Email Overload

So called snail-mail is in an inevitable decline. One day it will be necessary to explain the concept of an envelope, and what it’s for, to younger people. To write, with a handheld pen, place a piece of paper inside an adequately formed folded paper enclosure and sealing it. This may involve moistening a surface or removing a strip of paper. To take account of the costs associated with this procedure a small, preprinted paper stamp is attached to one corner of the enclosure. The enclosure must meet regulations to then be accepted by a carrier who will take it from a bright red box. This artifact, called a “letter” is then piled up with lots of others to eventually be sorted and directed towards a specified destination. If the process is successful, a recipient may then destroy the envelope and read the letter.

When spelt out like so, it’s no wonder that e-mail has taken over the world. After centuries of operation the popular paper-based means of communication is now a novelty. Classical mail hangs on mostly as a means of getting birthday cards, and other celebratory cards, from A to B.

Even ardent official users, like the taxman, a trying to entice us all to become paperless. Major banks are also exhibiting this aversion to paper. Often more for their convenience rather than ours as their administrative systems become exclusively digital.

There’s a universal aspect that’s shared by the old world and the new world. It’s one that’s almost impossible to shake off. Filter it as we may, the piling up of junk mail is as bad on the doorstep as it is in the in-box. Junk splits into a whole series of categories. Putting aside the malicious and criminal variety, there’s a mass of mail that’s devoted to sales and marketing. I’ve ranted about this bombardment before, even if it makes no difference. The likes of:

“We are always looking to improve your experience with us, and we invite you to give your feedback in this short survey.”

Breaking this e-mail request down, it proports to be to my advantage to spend time answering the sender’s questions. Obviously, it’s to the questioner’s advantage and not mine. To sweeten the pill there’s a chance to win a small prize. Probably with odds set at a billion to one.

If this experience was occasional and advantageous to me, complaining might not be the right way to go. Sadly, the reality is the stream of e-mails, from multiple services, gets so annoying that I wish these tedious e-mails were paper. Then at least my recycling bin would benefit.

My approach is to instantly delete these e-mails. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this one. Customer feedback can go and take a hike. Naturally, I want the coffee shop I regularly use and my main bank to improve their services. But if these organisations think this is the way to do it, I think they have a big hole in their thinking.

Yes, if quick enough, it’s possible to opt in or out of marketing communications but endless feedback surveys seem to be exempt. They are the confetti of the marketing world.

“How did we do?” Is ticking a box really going to provide an answer to that question? “Thanks for your time” Nice, but as insincere as an algorithm can be.

Some forward-thinking organisations may eventually eliminate junk mail. In time there must be a better way of interacting. It’s about time they hurried up.

Human Space Travel

It’s right to point out that space exploration is not solely a scientific endeavour. It’s odd to have to point that out. I do so because there are some purists who think that money should only be spent of space exploration if there’s a tangible scientific gain to be had. This thinking goes back to the agreement that public funds should only be spent of Earthy concerns. A glance at the extensive list of trouble that persist around the globe is one reason to focus on Terra firma rather than up at the heavens. That said, the choice is rarely simple.

Then there’s the accusation that exploration, of any kind, is intrinsically imperial. Powerful entities looking for sources of future dominance and wealth. This is not entirely wrong given humanity’s history of plundering resources from wherever they come. Minerals and trade routes being a couple of the primary sources of interest. A strong political will can be amassed to compete to be first to get a foothold on new territory. Despite all the above there’s something more complex going on.

The recent Artemis II space mission may not have been a great boost to humanity’s scientific knowledge. This adventurous lunar fly-by mission was more about proving technology than gathering an abundance of discoveries. Afterall, the far-side of the Moon can quite adequately be surveyed by automated spacecraft. Much as is being done by robotic machines on Mars.

I think there’s little doubt that 1st to 11th April 2026 will be recorded in the history books. If for no other reason that the gap between the Apollo space missions and Artemis. Like so many schoolboys in the 1960s, I watched those black and white TV images of men on the Moon, as they happened. I became an engineer. Would that have happened anyway? Probably, but I’m not discounting the inspirational impact of the Apollo missions.

