optimistontour.com
  • Featured Content
  • March17th

    I’m about to set off on the road again – heading to the US to interview singulatarian Ray Kurzweil, eco-nuclear advocate Cleveland Cutler, Google Vice President and ‘father of the internet’ Vint Cerf, TED conferences CEO Chris Anderson, Google environment honcho Dan Reicher, Stuart Witt – the general manage of Mojave Spaceport, the good people of XCOR spaceplanes and, if all goes well, nanotech genius Eric Drexler and ‘eco-pragmatist’ Steward Brand… I’ll also be fitting in a short gig Harvard’s Comedy Studio (arguably the nicest room on the East Coast).

    Those who follow this blog will know it’s been in hiatus as I’ve got down to actually writing the book, and to prove I’ve been working I thought I post up a taster – to whit, the first sections of the first three chapters. Naturally these will change before publication, but I hope they whet your appetite and I’ll be blogging as I hit the US.

    Chapter 1

    “The World’s Most Dangerous Idea”

    Getting older is no problem. You just have to live long enough. – Groucho Marx

    I’m on a train to Oxford wondering how long I am going to live.

    This isn’t because I think we’re about to crash, nor is it a reaction to the sandwich First Great Western have just sold me. It’s because a few weeks ago the stalking horse of Mortality popped into my head and, without invitation, asked, “what are you going to do with the rest of your life then?” (Mortality, it turns out, sounds a lot like my father). Whatever the answer, one thing I do know is that my future will play out in a world different to the one we’ve all grown up in.

    The times they are a-changin’ sang Bob Dylan as the sixties got into the full flow of social revolution. Fifty years later there’s another revolution going on. Population is rocketing, the planet is becoming urban (over half us now live in cities), medicine is curing the previously incurable and ninety year olds take parachute jumps[i], spaceships are owned by businessmen, the climate is changing and the world’s knowledge is available to anyone with an internet connection.

    So I’m setting out on a journey that I hope will tell me what the world of my future will look like, and help me answer the most personal and yet the biggest of questions. A question all of us ask.

    ‘What next?’

    But first I need to work out how much ‘next’ I’m likely to see. Or, to put it another way – how long have I got? How long is my future?

    The answer I’ll find in Oxford challenges everything.


    [i] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5257354.stm – Birthday skydive for 90-year old, 8th August, 2006

    Chapter 2

    “The Most Wondrous Map”

    Life is rather like a tin of sardines – we’re all of us looking for the key. – Alan Bennett

    On the 26th June 2000, approximately 22.5 kilograms of carbon, 70 kilograms of water, 2.5 kilograms of nitrogen, 1.4 kilograms of calcium, and a half-kilogram mix of 54 other elements (including just over a tenth of a milligram of uranium and enough phosphorous to make 2,500 cigar-lighting matches) walked into the East Room of the White House.

    “Nearly two centuries ago, in this room, on this floor, Thomas Jefferson and a trusted aide spread out a magnificent map,” said then US president Bill Clinton. The map in question was the result of the first coast-to-coast overland exploration of the United States and the ‘trusted aide’ was Meriwether Lewis. But Bill had come to talk about another map. “Without a doubt the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by human kind.” Was it true? Had they finally found a guide to the location of Rupert Murdoch’s soul?

    Seventeen years earlier a man called George Church and a handful of his peers suggested making the map Bill was actually referring to; a completed ‘human genome’ – a writing down of the genetic cookbook from which each human is uniquely baked. It’s a cookbook small enough to be stored in nearly every one of your cells but contains enough information to explain why one bag of mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon is Bill Clinton, while a similar quantity of exactly the same stuff is you.

    The accolade for sequencing the human genome was grudgingly shared by Celera Genomics (co-founded by Craig Venter) and a publicly funded international effort led by the National Human Genome Research Institute. Actually Venter’s team did it better, faster and over ten times cheaper[i]. They also tried to patent much of the knowledge.

    Naughty Craig.

    Subsequent outcry from press, public and many scientists, along with some hastily prepared legislation put the kibosh on such capitalistic ambitions. Celera’s stock price plummeted. Venter got fired and he ruefully remarked later, “my greatest success is that I managed to get hated by both worlds.”[ii] But he had birthed a new era.

    Even though you can’t read the cookbook, your cells (and now technology) can – and getting hold of a copy (otherwise known as ‘having your genome sequenced’) could one day play a part in saving your life, as well as changing the normal experience of going to the doctor after you get ill, to hardly having to visit them because you didn’t get ill in the first place.


    [i] Private vs. Public Sequencing Effort, page 110, As The Future Catches You, Juan Enriquez, first paperback edition, Three Rivers Press

    [ii] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/venter.html – Craig Venter’s Epic Voyage to Redefine the Origin of the Species, by James Shreeve, Wired Magazine, August 2004

    Chapter 3

    “My lab should not be trusted”

    My momma always said ‘life was like a box of chocolates…you never know what you’re gonna get’. – Forrest Gump

    The biotech revolution goes way beyond the realm of human medicine – making it without doubt one of the most important stories of our age. Every living organism has a genome[1], cookbooks we’re now learning how to edit – the ‘genetic modification’ that occupies so many headlines. The twin sibling of personal genomics is synthetic biology – the tools, techniques and knowledge that today allow us to recode cells and (within “a year or two” thinks George) enable us to fabricate entirely new ones to our own designs.

    Such things, not unreasonably, give a lot of people pause for thought. Fiddling with life is something many of us believe should be reserved for more divine engineers than ourselves, the argument being that biology isn’t a tool to be re-programmed in the same way we load software into our iPhones. Others echo the view of biologist (and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) James Watson who said, “If we don’t play God, who will?”[2]

    One man – who, some critics argue, already thinks he is God – is Craig Venter. As the CEO and Chairman of Synthetic Genomics he has stated (with only a smidgen of irony) that he has the “modest goal” of using synthetic biology “to replace the whole petrochemical industry”. One way he hopes to do this is by genetically engineering algae to excrete diesel. He’s not joking, and to prove it he did a deal with every environmentalist’s favourite bad boy Exxon Mobil, who are ploughing hundreds of millions of dollars into the idea.[i] This kind of investment isn’t an isolated event. San Francisco based LS9 (co-founder: one George MacDonald Church) have modified the genetics of E. Coli bacteria so that if you feed them sugar they make petroleum – attracting the attentions (and the money) of oil giant Chevron.

