Why trends bend

If one more person had said “Have a magic day” I might have hit them. I’ve been in Hong Kong for a night staying at the Disneyland Hotel. Mickey Mouse in Cantonese and Mandarin is somewhat weird. Anyway, amongst other things, I’m putting the finishing touches to a new book called The Future: 50 Things You Really Need to Know. Here’s what used to be the end before it got thrown out (I hate throwing things away, which is why have a habit of recycling them here).

Ideas can be tricky in the sense that they often combine in novel and unexpected ways. Thus, the future rarely ends up as a logical extension of our current thinking. Some ideas will move much faster, or much slower, than we expect, either because we will underestimate the speed of technological change or because we will forget about the impact of human psychology and the inertia of history. This latter point is hugely important. Futurists, especially techno-optimists, often focus on technology at the expense of other important factors, especially the psychology of their fellow human beings, many of whom can be emotional, subjective, irrational, forgetful and stark raving mad.

Therefore, while science and technology will exert significant influence on the future, other, more prosaic, ideas or events may prove to be far more influential, especially when they combine with inherently human responses. For example, it is likely that machines will one day become smart enough to replace people in many more roles. At this point capital effectively becomes labour. But what will the human reaction to this situation be? Similarly, a major man-made or natural disaster could trigger a seemingly illogical technological regression, while a prolonged economic depression might result in anger or resentment towards other nations that ends up with a steady retreat from globalisation and many of the values, institutions and beliefs that we currently take for granted.

If you are thinking that this all sounds a little unlikely and that the future will most probably be a predictable and logical extension of the present, then consider what a handful of men armed with a simple idea, together with some low-tech box cutters and a rudimentary knowledge of flying, managed to do to geopolitics, US military deployment and the global zeitgeist on 11 September 2001.

We might also find that many of our new ideas, especially major scientific and technological breakthroughs that would benefit mankind, are constrained, modified or rejected by large numbers of people in favour of illogical beliefs and superstitions. Rather than a new enlightenment, we may enter a new dark age where it is illogical beliefs, rather than facts, that flourish. Again, you might believe that this future is implausible, but it’s already happening in some regions where the teaching of evolution is being rejected , either in favour of the balanced teaching of various viewpoints, or because religion considers such ideas to be dangerous and subversive.

Or perhaps we will abandon the internet, either because we no longer trust much of the information it contains, or because governments, or corporations, around the world start to censor it or remove many, or all, of its open and generative qualities.

We should also remember that important things happen by accident and that people often find uses for ideas that their creators did not foresee. Sending texts via mobile phones is just example of the unintended consequences of technology. Similarly, Twitter was largely created ‘on the fly’ by its users and not the unfolding of a long-term master plan. We often make long-terms plans based on an imagined future, but life then makes unexpected and unwanted turns. The challenge, to some extent, is dealing with the realities that we get rather than those we expect. Life, as John Lennon said, is what happens to you while you are making other plans.

It would also be a mistake to assume that the future will be a singular experience. Some people will experience the future sooner than others, which is much the same as saying that how you experience the future, 5, 15 or 50 years hence, will to a large degree, depend upon what age you are, where you live and what you spend your time doing. There is also the point made about prophesy by the philosopher Karl Popper many years ago, which is that the future is dependent upon the growth of knowledge, which is itself unknowable or, at the very least, unpredictable.

To conclude, the only thing that we really know about the future is that it will be different. Nothing is inevitable and equally nothing will happen in isolation.
Overall, the future offers us many wonderful possibilities, but it remains up to us whether the opportunities are embraced, squandered or ignored. The future is already here, but it’s unclear what we’ll decide to do with it.

Should we be optimistic about the future? On balance, the answer is probably yes. In the shorter term there are serious issues on the horizon and everyday life is likely to get more difficult for many people, especially in relation to food, water, energy and resources. Mankind also has a habit of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, often due to short-term pressures, or messing things up completely by leaving things until it’s too late. But we usually muddle through and eventually fix any serious wrongdoings.