[What would we ever do without the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Certainly, naming new space missions would be a lot harder.]

Do we need crewed missions in future? Given the advances in automation and autonomy that have taken place in the last 50-years, so much can be achieved without the need for humans on-board a spacecraft. However, this is not a binary argument. There are, and always will be, the need to take human experience to the absolute limits. President Kennedy cited George Mallory for a reason to explores space, “Because it’s there,” he said.

The simple notion that humans should be constrained and confined to Terra firma runs contrary to our intrinsic nature. Although societies do become more risk adverse as they acquire the comforts of economic success, there’s still an appetite for exploration even if it entails great safety risks. The allure of being the first does not diminish.

Ideally, the combination of adventure and discovery go hand in hand. Space exploration is not just indulging the most adventurous amongst us. Thus, I go back to my proposition that there something more complex going on.

The ancient Greeks and Romans could help. For what is humanity’s destiny? Ad Astra has a meaning. Far more than the movie of that name. Not one of my favourite movies either.

There’s an inevitability that humanity will go to the stars. That is, if in the meantime wars or environmental degradation do not consume us. Exploration is part of a natural progression of intelligent life. It maybe (likely to be) happened elsewhere in the universe too.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.”  As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

Journey to and from Space

Words count. Even so, this is the age of the image. An almost infinite variety of pixels arranged to capture a moment in time. That’s what has come back from the Moon along with the safe return of the astronauts last night. When I switched the radio at around one in the morning the story was unfolding. Methodical commentary following s flight back to Earth step by step.

There’s nothing like live suspense. The Moon mission was not complete until the safety of everyone involved was assured. Along with launch, re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere is still the biggest challenge in human space flight. As happened with the space shuttle tragedy, it feels doubly tragic to successfully undertake a mission and not make it home.

Outstanding design, meticulous planning, precision execution and good fortune all come together to make a transition from the void of space to the surface of Earth a success. It’s been said a lot of times; surely there’s a better way of getting home. Hurling a capsule along a path, to make a trajectory at incredible speed, heating like a furnace, is necessary but has an element of crudity about it.

The method used to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere works. What’s unsettling is that it’s a million miles from the fanciful methods that are frequently depicted in science fiction. Almost as if nature is adverse to humans leaving the planet. Earth’s atmosphere is the greatest asset life has but it’s also a tough barrier. Transitioning it will never be simple.

Various imaginative ideas have been presented over the decades. Yet, they are picture perfect illustrations and little more. For example, the space elevator[1] is a viable concept. The downside is that humanity does not have the technology to make it work. If it did the problem would be marshalling the international cooperation needed to make it possible. Then sustaining that cooperation for generations.

Today we are stuck with methods that are one shot technologies. Costly and throw away. Huge rockets that are discarded. Spacecraft that become museum pieces, if the make it back.

It occurs to me that I have been born into the space age. An age when humanity is taking baby steps exploring the practically infinite. To go further a next step, maybe decades ahead, will open greater possibilities. For now, the sheer cost of coming and going from space will shape everything that is done.

The prospect of commercialisation is real. Depending solely on State entities to fund every mission has sever limitations. However, the commercial enterprises that can take on the challenge of space flight are few in number. What’s needed is a construction of regulatory frameworks that fairly and soundly distribute both costs and benefits for future projects.

I’d place emphasis on this work needing to be for all humanity. Not easy to do given the global history of commercial enterprises. Having a new East India Company[2] for space exploitation is not an attractive prospect.

[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Refuse to Go

Daily writing prompt
What place in the world do you never want to visit? Why?
View all responses

A place with no redeeming features. A place void of life. A place where the sun doesn’t shine or shines unendingly. Well, not really. I’d be fine with the above landscapes. Not for long, naturally.

The place I don’t want to be is where a large predator sees me as its next lunch. Add to that having no way of avoiding an unpleasant fate. That’s no place to be.

