a global pandemic? 2. What is the probability for a global pandemic (NBO) that will kill very very many humans (maybe most)?

One reason that these complex issues could fit on 20 pages is that David dodges the second one, saying that it is difficult to assess. It is frustrating that he did not take the time to discuss the probability issue with someone who knows how to deal with complex issues. Obviously it is hard, and some parts are not known, but that is the same for many big challenges. If it is important enough we can start zooming in on orders of magnitude and increase our understanding of the drivers. If not we don’t know if we are actually improving the situation or not.

The first question he does answer, but in the worst possible journalistic way, by just listing a lot of drivers. How important they are in relation to each other, and how they might affect each other is not discussed.

So what we know after reading the book is that the "NBO" (The next big one) can happen, and probably a lot sooner and likelier that most of us like to think, but what we can do about it (apart from general ideas like more research, eating less meat and try not to cut down the last wild forests around the world) is not clear.

What the book might do is to increase the understanding of how close we are to a pandemic and how very small changes at key events can have very big impacts when it comes to events with exponential growth.

The stories where good enough for me, and to his credit he used footnotes (very few journalists do when they write books, or articles for that matter) so maybe David is not really a journalist, but more of a scientists trying to spread important information.

Finally, and something that I hope people pick up, is this message at the end of the book. I took the liberty to cut together the key parts:

“From the ecological point of view an outbreak can be defined as an explosive increase in the abundance of a particular species that occurs over a relatively short period of time… From this perspective, the most serious outbreak on the planet is that of the species Homo sapiens… and here is the thing about outbreaks: They end”

Emotions and values shaping the 21st Century: Visions cannot die Aaron Swartz

I guess this text is my way of saying thanks to a person, Aaron Swartz, who was too good for this world. Like most I guess I can’t say that I was close to Aaron, but our paths crossed briefly and his vision for a better world was something that gave me hope. There are only a few in society, let alone so young, that are as dedicated and reflecting as he was. Trying to find a way forward and taking a step back to see the big picture is something that I hope more people will do. I think he was quite unique by recognising the potential in technology (good and bad), engage in concrete projects and still be open to new ideas.

Update: High-res images of the graph above and the others below: Here.

Much of the current discussion about the future is based on the assumption that 19th century western emotions and values will decide the outcome in the 21st Century. Further it is assumed that technology and economy are the drivers forward. Values are often sacrificed on the altar of (presumed) rationality. There is a tendency to live in an illusion of a rational market where everything can be given a price and values are secondary. Or assume that technological development has its own logic unaffected by anything we do or think (see Kevin Kelly for the extreme case). In reality it is obviously the other way around, our values ultimately decide the direction society will move in and very few can and should be given a price.

Markets, technologies, laws, etc. are all tools to help create a world based on our values. Still even many political parties have abdicated from an agenda-setting role and see tools as goals.

Taking a step back we should acknowledge that 19th century western thinking shaped large parts of the global system we have today, but we should also understand that other values are likely to shape the 21st Century. New initiatives, groups and clusters are emerging that will shape the institutions and structures of the 21st century.

The new values will be even more important that yesterday’s values as we live in an increasingly connected and transparent world where values will spread faster. The 20th century was dominated by simplistic economic models and tools based on lack of understanding and a desperation to increase access to material goods. A price tag or a logo was often the only things that were communicated when a decision to purchase something was done. Marketing appealed to fear of not belonging and provided simple material goods (cars, jewellery, make-up, clothing, etc.) that could be shown to others as a way to establish an identity.

In a world where the story behind every product, where decisions and ideas can be communicated and discussed everywhere and all the time, the role of values will become increasingly important. In a time where material needs are met for more people than ever before, where risks to the survival of humanity is a reality, where technologies allows us to shape our lives in ways that are hard to imagine, and more people look beyond material possessions for meaning in life values are likely to take the place of price/money as the main force shaping society.

Two different kind of trends are particular is important to watch with regards to emotions and values, the re-emergence of Asia and the increased connectivity.

Asia

Values in Asia are obviously very different depending on the culture/ country/ region/ part of society we look at. Hence, it is difficult to foresee what specific values from Asia that will become part of the global discourse.

