Email is bad for you – it’s official. A study by Ashlee McGuire, a graduate student from Queens University in Ontario, says that walking over to a co-worker rather than sending them an email has long-term health benefits. Well, yeah, if all you do all day is sit at a desk and look at a screen attached to a box it’s likely that you will end up inside a bigger box sooner rather than later. But don’t give up email, just do some exercise nit wit.
Amazing how much you can end up doing when you have nothing else to do. I’m writing a chapter for a new book proposal. Monday I spent four hours trying to think of a word (starts with the letter G, means growth). Tuesday was much more productive, largely because I don’t have anything else to do (no meetings, no preparation for anything). Obviously this isn’t much of a post so here’s something I wrote back in 2008, which still has some resonance I think.
In his 1955 book entitled The Sane Society, the author Erich Fromm predicted that man would move from being a robotic, all-consuming creature that was “well-fed, well-entertained…passive, unalive and lacking in feeling” towards“humanistic communitarianism”.
Similarly, Maslow foresaw a world where humans naturally switched their attention towards intellectual, spiritual and existential questions and pursuits once lower level needs such as food and security had been achieved. Intellectual activity and spiritualism are flourishing in some parts of the globe these days but triviality, superficiality, vanity, passivity and indifference are generally stronger drivers of behaviour. So has Maslow’s Pyramid of needs collapsed or is it just that the sandstorm of materialism has temporarily obscured the view of various looming emergencies?
Part of the problem is that we have somehow conspired to allow politicians and others to turn us into the consumers of various products and services. Hence keeping the customer satisfied is the name of the game and denial and confusion are the chosen weapons of mass distraction. Scepticism and enquiry are thus brushed off to the edges of society allowing the mass of humanity to wallow in shallow waters.
Some writers saw this coming a long time ago. In a 1957 essay called A Theory of Mass Culture, Dwight MacDonald argued that a “trivial culture that voids both the deep realities and also the simple spontaneous pleasures” would take hold whereby anything of substance would be repackaged to be either non-threatening, entertaining or ideally both. So is it all doom and gloom? I think not. It could be that what appear to be looming emergencies will turn out to be less of a problem than we think. Or perhaps we are naturally lazy and we are leaving our historical inventiveness to the very last moment.
Perhaps the last word should be given to Carl Rogers who, in 1961, wrote, “when I look at the world I am a pessimist but when I look at people I am optimistic”.
I couldn’t agree more.
Are you reading enough books?
Lovely thought by Philip Hensher in the Independent newspaper recently. The UK government is aiming to get school kids to read 50 books a year. It is also, you may recall, asking people to eat 5 servings of fruit and vegetables per day to promote a healthy body. So why not merge the two ideas and extend to adults?
If a doctor is faced with a patient that’s depressed or aimless, why not ask “Are you reading enough good books?” and then recommend a reading list. 12 books a year might be a good start for a healthy mind. What should be on the book list I wonder?
Public libraries, are you reading this? Why are you not promoting the mental health benefits of good reading and why do you not tap in to the popular obsession with lists and produce individual lists of books for local readers (not 100 books to read before you die but 100 books to prevent you from dying!).
My list of 10 fiction and 10 non-fiction tittles is posted in comments. Feel free to add your own suggestions (almost impossible, I know).
Back to my post of June 22 about the Class of 2020. Are there any common factors involved in the disappearance of these jobs? The answer, in my view, is yes.
Automation and intelligent systems mean that if a job involves the acquisition and subsequent distribution of ‘fixed’ knowledge then it might be in trouble. Equally, if a job can be broken down into a set of formal rules that can be applied by a thinking machine of some kind, then this could be short lived.
Another question to ask is whether a can a job can be outsourced to somewhere else where it might be done better or at a lower cost? In other words, does your job depend upon your physical presence? Again, if not, trouble could be brewing.
One additional factor, highlighted by Andy Kessler in his book “Eat People and Other Unapologetic Rules for Game-Changing Entrepreneurs” is that many of the jobs under threat involve physically moving things from one place to another without adding any value (e.g. looking at a form, stamping it and then giving it back to a customer does not really add value).
Other types of jobs under threat are those where some kind of professional qualification limit new entrants. In many cases this is a good thing (would you use an unqualified airline pilot?), but often (e.g. real estate agents) it’s not. These jobs are similar in many ways to salesmen that have a monopoly on the supply of goods that enables vast mark-ups. Open up the supply and many these jobs become threatened.