Over the longer term things are looking brighter, largely due to forthcoming developments in areas such as healthcare, energy and the Internet. These changes won’t benefit everyone, so one of the key challenges is to ensure that any newfound optimism is evenly distributed and that more of the world’s people can engage in a debate about what kind of future we would all like to live in.

Virgin Atlantic goes from bad to worse

A while ago I was on an 11-hour flight on Upper Class with Virgin Atlantic and my laptop battery was down to 8%. I asked if there was a plug socket in the seat and the attendant said “No”. I then asked if they could recharge my laptop for me. “No, I’m sorry we can’t do that.” I don’t know about you, but I do feel that a socket – or at least the offer to recharge devices – is more important that what’s on the new menu or what’s showing on in-flight movies. But it gets worse.

What do I see in the newspapers this morning, but an announcement that Virgin Atlantic is allowing mobile phone use throughout some of its aircraft “to encourage business travellers.” We’ll here’s one frequent business traveller that will from now on be flying with someone else.

Can you imagine sitting next to someone from London to New York, let alone from London to Sydney that is either on the phone or has a phone that keeps going off when you’re trying to sleep? Long-haul flights are just about the only place left where there is still silence and you can actually hear yourself think.

I’m sitting in a rival airline’s lounge (Cathay) as I write this and my  gold Virgin Atlantic frequent flyer card is flying back to Virgin.

 

All the time in the world

Things are speeding up right? You’ve got no time to yourself and it feels like you’re always working. Perhaps not. A couple of economists have studied how people in the US spend their time and the results are shocking. People have considerably more free time than they did forty years ago. This verdict is at odds with various studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the US Census Bureau but their studies tend to focus on workplace trends. The findings looked at total time spent and found that the total amount of time spent ‘working’ has actually fallen consistently since 1965. There are problems of definition of course. If you are multi-tasking – listening to music while cleaning the house for example – is this work or relaxation?

Nevertheless, the technological revolution (for example, 24/7 services, home delivery, Internet banking) has delivered a more relaxed society where the average person has four to eight hours more leisure time each week than they did forty years ago. So why do we still feel so stressed out? The reason, apparently, is that we’ve got too much money! The growth in real incomes has made our time more expensive so lying in the sun for a day is much more expensive that it used to be.

The second reason is that we do too much. Connectedness means that we are ‘always on’ which also leads to a blurring of boundaries between work and home. Add a pinch of job insecurity due to outsourcing and you can see why we’re so rattled.

Yesterday’s futures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve been at the University of Warwick attending a conference organised by the Society of Chief Librarians. There was a good talk on scenarios by Rafael Ramîrez, a fellow in strategy and director of the scenarios programme at the Said Business School at Oxford. He said something I liked which was as follows:

“Trends are the leftovers of yesterdays futures”

I think this is largely true, especially if you are talking about distant futures. Trends tell you about yesterday. They can sometimes tell you something useful about today, but you have to be very careful about projecting them forward. Having said this, I believe that some trends can stand the test of time. Demographics might be a case in point, although even here you have to be careful. For example, the UN has just adjusted it global population forecasts due to “unforeseen” fertility in Africa.

One other thing. I was in Birmingham earlier in the week (nice new library!) and couldn’t help but notice the amount of people on the street selling grievances. There were two stalls on the street selling personal injury compensation and another asking if you’d been mis-sold financial services. There was definitely something in the air around being hard done by or wanting to claim your share of the pie.

 

Image: Futurelab.org.uk

The Future of Remote Healthcare

Will machines will help to cure us or help to kill us in the future. I think the answer is probably a bit of both. First the good news.

I was in Poland doing a TEDx talk a while ago and met someone that had created a mobile application called Life Circle. This is essentially a way of using mobile phones to increase the supply of blood and, in particular, to solve the issue of short-term blood supply problems. Basically, if I’m a blood donor with a smart phone I register with a local blood bank and they take my smart phone number. If they have an emergency and need my blood type in a hurry they can instantly find out how close I am to them and ask me to come in. What’s more other blood banks internationally can be linked into the same system.

