New Books about the Future

I’ve just finished reading a few books about the digital era. The first, by Nick Bilton, was called I Live in the Future & Here’s How it Works.
I didn’t like it. I didn’t think much of the new Clay Shirky book (Cognitive Surplus) either. However, I did really like The Shallows by Nicholas Carr (more of that another time).

Some observations about I Live in the Future…

1. He seems to equate deep reading with article length. I disagree.

2. He says that Digital Natives have solved the information overload problem by using social networks to create boundaries to filter information.I think there’s something in this, but the bigger problem is surely social networks creating mindless junk.

2. He cites research saying that there is little or no difference in the experience of watching a movie on a large TV screen versus a mobile phone screen. In fact the small screens can actually be better due to headphones shutting the outside world out and the fact that you have control by holding the device in your hand. Define “experience”? To me such experience is partly to do with screen size, but much more to do with communal experience. Like many futurists and technologists he seems to be missing the social aspects of technology.

A few thoughts on Cognitive Surplus…

The argument of this books seems to be that instead of wasting our lives watching television we are now getting together online to put our surplus leisure time to good use by linking brains to create meaningful collaborative works. Well people are certainly getting together to co-create things but I’m not quite sure about the value. Wikipedia is cited as an example, and it’s a good one, but he seems to run out of other examples pretty quickly. The subtitle of this book is Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age but I didn’t notice too many examples of real creativity or of generosity for that matter.

Paperless offices – a rant

Getting back to physical offices, it’s not just the workers that are starting to disappear but the paperwork too. Historically, paper has always been an important part of office life and the idea of a paperless office has been a symbol for modernity and efficiency since the early 1960s. The early theory was that computerisation would eventually render physical paper in physical offices obsolete. Unfortunately, what happened was the exact opposite. From about 1990 to 2001 paper consumption increased, not least because people had more material to print and because printing was more convenient and cheaper. But since 2001 paper use has started to fall. Why?

The reason is partly sociological. Generation Y, the generation born roughly at the same time as the Personal Computer, has started working in offices and these workers are comfortable reading things on screens and storing or retrieving information digitally. Moreover, digital information can be tagged, searched and stored in more than one place so Gen Y are fully aware of the advantages of digital paper and digital filing. All well and good you might think but I’m not so sure.

One of the great advantages of paper over pixels is that paper provides greater sensory stimulus. Some studies have suggested that a lack of sensory stimulation not only leads to increased stress but that memory and thinking are also adversely affected.

For example, one study found that after two days of complete isolation, the memory capacity of volunteers had declined by 36%. More worryingly, all of the subjects became more suggestible. This was a fairly extreme study but surely a similar principal could apply to physical offices versus virtual offices or information held on paper versus information held on computer (i.e. digital files or interactive screens actually reduce the amount of interaction with ideas).

Now I’m not suggesting that digital information can’t sometimes be stimulating but I am saying that physical information (especially paper files, books, newspapers and so on) is easier on the eye. Physical paper is faster to scan and easier to annotate. As we’ve seen in an earlier chapter, paper also seems to stimulate thinking in a way that pixels do not. Indeed, in my experience the only real advantage of digital files over physical files is cost or the fact that they are easier to distribute.

There are some forms of information that do need to be widely circulated but with most the wider the circulation list, the lower the importance of the information or the lower the real need for action or input. As for the ability to easily distribute information this can seriously backfire. Technology is creating social isolation because there is no longer any physical need to visit other people in person. Paperless offices are clearly a good idea on many levels but I wonder what the effects will be over the longer term? What I’m getting at here is that offices aren’t just about work any more than schools are just about exams. Physical interaction is a basic human need and we will pay a very high price if we reduce all relationships (and information) to the lowest cost formats.


This is a pre-edit extract from my new book, Future Minds, out UK October 2010 (Australia/NZ April 2011).

Too much choice (bit from new book)

Too much choice – we can’t decide what we really need

The vast amount of information and choice now instantly available may also be narrowing our field of vision. A metastudy of scientific journals (a study of other studies) by James Evans at the University of Chicago found online journals are starting to cite fewer and fewer other academic papers and the papers that are referenced tend to be relatively new.

In other words, the breadth of information links is actually narrowing. This is odd because you’d think that online searching would make it easier to add more sources but perhaps this is a function of narrowing search. People simply don’t bump into information accidentally as much as they used to.

For example, only 1% of Google searches actually proceed beyond page one of results, so if something isn’t listed on page one, it might as well not exist. So does this mean that Google is closing minds rather than opening them? Late in 2009, for instance, Google launched an online news service called “Fast Flip”. This allows users to browse news stories significantly faster than if they loaded individual web pages. It is, according to Google: “really fast without unnatural delays”. Yes folks, you can now jump from one factoid to another without having to think about what you are doing.

Another example of how choice can create restriction is my own television viewing habits. When I only had 3-4 terrestrial channels to choose from I would be forced to watch certain programmes simply because there was nothing else on. And this indirectly expanded my experiences. I found things that I didn’t think I’d like and programmes I wasn’t expecting to watch. But nowadays I have a choice of 100+ digital channels from around the world and there never seems to be anything worth watching. Over-choice forces me to watch what I’m already familiar with and new experiences are forfeited.

