John Wyndham wasn’t his real name. He may have been the least likely dinner guest. I’d certain bore him with questions. What’s the source of inspiration? Do you always imagine a calamity just around the corner? Do you think human nature is intrinsically good or bad? What’s frightens you the most? Has space always fascinated you? There wouldn’t be time to eat. If I had a working time machine I’d sit him next to H. G. Wells.
Moments of Decision
It’s the time of year. Young people pass through a gateway. Exam results hit the streets. Through life there are moments of decision. Life is not linear or proportionate. Swaths of time will pass when nothing much happens. Then bang. There’s a moment of decision.
Certainly, education has a role to play in preparing people for those moments. This is where the race for superior exam performance statistics fails. It’s great for someone to struggle through and ace one subject. It’s great for a person of moderate ability to excel out of the blue. It’s great when a naturally talented individual gets more than their expected grades. The difficulty arises when people, consequently, are not prepared to know what to do.
Conflicting advice shovelled out by a fickle media isn’t the bast source on offer. Politicians juggling with volumes of statistic, a barrage of recommendations and a pile of prejudices struggle to find a line to maintain.
Is going to university important? Now, there’s a question mark that’s doing the rounds.
It’s true, I should not, on any account, judge the current situation as if it was the same as my experience of 50-years ago. 1976 was a world away from where we are in 2026. That said there are some fundamentals that stick.
At the deepest level there’s the reason universities exit at all. Let’s face it they are not an invention of the modern world. There’s a reason special places of learning were established in every human civilisation. It’s that basic hierarchy of needs. Once food and shelter are commonplace humanity gets around to asking endless questions about the world and the universe.
Is going to university important? I find the question strange in so many ways. Fine there’s a small number of institutions that don’t offer the ideals of university life or an uplift in future opportunities. However, the vast majority provide the next steps that a maturing adult needs. It may lead to a specialisation or a jumping-off point to a radically different destination.
A hardy perennial that keeps cropping up is this war of the vocational verses the academic. It’s a persistent theme.
Mechanics that fix semi-autonomous electric vehicles may not need a degree in oceanography. Researchers in the art of renaissance architecture may not need to know how to lay bricks. Engineers developing farm machinery may not need a qualification in linguistics. Need is not all.
What this presents is a false conflict. In my mind, people with a diversity of experiences are going to be much better equipped to deal with the future than those who tramline. Thus, the “hard hat verses gradation cap” is the most moronic of slogans. It’s the ultimate visualisation of the tramline. It paints a picture of a fork in the road (or rail).
I started by writing that there are moments of decision. The point I want to make is that the decision of university or not university shouldn’t be based solely on career aspiration or finances or popular fashion. Believe it or not it’s possible to read medieval illiterate and be a gifted welder. To be fascinated by the Greeks and Romans and fly a plane. To enjoy construction work and play a musical instrument to a high level. Motivation and passion are the key.
Please let’s think more widely about lifelong learning. Let’s build systems that enable lifelong learning.
Britain Needs a Written Constitution
Who cares? That’s what a lot of people might say. I mean look at our everyday problems. A cost-of-living crisis, crumbling infrastructure, conflicts in the world, turbulence of identity politics and a host of live issue that would take the whole page to list.
Lord Sumption, a crusty establishment lawyer debates with Baroness Chakrabarti, a lefty advocate and lawyer. Both capable and seasoned debaters with respectably different backgrounds. Listening to one I might say; that’s a sound reasoning. Listening to the other I might say; exceptionally good point. Thus, I my view remains the same whatever their debate.
So, for a brief few minutes this morning the subject of a written British constitution hit the airwaves. I can’t break the habit of listening to the Today programme on the BBC Radio 4.
Firstly, to explain. The UK, and its parliamentary way of doing business, is unlike our cousins across the other side of the Atlantic. They are now celebrating a nation’s coming into being, 250 years ago. The foundation stone and a launch into nationhood was a written constitution.
We have done thing differently in the UK. It’s not so easy to trace our constitution back to a moment of birth. Naturally, I will cite one document that has influenced both nations. The Magna Carta’s importance[1] is recognised across the globe. Not only by its influence on modern constitutions but what it says about the rule of law.
[Last year, was the 800th anniversary of the sealing of one version of the Magna Carta].