    This isn’t science fiction. You can visit LS9’s pilot plant in San Francisco, pour a gallon of their bacterially produced gasoline into your car and drive off. A plant with 2.5 million gallons of annual capacity is underway[ii]. Want more? Venter has a life form on the drawing board that makes fuel after eating carbon dioxide – a potential ‘one stop’ solution to both the climate and energy crises. Elsewhere, Joule Biotechnology are already using genetically altered photosynthesizing bacteria to take in waste CO2, mix it with sunlight, and make petrol. (Joule’s scientific advisor? Er, G.M. Church). When Newsweek asked Venter if his fuels would work in today’s cars and energy systems he replied, “Basically everything we’re making will work in the existing infrastructure.”[iii] He calls it ‘fourth generation biofuels’. You call it petrol.

    Having just got my head around the idea that we can read our code (and the code of everything else) it now seems that there’s plenty of people working on the idea of re-writing it – combining code from different organisms to make them do exciting and novel things. And with every organism on the planet being inexorably sequenced there’s one hell of a master cookbook of gene-recipes to choose from and combine.

    How about a bacterium that makes biodegradable plastic?[iv] Or one that pumps out components for anti-malarial drugs?[v] Well, both already exist (both versions of E. Coli again[3]). If you’re diabetic it’s almost certain your insulin supply is also produced by E. Coli bacteria whose genome has been tinkered with, and soon genetically modified plants will be producing it too[vi].

    It’s not a short leap of the imagination (or, some argue, the technology) to design and breed a mosquito that immunizes you against malaria rather than giving it to you (a bug you actually want to get bitten by) or to recode diseased cells to make them healthy (like re-booting your computer, or upgrading its software).

    But as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Spiderman both knew, with great power comes great responsibility.


    [1] So does every virus. In fact the first genome to be sequenced was that of the snappily titled and bijou-genomed Bacteriophage MS2 virus, back in 1976.

    [2] Watson has lost quite a lot of friends of late with overtly sexist and racist remarks. If anyone’s going to play God, I hope it’s not Watson.

    [3] E. Coli, I find out, is a family of bacteria that are a workhorse species in genetics. That’s because they have a ‘simple’, and therefore an easily fiddled-with, genetic make-up. Despite the bad reputation the bacteria get from a few black sheep in the family it’s generally a benign bug. You have a whole bunch in your gut right now generating Vitamin K2 (a vitamin also found in lots of those uber-healthy dark green vegetables like spinach).


    [i] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-algae-exxon-venterExxonMobil Bets $600 Million on Algae, by Katie Howell, Scientific American July 14, 2009

    [ii] http://earth2tech.com/2009/02/25/ls9-to-start-building-demo-plant-raise-65m/LS9 to Start Building Demo Plant, Raising $65M by Jennifer Kho, February 25th, 2009

    [iii] http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066 – A Bug to Save the Planet, by Fareed Zakaria – NEWSWEEK, June 16, 2008

    [iv] http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14960045 – Your plastic pal – The Economist – 26th November 2009

    [v] http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0461211537185u0/ – Expression of a synthetic Artemesia annua amorphadiene synthase in Aspergillus nidulans yields altered product distribution – David Lubertozzi and Jay D. Keasling – Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology – July 24th,2008

    [vi] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046083.htmFrom SemBiosys, A New Kind Of Insulin, Business Week, August 13th, 2007 and http://www.sembiosys.com/Products/Diabetes.aspxAnalytical Characterization, Safety and Clinical Bioequivalence of Recombinant Human Insulin from Transgenic Plants by Boothe J.G. et al,

  • January12th

    Hi there,

    I’m spending some dedicated time on my book manuscript right now. But the blog will catch up with me. Just, er, not right now.

    Love and then more love,

    Mark

  • October20th

    Paul phones me this morning to say that an interview today is looking ‘unlikely’ although the president ‘might’ have time to meet me at his home this evening, but that’s pure speculation on his part. “Look, I think it would be useful for you to come to a lecture the president is giving today about Gandhi, and try and talk to him there,” says Paul. “As my interview?” I ask a little incredulously. “No, no, just, you know, to put you in the president’s mind.” It’s now clear to me that despite months of e-mailing, Paul has left arranging my interview to the very last minute. I get the feeling he’s genuinely embarrassed, having assumed he’d have no problem slotting me into the president’s diary during my time here, and suddenly finding that, er, he can’t. Both the president and I leave Malé tomorrow – me to visit eco-resort Soneva Fushi and him to talk pre-Copenhagen Climate Conference strategy with the Indian government. “Look, you’ll get your interview, even if we have to change your flights,” says Paul, but I’m beginning to fear that my flight being turned into a pig is more likely (and probably the cheaper option).

    The lecture – a talk to commemorate UN World Peace Day (a day chosen because it is also the annual anniversary of Ghandi’s birth) – isn’t until the afternoon, so I take the morning to explore some more of the capital. I visit the National Museum, and am shown around three floors of artefacts that attempt to tell the rich history of these islands. My guide is Asma. Just finishing her ‘A’ levels Asma hopes to find further education abroad relating to museum practice (there are no opportunities here she tells me). I promise to put her in touch with my friend Ross Parry who I know from my day job co-running Flow Associates and who is ‘the big cheese’ at the world-leading Museum Studies course at Leicester University – and where foreign students flock before returning home to help revitalise the interpretation of their cultural heritage.

    Too much history, not enoug space

    The National Museum of the Maldives

    Early settlers in the Maldives were Buddhists. The nation’s conversion to Islam is told in the legend of Berber Abul Barakat – who thwarted of the evil sea demon, or Jinni, through recitation of the Qur’an, thereby bringing to an end the long-standing ritual of providing the beast with a virgin upon which to feast. On hearing of this demon-quashing theology the then King Shenuraza concluded the Maldives should follow the teachings of Muhammad. Islam remains the state religion to this day.

    Various colonial powers have had a crack at invading and ruling the islands – the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British – with bloody results, demonstrating with depressing regularity that regime change often comes hand-in-hand with brutality and loss of life. Reflecting on this gives today’s lecture greater resonance. Nasheed’s democracy movement embraced the non-violent resistance championed by Gandhi, and in doing so succeeded in birthing a political revolution with minimal bloodshed.

    I also take time to pop into the National Art Gallery. It’s a great space. There’s no sense of an ‘in the know’ hierarchy of arts aficionados and a blissful absence of those overly wordy and simultaneously patronising labels. I find myself more interested by the work on display here than in any gallery I’ve visited.

