Future – John Vincent

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

Navigating Change

It’s all too easy to say – it was different in my time. How things have gone downhill. There’s a boring refrain from me, and my baby boom generation, which laments a lost era. What we forget is that all of history is a lost era. Becoming history is a discomforting feeling.

I remember walking around the transport museum at Brooklands in Surrey. Look to one side and there was an aircraft cockpit display that was the latest tech in my days as a young design engineer. It was slightly worse than that in that the retired equipment, covered in dust, was one I worked on in the late 1980s. Sophisticated at the time. Now an item of curiosity.

This weekend, I stood under the last flying Concorde at Aerospace Bristol. Looking up the supersonic aircraft, it remains stunning, impressive, and futuristic. It’s a real testament to the British and French engineers who were so adventurous, creative, and foresighted in its design.

That said, in the end that era came down to money and politics. Just goes to show what the implications are of having made a robust international commitment and finding it impossible to backout. As a purely business adventure, a project like Concorde is difficult to justify. As a cultural icon and industrial marker laid down for all of history to appreciate, it’s momentous. It’s reasonable to say that the success modern-day AIRBUS has roots in this tremendous European collaboration.

Anyway, back to war and more day-to-day concerns. There’s no doubt that having some form of industrial strategy is better than not having one. The trouble is that UK Governments come and go and are incredibly fickle. So, a nice policy document with sound ideas can either spur change or slowly gather dust with equal measure.

Reflecting over the last 40-years and more, the UK has taken a large peace dividend. Defence spending has declined steadily under every political flag. This has led to a focus on fewer engineering projects. A concentration on fewer prestige assets whether in the air, at sea or on land. A gradual cutting of cloth to fit a lesser role in the world.

How do I write is without the predicable lament? It’s a matter of highlighting the downsides of the current position without lapsing into an archaic wish for a return to a bygone era.

One observation I would make here. If I pick up a British aviation magazine of the 1960/70s it’s clear that there’s a huge diversity of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) making products that are as diverse as they are spread across the country. Yes, the large aerospace companies have consolidated so that there remains a handful of prominent names. A lot of the iconic British names have disappeared. Consigned to museums. Inward investment has meant that the titans of the past have been swallowed up by international businesses.

There’s a pattern here that is not uniquely British. I’d make the point that one of the most concerning weaknesses is the decline of the large ecosystem of SMEs. Or the precarious situation that is often their fate. These businesses are the smaller fish that swim around the bigger players. They have the capacity to be dynamic and innovative. Even if they are often under regarded and more vulnerable to economic shocks.

Central government can’t always solve problems. That said, they can, at least, take an interest and create an environment where such entrepreneurs can flourish. Reflecting over the last 40-years and more, governments have been immensely ineffective in this respect. Policy documents are great. Where the failing persists is going from words to effective actions.

Life in the 22nd Century

It’s not an original thought but science, and its advancement, is like a venerable oak tree. Roots spread over a large area, are not seen, but are critical to the health of the whole tree. Branches expand as the tree grows. Branches divide, some branches fade and others gain ever more strength. A tree that lives as long as a civilisation, ever changing.

I put this view forward only to admit that there are flaws with this way of thinking. For a start, in the past, a branch of science may have been pursued in a pure manner. Accumulating ever more knowledge on a specific subject. Now, the branches of science have become far more intertwined. Complexity is a given.

This makes a futurologist job harder. It’s no good to dream along straight lines. To see progressive development as the most likely direction. In the past, there was mileage in projecting forward along a clear line of thinking. Take for example the opening up of the atomic world. Futurologist in the 1950s imagined a world of limitless energy. Inexhaustible sources of electrical power that would be cheep and available to all. For good or ill, the age of plenty didn’t happen. That doesn’t reduce the importance of fundamental discoveries. It cautions us in extrapolating from a simple beginning to a fantastic new world.

What will life in the 22nd Century be like? I can say with certainty that I will not see the year 3000. Well, that is unless the cryogenics of science fiction stories soon becomes reality.

One approach is to look back 75 years. Compare and contrast. Then look forward 75 years. That is factoring in an acceleration in discoveries and the exploitation. And as I’ve alluded above not being shy of growing complexity.

This is again an approach to be taken with a fair degree of caution. Back in the 1950s there was talk of electronic brains, as the computer emerged as a viable and useful machine. What was imagined then is now quite different. That use of the word “brain” isn’t common parlance. Instead, the advent of so-called artificial intelligence is becoming everyday language.

Another set of cautionary factors are trying to guess the branches of the tree that will decay and fall. What seems promising based on current technology only to be bypassed by discovery and innovation. Here I’m thinking that the building of massive power-hungry data farms may be a technological cul-de-sac. Vulnerable and hugely expensive physical infrastructure that’s out of date the minute it’s switched on.

Each of us has a brain that weighs a lot less than a room full of cabinets of conventional electronics. Nature manages vast amounts of data without a power station in tow.

In the year 3000, I maintain we will have a rich and rewarding intellectual life. It will be different in form, although the things that amuse and entertain us may not be so different. The themes of a Greek play are still likely to be echoed in the stories of the next millennia.

Artificial intelligence will be a junk yard term. The whole of the world of data communication and processing will be hidden under layers of obscuration. It’s possible that a form of agent will be overseeing the mechanisms for providing the services we demand. The great challenge for democracies will be how to ensure that agent works for the public good. Not so easy.