But there’s more. The mobile app can link with social networks, so users can tell their friends about the idea, talk about blood donation or even – and you’d have to be rather careful with this – compete with each other online over how much blood they’ve donated recently.

It’s a great idea, but it’s not the only one out there. 23andMe is brilliant too. For $150 I can find out what I’m likely to get seriously sick from in the distant future and try to adjust my lifestyle so that perhaps I don’t. I can sign up for the latest news about my specific condition too.

Other great ideas I’ve come across recently include a Kettle in Japan that knows when its usually pickled up in the mornings and will send an SMS to a carer when its not.
I’ve seen clothing in Singapore that knows if the wearer has fallen over, and possibly why, and calls for help if needed.

I’ve seen a virtual role playing game (SPARX ) that helps teenagers deal with depression and boost self confidence, robotic teddy bears that teach kids with diabetes to manage their condition, cutlery that tells you if you’ve got too much salt on your food, a personal DNA sequencer that’s the size of a USB memory stick (MinION) and a computer the size of a grain of sugar (with a microprocessor, solar panel, pressure sensor and wireless connectivity).You stick the computer in your eye to measure the pressure of liquid on your eyeball and the data is sent to your doctor – for people with Glaucoma. And let’s not forget what’s on the horizon in areas such as regenerative medicine, user-generated medicine, robotics, nanotech and data mining.

In short, everything is getting smarter, cheaper, smaller and linked together with the result that we are generating huge mountains of data that can be used to observe things that were previously invisible and to predict things with increasing degrees of accuracy. This means that information is getting cheaper, its reach is being extended and its uses are increasing rapidly. Moreover, power is shifting from institutions to individuals (i.e. from doctors to patients), hopefully with the result that people will be empowered to look after themselves a bit more and challenge the powers at be when the powers at be seem to be wrong with their diagnosis or opinions. The transparency and collaborative nature of websites like Patientslikeme is just the beginning.This isn’t utopia by a long shot, but things are moving in a good direction.

But there’s also a darker side.

Connectivity is destroying privacy. Connectivity is fuelling cyber crime (including medical identity theft and fraud in the US), is destroying intellectual property, is shortening attention spans and, most worrying of all, perhaps, is allowing individuals to shut themselves off from the rest of the world, or at least shut themselves off from the views and opinions of those that contradict what they believe. As for ‘The Cloud’, that’s a great development, but I do still worry about overall security and whether the companies that are controlling my data will still be around over the longer term and whether they can be trusted to do what they say they’ll do in terms of access.

And let’s not forget about Internet addiction either – between 2% and 20% of all users from the studies I’ve seen, but who really knows yet. Interestingly, if you plot the uptake of mobile devices by children in the UK against Ritalin prescriptions there appears to be a correlation, although perhaps that’s just a coincidence. Maybe you’d get the same result plotting Ritalin against scooters sales or visits to Gregg’s bakers.

But maybe not. Scientists at the University of California (San Diego), for example, claim that constant exposure to digital information means that there is no longer enough time available for what has been termed ’emotional processing’. In short, digital devices are not only making us impatient, they are leading to a loss of empathy.

Another study wonderfully titled ‘Ego Inflation Over Time: A Test of Two Generational Theories of Narcissism Using Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis’ (I love that!) has found a marked increase in narcissism among US students since 1982. The 40-question survey attracted 16,475 respondents and found more individuals than ever agreeing with statements like “I think I am a special person.” One explanation put forward by researchers to explain the increased focus on the self is Web 2.0 and sites like YOUTube and MYSpace. There seems to be an explosion of ‘Me-ism’ out there and Web 2.0 and mobile technology seems the most likely culprit.