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    I arrive in good time for the lecture and sit next to a man called Per, who turns out to be a) recovering from Dengue fever and b) the head of the Red Cross in the Maldives. On my other side, a very fat and aggressively cheery fellow called Wahid makes easy conversation, laughing and smiling with each inhalation and exhalation of breath, while telling me of his role in the recent transition of power.

    The lecture is inspirational and Nasheed, as is his habit, delivers it without looking at his notes. He’s a compelling speaker, not because his delivery is overly slick, but because you can tell he believes every word. It’s something I’ve seen in the various speeches I’ve watched in preparation for my hanging-in-the-balance interview. During an early conversation with Paul, the PR man had told me, “the thing with the president is that he just tells the truth. Which can cause me some problems.”

    Nasheed talks of one of Ghandi’s core principles – “that to bring down the might of an Empire, with all its guns, bombs and tanks, you don’t fight fire with fire. Total rejection of violence in all its forms is, strangely enough, the best way to combat dictatorship.”

    nasheed lecture crowd

    Gandhi’s logic was flawless. If protestors challenge the existing regime, say by assembling for protest, and get away with it, the authority of the ruling power is undermined. But if the protest is suppressed by brutal means then the regime loses legitimacy. It’s a lose-lose situation for the oppressor. But it hinges on the resolve of the protesters to take whatever punishment is dealt out without retaliating. This requires enormous acts of will – and strong examples of non-violent leadership.

    Nasheed turns the lecture to the subject that has brought me to his country: reactions to climate change. He sees no value in criticising developed nations for the advent of man-made global warming, instead citing Gandhi’s doctrine of forgiveness and his famous maxim ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. For him ‘tit for tat’ politics and historical grievance will not lead to a solution. A recurring soundbite in his rhetoric on climate change goes, “This is not like your standard disarmament negotiations or trade negotiations. You cannot negotiate with the rules of physics.”

    “The Maldives is a small country,” he says to the assembled crowd. “We emit less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gasses. The Maldives has played no part in causing the climate crisis. And yet, we stand to lose the most from global warming and rising seas. It would be so easy for us to point the finger of blame at Western nations for causing the climate crisis. It would be so easy for us to refuse to help solve a problem we did nothing to create.  However, the problem with this line of thinking is that it will make ‘the whole world blind.’ Unless every country on Earth agrees to cut carbon pollution, all of us will suffer as temperatures rise. The Maldives has announced plans to become the world’s first carbon neutral country. We do this not because we can solve global warming on our own. We do this because we hope to lead by example. If the Maldives can become carbon neutral, bigger countries might follow. By doing the right thing and showing the way, we can make a far bigger impact than blaming others for causing the problem. To quote Gandhi: ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world.’ ”

    Moving forward without rancor over the injustices of the past is, admits Nasheed, not always easy to do. It’s difficult to imagine that the fit looking, bright-eyed young president before me has been brought to the brink of death twice through torture, but when he speaks now, you can hear the memories – a tiny modification of his tone, an imprint of something that he will not speak of (at least not in public) but that still troubles him.

    “I understand, from my own personal experiences, how difficult it is to forgive. It is especially difficult to forgive people who refuse to say sorry for the hurt they have caused. But at the same time, I don’t believe that retribution, or going for a witch-hunt, will make us happy.”

    "I know how hard it is to forgive..."

    "I understand... how difficult it is to forgive"

    Nasheed practices what he preaches. Few would have blamed him for throwing his former nemesis Maumoon Abul Gayoom in jail. Instead the erstwhile dictator now leads the opposition. On his election Nasheed said, “A test of our democracy will be how we treat Maumoon.”

    The lecture ends (you can see the full text of it here) and I search out Paul who tells me with some trepidation that getting an interview with the president today remains “very unlikely”. I remind him this is my last full day in Malé and I think he can see I’m finding it hard to hide my exasperation. He looks a little like a rabbit in headlights, poor boy. After all, he knows how far I’ve flown, and that I’m here on these dates at his invitation and the promise of a presidential audience. “Look, could you do me a favour?” he says “Go and introduce yourself to Ziattey, he’ll be with the president, you’ll recognise him from his ponytail. He’s Nasheed’s right-hand man, they go back a long way. If you can convince him then you might get your interview”. It seems Paul thinks I have a better chance of getting my interview than he has. (In all fairness, I get the feeling Paul is constantly grappling with a moveable feast when it comes to dealing with the presidential diary and he’s been doing his absolute best.)

    At a buffet lunch in a private room I find ‘Ziattey’ (former democracy campaigner Mohamed Ziyad) and introduce myself. “I’m hoping to interview the president,” I say and recount my months of communication with Paul. He assesses me with a kind of bemused indifference. Being Executive Services Secretary Ziyad looks after the Secretariats of the President, Vice President and Special Envoy and visiting authors are, I would imagine, of as much interest to him as the next Simon Cowell manufactured slice of Christmas muzak is to me, i.e. of no interest at all. “This is the first we’ve heard of you,” he says. “Paul hasn’t mentioned you to us at all. There is no chance of you getting an interview. The president is busy.”

    Bollocks.

    There’s a part of me that’s about to lose it, but I suspect throwing a tantrum in a room filled with government officials will totally scupper the now, admittedly, wafer thin possibility of an audience with Nasheed. I’ve not given up yet.

    I spy the jocular Wahid (who sat next to me during the lecture) talking to the president as they both nibble on spring rolls from the buffet. Wahid, as ever, looks like he’s just heard (or is about to tell) the funniest joke ever told. They’re an odd pairing – Nasheed has the look of a jockey, while Wahid looks like a Maldivian Oliver Hardy. I use the fact I ‘know’ the larger man to infiltrate the circle, via a Ziyad-distracting ‘dummy’ visit to the buffet (where I admittedly do pick up an Onion Bhaji).

    Bhajing in on the president

    Bhajing in on the president

    I compliment Nasheed on the lecture and remind him of our brief introduction after the cabinet meeting. Ziyad is instantly on to me and I see him moving towards us with a look of ‘must save the president from the author’ on his face. I make my last ditch effort, explaining (very quickly) to Mohamed Nasheed that I have travelled here on the promise of an audience with him and leave the island tomorrow. Ziyad is now with us. This is absolutely the last hope I have. The president turns to him.