Preface From New Book (pre-edit)

“Google knows everything” – Nick, aged 8.

This is a book about how the digital era is changing our minds. It is about how new digital objects and environments, such as the internet, mobile phones and e-books are re-wiring our brains — at home, at work and at play.

Technology clearly has a lot to do with this, although in many instances it is not technology’s fault per se. Rather it is the way that many trends are combining and technology is either facilitating this confluence or accelerating and amplifying the effects. This may sound alarming but it needn’t be. We have created these digital technologies using imagination and ingenuity and it is surely within our grasp to decide how best to use them — or when not to.

But can something as seemingly innocent as a Google search or a mobile phone call really change the way that people think and act? I believe they can — and do.

This thought occurred to me one morning when I was looking out into space, from the rooftop of a hotel in Sydney. But then I reflected. Would I have thought this if I were on the phone, looking at a computer screen, in a basement office in London?

I think the answer is no. The hotel was a calm and relaxed environment with expansive harbour views, whereas an office can be a box of digital distractions. Modern life is indeed changing the quality of our thinking, but perhaps the clarity to see this only comes with a certain distance or detachment.

Does this matter? I think it does. Mobile phones, computers and iPods, have become a central feature of everyday life in hundreds of millions of households around the world. There are currently more than one billion personal computers and more than four billion mobile phones*(1) on the planet. In 2005, 12% of US newlyweds met online, while kids aged 5-16 years of age now spend, on average, around six hours every day in front of some kind of screen. This technological ubiquity must surely be resulting in significant attitudinal and behavioural shifts — but what are they? The answer is that nobody is really quite sure. The technology is too new (the internet is barely 5,000 days old) and our knowledge of the human mind is still too limited.

We do know the human brain is ‘plastic.’ It responds to any new stimulus or experience. Our thinking is therefore framed by the tools we choose to use. This has been the case for millennia but we have had millennia to consider the consequences. This has arguably changed. We are now so connected though digital networks that a culture of rapid response has developed. We are so continually available that we have left ourselves no time to properly think about what we are doing. We have become so obsessed with asking whether something can be done that we have left no time to consider whether something should be done. Perhaps the way our brains are constructed means that we just can’t see what is going on.

Moreover, the digital age (the internet, search engines and screens in general and mobile phones and digital books in particular) is chipping away at our ability to concentrate. As Professor Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation points out, screen reading “conditions minds against quiet, concentrated study, against imagination unassisted by visuals, against linear sequential analysis of texts, against an idle afternoon with a detective story and nothing else”. We are therefore in danger of developing a new generation that has plenty of answers but few good questions. A generation that is connected and collaborative but one that is also impatient, isolated and detached from reality. A generation that is unable to think in the ‘real’ world.

It’s not just the new generations either. We all scroll through our days without thinking deeply about what we are really doing or where we are ultimately going. We are turning into whirling dervishes, frantically moving from place to place in search of superficial ecstasy, unaware that many the things we most yearn for are being trampled by our own feet. It is only when we stop moving and the dust settles that we can see this destruction clearly. Our attention and relationships are becoming atomised too. We are connected globally, but our physical relationships are becoming wafer thin and ephemeral. Digital objects and environments influence how we all think and are profoundly shaping how we interact.

Ultimately, I believe the quality of our thinking – and ultimately our decisions – is suffering. Digital devices are turning us into a society of scatterbrains. If any piece of information can be recalled at the click of a mouse, why bother to learn anything? We are all becoming google-eyed. If GPS*(2) can allow us to find anything in an instant, why master map reading? But what if one day the technology doesn’t work? What then?*(3)

It is the right kind of thinking – what I call deep thinking – that makes us uniquely human. This is the type of thinking that is associated with new insights and ideas that move the world forward. It is thinking that is rigorous, focused, deliberate, independent, original, imaginative and reflective. But deep thinking like this can’t be done in a hurry or in an environment full of noise and interruptions. It can’t be done in 140 characters or less. It can’t be done when you are doing three things at once.

Yes it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time but I am concerned about what happens when you add a Twitter stream, a Kindle and an iPod into the mix. In short, what happens to the quality of our thinking when we never really sit still or completely switch off?

Why does all this matter? Because a knowledge revolution is replacing human brawn with human brains as the primary tool of economic production.*(4) It is now intellectual capital (i.e. the product of human minds) that matters most. But we are on the cusp of another revolution. In the future, our minds will compete with smart machines for employment and even human affection. Hence, being able to think in ways that machines cannot, will become vitally important. Put another way, machines are becoming adept at matching stored knowledge to patterns of human behaviour, so we are shifting from a world where people are paid to accumulate and distribute information to an innovation economy where people will be rewarded as conceptual thinkers. Yet this is precisely the type of thinking that is currently under attack.

So how should we as individuals, organisations and institutions (the latter being those deliberately built environments where we spend most of our lives) be dealing with the changing way that people think? How can we harness the potential of new digital objects and environments whilst minimising their downsides?