Other things to look out for include very intelligent systems. For example, robots are actually better surgeons than humans (they are more accurate and make less mistakes). Aircraft flown by computers rather than pilots might be another example. Whether we trust machines to do such things is an interesting question and, in many instances, the answer currently is no. But our attitudes can change over time.
So where does this leave students thinking about future career choices? First I’d suggest that students think about whether or not a job can be replaced by a machine or moved to another country. Plumbers, for instance, will always be in demand, although back-office support services and materials supply may migrate somewhere else.
Equally, whilst distance learning is a big trend I do not foresee teachers, especially in early years education, being replaced by machines anytime soon because physical presence and empathy are important. The same would be true with doctors, nurses, policemen and lawyers, because whilst much of what they do can be automated or sent to another low-cost country in an email, it is the empathetic relationship these people have with patients, clients and members of the public is what matters the most.
Finally, any job that involves a high degree of problem finding, problem solving, or creative thinking looks pretty safe to me, especially if it also involves persuading other people to fund such thinking. Thus, any creative field from architects and engineers to scientists, mathematicians and designers looks reasonably solid. Also, watch the big trends. What is going up and what is going down in terms of demand?
Anything to do with ageing is very solid, whereas anything linked to a high fertility rate is less so. So think geriatrics not pediatrics and also think about the application of technology (e.g. remote sensing) to aged care. Similarly, anything linked to clean energy is good (but watch for possible bubbles) and the fields of robotics, internet, nanotechnology and genetics are all strong too.
Some additional reading can be found in ‘comments’ below.
“On the web everyone will be famous for 15 people” – David Weinberger
The amount of personal information people are prepared to reveal about themselves – in return for commercial gain or social status – will double every eighteen months.
Just made that up based upon Mark Zuckerberg’s comment that every year people are sharing twice as much information as the previous year.
I’m writing something for the Class of 2020 and it occurs to me that many of the jobs that we take for granted now will be extinct or endangered by the time students graduate in eleven years time. Furthermore, many of the jobs that our parents and grandparents viewed as ‘future proof’ have proved to be nothing of the sort (“nothing interesting ever happens in banking and accountancy – but they are safe professions”).
Here’s a short list of a few dead end jobs and obsolete occupations that are probably best avoided. Having said this it’s interesting to note that a few very old skills and professions are starting to make a comeback (those marked* ).
I will post some commentary on why it is that certain jobs are dead or dying soon, along with some words on new jobs and skills that may exist by the year 2020.
In terms of an overall context for the year 2020, I’ll also shortly post something on how the environment external to that of education (e.g. society, technology, the economy, environment, politics, business etc) will change. If anyone has any comments on any of this please post them below and I will do my best to incorporate into any revised versions.
List of dead, dying or doomed jobs:
– Shorthand secretary
– Switchboard operator
– Receptionist
– Blacksmith*
– Bookbinder
– Printer
– Typist
– Supermarket cashier
– Photo processor
– Toll both operator
– Video store owner
– Call centre opetator
– Telemarketer
– Admin support
– Data entry clerk
– Production supervisor
– Record store manager
– Fighter pilot
– Travel agent*
– Craftsman*
– Newspaper delivery boy
– Newsvendor
– Freight handler
– Panel beater
– Butcher*
– Baker*
– Candlestick maker*
– Milkman
– Electrical appliance repairman
– Translator
– Unskilled agricultural worker
– Machinist
– Computer operator
– Elevator operator
– Sewing machine operator
– Errand boys
– Recruitment consultant
– Public intellectual
– Mail clerk/post boy
– Ticket inspectors
– Tool setter
– Order clerk
– Meter maid
– Stock broker
– Librarian*
– Supermarket shelf stacker
– Train driver
– Paralegal
Just been in Seoul at the World Strategy Forum 2011. I’ve now idea how I ended up being there. Certainly Heathrow Terminal 3. Possibly the books. Anyway, I had my own Chauncy Gardiner* moment at a meeting with the Prime Minister (he says hi) and again shortly afterwards when got to speak briefly with Robert Rubin – ex Secretary of the US Treasury (I’ve never been so happy to have a subscription to the Economist in all my life). I’m sure I’ll be found out eventually, but in the meantime I’m having lots of fun quoting lines from old movies (“growth has its seasons”).