My other main concern here is that while some commentators say that power is transferring from institutions to individuals, the exact opposite may be occurring. Google knows a lot about me. So does my mobile phone company. If I were on Facebook, which I’m not, they would know even more. As for governments, at the moment they’re relatively stupid. I know that they able to intercept certain things I say and observe certain patterns of behaviour, but mostly I’m left alone – for now.

But what happens when governments really wake up to the potential of the data that we now broadcast almost every hour of the day thanks to our addiction to mobile phones, digital money, online shopping and social networks?

One thing is for sure. If governments are short of money, which they often are, they’ll start to ration access to certain services based upon observed behaviour and choices. Free dental care? Not if I’m seen to be addicted to Cadbury’s Fudge bars.
A new heart? I doubt it, not unless I’m seen to be walking more and spending less time in KFC. I know this happens already to some extent, but we’ve not seen the start of it in my view. Moreover, who is to know whether I really need those Fudge bars?
Perhaps they calm me down and stop me from becoming an axe murderer!

What’s clearly happening here is that behaviour (even attitudes) that were once private and hidden from view are becoming increasingly public – or at least visible to certain parties. Do this matter? I think it does. Firstly, whose data is this? Does it belong to the individual that’s generates it, the people that own the device that captures it or someone else? Should people that generate this data be able to sell it to others and if who exactly should be allowed to see it?To me these are big questions and we’ve not even started the debate yet.

I’m something of a tragic when it comes to collecting statistics and two that caught my attention recently were that around 50% of America’s medical budget is consumed by around 5% of the US population. The other one is that in Australia, between 27% and 31% of lifetime Medicare expenditure is spent in the last week of a patient’s life.

Again, I don’t know how true these figures are, but if they are even remotely correct then two thoughts enter my head. The first is that governments are going to find out one way or another who the heaviest users of healthcare are and do one of two things. Either they are going to limit expenditure by individual patients with some kind of lifetime maximum or they are going to ration the availability of healthcare based upon observable behaviour. How are they going to do the latter? With technology and with information.

Two other thoughts.

The first is that healthcare is going to become much more targeted or personalised based upon information about individual patients. How with we do this? Technology again.

The second thought is that one highly plausible future is a somewhat uncomfortable mixture of high-technology and austerity. We will invent the most incredible new medical technologies, but we’ll have to ration them due to cost, either because governments don’t have enough money to deploy them or because they will cost too much to use. I’m referring to things as prosaic as energy costs Many of these machines use a great deal of energy to operate and so too do supercomputers, networks and clouds. We may solve this in the future with quantum computing but don’t bet in it, especially in the shorter term.

So, overall, am I optimistic or pessimistic? Will machines free us or enslave us? I don’t know the answer to this question yet. But I do know that ultimately the answer is in our hands. I do not agree with the thought that technology is neutral. It isn’t. Technology sets boundaries, rules, about what can and can’t be done the minute it comes into contact with human minds and human hands.

But it is up to us whether we accept these rules. Our present choices and actions shape the future and what I’d like to see is more debate about the social impacts of certain technologies.

Technology has played a role in medicine for hundreds if not thousands of years. But so too have people. You can automate, virtualize and cost-save your way to a future where doctors and nurses are almost redundant. But in my experience what people that are sick want, apart from being better, is human contact.

Last year I hear that someone made the comment that if you removed 1% of human interaction from the NHS and relied instead on machines, the NHS would save £250 million. That’s great. £250 million to spend on improving healthcare and saving lives elsewhere. But taken to the extremes, the cost saving mentality is almost as dangerous and the idea that all human interactions should be replaced by machines for reasons of speedy or efficiency.

To me the whole point of technology and the data that it can produce is to enhance human thinking and contact. If it replaces them we are all in serious trouble.

The beginning of the end for oil in Saudi

I was talking with someone in Dubai yesterday and they pointed me in the direction of a great statistic, which is that by 2040 Saudi will be a net importer of oil. It’s so good in fact that if you Google: “By around 2040, Saudi Arabia will be a net oil importing nation”, Google tries to correct your search by changing “importing” to “exporting”.