Personally, I think we need to do a little less and think a little more. We need to slow things down. Not all the time but occasionally. We need to stop confusing movement with progress and get away from the idea that all communication and decision making has to be done instantly. The tyranny of the next financial quarter is just as damaging to deep thinking as a noisy office fitted with fluorescent lighting.

I’m sure that by writing this book I will be accused by some people of going backwards, or of being a pastist. But remember that some of the tried and tested technologies of yesteryear have grown old precisely because they are good and we should think twice before deleting them. Equally, being a member of the Tech No movement doesn’t mean smashing the nearest digital device. It simply means questioning potential consequences or asking for some level of balance. It is about arguing that we need a little more of this and a little less of that.

This is a book about work, education, time, space, books, baths, sleep, music and other things that influence our thinking. It is about how something as physical, finite and flimsy as a 1.5 kg box of proteins and carbohydrates can generate something as infinite and potentially valuable as an idea. Hence, it is for anyone who’s curious about thinking about their own thinking and for everyone who’s interested in unleashing the extraordinarily potential of the human mind.

Whether you are interested in how to deal with too much information, constant partial attention, our obsession with busyness, leisure guilt, the myth of multi-tasking, the sex life of ideas, or the rise of the screenager, this book explores the different aspects of how digital objects and environments are re-wiring our brains – and makes some practical suggestions about what we can do about it.


* (1)Half of British children aged between 5 and 9 now own a mobile phone. For 7 to 15 year-olds the figure is 75%. This is despite government advice that no child under-16 should be using one. The average age that children in the UK now acquire a mobile phone is 8 years.

* (2) I interviewed someone for a job recently and one of her questions was whether or not she could use my car. I said she could, so she asked whether my car had a GPS in it. It doesn’t. She turned the job down. I wish her luck, whatever direction her life goes in. The point here is that GPS and Google give us information but they do not impart understanding and in some cases they can prevent us from properly planning ahead.

*(3) We assume the internet will always work. But what if it doesn’t? A US think-tank (Nemertes Research) says internet use is rising by 60% each year worldwide. Unless we can increase capacity they claim ‘brownouts’ (frozen screens, download delays etc) will become commonplace, relegating the internet to the status of a toy. How would you cope with that?

* (4) A study by McKinsey & Company, a management consultancy, claims that 85% of new jobs created in the US between 1998 and 2006 involved “knowledge work”.

My New Book

Given that my new book is out in October (April onwards outside UK) I think it’s time to start dripping in some of the content as a series of blog posts. Please note that the final published version will be somewhat different from the blogged version due to ongoing changes. The book’s title is Future Minds: How the Digital Age is Changing Our Minds, Why this Matters and What We Can Do About it. Here we go…

Digital technology is a double-edged chalice. It liberates but it enslaves. It gives us freedom and access but it also creates isolation and reduces compassion. But can something as seemingly innocent as a mobile phone or a Google search really change the way that people think and act? This is a very important question. It is also a question that is actively engaging the minds of a number of eminent scientists, particularly those who study the physiology of the brain. According to Professor Susan Greenfield, a brain researcher at the University of Oxford, “We could be sleepwalking into a new world of technology without even considering what it is doing to our brains.”

For example, is it just a coincidence that 79% of children in Britain now have a TV in their bedroom and that Ritalin prescriptions (for attention deficit disorder) have grown by 300% over the last decade? Or the fact that 1/3 of US kids live in a home in which the TV is on “always” or “most of the time”, that 80% of toys now contain an electronic component, or that tech gadgets are now the Christmas presents of choice in the US – amongst preschoolers?

An Observation.

Why did it take so long for someone to come up with the idea of putting wheels on the bottom of suitcases? It’s a great idea, right? Yes and no. If you are an elderly person, or a small child, I can see how lubricating the wheels of long-haul travel is a good idea. But there are some unforseen consequences.

Wheeled suitcases are emblematic of an age in which a dominant attitude is “I can do anything I want.”

In the days before wheeled luggage, people had to think carefully about what they packed. But nowadays we can wildly over-pack and get away with it. Technology has come to the rescue and we can now break free from the physical limits imposed by nature. Our suitcases can now be as super-sized as our over-stuffed homes and our over-weight bodies. Quite why people need so much ‘stuff’ is beyond me, but at least we’re all free to choose.

Another example of this “I can have anything I want” attitude is something that’s going on in parts of London. For example, I know of a house that’s been bought by a developer who has decided to build a double height extension on the back of the house. Fair enough. But that’s not enough.

The Victorian terraced house is, it seems, still too small, so he is using the latest underground innovation to excavate a double depth basement to squeeze in a few more rooms, possibly even a small subterranean swimming pool. Once upon a time, if you wanted a big house you bought a big house. Now, if you have the money, you can make a small house big by stuffing it full of rooms that shouldn’t be there.

I’m all for new ideas. But surely new ideas should focus on real human needs that significantly benefit the largest number of people on the planet- or else benefits the planet as a whole?