    “My diary is pretty full today”. Ziyad nods. “So, the only way we can do it… is now? We can do it now I think.” My hopes rise. He wants to help me out and is trying to find a way. Bingo. My dad always used to say, ‘If you want anything done, go to the top’.

    Ziyad looks slightly annoyed. I’ve exhibited out-and-out brass-neck by directly asking the president for an interview moments after he has told me it’s impossible. I’ve shown his authority no respect and now his boss is on my side. I’m an irritant he wasn’t expecting when he woke up this morning, and you can’t blame him for being miffed.

    “How long do you need?” asks Nasheed. The ways thing are looking I suspect I’ll be lucky to get 10 minutes. Still, in for a penny, in for a pound.

    “An hour?” I say.

    To my complete surprise the president says, “OK, but it has to be now.” Bingo! again.

    “Here?” I ask.

    “No, we’ll do it at the presidential offices.”

    Before I know it I’m in a coterie of officials, (including, I notice, security staff with those funny earpieces) being escorted out of the building. Ziyad ushers me into the back of black windowed car that starts to drive off before I’m fully in it and he reprimands the driver. From this moment on he becomes helpful, if still rather peeved. But if Nasheed has agreed to talk to me he’ll make it happen.

    We arrive at the presidential offices and rush straight through security. In the lift I try to break the emotional stand-off between us by asking him if he was with the president when he was exiled in Sri Lanka and Britain. “No, I was here,” he says.

    “That must have been difficult?” I respond. “The last regime didn’t really make it easy for you.”

    He looks at me like I’ve just said the most facile thing possible. And then his face saddens a little. “It was hard,” he says softly. That’s an understatement. I subsequently find out that as a key figure in the democratic movement he was targeted and abused by Gayoom suffering arrest, solitary confinement and torture. The businesslike man escorting me to my interview was so severely treated by the National Security Services that it took a long spell in intensive care to recover. Now he confidently walks the corridors where the former regime endorsed and ordered the indignities he was forced to suffer. I’ll probably never get a chance to talk to Mohamed Ziyad again and that’s a shame. His story, like so many who fought for change here, is extraordinary.

    Mohamed Ziyad

    Mohamed Ziyad

    I’m ushered into a wood-paneled meeting room and a few minutes later Nasheed enters, smiling. It’s less than 15 minutes since Ziyad had told me there was no chance of me getting an interview.

    In person Nasheed is both compelling and, well, normal – and surprisingly candid and open. There is little of the guarded phrasing typical of career politicians. By contrast he’s ‘fresh’ and disarming. Early in our conversation he says “You know I’m always told ‘be cautious – not to do that, don’t say that, you can’t be saying this’. I end up saying something ‘wrong’ every week and they don’t like it.” He smiles. “But I have to go on saying what I believe in.” The ‘they’ in question is the government machine he’s inherited, which clearly frustrates him. It’s a common refrain I’ve heard in my travels – that the way governments work is frustrating, compromised and slow (it’s particularly revealing to hear it from a head of state) –  and increasingly I realise I’m meeting people who’ve decided to get on a do things without waiting for government to catch up.

    Examples include:

    • Harvard genetics pioneer George Church who has been working to create a surveillance and licensing strategy for the synthetic biology industry for the last five years. “Part of the reason governments don’t want to act is because they don’t want to be accused of being clueless, which they are when it comes to my field.”  So George has just got on with creating an international consortium of more or less all of the key players in synthetic genome and gene synthesis. He hopes that when the details are worked out the government will ‘rubber stamp’ it.
    • …or Vicki Buck, the ex-mayor of Christchurch, New Zealand (who I’ll blog about as my virtual self – this blog – catches up with the real me just back from the Antipodes) who sums up her view rather brilliantly as, “if we wait for governments to sort out the climate change thing, we’re buggered”. Vicki quit politics to become a Clean Tech entrepreneur, and her eco-directorships now outnumber her limbs.

    The logic, and it’s seductive, is we do not need to wait for legislators to give us permission or guidance. Indeed, it’s increasingly clear, many argue, that they cannot. The mighty ‘ideas broker’ Nick Gerristen who I meet in New Zealand said:

    “One of the biggest issues I see is that we are expecting a system that led us to where we are, to now ‘remarkably’ be able to correct itself and take us further – in many senses do a 360 degree turn and contradict itself. For me Copenhagen was a stunning example of this reality – the end of the world system has started….and so yes, we need something else…more elegant, subtle but more powerful  enabling and encouraging individuals to reclaim their personal sovereignty… to encourage thinking and most importantly action.”

    Einstein encapsulated it nicely too:

    “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

    Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is saying something like it.

    “I believe technology and economic focus will overtake the politics and regulatory efforts of national governments. We are beginning on a historic great transformation, a new economic foundation for the 21st Century and beyond. We in California do not wait for Washington or Beijing or Kyoto. We are moving forward and making great progress.”

    When both Einstein and The Terminator agree on something it’s compelling in a whole new way. (In my mind’s eye I suddenly imagine the physicist and the cyborg discussing the relativistic characteristics of the Uzi 9 millimetre machine gun).

    'I agree with the German'

    'I agree with the German'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    Nasheed isn’t waiting either – as demonstrated by his commitment to, and action on turning the Maldives carbon neutral. But he still has to deal with the frustrations of government, does he not? He laughs and says something I didn’t expect.

    “I think what’s helping me is Tom Sharpe,” – an out-of-the-blue reference to the English satirical author whose comic novels are famous for graphically and lewdly lampooning authoritarianism. “The comedy of it all – of government, of endless meetings, another meeting and again another meeting. You’d be amazed at the kind of ‘work’ I do,” chuckles the president. “Apparently I am doing work they tell me. I hope to find a conclusion for each meeting, but in the end what you decide upon… is to have another meeting.”

    The Copenhagen Climate conference must have been a special kind of hell for Nasheed, yet he was hailed as “the real hero” of the conference by Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen. “The Copenhagen Accord is a long way from perfect. But it is a step in the right direction towards curbing climate change,” said Nasheed, before returning home to get on with leading by example.

    Nasheed understands better than most how to negotiate the seemingly impossible, and to have the patience to endure the  almost infinite progression of baby steps to a resolution.