As an infant a school trip we made was to Runnymede. My teachers clearly wanted to plant an idea in our heads long before we would have any appreciation of what it meant.
[That primary school trip included a visit to the Rufus Stone[2]. A place where I wandered off and got lost in the New Forest but that’s a story for another time].
What I’d say to both Sumption and Chakrabarti is that the subject you debate is fundamentally important. However, it’s easy to get hung up on the word – constitution. As if there’s only two models of such a key construct. To put it basically, one we make it up as we go along and the other, we write rules on tablets of stone.
An argument for leaving things well alone is the flexibility that the traditional make it up as we go along approach can offer. Parliament being sovereign, without question. Even when it’s foolish and unrepresentative. To counter this supremacy of the executive is the dangers of fragility and vulnerability that can be exploited by an errant leader, despot or tyrant.
An argument for change, one I favour, is that our medieval system holds the country back and its not as if we don’t recognise the importance of solemn written commitments. Every Act of Parliament is as such. In fact, Acts can be enabling. So, why can’t a written constitution be an enabling document. It doesn’t have to be overly constraining or practically unamendable.
The problem lies not with agreements in favour of a written constitution; it’s more a problem of how on earth can British society take up this challenge when its mind is on so many day-to-day trials and tribulations. It’s a modern dilemma.
We have a partially broken system that’s unsuited to the coming decades, but we don’t know how to fix it. To fix it, everyone needs to engage.
Rise of AI: A Double-Edged Sword
Spotting AI generated articles is a hobby that is designed to be a minority pursuit. There will, no doubt, come a time when the writings of a human and that of a machine will become indistinguishable. I don’t think we are there – yet. Headlines like “Aircraft flies through heavy rain” are either a bored human scribbler or a machine with time on its hands.
The early promoters of the INTERNET imagined a great library of existing material becoming easily and freely accessible to anyone and everyone. It was to be an enlightened development that drove the digitisation of massive amounts of information. Although, even now, it’s not too difficult to pick an obscure book or magazine off a charity shop shelf and find that there’s no reference to it on-line. True, it’s getting harder to do.
That which hasn’t made it to the digital world, like boxes of 35mm slides I inherited from my father-in-law, will sit quietly gathering dust in the attic. I hardly think this is a great loss to humanity. Although, random holiday snaps of Cornish landscapes from the 1970s might one day become fashionable. More likely they will gather another decade’s dust.
Making the INTERNET the modern equivalent of the great library of Alexandria[1] is a worthy ambition. Civilisation could be defined in a way that embraces a preservation of knowledge. What we find is that the 21st century version of the digital world has strayed from these high-minded ideas of its early promoters.
My desktop, tablet, and phone can access a universal store of fact and fiction, truth and lies. What is troubling is that the line between these is becoming increasingly blurred. The demand for instant and every changing material is insatiable. In the past, technology was the limiting factor. Now, it’s not.
Here’s a compilation of likely headlines from our machine friends. I can’t be sure and it remains possible that a human may have authored some of these eye-catching wonders.
“Astronauts face dangers during spacewalks.” “Most fascinating deserts on Earth.” “The beach that many consider to be the best on the entire planet.” “Study claims aliens may be hiding on Earth.” “They found a triangular UFO in the woods – then it vanished without a sound.”
I note from 5-minutes watching headlines change that the craft of catching our attention is the one that is most valued. The term – click-bait – was made to describe what’s going on. Whatever words can be framed to entice a potential reader/viewer to go here and not there, that has value.
Again, what’s concerning is that it will be algorithms that will master the art of catching our attention. They do. They will surpass smart thinkers and artful writers. Mainly because they instantly have a whole well of past successes to draw upon.
For sanity’s sake, I need to stop this line of thinking. The further I look the more we become destined to a dystopia that was portrayed in a movie that hit the screens before the mobile phone became ubiquitous. A 20th century fiction that made everyone sit up and think, as well as being highly entertaining, was The Matrix. Now, it called a classic.
A generation on and AI produced material is filling our screens. It’s not yet dominant. There’s a small amount of kick-back too. Not time for a rebellion. Question is – will those born now be the rebels or the captives of this digital revolution.
