A Science/Ethics-matrix for risks in the 21st century, or the problem with “optimism”, and the need for a risk perspective

Over the last few years the discussion about “optimism” and “pessimism” in relation to important issues, especially global challenges has become increasingly destructive. Old school mass media might be one of the biggest problems, as they tend to report a strange and dangerous polarization between groups/individuals who are “optimistic” and those who are “pessimistic” regarding different challenges. Especially journalists and pundits scared of the need for transformative change, and without scientific education, tend to talk about the need “to be optimistic” about current global challenges, like climate change and global pandemics. [Example] This simplified and artificial polarization is even more extreme when it comes to emerging technologies such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology.

The main reason that optimism, or pessimism for that matter, is not a good concept to use when it comes to important issues is that it’s about being irrational. The definition of optimism from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary: “a feeling or belief that good things will happen in the future : a feeling or belief that what you hope for will happen” [Italics added].

There is obviously nothing wrong with feelings, and ultimately we need transparent value judgments in our discussions about global challenges. However, we need to be very careful with feelings and beliefs when it comes to complex global challenges. What we need is to separate

• A. Facts and transparent assumptions regarding methodologies for establish impacts, probabilities and uncertainties
• B. Ethical assumptions for what impacts we find acceptable, not-acceptable, desirable, not-desirable, etc.

Most of today’s major challenges are difficult to understand and solutions might be counterintuitive, so feelings and beliefs can not be trusted to guide us towards strategic solutions. Even less we should confuse our own values with scientific facts.

The classical definition of an optimist and a pessimist, “the optimist is said to see the glass as half full and the pessimist sees the glass as half empty”, is exactly the kind of discussion we do not need. Two people looking at something and saying different things is seldom very helpful unless we know if this is due to the fact that they actually look at different things, or just have different ethical values. We need to discuss facts (what the level of liquid is in the glass is), separate from ethics (What consequences we think are desirable and why?).

Today those talking about the need for being optimistic in relation to global risks often do one, or both, of two things:

1. Cherry picking Cherry picks different facts (usually fact where little disagreement exists) and then makes a big fuss about it. It can be facts like the global average temperatures, ice on the Antarctic, the emission reductions that different commitments will result in, etc. Often this approach to “facts” is similar to how other groups though history that did not want to see action approaches science (the most famous case is the pro-smoking lobby).The idea behind this approach is to create a culture where the public and decision makers think that there is so much disagreement that it is better to wait with any measures until more research has been conducted. Cherry picking certain studies that show that “deforestation is not happening”, “climate change is not real/serious”, etc. has nothing to do with being optimistic or not, it is about being scientifically illiterate. The need for action, or no action, should never be based on individual studies.A major problem here, again, is mainstream media as they struggle to report on the overall scientific agreement and the fact that uncertainty is part of all scientific findings. Instead they tend to report on individual studies, often the most spectacular, resulting in a situation where those who think action is needed try to find new extreme studies supporting their position. This opens up the door for fossil fuel companies, and others afraid of change, to cherry pick individual studies, or even parts of studies, and cover them as if there is a huge disagreement among scientists.
2. The best of all possible worlds Start with the, not very controversial, general assumption that the world is better for humans today than ever before in most important aspects. Then, based on this assumption, say that no significant changes are needed as things are going well. Often adding something like “there has always been those who said that things earlier where very problematic, but they where wrong and things are better today”. This argument is just plain stupid. Some of those who complained helped draw attention to many major challenges, from the role of slavery in society to the unrestricted use of chemicals in society. If anything those who “complain” are optimistic as they see the same progress as everyone else, but they believe it is possible to have an even better society.

The reason that so many hide behind the term “optimism” might be that they do not have any scientific backing for their claims, or does not understand how science works. Most likely is however that they understand how media, politics and most companies works, and how simple messages can be used to challenge transformative solutions.

Much of the challenge with how “optimism” is used could be addressed if we agreed to approach global risks in a more structured way. Two things are of particular importance that tend to be forgotten when people frame the discussion in terms of optimism and pessimism.