    “When you reach a dead end in trying to convince someone or trying to do something it would be best to give it a moment, and give it some thought. There’s no value in just banging on. There’s always more than one avenue to any  destination. All roads actually, finally lead to Rome. Even in a dead end, when things get really, really bad you have to keep going – however badly you suffer, whatever losses you incur, you just have to keep going. You have to make a tiny step. Don’t just be stuck with a single option.”

    By example Nasheed recalls his interrogations at the hands of the last regime’s Chief of Police, Adam Zahir – which became a battle of wills. “I can see many would say there is no point reasoning with him, but there is nothing else better than reason,” he says. “And despite his reputation, you could see he was wobbly”.

    Zahir was the only person Nasheed asked to resign when power was transferred. I’m fascinated by how he works with those who remain in a military and police force that formerly worked to oppress him. He answers with a typical optimistic pragmatism.

    “I think they, being very hard people, with their military background and minds, actually look up to me because I did not capitulate.” Suddenly he becomes stern, and the pencil he is holding becomes a pointer. “They tried their best,” he says stabbing it forward. “They tried to get me to capitulate.” He lightens. “You know some of the police officers I work with now are my personal interrogators.” He’s almost amused by the irony, but then a hint of metal creeps back into his voice. “They know who they’re talking to”.

    Our talk turns to climate change.

    “This is the biggest challenge we will ever face,” he says. “Not terrorism, not piracy, not drug dealing: nothing compared to this. So we really need to try and do something about it. No matter how small or however insignificant we may be.”

    “Are there some parallels between a man in solitary confinement and a tiny nation in the midst of the world’s biggest problem?” I ask. “Do you think something in your solitary confinement prepared you for this role?”

    He looks at me squarely and I worry for a second my question might be taken as making light of his ordeal, that I’m trying to spin it as a useful experience and have therefore have trivialised what happened to him. But instead he exclaims, “I think you’re very right there! Yes! If you can muster the faculties to survive in solitary for long periods of time you must have some mechanisms, some tools upon which you can build a strategy for stopping global warming. Very true.” He points, not at me, but as if as some philosophical target hovering between us. “I was just one person right in the middle of some huge, very sophisticated machinery. And we are in solitary, in a cell, surrounded by bigger nations and big countries with huge achievements and we are just probably nothing, but still…” He shrugs. “…we have our ideas. We want to survive. We are not asking for much.”

    From this point on it becomes hard to separate the man from the nation. When he speaks ‘I’ and ‘we’ become interchangeable. When he recalls the struggle for democracy or talks of the current battle against global warming the language is also transposed freely between the two (indeed he often slips between timeframes when answering a question). For him it seems the two are not separated, but two events in an ongoing war to help his homeland flourish. Perhaps this is why so many people find Nasheed a compelling negotiator – an ability to come across not just as a representative of his country, but an embodiment of it. In our time together I certainly begin to get this feeling. It’s as much in the way he rebuffs hard line Islamists (who have publicly criticised him this week for removing his wetsuit and exposing his chest at the close of Saturday’s water-bound cabinet meeting) as it is his views of political and environmental realities. “No sane Maldivian would think you could be in the water with anything on you. What are they talking about? Have we ever gone swimming with a T-Shirt on? No! So why should the president? That is not the Maldives.” The message is something like ‘I’m a Maldivian first, and the president second’.

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    That sea, which is such a part of the Maldivian national psyche is also, many believe, the biggest threat to the nation. Certainly if enough of the ice sheets currently melting in the Antarctic and Greenland slip off the land into the water the Maldives are likely to be one of the first nations to disappear below the waves. Nobody will care who’s wearing a T-Shirt or not then.

    Given the severity of the threat he sees to his nation how does he keep optimistic?

    “With the belief that there is hope, that there is a bright future. By seeing another picture other than the very fearful picture that is staring you right in the face.” He slips time frame and we’re back in the democracy battle. “What I would try to do is imagine another country, another homeland, another time, other circumstances”

    That can’t always be easy to do though? Earlier in our conversation Nasheed had told me that nearly everyone around him told him the fight for democracy was ill-fated (“My family, everyone, told me ‘You have a good life, two daughters, a good wife, you have a home, a job – what is the point?’”) and it’s not hard to find commentators who suggest the battle against global warming is futile. This is the view that we should be battening down the hatches and giving up – a view that sees the Maldives’ plan for carbon neutrality as a ridiculous and facile footnote on the inevitable march to climate Armageddon.

    “There is always the option of resigning yourself to whatever you have and then not think about other possibilities and other futures,” he says. “But working against the odds has been our thing and it has given us some tools for working towards a better picture. You have to believe that you can.”

    At its core then it’s all about having the right vision?

    “I’ve always been optimistic. I feel if you can show the light at the end of the tunnel it’s bearable to move out from difficult times and situations – if you see some light at the end. It’s easier to go towards that and reach that goal. I know that this is huge odds, but if you look at the situation the Maldives were in five years ago, most people would have said ‘what is the point with the democracy movement? we are wasting our time.’”

    The fact I’m having this conversation with a head of state who was a former political prisoner, whilst sat in the presidential offices, rather amplifies the essence his argument.

    The big picture, the goal, the brighter future, optimism that things can be achieved. All admirable ideals, but how does one hold onto these when you’re embroiled in the ‘endless meetings’ and the ‘comedy’ of government he talked about earlier? By way of an answer he sighs and puts his hand to his temple in a gesture of comic resignation. This inspires me to ask if, in a strange way, he misses his days in solitary and spent under house arrest, where he had plenty of time for thinking. He smiles.

    “I really do,” he says almost wistfully. “I’m surviving from the reserve – and my feeling is you will only be able to survive for five years on a reserve – and this is probably why five years is a natural term for anyone to be a leader.”

    “Your brain is too full with the day-to-day now?”

    He sits forward. “You don’t get the bigger picture,” he says urgently. “You lose the concepts. So then you get hold of processes, frameworks, strategic plans, matrices – it’s all very good…” He tails of. “But if you don’t see the bigger picture…” he shrugs.

    This is the essence of leadership. Keeping to a simple vision, even when things get complicated. Later during a visit to Australia, a man called Bruce Ward (who helps me investigate the way soil carbon could reverse the effects of global warming) wisely remarks ‘Keeping things simple isn’t easy’.

    The president points to the clock indicating that our time is nearly up. I have one more question, and then a request. First I want to know what it’s like being a head of state. This is the first president I’ve met (and will possibly be the last).

    “You’re quite young to be president. Do you ever wake up and go ‘my God, how did I get here?’” I ask.