Modern Polymath

It’s easy to conclude that there’s no such thing as a polymath in the 21st century. So expanded is the field of human knowledge that no one person can have a sufficient overview of every academic, cultural, political, and economic discipline. Not only that but the ability to articulate concepts and ideas in an understandable manner.

If I were to think of a classical polymath, I’d instantly go to American Benjamin Franklin. It’s even how he is described in literature. Here, I’m going back to the 18th century. In the multimedia age, there are numerous influential intellectuals who have become spokespersons for their discipline, but none stride across a vast range.

We segment and partition knowledge, and pepper it with dedicated terms, that it’s way more than a human head full. Specialisation is both a curse and a God send. Generally, the intensification of study of each and every subject has been a bonus to human progress.

There’s become an excess in manipulation of language to suite each scientific endeavour. That goes for politics and economics too. Particularisation does tend to create distance between those who dig deeply into specific subjects.

To help unravel ingrained complexity there’s a respectable number of writers and YouTubers who try their best to communicate. If anything, the demand for this skill is increasing as we move from the traditional paper-based publications, say New Scientist, to the myriads of social media platforms. Then the issue becomes which one speaks with authority.

I started this piece with a thought in mind. It really was to say something complementary about the BBC. Yes, a media organisation that gets a fair share of criticism, but the world would be a much poorer place without it. Its roots are deep.

A popular British pastime is quizzing. That has played a part in TV and Radio since they were invented. A quiz is both entertaining for the participants and those who look on. Like a modern-day mediaeval tournament, a display of quick thinking and astonishing depth or range of knowledge. A test that allows us all to take part even if we come away all too aware of how little we know. Not so much unsettling as a quick return the earth.

Is there’s no such thing as a polymath in 2026? As an avid watcher of the BBC’s University Challenge[1], I’m struck by the breadth of questioning and the ability of the teams of students to find answers to the most tortuous questions. Obscurity knows no bounds.

On questions of famous paintings, I have a preprogrammed response. It’s either Titian or Tintoretto. It’s surprising how many times that works. Try as I might, I rarely get into double figures however much I guess. It’s always worth a punt. Sitting in the back if my memory are facts that I’ve no idea how they lodged there over the years.

Watching the winning teams of students, I do wonder if the notion of a polymath is dead. It does restore my faith in the infinite variety of human capabilities. This counteracts the fancy marketing blurb that accompanies machine learning software. Practically, humanity is far from becoming obsolete.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t6l0

The False Dichotomy

Like a clock work toy. Wind them up and away they go. It goes something like this. Space exploration is a waste of scarce resources. We’d better spend them fixing problems here on Earth. Compare and contrast as if a viable choice was just to move piles of money from one place to another. This line of argument is favoured by nationalistic green politicians and liberal journalists tasked with filling newspaper column inches. A bunch of academics like to jump on the bandwagon too.

They like to divide the world into billionaire technologists ardently in pursuit of progress at the expense of everyone but themselves and open-toed sandal shoed environmentalists who’ve inherited the legacy of 1970s hippiedom. These two exists, of course, and they have influence, but they are oddities to most people.

So, much of the debates that fill the media are carved out of planks of wood. As if there are only ever two sides to every argument. Two choices to make. Two views open to debaters. As a good liberal, I must reject this dichotomy.

However, to address the subject, I’m corralled into the compare and contrast stock yard.

On the one hand, the environmental challenges before humanity are such that they need ardent attention. The stupidity of “drill baby drill” is mindbogglingly thoughtless. Stupid at a level it’s difficult to comprehend. It’s true that taking short term gains that lead to long term pains is not new. It’s one of humanities troublesome failings. Surely, we can learn from history.

On the other hand, Exploration is human. From the moment primitive bipeds took off across open plains we’ve wanted to know what’s over the horizon. What’s around the corner. Are there opportunities or threats? It’s linked with the fragility of our existence. Space isn’t a boundary that puts a stop to this curiosity. We must see with our own eyes. 