Exploring ‘Project Hail Mary’
I’m sure there’s a lot of great science fiction scripts out there waiting to be discovered. Unknown authors trying to get someone to read their story. To me, it’s often astonishing the movies that get made. It goes without saying, movie making is an expensive business. Being invested in a story, to the extent of finding millions to fund filming, is no mean feat. The lower risk option is to take a book, that isn’t terrible and adapt it in a way that takes full advantage of the visual medium. The higher risk option is to do something truly original.
It’s now on Prime, so I thought to watch it. The recent movie “Project Hail Mary” is a struggle. I started watching it and quickly got bored. That’s me, someone who likes an imaginative Sci-fi. The only way I could handle it was to watch the movie in chunks. Digest a bit at a time.
Ryan Gosling is an able lead. Trouble is that he acts an off-beat, highly unlikely, irritating character that bumbles along like a space bound Mr Bean. The premise of a spaceman waking not knowing where they are in the universe is not a new one. Having to work out the whole purpose of a mission, in what seems like a few minutes flat, is pushing it.
At the core of the plot is the relationship between Ryland Grace (Gosling) and an unusual alien. A highly advanced alien whose physical appearance seems to undermine that fact. In the whole universe, at least there’s a reasonable explanation for this unlikely meeting of these two smart lifeforms. A common interest. Saving their homelands.
It’s one of the biggest questions that humans can ask. Ever since spaceflight has been a possibility the question arises. What do we do in the event of a first contact? This movie plays with the event in a jovial way. Then it veers into seriousness as it’s disclosed that both protagonists are alone. Their colleagues are all dead. This flipping backwards and forwards from semi-comical routines to serious hardcore predicaments gets waring over the length of a long movie. The storytelling plodded.
There’re some daft aspects of the spaceships and their occupants too. Grance has human dexterity but “Rocky” would seem to have the superior ship. So, why did they go to the target planet in the last-minute cobbled together humans ship? That had no pilot.
On the plus side the themes that come through, at the end, are hopeful ones. Cooperation, mutual understanding and respect are far more powerful than fear and cowardliness.
From the outset, Grace knew that the likelihood of failure was enormous but in a Dr Who like way the – something will come up – attitude prevailed. Problem with the overall story was that it was improbably staked so heavily against the heroes that it became ridiculous in places.
Again, on the plus side the characters did have an emotional connection. A long way from home the two bonded. It’s questionable whether such two different lifeforms would share a similar sense of wonder, appreciation of beauty and respect for learning. That said, this merry space romp should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I don’t think I’d watch this one again unless I was strapped to an aircraft seat on a long journey.
Digital Age Dilemma
There was a time when most of the political parties in the UK would object to mass surveillance and the State having a watchful eye on every one of its citizens. The influence of the Magna Carta, that 800-year-old document, was a keystone of thinking in this country. Although it was aimed at the privileged when first placed in front of a Monarch, it embraced the idea of liberty. It so upset the establishment that a Pope denounced it.
Ideas endure and those contained in the Magna Carta went on to inspire the framers of the constitutions and legislation in many countries. It doesn’t sound so strange in modern times that a person should be able to go about their lives without an overbearing State impinging on their liberty. Well, at least in theory.
I remember the intense debates that took place in the mid-1990s. The subject being the introduction of identity cards in the UK. Technical arguments were made of how such a measure would simplify lives in the coming digital age. Those agreements paid little attention to the erosion of fundamental rights that the centralising personal data on citizens would bring.
What’s happened now, through a process of stealth, is that people have given away vast qualities of data to international commercial entities without batting an eyelid. The legal device that has been used is a contract that few people ever read. The End User License Agreement (EULA). This detailed fine print addresses data collection and aims to protect software providers from liability.
I suspect that Conservative politicians have observed how little attention people are paying to the erosion of their rights that they feel emboldened to abandon any commitments to liberty. For some time now the Conservative mantra of has been to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is based on a gamble that most people will not have read the document. It’s a bit like the snatch and grab that the typical EULA has become.
Now, the Conservative Party has doubled down on a shift to the right of politics by inviting the prospect of mass surveillance. There’s a reasonable argument for the police to excurse powers to delve into the digital world when investigating crime. In fact, how can they not do so. However, this should be done so when there’s reasonable basis for doing so. Not everyone is a suspect of criminal activity. The law of the land still upholds the idea that guilt must be proven.