    He smiles, and takes a moment to think.

    “You do feel that, you know, you’re not so grand, you’re not so big – but people take you to be. But you only have one of a president, so the whole system is arranged around looking after me.” He pauses. “It leads you to very awkward situations, where you think ‘Oh my God, can I have some moment for myself?’ Every single step you make, everyone, someone is watching you.”

    Nasheed is both ordinary and extraordinary at the same time. Like his idea for an underwater cabinet meeting he manages to mold day-to-day reality with something singular and exceptional. He is both a leader and eminently approachable (as evidenced by the method by which I finally got my interview). Having met him it seems almost obvious that he’d want to have a cabinet meeting underwater.

    Time is short and I decide in the little time I have left to do a bit of advocacy for Klaus Lackner and his carbon scrubbing technology (see my post on meeting Klaus here). The president hasn’t heard of Klaus (although he has heard of Klaus’ key advocate, the mighty Wally Broecker). As I explain the potential of Klaus’ work you can see his brain working. His eyes go up and to the right. He leans forward. How much money does Klaus need? (Nasheed tells me he is hoping to put aside $100million each year for investment in his carbon neutral project). I repeat the figure Klaus gave me of $20million to take his technology to the next stage – a design that can be rolled out worldwide. Suddenly I find myself suggesting to the president that maybe one of the deserted islands in the Maldives might act as a good demonstrator for the technology, to show the world its potential. As an act of cheek it goes beyond anything I’ve ever done (Clearly this is a day for sticking my neck out). The bloke from New Cross has just overstepped the mark. Except the president says, “So he should come down here, and we could give him some room…”

    Should I put him in touch with Klaus?

    “Please do!”

    And what would be the best way of doing that I wonder?

    “I think the best way would be to get in touch by personal e-mail,” he says, scribbling his contact details on a piece of paper and handing it to me. I’m dumbfounded. A president has just handed me his private e-mail address. (It’s not a government e-mail account, it’s hosted by one of the world’s popular web-mail providers.) I want to phone my mum and shout ‘Mum! Guess what?!

    I have one last question. What’s his one tip for approaching the future?

    “Never give up hope, you know? Never give up. Just keep moving.” He pauses. “Tomorrow must be better. Tomorrow is better.”

    Our interview is over and we pose for a photo together as I thank him for his time. He smiles readily and, ever the diplomat, thanks me for my questions.

    nasheed and author

    And then he is gone. A presidential aid escorts me out the back entrance of the offices and I am once more on the humid streets of the capital. I have a huge grin on my face. It’s not just that I finally got my interview, it’s because the interview has made me feel lighter.

    Nasheed is a lightening rod for optimism, and it’s hard not to feel better about the future after spending time with him. And then it strikes me forcibly that it’s not just him, but all the people I’ve been meeting. From Nick Bostrom, the philosopher, to George Church the geneticist. From Wally Broecker the climate scientist to Cynthia Breazeal the robotocist. From Hod Lipson the Artificial Intelligence pioneer to Xavier Claramunt, the orbital hotelier. All of them are inspired by what can be done, all of them are doing something to make it real. And none of them is waiting for permission.

    During our interview Nasheed had said

    “Thoughts are real, they’re material. Once you have given thought to something, it then becomes material very often and quickly. If you can see a bigger picture then you work for that.”

    He is, of course, right.

  • October19th

    I didn’t get my interview with the president today, and Paul, the PR liaison is sounding increasingly apologetic and uncertain. “I’m so sorry,” he says. “None of us expected the reaction to the cabinet meeting to be so huge, the president is totally full up”. It’s true that underwater event has generated unprecedented levels of exposure for Nasheed. I’ve received e-mails from excited friends around the globe who’ve seen footage on their news bulletins or read reports in their national papers. “It’s so great you’re getting to interview the president!” writes one friend excitedly, and I feel a knot in my stomach. I’m getting a very bad feeling about all this.

    To distract myself I decide to walk the perimeter of Malé. It’s a view of the Maldives few visitors ever see, and it’s revealing. As I reach the west shore I see fires burning on the horizon. Plumes of thick smoke create a dirty smudge that reaches up to the clouds. These are the Fires of Thilafushi – which sounds like the title of a romantic novel, but actually betray the location of the least attractive island in the nation (and arguably the world).

    Fires of Thilafushi

    Fires of Thilafushi

    Thilafushi is over 120 acres of mostly landfill, an artificial island built to deal with the prodigious amounts of refuse from the capital and neighbouring islands, as well as and some of the 3.5 kilograms of rubbish generated on average, by each tourist every single day. I see a string of industrial-looking boats, carrying four loaded rubbish trucks each, leaving Malé for the 6km trip to the island.

    These boats are rubbish

    These boats are rubbish

    Built to solve a problem, Thilafushi is causing a few of its own. Simply put, it can’t handle the amount of rubbish it’s being sent. The operation has long since abandoned digging pits – the volume of waste has simply become too great to cover. Instead, Thilafushi (or ‘trash island’ as the locals call it) has been slowly expanding as some the 330 tonnes of rubbish it receives daily is loaded onto the island and into the lagoons around it. The size of the  operation is perhaps  best demonstrated by the fact the island  now has a café, a restaurant, two mosques, and its own police station. In fact the Maldives has so much rubbish it is exporting it. Ships that bring vegetables from India return home with crushed cans, metals and cardboard. Besides the logistical problem of handling all that waste there are now concerns that toxic heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium are leaching into the sea from the island, and posing a threat to the marine eco-system.

    “This is the scariest part,” says local environmentalist Ali Rilwan in an interview with the Dhivehi Observer.  “Unlike a landfill, this is a lagoon fill. It is a landfill in liquid form and so it absorbs these chemicals much more easily.”

    I’ve also been shocked to find out that the Maldives, including all the resorts, dumps its raw sewage into the ocean. As a nation, the Maldives needs some serious toilet training.

    I continue my walk to the north shore and find lines of oil trucks.

    Fossil fuel cavalcade

    Fossil fuel cavalcade

    The smell of diesel is thick in the air as boat owners queue up to fill their engines with fuel. Further down the road I find the capital’s power plant, happily expelling carbon into the atmosphere.

    Male Power Plant - Carbon Positive

    Malé Power Plant - Carbon Positive

    According to the CIA yearbook the country imports the equivalent of 5,490 barrels of oil a day, highlighting the challenge Nasheed has in committing his country to carbon neutrality.