Source of the graph is Chatham House (Burning Oil to Keep Cool: The Hidden Energy Crisis in Saudi Arabia by Glada Lahn and Paul Stevens) but IMF has also referred to this forecast.

Monday Statistic

According to the UK Office of National Statistics, there will be more than 500,000 people in Britain aged 100 + by the year 2066. There are currently just 12, 640 people aged 100 or more (itself a 500% increase on 1980).

The Nature of Consciousness

Following on from my last post about the fabric or reality here’s another in a similar vein. Both are from the cutting room floor in the sense that I’m doing a second (and hopefully final) edit of one of my new books (The Future: 50 things you really need to know) and these didn’t make the cut for one reason or another.

Consciousness is difficult to get your head around. It’s essentially thoughts, or awareness, generated by the interaction between the human brain and the outside world, although some might argue that it’s your mind not your brain doing this. Perhaps it’s simply awareness of self or of one’s own thinking.

Consciousness is somewhat problematic in that we cannot currently define it let alone understand exactly how it works or replicate it. Where, for example, does consciousness reside? Is the brain separate from the mind, and if so, how is it separate? Until we can answer these questions, we will never be able to create an artificial intelligence (AI) that will truly rival human beings. Machines are already very smart, but they are a very long way away from being able to criticise their own thinking or create their own problems. In short, can a machine ever really be described as intelligent if it does not really think in the true sense of the word?

Thinking about this issue in a slightly different way, perhaps new forms of intelligence will emerge from new forms of chaos. For example, think of the way that shoals of fish move around or swarms of bees interact. Maybe, the wisdom of crowds will evolve into something resembling a ‘hive’ consciousness – billions of human brains unknowingly connecting with each other to create a superior form of instinctive intelligence.

In a book about the future, and the fringes of current thinking, it is worth probing two areas that relate to human consciousness, both of which are somewhat metaphysical and philosophical. The first is how do we know that what we currently understand as consciousness (i.e. being alive) is not merely a Matrix movie-like dream or simulation? How do we know that we even exist? If you are interested in this I would recommend another book in this series, which is 50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know. That’s a cheap way of digging myself out of a large hole.

The second thought is whether or not it could be possible for human consciousness to reside or move outside of the human body. This will sound a little crazy, but we need to consider this for two reasons. First, this could link to discussions about a human soul, which links to various spiritual and religious ideas. Second, if we are trying to turn ourselves into immortal beings (transhumanism) or build true thinking machines (AI), this could lead to the development of devices that could ‘hold our souls’ – or at least an individual consciousness.

Some religions, of course, may argue that this happens already. Some faiths, for instance, believe that after a person dies, their spirit or soul leaves the old body and passes to that of another animal or even a plant. Maybe one day it will be discovered that this is true or that it is possible for a soul to pass into, or somehow inhabit, inert objects or materials such as rocks. Or that consciousness contains some kind of unknown energy that can be housed in things such as buildings or disrupt other unknown energy fields.

And what of animals? They have brains, but do they possess consciousness? This is an ethically charged area, not least because if you deny animals consciousness (or knowledge of their own existence) this can be used as a justification for killing them.

And what of plants? Could we one day discover that they possess some kind of limited consciousness? It’s not impossible that consciousness is actually a continuum and that all living things have some level of self-knowledge.

And if you think that’s a bit unlikely I have another idea for you. What if it were one day possible to introduce, or remove, memories from the head of an individual via pharmacological intervention. You could then make people believe that something had happened to them even when it had not or, conversely, remove the memory of real experiences. And, of course, the individual could be made unaware that such an intervention had ever taken place. The military would have an obvious interest in what could perhaps be termed ‘pharmaceutical reality’ due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and so to would some victims of serious crime. But what if governments or corporations (or even parents) started to alter reality in this manner? Perhaps it would start, innocently enough, with a desire to remove the stress and strain of everyday living via neural implants, but who is to say that it would stop there?