—
* Peter Sellers in Being There (1979)
Our model of education is broken. In most countries schooling is based upon a model developed during the agrarian era and adapted to produce workers for factory production. But most people now live in knowledge economies and the speed of change is such that much of the knowledge acquired by students is out of date by the time they leave school. But there’s a bigger problem. In the future, smart machines will complete with clever people for jobs, so if a job is based upon a set of rules or is dependent upon the accumulation and distribution of fixed knowledge it’s probably history in the future.
What can we do about this? I’m not for one minute suggesting that facts are unimportant. We need to learn historical facts because in so doing we learn how and where to find what we need. This method also provides rules, context and questions (i.e. how to think). Equally, I am not questioning the need for physical schooling. Distance learning is a fantastic development, but it’s an added bonus. Physical schools provide socialisation and a sense of community. What I am arguing is that our education system is good at providing many of the basics, but we need to provide something else on top.
Once we have taught the basics, we need to spend time teaching students the things that smart machines cannot do. We need to teach students how to find problems (needs) and then teach them how to invent highly creative solutions. We also need to teach people how to interact with human beings and get the best out of other people.
Second, we need to redesign a system that is restricted by funding. Education is probably the most important factor influencing outcomes. It largely creates or restricts individual opportunities and it more or less defines national economic performance. So why do we continue to pay teachers so badly? If teaching is one of the most important jobs there is, why do we not pay teachers accordingly?
Moreover, if your aim is a fair and just society, asking people to pay large amounts of money for tertiary education doesn’t make any sense. If tertiary education is expensive, what happens is that individual students will naturally pursue courses that prepare them for the highest paying jobs in order to recoup their costs. In other words, costly education will result in large numbers of highly paid bankers, lawyers, doctors and accountants, but very few teachers, nurses, writers, artists, policemen and firefighters. Free or low cost education, in contrast, would result in a more balanced society in which individuals are more able to pursue their particular passion or work in professions that are poorly paid but which have a high societal value.
Third, current educational systems are too restrictive in the sense that there are too may rules and outcomes are too biased towards narrow measurement. Furthermore, the users of the system (i.e. the students) do not have enough say.
Consider the case of Wikipedia versus Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica is written by experts and the information contained within is fixed in the sense that it is not easily altered, especially by those using it. It is also expensive to originate and to disseminate.
Contrast this with Wikipedia. Here we have a set of standards – an ethos and a set of values more than a fixed product. It is open, both in the sense that anyone can contribute to it, but also in the sense that it is an experiment that is not especially focused any particular outcome or metrics. There are very few layers of measurement, control or accountability, but it somehow works. Not only does Wikipedia contain more information than Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is also more accurate according to some studies.
So here’s my idea. Instead of prescribing a set curriculum, we should put in place an overall philosophy and let good teachers get on with it. We should remove many of the measurement systems and focus instead on the creation of an ethos or set of values that clearly describe what education is for. Personally, I think that the purpose of education should be to make people think for themselves and to think empathically about others.
Second, instead of paying teachers the least possible amount of money we should pay them as much as we, as societies, can afford, but root out and remove any teacher that is not dedicated, talented and generally an inspiration to the young people they teach.
Third, instead of charging students large amounts of money to continue with their education, we should do the very opposite. We should make quality education free (or cheap) at all levels, but remove any student – or parent – that does not support the idea or does not take the privilege seriously.
Finally, schools, colleges and Universities should become generative spaces where a generosity of spirit means that outcomes are measured not at five, eleven, sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age, but over a whole lifetime.
I had a thought recently. If all fossil fuels are derived from plants, which originally got their energy from light (i.e. oil, coal and gas are stored photosynthesis), why can’t we mimic this process with biological factories converting light into energy? Much more practical than solar you’d imagine. Then I thought, that’s just wood you idiot.
Another idea. I was driving down a motorway recently and noticed the grass by the road being blown by the wind created by the cars. Why can’t we harvest this energy? Why can’t we create wind turbines in the form of tiny blades of ‘grass’ to sit along freeways. 50cm blades of ‘grass’ would be so much nicer to look at than 50m wind turbines.
A third thought. Is there a website out there where I can upload an image of my face and it automatically roams cyberspace looking for me? (www.gofindme.com?). Why would one want to do such a thing? To prevent the unauthorized use of personal photographs.We probably don’t need this now, but once facial recognition is built into every CCTV camera and every mobile phone it could have its uses.