Now, I’ll demolish the false dichotomy. Both above, to degrees, need to be respected. Both can be seen through the lens of human imperatives – safety and security. In fact, to an extent both are linked.

Understanding how to mitigate the negative impact of our technology, we need to develop better ways of doing business. Solar power is an example.

The fate of our planet is better understood by studying other planets, and our own from space. Nature presents itself in a myriad of complex different formula across the universe.

To get away from the either/or mentality there does need to be a marshalling of political will. This is probably the greatest challenge at a global level. I believe we can both confront climate change and progress human exploration. It requires imagination.

Myth or Productivity Booster?

A four-day week. It’s true that there’s nothing magical about the conventional five-day week. It’s an invention of modern times. There are plenty of self-employed people who’d say there were working a seven-day week. So, is the claim made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) advocates merely a sales pitch or does it have any substance?

Much depends on how seriously we take this mythical word called “productivity”. I’ve put it like this because there’s a million and one ways of determining what needs to be done as opposed to what people want to do and, when things go wrong, are forced to do.

A beaver is extremely productive. There’s an ingrained motivation to use what nature has provided to build a dam and a home. It’s non-stop. Come setbacks or successes this innovative creature keeps on going. It doesn’t watch the clock. Rarely discouraged.

I’m going to bring up a small paperback that cost 3 shillings and 6 pence when it was published. It’s one of those books that is both comedy and seriousness wrapped up in one. Parkinson’s law or the pursuit of progress is older than I am. It was first published in 1957.

The plot is simple but there are several messages. One for example, relates to the provision of resources. It goes something like this – if only we had a couple more staff and a state or the art information system we could double our efficiency. That’s contrasted by a view of past statistics that often shows a growth in staffing (or computing power) and roughly the same or even less being achieved. Why it’s suggested that AI will circumvent this nicety, I’m not sure. Speed and multiplication don’t always add up to building better projects or being more “productive”.

What a wonderful world it was going to be. The future now. I remember that clunky personal computer on my desk, in about 1996. The sounds of the dial-up modem connecting to the information superhighway of the day. The world wide web was so new we had to keep reminding ourselves of what the www stood for. Boxes of floppy disks replaced filing cabinets.

Here we are 30-years later and what do I find, or not find as the case may be? Tens of thousands of files generated by Apps on my smart phone, tablet and desktop. Whereas once I’d mastered constructing folders with logical names and placing documents exactly where I could find them in their latest version, now I’ve got an unfathomable messy clutter.

Have I become more “productive”? That entirely depends upon what is meant by that word. Decluttering digital information isn’t that much different from decluttering piles of paper on an over weighted office desk. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Where does a four-day week sit in that equation? Parkinson would likely say that whatever the length of the working week we’d fill it with activity. It’s almost transparent to the tools used whether they be paper based or applying the latest powerful computing capabilities.

Remember decades ago, we said; public services were going to be dramatically improved because we could be contacted by e-mail. Scrapping the paper in-tray was a day many people longed for. Files wouldn’t be delayed as they passed from office to office. Desk to desk. Or so it seemed. I don’t think we’ve stopped complaining about public services – have we?

There is one possible new element. If AI use means that humans abdicate from decision-making, then a new situation comes about. This needs to be a choice. Forcing humans out of the loop to chase the God of productivity is a dangerous pathway.

Wisdom vs. Agility

It’s ancient. This notion that as the years clock-up we accrue wisdom. At the same time a degree of mental agility is sacrificed. There may not be a lot of science in this conclusion. It’s a phenomenon well represented in several cultures are around the globe. Selectively in British culture as we’ve become cynical about wise old owls.

There are professions where a kind of guru status is acquired. There are other professions where world weary grey beards are dismissed as out-of-touch and irrelevant to the times. The medical profession heaps accolades on battle hardened consultants. In contrast, the teaching profession often kicks out expensive experienced staff for the later reason.

This makes reading the current modus-operandi difficult. Can I generalise about a transition from a state of dynamic ability to a serener period of more sober wisdom?