Depending on what countries will emerge as thought leaders, what companies and CEOs that will be seen as leader and be active around the world, what entrepreneurs that will set the agenda and be acknowledged by global media, what books that will be read, movies that will be discussed and new communication tools that will dominate our lives the emotions and values that will become global will differ.

The fact that it is difficult to analyse the trends does not make it less important. Already now some rough indications might be possible to identify on an overarching level, assuming that the new values that we are interested in will contribute to change (not just strengthen current values).

We do not have to take a Hegelian dialectic for granted, but the probability that the pendulum will swing back from the current extreme, before stabilising at a new paradigm, at some point the next decade is likely significant. Therefor a focus on values that are polar opposite to those dominating the discourse now are of particular interest.

The main area that most experts focus on with regards to Asian culture is the fact that it has traditionally been more family- and network orientated, where the concept of “us/we” is more important than “I/me”.

In the interesting art project by Pei-Ying Lin, untranslatable emotions from other languages were mapped (that is where the images in this blog comes from). As usual Chinese and Korean could be seen on more social aspects, in this case “togetherness” that is outside the English language. Obviously it is all about emphasis and western languages have a lot of concepts for “togetherness”, including my native language Swedish – “gemenskap” (and as in many western language this is not a concept that is much used beyond shallow nationalistic language, similar to solidarity. So the change is less of a cultural war than a broader shift in emphasis globally.

However, anyone who’s been to China/Korea/Asia knows that the materialistic egoistic trends are well present there and we could see an accelerated egoistic and materialistic trend before things change (Already in 2015 Chinese consumers is expected to account for more than 20 percent of the global luxury market).

So while it is not clear that we will see less materialistic and egocentric emotions and values emerge immediately as Asia re-emerges, such emotions/values are likely to emerge over the coming decade. So in the medium-term we look for new ideas/concepts Asia can provide an antidote to the egocentric/materialistic culture that has dominated at least the last 50 years. In the short term however it is likely that current trends will be further accelerated.

Connectivity Even more important, and less discussed is how the new connectivity will influence the values and ethics of the 21^st century. Are there common and deeper emotions that will emerge? Today the simplicity of the web encourage short term reactions

So far the connectivity probably have encouraged mainly short-term emotions, as indicated by the image by Pei-Ying Lin. Still we are in the early ages of the connectivity and there are almost unlimited opportunities to develop and support a structure that would create and support emotions that support transcendence and more  reflective emotions.

Two “connectivity developments” are probably key to the future development: 1. Transformative transparency 2. Legacy applications

The first could, if developed in an appropriate way, support an expansion of our ethical boundaries. The fact that we allow people to die out of poverty is a disgrace for an advanced society. If we could see what happens around the world and how we are connected to it we would be aware of our moral choices. If we saw the history behind products when we looked at them (Google glases with ethics) I assume that most people would chose options that help others instead of ignoring their suffering.

Obviously a rapid introduction of the transformative transparency will create a dramatic response. It is not given that this will positive however. With the current culture and vested interests we are likely to see a situation when many would try to turn this new transparency into a tool for increased cynicism and egoism. Even today there are political youth movements among mainstream political parties that support an extreme neo-liberal agenda with focus on individual freedom and nothing about collaboration and responsibility.

Most of the current companies are also so dependent on a destructive consumption society that support for other values will be difficult to find. Think about Google and Facebook for example that could help in supporting a more ethical development of the transparency they are part in creating. Still their business models are close to 100% depending on treating users are products, products to be sold to the companies that want us to consume without thinking.

New clusters and networks is probably what we have to hope for. So get connected beyond current structure and keep your eyes open for opportunities.

The second, legacy applications, is even more important. So much of what is bad in our current society is linked to the myopic perspective in society. The connectivity have accelerated this beyond comprehension, both on a human level (who can expect to say anything lasting and meaningful in 140 characters) and structural (like High-frequency trading). Media is now filled with material that contain no analytical value or understanding of the underlying trends.

The opportunity to create tools that track people, companies, ideas, etc. over time. Any even more interesting the opportunity for us to create tools that allows us to set long-term targets and then get nudged in order to get there. Not sure what groups that will develop these tools, but I can see many candidates, from pension funds and religious groups to old philanthropists and young hackers.