    But the new president seems to be onto it with typical verve. Within a month of me leaving the islands he announces a deal with General Electric to build a £160M offshore wind farm comprising 30 large turbines and delivering power via a network underwater cables. It’s estimated the plant will provide 40% of the nation’s electricity and reduce its carbon emissions by 25%,

    I also find out that the new administration is tackling the rubbish problem too, having established the Waste Management Corporation with a mandate of collecting and processing all waste in the nation in an environmentally friendly manner.

    Such moves should begin to answer those critics of Nasheed who say he’s all about PR stunts (like Saturday’s cabinet meeting) but light on action. It’s a popular refrain amongst the Maldivians I’ve spoken to so far on the streets of the capital – there’s a general feeling that the new president is a good thing, but it’s all about delivery now. His critics include the German owner of the Thai restaurant where I have lunch. Upon realising I’m a writer he cannot wait to tell me his views on the new regime insisting, I’m surprised to hear, that things were better under Gayoom’s dictatorship. “This country isn’t ready for democracy,” he tells me, “The don’t know how to handle it”. He goes on to warn me that the local currency is worthless and I shouldn’t use it, which explains why he prefers you to settle his bill in US dollars – before giving you your change in Maldivian Rufiyaa.

    My final stop is an artificial beach on the capital’s East side. It’s deserted – a forlorn curio. Can it be popular when a boat ride away are some of the finest beaches anywhere on the planet? I sit for a while trying not to worry about the fact I’ve still heard nothing about my interview. Tomorrow is my last full day in Malé. If I don’t speak to the president then I’ll probably not get to talk to him at all…

  • October18th

    If it wasn’t for the armed soldiers observing me and my companions as we step onto the jetty, I could be in paradise. The sky is a pure shimmering blue, the sand underfoot is soft and fine, the sea a crystal clear aquamarine teeming with life. A light breeze rustles through the palm trees, which offer shelter from the sweltering sky.

    Welcome to Paradise

    Welcome to Paradise

    This is the military island of Girifushi and the soldiers looking at us, with a mix of slight disdain and bemusement, are likely ex-employees of the dictatorial regime who tortured the man we are all here to see. Later this week I will ask Mohamed Nasheed how he feels about being in charge of a military and a police force that used to oppress him – and his reply is typically surprising and positive.

    Today the government of the Maldives will hold an underwater cabinet meeting in an attempt to draw the world’s attention to the perils of climate change – and position the Maldives as a front line state in the battle against global warming. I’m the odd one out. Everyone else here seems to be either a journalist (I meet cheery correspondents from Good Morning America and Al Jazeera) or an activist (like the fabulously named Susannah and Ya’acov Darling-Kahn who are behind sixbillionreasons.org – and who are also using their trip to the Maldives to take a 20 year overdue honeymoon). TV Maldives has turned a lagoon on the other side of the island into an underwater studio. Three metres underwater cameras are trained on a sub-surface arrangement of tables and national flags, carefully positioned around an outcrop of coral. In a tent on the shore TV executives hustle and bustle around banks of audio-visual equipment that feed them images and sound from the bottom of the lagoon. Their expressions betray excitement and national pride along with what I can only describe as the ‘I hope we don’t cock this up’ look.

    Most people here will take in proceedings from the shore. After months of careful e-mailing with the president’s PR liaison (the impossibly youthful looking Paul Roberts) I’m lucky enough to be allowed to see the action from the water.

    We’re briefed in the press area where everyone seems good natured except for a couple of press photographers who are demanding access to the water too. “Taking pictures of journalists is of no interest to me,” exclaims one grumpily, “so I must be allowed closer”. Later, as we bob about in the water while the president addresses the TV cameras amassed on the shore the same person will try and manhandle me out of his path saying, “if you’re not shooting can you just get out the way?” I’d say there are about 100 people on this island with one form of camera or another and only these two are being arsey. Paul later tells me these same photographers have turned up at the last minute and demanded to be allowed access to the event ‘because they had flown a long way’.

    I’m kitted out with a mask, snorkel and fins while being briefed by the man who will be our escort in the water. Because none of the cabinet ministers will be able to talk during the event they are all following a printed ‘order of service’, which will guide them through their headline grabbing meeting.

    1.    President signals OK
    2.    Cabinet reply OK
    3.    President signals LOOK SLATE
    4.    Cabinet open manual page 3
    5.    President signals statement OK
    6.    Cabinet signal statement OK
    7.    President signs statement
    8.    Cabinet pass the slate one by one
    9.    President signals cabinet ascent

    …and so on.

    Dictatorship, Nasheed-style

    Dictatorship, Nasheed-style

    The statement in question, to be delivered taken to the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December, is printed on an underwater slate and calls for nations around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  I’m guessing everyone’s confident that the statement is OK. A late amendment motion could be tricky.

    I’m taken to the waters edge and we dive in. It’s deliciously warm. As I come to the surface I’m struck by how incongruous and just brilliant my life at this moment is. I may be writing a book about the future, but right now I feel incredible. I know that when my time comes and my life flashes before me I will remember this. I’m grinning from ear to ear. Even the grumbling photographers who’ve managed to intimidate Paul into allowing them in the water make me smile. It’s strangely comic to observe them cajole and hassle our escort, demanding to be taken closer still to the meeting below us. It takes a special kind of skill to be fed up in these circumstances. It’s almost admirable. (In defence of the photographers I will later see their work and have to admit that being grumpy hasn’t affected either’s ability to take a fine picture).

    I swim around the perimeter of the meeting avoiding scuba-clad cameramen and the wires that trail into the lagoon from the shore. It’s a bizarre experience, precisely because it is in many ways so, well, ordinary. Cabinet ministers pass the statement to each other in an orderly procession of aquatic cordiality, occasionally handing an waterproof marker to the person next to them who has just spend the last second or two looking around for theirs in the underwater equivalent of fumbling in your jacket. The familiarity of the exercise, I realise, is the thing that will make the event great TV. It is both ordinary and extraordinary simultaneously. Who isn’t intrigued by a government meeting taking place underwater? More people will tune in to watch this than they would to see someone battling a huge shark. Battling huge sharks is within the parameters of what we expect from the underwater world. Having a sit down to sign a governmental accord is not. It’s a brilliant piece of PR. (Hill and Knowlton take note). I warrant it’s the only time you’ll see an entire cabinet dressed in rubber and it’s not something to do with the Tory’s.