Computational tools are getting ever more powerful. I could joke that the number of articles on AI would reach to the Moon and back, but I wouldn’t be far wrong. One of the powerful software tools that’s accumulating uses is that of digital facial recognition. We’ve advanced from the days of inky fingerprints, although such prints are still valuable identifiers.
Where do we have a problem with liberty? The framers of many longstanding constitutions didn’t have to think to hard about what liberty meant in a world devoid of digital cameras. Now, any citizen’s image is going to be caught hundreds of times through the day. Maybe thousands of times. That instant image can be present on storage devices across the globe.
Who owns that image of me or you? Can it be used by anyone? Tricky questions given phones, traffic cameras, doorbells and home and business security cameras are subject to EULAs. On a superficial basis, requiring police forces to extract digital images and run them through a national database can sound like a good crime fighting idea.
The problem is where is the line drawn? Mass surveillance? Where everyone is an immediate suspect until proven not guilty? Not guilty by virtue of the calculation of an algorithm. Widespread digital camera coverage does put this in prospect. Images stored all over the world. Do we need to reframe the Magna Carta for the AI age? Now, there’s a thought.
Travel Dilemma
A dilemma. Travel is a unique way of enhancing life’s experience. Travel inevitably has an environmental cost. It’s a predicament that’s impossible to avoid. I could look at this as a balance of pros and cons. That’s to seek a reason to balance the scales. It’s what I’m inclined to do. A highly rational way of viewing a dilemma.
This doesn’t work for everyone. Belief comes into the equation. For those who see the world on a knifes edge, tittering on the brink of environmental disaster, any argument about travel is shaped by trepidation. People can get quite puritanical about travel’s burdens.
Equally, there’s a group of people who fit in the “burn baby burn” camp. Those who will not give a tinker’s cuss about global environmental arguments. That’s a bit disingenuous. There’s always the belief that God’s plan is mysterious and these matters are not in our hands.
There’s a third category. I’ve met a few who fit this one. It’s to espouse great concern about green issues and then to act in a manner that’s inconsistent with that belief. Hypocrisy is nothing new. It’s a permanent part of the human condition.
Here, I’m only going down the rational rabbit hole. It’s to harbour genuine concern for the environment at the same time as understanding the power of travel to open minds and create world where we better understand each other.
To travel or not, that is the question. Whether it be nobler to stay at home or to suffer the hassle and crammed seats of a cheap flight, for the excitement of visiting an unfamiliar place. I’ll start by putting my conclusion up-front. It’s nobler to travel.
The pros and cons of staying at home or moving in familiar territory. Restricted circles.
On the upside then it’s possible to say with a clear conscious that you have done your bit to try and minimise the environmental impact of travel. You can stand at the bar in the local pub and lambast those who you think are ruining the planet.
On the downside, not everyone will appreciate how virtuous you claim to be. Probably citing some other environmental impact. Like your gas boiler, lack of recycling or guzzling SUV.
The pros and cons of trains, planes, and automobiles, exploring new territory. Global curiosity.
On the upside then it’s likely you will not be stuck for conversation. Certainly, you’ll be carrying home the knowledge of different cultures and how others live. In fact, the experience can lead to a better appreciation of how others tackle environmental challenges.
On the downside, a conscientious traveller must account for their CO2 emissions or, at least, have mind to compensate for them in some way. Time to plant trees.
I’ve framed this piece in terms of the substance of a personal decision. That’s not the biggest factor at play. The global growth in travel is the total of the behaviour of people from all levels of society, in a mass of different situations. One element is clear. As the economic circumstances of people improves so the propensity to wish to travel increases. I’ve not lined up a convincing graph to show this relationship. However, it’s hard to argue against it. As an example, the curve for global air travel keeps going up.
So, we live with a dilemma. Making travel more accessible at the same time as minimising the cumulative costs. A familiar dilemma. One that’s inherent in much that we do. A perpetual challenge.
Doorway Effect
Without question, there’s one experience every person on Earth has from birth to death. That’s unless they are completely motionless. I should clarify. I’m not talking about basic body functions. Eating, drinking, sleeping, and breathing. Let’s say, there’s one experience every person on Earth has in a built environment. Even of the most rudimentary kind.