Hopefully Aaron’s too early departure can inspire young hackers to think about their contributions and choices. There is so much that can be done.

Hopefully in a few years there will be new emotions and values developed by the next generation of connectivity tools.

My short reflections on Xi Jinping & The Rules of Eight Points

Below are my short reflections on Xi Jinping & The Rules of Eight Points as they where published in China Daily the 10th of December 2012. It will be very interesting to see how these points will be implemented. I should also add that number 6 in the link is not correct translated. First, the party is meant to reduce meaningless media exposure and the second, the Party can only decide their exposures in the state media, not all the media. The Rules of Eight Points are a refreshingly honest response to the challenges of credibility facing most governments around the world. These indicate a genuine will to ensure that the leadership is leading toward the future and not living in the past. Ensuring a humble political leadership is something that is much needed all around the world as the distance between people and the political leaders has been growing for many years. If China could help inspire a trend to close the gap it would be very valuable. Moving forward, these eight points could be supported by two developments.

First, measurable targets and official reporting. In an age of rumors and social media it is important to have clear goals so that it is clear what kind of progress is taking place. Measurable goals also make it easier to evaluate policies on a regular basis, e.g. once every year. Clear targets also make it easier to deal with a mistake, because the important thing is overall development, not a single mistake.

Second, the eight goals are currently formulated to reduce the negatives. The focus is on bad things that should be reduced. It is a good first step, but such an initiative would also benefit from clear, positive goals, that also should be possible to measure. Some ideas for such targets: A 25 percent increase in meetings with the grassroots; provide a list of the top 800 most-urgent practical problems that people have mentioned; ensure that 50 percent of official documents are freely available in digital formats (and with the opportunity for people to comment on them); introduce transparency regarding visits and meetings between members of the Political Bureau and other stakeholders, including a list of all those who have met Politburo members more than four times.

How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, by Ray Kurzweil

It is easy to criticize Ray. Too easy, as all that is required to dismiss him is to assume more of the same. i.e. linear development. While everyone knows that more of the same is not a correct – or even interesting – assumption, people like Ray provoke people that for different reasons defend marginal thinking. Two aspects are interesting with his assumptions/focus:

1. First of all he looks at exponential growth areas. How fast things changes in such areas are often hard to imagine, and Ray himself has identified the lack of capacity to understand/accept such developments as a major reasons for criticism. Everyone should do thought experiments regarding exponential change and see what happens under different assumptions. Personally I think it is a major reason why society tends to overestimate change in the short term while underestimating it in the long-term. The fact that exponential development result in very small changes at first, but then reach a threshold when its impact in society becomes know, and right after that have totally transformed society, is difficult to grasp. We like to focus on the changes that are noticeable, but possible to estimate using linear models, so exponential changes are ignored.

2. Second, he focus on thresholds/tipping points that are of interest. The fact that system can change dramatically once they reach certain points is well known, but most people shy away from this fact and prefer the simple linear tools and models. Ray’s focus on a singularity is interesting and I wonder if it would not be interesting to explore if there are historical parallels. Obviously the singularity deals with our human intelligence in relation to AI, so it is a special case, but I wonder how different changes in society have affected the way society operate and that way we think. How far back would you have to go to meet people that would not understand the challenges and opportunities in our society. Another aspect, discussed by many, is if we already have reached a situation where technologies are evolving so fast that no one understand where we are heading. The dream of the universal genius is a myth, but it is safe to say that Leonardo da Vinci was in an situation where he did not have to worry about so many breakthroughs in so many areas that can change the future. Today very few people even try to understand what is happening in fields like AI, robotics, (atomic precise) nanotechnology, biotechnology, brain/cognitive science, energy storage, material science, epidemiology, demographic development, animal right, etc. let alone trying to understand how these interact and those who try to influence the direction of the development are almost non existing.

The theme of the book itself “how to create a mind” is very interesting. I 100% disagrees with Ray regarding the way the mind operates. What he describes in the book is a rough outline for homo economicus, that I think could work scaringly well. But that says more about how simplistic view on humans that we tend to accept today, and what aspects we focus on, rather on humans. As many writers have discussed, the area that we should focus most on is not what kind of AI we can create, but what kind of mind we create in ourselves by interacting with different kind of tools/machines.