1. A clarification of the probabilities and uncertainties assumed for different impacts E.g. for climate change we need to clarify if there is an agreement among those discussing the issue regarding the probability for different degrees of warming based on different emission levels, the uncertainty in the different steps and the impacts associated with this warming. For pandemics we need to clarify if there is an agreement regarding the probability for different outbreaks, the uncertainty in the different steps and impacts of different kind of outbreaks.

Compared with simple issues, like how much liquid there is in a glass, complex issues such as global catastrophic risks, does not have one clear answer. E.g. the possible impacts of such challenges are best described as a probability distributions that depends of a number of factors where different level of uncertainty exist. E.g. for a certain amount of emissions there are different probabilities for different levels of warming with different levels of impacts. For all these there are also uncertainties in each step.

To be transparent about the assumptions relating to probabilities and uncertainties for different impacts would help clarify if there is a disagreement about the science behind the challenge (e.g. do we agree about the probability of different impacts for different emissions levels or what uncertainty there is?) or if the disagreement is due to different ethical assumptions.

2. A clarification ethical assumptions and what risk that is seen as acceptable For all global risks it is important to clarify what kind of impacts that we are willing to accept at what probability and with what level of uncertainty. Further, what measures we see as acceptable to address different impacts. These are ethical questions and depend on many different things, such as how you balance your own welfare in relation to future generations welfare and what probabilities you think are acceptable to have for different negative impact on future generations.

Today the fundamental ethical aspects are seldom discussed in relation to global challenges. Most international processes just assume some level of danger that is unacceptable, e.g. 1.5 C° or 2 C° warming for climate change, without any real discussion about what is acceptable or not according to what ethical assumptions. In many cases there is not even a proper process for establishing acceptable/unacceptable risks, e.g. nuclear war and asteroid impacts. What we find unacceptable impacts – at certain probabilities and with different uncertainties – is not something that science can define, it is an ethical judgment. As a global community facing threats of unprecedented magnitudes there is an urgent need for a discussion about what ethical values that should guide our strategies for global challenges.

In order to clarify different approaches to global challenges the scientific and the ethical aspects could be presented together in a graph like the “science/ethics-matrix for different impacts” below.

In this different groups and individuals could plot themselves. Then it will be possible to see if the disagreements are due to scientific disagreement, or ethical judgments. If someone argues that there is no need for action to reduce emissions, the graph can help clarify if it is due to disagreement regarding the science, or due to different ethical values. E.g. do we agree about with what probability different impacts will happen due to different degrees of warming and what probability that different degrees of warming will happen due to different levels of emissions, or do we have different perspective on the value of existing and future lives and thereby different levels of risk tolerances? The first is a scientific argument; the second is an ethical argument.

Science/ethics-matrix for different impacts

Science-ethics-matrix

With a “science/ethics-matrix for different impacts” it would be easier to have a constructive discussion about both existing challenges such as climate change, pandemics, asteroids and nuclear war as well as emerging issues such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology and AI.

The Vegetarian, by Han Kang

For anyone interested in Korean culture this is a must read. Unfortunately I have to say that I was disappointed, but with a book from Korea, with the title “the vegetarian” and a Man Booker Prize, my bar was very high when I started reading.

I would say that the first part of the book (the book is written in three parts) and the last pages of the last part are very good. Particularly in the first part interesting ideas are explored in interesting ways. The way we see the world from her husband’s perspective, while also getting glimpses from what might be described as the main character, is done brilliantly. Here we are invited to follow a “normal” perspective as it collides with someone looking at the world in a different way. The way the two perspectives are contrasted is done in a very captivating way.

The economic story telling from the perspective of the “vegetarian” is really impressive. Deep emotions are captured in dreamlike sequences, that are to a large extent dreams, in a way that I think will see other authors mimic.

It is almost as if a brilliant idea, the first part, was too radical for the editor. In order for it to be published they had to add parts that would interest more traditional target groups. For me this feels like an possible explanation for the contrast in quality.

In the last two parts the book turns into more of a traditional story in the way it approaches conventions, while also losing almost all interesting links to vegetarianism. It feels as a students attempt to approach the conservative parts of Korean society in a style that captures the simple parts of fin de siècle literature in Europe. The focus is on family values, sex and insanity in ways that has been done many times before, and often better.