Clearly, not that everyone is the same. God forbid. There is certainly a myriad of cases where putting on the years has led to a distinct decline in wisdom. Without pointing out the obvious, this happens to the leaders of nations, as much as anyone else. Here’s my reflection for what it’s worth.

If I turn the clock back 20-years, then it’s immediately apparent to me that my capacity for tackling a hung variety of tasks, simultaneously, is not what it once was. I have clear memories of days being like a circus performer, spinning plates[1], moving from one to another like a star juggler. Using as much skill and mental agility as I could muster. I know, in my heart of hearts, that this is now beyond me.

By contrast, I’d like to think that my accumulation of experiences has distilled into a form of wisdom. It seems pompous to make too much of this natural process. I say natural because we are all blessed with the capacity of memory. To be able to recall when things worked and when they didn’t. The difference is whether we choose to be objective in that recollection.

In the pre-machine age this description of aging may fit the bill for a majority. As I have said, the phenomena are incorporated in long lived cultures. In fact, religion leans heavily on the role of the seasoned sage distributing their “wisdom” amongst the populous[2].

What I wonder is will this survive the machine age? If machine learning swallows up all the useable material from ages past, great and revolutionary thinkers, notable leaders and prominent artists, will it shape how we evolve?

There’s an argument about deskilling that suggest that the result of an unbelievably massive computing capability will result in dumber humans. I don’t want to go down that road. One reason is that it isn’t as if any field of knowledge is bounded (or ever will be). We don’t know all there is to know. There’s likely to be no boundary at all. Then the question becomes – can we cope with the inevitable complexity? Jury is out on that one.

[1] https://www.juggle.org/wolfgang-bartschelly/

[2] https://asiasociety.org/education/just-who-was-confucius-anyway

Lost Opportunities

It’s kind of odd. The wacky folk who still argue that the Brexit referendum was a good thing. For one or two well-heeled people that might be the case. It’s not the case for the overwhelming majority of British people. Maybe one issue is that it’s so difficult to get across the idea of lost opportunity. Benefits foregone because of choosing poorly.

It’s as if an ardent walker is faced with two paths. One is covered in glitter and hung with shiny streamers for the first mile only. The other is much the same as the path already traversed but it gets wide and smother after a couple of miles. One has minstrels singing patriotic and sentimental songs at its gateway. The other path has a well-meaning professor babbling on about solidarity, peace and progress. It’s the guidebook recommendation.

The destination of the first one is to circle around to get back where the walker started meantime having exhausted a lot of their provisions. For the second path there’s a whole new set of possibilities, yet unwritten. Companions are supportive and share their stories. Everyone is richer, both commercially and culturally.

The facts are that Brexit has made us poorer. In every way. It’s a pathway to nowhere, as we have found. After a decade it’s truly painful to tot-up the lost opportunities of the Brexit era. The financial numbers are huge but it’s not just about numbers. Now, the main issue is security. Developing a strong independent European defence against the global turmoil that’s ensuing.

Never a group to roll back and say – yes, you were right all along – those so deep in the Brexit ditch are pumping out propaganda much as they did in 2016. Cherished British food stuffs will need to be named using words last heard in a chemistry class. Hordes of criminal invaders will overrun our cities. They ask us to listen to apologists for climate change deniers.

Brexit is a deep fake. It’s not going to get any better. It’s going to get worse. Even if we wait 50-years, it’s not going to get any better. Certain right-wing commentators implore us to wait. To burden the generations that follow with perpetual decline.

One result of the current turmoil that is raging around the globe is the recognition that struck people with wisdom after the second world war. We have the capacity to choose between order and disorder. Anarchy has a massive cost. International rules are incredibly difficult to establish and maintain but it’s best that we try.

I know those who will counter this argument will count out the number of times the world’s institutions have failed since the late 1940s. However, that’s no-good an argument in of itself. Imagine getting to 2040. Going full circle in a century and arriving at a dystopian world of chaos where imperial racketeers terrorise billions of people. I think we can do a lot better than that if we are prepared to work for the common good.

There’s a few of words to cherish – the common good.