The impressive ones are huge. Ages ago the common ones were typically smaller. Their use is instinctive. The experience of their use can range from impenetrable to completely transparent.
[Today’s most written about movie has a wide selection of them on show. One of them pivotal in the crux of the story being told. It was penetrated and the course of a war changed.]
Minutes ago, I got up from my chair and walked into another room. I went there with the distinct intention of doing something. By the time I got to the other room, I’d completely forgotten the reason I went there in the first place. It’s took a moment’s double-take to realise my original intent. Then normality was restored. I assure you, this is not an eccentric quirk of mine alone.
Doors do that to people. For a start they are unavoidable. Every construction we’ve ever built must have a means to get from one place to another. A basic part of our human needs is shelter.
In my 1950s house, and that of most other people, they are standardised products of an industrial society. Each with a style and colour that suites its location. Each with a consistent mean of operation. Components manufactured from across the globe. A technical discussion could get incredibly wide ranging, as to the variety of ancient and modern doors. Hinged, sliding, barn, pivot/revolving, swinging/saloon, roller, flush, up-and-over, louvered, or trap doors to name a few. I’ll steer clear of this minefield.
What’s intriguing is the impact doors have on us. Transitioning from one place to another is way beyond a simple physical process. The mind is engaged in movement. Not only the shape and form of the environment but how it changes. A whole plethora of mental processes click into action as we go from A to B.
Starting at the primitive. A calculation we make concerns safety. Is there a threat either here or there? Most of the time this consideration is subconscious. In extreme cases it’s the one overriding consideration. A good reason to read the safety card when sitting on an aircraft.
What struck me this morning is the annoying reality of forgetfulness. It’s a part of life. Yes, there’s the factor of age. This is not the sole factor by a long way. My focus here is on the short-term impact and not a severe one at that. The simple fact of passing through a portal increases the likelihood of a momentary loss of some part of short-term memory. I wonder why?
Here’s an off-the-chuff theory. It’s to do with safety. In going from one environment to another the mind is preparing for whatever might be encountered. Doors by the nature obscure what’s on the other side. Fine, that’s not always true. An open gate, a kind of door, may not hide the path ahead. Whatever, there’s a transition in prospect. A need to process new information on the “other side.” In anticipation of having to process that new information the mind rationalises what it knows. Is my mind saying, now I’ve gone from A to B, I don’t have to bother so much about some of the stuff I’ve left behind.
Well, look at that. The “doorway effect[1]” is in the scientific literature. Me being me. I wonder if there any implications for aviation safety. It could be said that some people, often alcohol induced, leave their common sense behind has they enter an aircraft door. More seriously, evacuating during an incident, does it matter that short-term memory might be impaired?
[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/psychology-doorway-effect-memory
Nostalgia vs. Innovation
My generation, and those a bit older than me, are inclined to shrug shoulders and, in a war wearied way, lament the passing of a great era. It’s not merely nostalgia. Although there’s a degree of selective memory in what we choose to remember as good.
This week, at the BBC Proms, I sat down in the bar at the interval and was joined by a friendly couple and another. We all had the grey hairs that qualified us as Prommers[1]. It soon became clear that the older gentlemen was a music buff who had been going to the BBC Proms since the 1960s. I’ve been going since 2018. Still an innocent bystander learning the Promming ways.
The intensity of my companion’s conversation was fascinating. Firstly, it was to comment, unfavourably, on the contemporary music that’s a hallmark of recent concerts. I liked it. I’d say it was a winsome winding through a wood accompanied by crickets playing soft percussion. Not so much adventurous as intriguing music for the Albert Hall. The view from the sofa was that these new musical fillers were a waste of time. There was a time when entire concerts were avant-garde and challenging. About the 1970s/80s, or thereabouts.
Let’s reflect. I think what the BBC is now going through is what a whole British generation is going through. An existential crisis. Not so much stop the world I want to get off, as a howl of irritation. Another sign is the annoying advert where the BBC heralds itself as a national treasure. Using the Monty Python line – what have the Romans ever done for us?[2]
The winds of change can be cruel. That’s not new. However, we’ve had a couple of decades coming to the realisation that some traditional ways of doing things are not going to nicely evolve into a recognisable future state. Incremental change has its benefits. Trouble is that it puts off the day when something more substantial needs to be done.