Perhaps the best way to describe the book is through this quote:

“As she rolls up her trousers to keep them out of the wet, she notices the flaxleaf fleabane which has broken through the asphalt here and there. She adjusts her heavy bag, trying to ease her shoulders, puts up the umbrella and starts walking towards the hospital.”

I think the book should have stayed with the flaxleaf fleabane and explored it and the asphalt, instead of just rushing to new places all the time.

If you are interested in Korea/Asia and how a modern society can look like you should definitely read it. If you are interested in reflections related to vegetarianism (or any other ideas) this is probably not for you.

I’m very happy to see a Korean book translated, so I’m happy I bought it and hope my small contribution will support further translations.

Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World, by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler

This book is almost a must read. It has such a great approach and such poor, but interesting, execution. If you are interested in how companies can make an important contribution to society you will not find very much here. If you want to read a lot of big words about important trends and the need to think global this is the perfect book. It is hard not to get really frustrated with this book as it is so close to something very meaningful, while instead it is the kind of “Silicon-Valley-Self-Celebrating-Arm-Waiving-TED-ism” (should be a good acronym there somewhere for a TED-talk…) that the world has too much of already.

I should stress that I judge this book harder than many other books, as most books lack the ambition and global focus that this book has. When you read something that you know could have been a groundbreaking book, that could have set the standard for a new generation of business literature, it feels frustrating that they could not let go of the simplicity that we already have so much of.

The basic idea is interesting. Instead of approaching smart solutions as something that you do on the margin the focus should be on how companies, with relevant solutions, can grow really fast and have a global impact. Unfortunately the book does not have any filter to determine if the global impact is positive, relevant and long-term sustainable. So the book does not really talk about what is needed, what kind of companies need to grow, how companies can deliver sustainable impact/wealth or provide any really interesting cases.

Still there is a lot to like about the book and while I’m giving it a hard time I again want to make clear that I really recommend anyone interested in global challenges to read it. Everything from a bold approach where the general idea is to think in the billions (in terms of customers and revenue), transformative instead of incremental and the importance of innovation are included in the book.

The main challenge is that the book represents so much of the problems we have in society today. I’ve gathered my frustration under five headings and I do look forward to a book with a similar approach, but with focus on the major important challenges/ opportunities of our time.

1. No framework for assessing the important from the meaningless and destructive 2. Lack of intellectual coherence and focus 3. Market rather then value 4. American/western perspective 5. Sensationalism rather than substantial facts

1. No framework for assessing the important from the meaningless and destructive This is probably the biggest surprise and flaw with the book. I was not expecting a groundbreaking framework in this book, but it really has no structure at all. If you want to talk about “go big” and “impact in the world” in the 21st century you would expect attention to be spent on poverty, climate change, bio diversity, digital rights, etc. that are the main challenges facing humanity. Even if you do not have a sophisticated framework there are UN targets, list of the greatest challenges of our time, the key issues for major think tanks, etc. Just anything that would help them to identify important issues. Then the book would not include robots doing camel racing (not the most important issue on the planet) or 3-d printed fuel nozzle for airplanes that reduces fuel use by 15 percent (yes 15%, close to irrelevant in a sector that needs to think about virtual meetins and solar planes).

2. Lack of intellectual coherence and focus The fact that the book does not have any significant intellectual coherence and focus might be less surprising, but still very frustrating. Many books today, by the kind of TED-speakers that the author are, seem to be more like a transcript of different brainstorm sessions about different things than a result of a reflected attempt to provide thoughtful ideas to a reader. The levels of knowledge and sources seem to be what turns up on a Google search and newsfeed when you look for the issues discussed. It does not feel as if any real effort or thought has gone into the book.

3. Market rather than value There are a lot of discussions about money/markets in the book, but not a lot of discussion about what values that are delivered, neither what values that drive companies/employees. It is as if we live in a world where only customers exist and no citizens.

4. American/western perspective This is so common in books that I seldom even mention it, but when the title talk about “impact the world” you would expect something about the most important needs around the world and what happens in countries around the world, including China and India. If you include these countries the key global challenges also becomes close to impossible to ignore.