If we ever create a super intelligence that is similar to us the world will be a very dangerous place. The impulses and underlying visions we have, as well as our ethical inconsistences (that Ray wants to get rid of) is something that I think define us. The struggle to balance the difference ideas, impulses, drivers, we have is not just a source of frustration, it is part of what makes art possible (both to create and enjoy). The fact that all reflective people (not homo economicus) balance from time to time on the verge of insanity makes the idea of a super intelligence in computers a lot more questionable then I think Ray wants to admit.

What I think would be interesting to read is how Ray would see an ethical expansion, a global mind/body where we get increasingly connected, both to each other, but also to other living beings and even the plant/universe. The urge to understand, to feel and connect combined with an ethical expansion that remove the absolute boundaries between people, nations, species, non-living, is fascinating.

It is hard not to smile at the last sentence of the book that for my capture so much of why books by Ray is a joy to read. Without irony he states that: “waking up the universe, and then intelligently deciding its fate by infusing it with our human intelligence in its nonbiological form, is our destiny.”

If hubris ever needed a poster boy, Ray would be the perfect face. But likewise, if we ever need someone to push us to think and aim beyond the ordinary, Ray is still among us.

The Signal and the Noise: Why Most Predictions Fail but Some Don't, by Nate Silver

I like this book, not because it provides much new insight, but because the author seems genuine. In this day and age someone who cares about their issue, more than selling books, is refreshing. Two passionate, and well argued, points are provided in the book.

1. There is data that clearly demonstrate that mainstream media is a destructive force when it comes to understanding the future as experts that are visible in media are those that with a bad track record of predicting the future. The reason for this is that the logic of media (sensationalism and simplicity) attract "hedgehogs" i.e. people with strong options and simplistic models for understanding the world.In a complex world we need to move beyond bumper stick logic this is a problem. What disturbs Nate, and should bother anyone who cares about a society built on knowledge, is that these sound bite providers manage to be constantly wrong, without ever being challenged. The kind of blog that Nate created for elections have a better track record, but it does not follow the media logic (e.g. it ignores the small things everyday and don’t over emphasize when new information becomes available that challenges established knowledge, instead it is weighted and incorporated).
2. That society must become much better in dealing with probabilities, especially low-probability high-impact situations. The problem with the book as that it does not address totally new challenges where there is no earlier data set to base any estimations on. Still understanding that most of the big problems are “outside” what exports traditionally include in their planning.

I also want to give a big plus for proper footnotes. I'm so happy to see an author that actually provide footnotes, but it also makes me frustrated as you can't click on the links (or even copy the links) on Kindle... A simple software update from Jeff Bezos would be more than welcome (and a contribution to global knowledge).

There are also a number of "not so good things" in the book. The fact that Nate is enthusiastic result in a lot of "noise" in the book. Maybe Nate had to compromise with the publisher to get the book out? There is a lot of small stories and issues that are not related to the book, but maybe Nate thought that his book in itself could help train the reader to search for the signal among a lot of noise. Large parts reads like a (reasonable) entertaining, but rambling, dinner conversation.

It would have been interesting to read about Nate’s own reflections regarding his own role and contribution to noise/signal. After his “success” in the election he now seems to be invited to talk about a lot of things that he has no/little clue about. How can he ensure that he will not turn into a kind of “hedgehog” that applies his thinking to subjects where other approaches would be better? He seems like a cleaver guy who reflects so I’m sure he’s been thinking about it.

For those not interested in sport you can skip 20-40% of the book that does not add very much to the story (but I guess it is through his interest in sports that Nate wants to explain how he became interested in numbers).

As the general message about being careful and think about the possibility of being wrong is so well written I think this could be recommended as a book about scientific methodology at universities. Not the least in the US as the understanding of science seems to be moving in the wrong directions. But the teachers need to explain that Nate is a bit confused when it comes to the difference between policy making and science. All important issues cover both fields and there is no clear distinction (the difference between “ought” and “it” is more a theoretical one than a real).