On two specific British cultural assets – music and comedy, we can’t afford to hang onto repetitive formats and a dependency on the likes and dislikes of an aging population.
Ghastly mush like, Mrs. Brown’s Boys is a blight on our televisions. Although it was an important part of my youth, endless repeats of Top of the Pops belong in a museum. If the BBC takes the road that only mines the past or tickles one section of the country, its fate is sealed.
Take Monty Python as an example. When first proposed it looked foolish, hopeless and niche. What’s the betting that there are creative people out there now who are being told to go away. The plethora of MBAs in media decision making roles shudder at taking risks.
Yes, there is a future for the BBC. Thing is it needs an immense kick up the backside in the fashion of Bishop Brennan. https://youtu.be/7PyI9q9AX1A?t=1335
[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/visit/bbc-proms-faqs
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/?item=qt0471953
Call for Action and Change
When I hear promising ideas, I instinctively say to myself – don’t be negative. Try and see the plus side of these proposals. Afterall the proposer is doing their best to solve a problem. I hope. Same with the recognition of a problem, even if solutions are nowhere to be seen. Just saying it or writing it out is an acceptance that something needs doing. Action needs to be taken. As is often said, every journey begins with the first step.
It ‘s easy to be cynical when so many first steps have been taken before. Well-meaning, and not so well-meaning, individuals have stood at lecterns saying what needs to be done. So, tackling the troubling situation of social care in the UK is a great ambition for a Prime Minister to have. A good task to set before a new Cabinet. Where they will go with it, no one knows, at the moment. Making a commitment, in public, is a good place to start.
That’s not what I’m going to write about this morning. There’s a ghastly term that has entered discussions of recent. I say ghastly because it’s a faceless product of statistical analysis. Carved out of a pile of numbers it proports to describe a whole group of young people as if there were a homogonous lump.
The term is NEET. It makes me cringe every time I hear it. Meaning – the number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in Employment, Education, or Training. A moral panic sets in when people say this is “a lost generation”. It’s as if a million young people had wandered off into oblivion. Makes me think of the 1960s/70s and the moral panic that set in as young people – turned-on, tuned-in and dropped-out. The counterculture slogan of those decades. Like so many situations the truth is a lot more complex. It usually is. Here’s a number of factors that undoubtably come into play.
Yes, that hardy perennial, the decline of “real” apprenticeships. The low value society still puts on training craft and manual skills of a practical nature. Despite the nice words of successive politicians. I’ve yet to see a Minister’s daughter start aircraft maintenance training.
Penny pinching that’s turned local colleges into factories. Pile them high and get them through the door fast. An attitude to young people that’s driven by key performance indicators.
The pernicious side of social media. Past generations may have had their excesses but didn’t have this inescapable attention draining impact on mental health. It’s unrelenting.
Role models are hard to come by unless they are family members. Many potential opportunities appear unobtainable. The media often portrays a future wrapped in glamour and littered with overnight success. Perhaps, Andy Warhol was right.
Lack of orientating to dramatic changes in the future working environment. Pushed by Conservative Minister Gove and alike, education has taken a retro path in emphasising academia and rote learning. Exams as the pinnacle. The wrong path.
The “new” Labour Government must address all of these and more if they want to shift the dial. On this score, I’ll say a word about a past opponent of mine. We were both local Councillors at the same time. In 2017, as Minister of State for Skills and Apprenticeships, Conservative Anne Milton at least tried to shift the dial on this subject. Then that menace Boris Johnson came along, and Brexit took the whole country backwards at a very rapid pace.
I look with optimism. However, the “new” Labour Government is a bit like the “old” Labour Government. Ministers carved out of an Oxbridge tradition. Happy to talk about their illustrious working-class origins but a million miles from real word experience of leaving school at 16 years old and getting a paying job. Supporting themselves through training.
Transforming lives will require focus on multiple issues, as I’ve illustrated, and it would be nice to see actions take precedent over nice speeches. Wittering on about the value of apprenticeships isn’t enough.
POST: Technical pathways for 14-year-olds could build on UTC model
John Vincent 