I would even argue that this is more of Silicon Valley perspective than a global perspective.

5. Sensationalism rather than substantial facts I understand the need to simplify key messages to get them through the noise today, but here they have fallen for the seduction of sensationalism. It is hard to find any parts of the book where the authors discuss pros and cons, or difficult issues that needs to be balanced. Still by the end of the day they might have done more good than bad by changing the discussion from incremental and local, to transformative and global.

With these five consideration in mind I think the book will inspire and frustrate anyone who is interested in moving beyond the incremental focus that dominate the current work to address the greatest challenges of our time, while also making it clear that many of those who claim a leadership role when it comes to new thinking have very little substantive to offer.

Still, any book that ends with a chapter “how to take action” has the heart in the right place. Hopefully a new generation can pick up the good parts of this book (ambition, understanding of the potential of technology and networking, as well as a focus on opportunity) and put in a 21st century framework where the focus on the important challenges not the trivial.

Ghostwritten, by David Mitchell

As I really liked Cloud Atlas I wanted to read the first book by Mitchell.

I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. In many ways I think Ghostwritten is a better book than Cloud Atlas, it is raw and direct in a way that a really appreciate. The characters feel more elaborated and in balance with the underlying narrative (not just pieces in a very smart plot). I felt pulled into a whirlwind of ideas that had an underlying idea.

While Cloud Atlas is more beautiful and grander in scale, the shifts between perspectives in Ghostwritten feels more honest, as if they happen in real time and you are just following some random, but still connected stories that evolves in front of you (rather than being engineered in a way where you feel that there was an overall interesting ideas that the author then tries to build a story around). It is as if you are thrown between the characters perspective and get to live their lives for a short while rather than hovering above as an ideal observer.

It is a hard book to describe the book as it moves between so many different perspectives, but if you liked Cloud Atlas and like to follow an epic story trough the perspective of multiple individual levels and many ways to thinking this is a book you should read.

When Breath Becomes Air, by Paul Kalanithi

Growing up I had three favorite titles in Swedish: Varats olidliga lätthet (The unbearable lightness of being) Den allvarsamma leken (The serious game) Allt som är fast förflyktigas (All that is solid melts into air)

The “unbearable” and “all that is solid” works OK as titles in English, but are nowhere close to otherworldliness that I think the Swedish titles manages to capture. “The serious game” has no relation to the original Swedish title at all, it is as if Google-translate did the work.

I came to think of these book titles as I think “When breath becomes air” could have been included in that list. A list of titles that all manages to capture moments where the trivial meet the truly profound. Perhaps it was the title that got me reading the whole book.

The book reminded me of the kind of book that you tend to appreciate when you are young and look for simple stories where nothing beside yourself matters.

Reading this book I was waiting for any reflection beyond the narrow egoistic that exist in relation to career and close family. I could not find any and it for me this turned the reading into a depressing read.

Obviously when someone relatively young dies there are parts that are extremely sad. And I found his wife last pages the most touching and honest.

Beside the lack of broader reflections the book is also filled with choices that could be seen as very controversial, or at least not obvious. From the professional when Paul goes back to work while not being on top (and almost faint during an operation where he needs to hand over the operation) to deciding to become a father (when he knows that he is very likely to die very soon).

For me it feels a bit strange to know that someone who just told you that they can destroy a persons life if they cut two millimeter to far see no problem with putting sharp objects in a patients brain when they know that they have brain tumor and are not well. There might be a good explanation for this, maybe there where no other person who could have done that operation so that it was a calculated risk. But it would have been nice with some discussions about the ethical choices.

I do not say that any of the decisions above are wrong, but the lack of reflection of how his action affects others makes the book feel very immature.

Part of me feels that those who appreciate a book like this might have quite empty lives and for such readers it must feel good knowing that someone who know that they will die soon are not doing anything more significant when it comes to action and thinking. Maybe it is just my frustration as I hope that someone close to death would ask more fundamental questions about life and the society we live in.

I’m also curious how I would view Peter Noll’s “In the face of death” now 26 year later. The theme is similar, but I remember the discussion much more profound when it comes to our relation to death.