    "Have we watered this down too much?"

    "Have we watered this down too much?"

    The fish seem largely unimpressed, darting around the coral as if having a bunch of cabinet ministers, a president, a brace of support divers, underwater camerapeople and some office furniture in the water is an everyday occurrence.

    Everyone sticks to the order of service and there are no new motions, or dissent from the assembled rubber-clad dignitaries. Given that most of them had to take diving lessons to be here I suspect that the majority are keen just to get through the thing without drowning or making a tit of themselves.

    The meeting lasts about 20 minutes. The ministers raise from their seats and begin to swim back to the lagoon’s edge. I find myself swimming just to the right and slightly above the president. He gazes my way and I must look startled because he makes the underwater signal for ‘Are you OK?’ I respond to assure him I am. I’m more than OK, but there isn’t a hand signal for ‘Bloody hell! I’m at an underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldives! How cool is that?!

    The party reaches the shore and I look up. A myriad of microphones and camera lenses stare back. The world’s press is clamouring for the best vantage point and is launching into a barrage of questions which Nasheed answers from the water, being careful to link the threat he sees to the Maldives with that faced by the rest of the world. There’s also some good-natured banter about the benefit of having a cabinet meeting where none of your ministers can talk, and whether underwater meetings might become a regular feature of the Nasheed administration. “The whole idea is that this doesn’t become a regular feature,” he replies.

    It’s odd to be in the middle of international news event. I feel out of place bobbing around behind the president as the sun sparkles off the water, with possibly the biggest smile I’ve had on my face since I started this trip. It’s a delicious mix of politics, paradise and the thought ‘how the hell did I end up here?’ Subsequently my mug finds it way into the newspapers and websites of the world. There’s the president, patiently answering questions, and just behind him a grinning loon from New Cross, South East London who probably couldn’t answer the question ‘what is your name?’ at this moment.

    Optimist infiltrates government. (Picture: Associated Press)

    Optimist infiltrates government. (Picture: Associated Press)

    As we climb out of the lagoon I conclude that not nearly enough cabinet meetings are held underwater. On the short walk to lunch the president is waylaid numerous times by journalists eager to grab some face time with him. I’m relaxed because my interview, scheduled for tomorrow, has been in the diary for months. Or so I thought.

    Over lunch Paul, the PR liaison starts to use worryingly vague and expectation-limiting language. I’ll ‘probably’ get my interview ‘in the next two days’, it’s ‘usually’ not a problem, although the president ‘has a very full diary’. My confidence is not bolstered when Paul suggests it might be ‘helpful’ to say hello to president now ‘just so he knows who you are.’ Paul introduces me in a way that gives the strong impression this is the first time he’s told the Nasheed anything about me. I compliment the president on the day’s success and say I am looking forward to our interview tomorrow. He looks confused. ‘Are we having an interview?’ he asks.

    In Paul’s defence, today has been a huge media exercise, perhaps the biggest international coverage in the news media the Maldives has ever had. The man from New Cross is no doubt way down the agenda, but nonetheless, I’ve flown over 5,000 miles for the single purpose of interviewing a man who it seems I may not get to talk to beyond 30 seconds of presidential bemusement and one underwater hand signal each. I express my concerns to Paul who assures me my interview will take place. ‘Call me tomorrow morning,’ he says. ‘We’ll see how things are looking then.’ None of this has a ring of certainty about it. A local journalist informs me that ‘this kind of thing isn’t uncommon out here. You’ve kind of got to roll with it.’ It seems like good counsel, not that I have much option, but if the situation prevails I may find myself having to adopt techniques recently showcased by arsey photographers… For now however, the sun in shining, lunch is good, people are smiling. There are worse places to be.

  • October17th

    Malé, Capital of the Maldives

    Malé, Capital of the Maldives

    I’ve arrived in the Maldivian capital of Malé, the only capital to occupy its own island. Other capitals can be found on islands, but there are no others that are islands. Its two square kilometres host somewhere between 90,000 and 150,000 people (definite figures are hard to come by). Even by lowest estimates this makes Malé one of the most densely occupied cities on the planet. In stark contrast to spacious whole-island resorts for which the country is famed (and which provide a huge proportion of its earnings) Malé is a warren of tight streets, filled with the buzzing of thousands of scooters.

    With limited street lighting I’m amusingly confused several times this evening by what I imagine to be the twin beams of car headlights approaching, which suddenly diverge as two scooters pass either side of me. I think I need to avoid a car and go to make a move only for said vehicle to apparently split in two in an attempt to make sure I have no escape (except possibly from this mortal coil). Nobody wears helmets and most people drive with the sort of reckless abandon that could make one reflect kindly on Tracy Wemmet’s skills behind the wheel. I say ‘could’ advisedly. (If you’ve been keeping up with the blog you’ll remember Tracy as the afterlife-seeking PR representative for thin film solar panel manufactures Konarka in Boston).

    Just as the contrast between the spacious resorts and the teeming metropolis of Malé is stark, so is that between the wealth of visitors and native Maldivians. As the man I’ve come see (newly elected president Mohammed Nasheed) says:

    “We have a situation in the Maldives where you have a very poor 3rd world island which is next to a very rich European island.” One of his initiatives to address this disparity is to encourage resorts to link their economies with neighbouring islands by buying labour and supplies.

    Nature’s most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapour, makes itself known in the Maldives. The air enjoyed by the Maldivian archipelago is humid, keeping the nights hot and muggy. By the time I’ve spent an hour getting lost in the city’s streets I’m covered in a thin film of perspiration.

    By the docks I find hundreds of boats, many offloading strong smelling catches of huge yellow fin tuna. The tuna are dumped unceremoniously into pots with their heads down (and thus obscured) giving them the comic appearance of a strange cross between a cactus and a hat stand.

    Fishy Cactus Hatstand

    Fishy Cactus Hatstand

    In a tiled hall I witness the fish being gutted and prepared for sale. Huge knives expertly gouge out lidless eyes, heads are ripped off, spines are removed in single, swift and well practiced movements by men smoking cigarettes and made indifferent to their butchery through repetition. I guess ripping the head of a tuna becomes as mundane as processing an invoice if you’ve done it enough times.

    Most foreign visitors (whose number is almost double the population of the nation) either never see Malé (transferring directly to and from the resorts) or spend just a single night here in preparation for an early morning return flight. I’m happy to be here longer, getting to see the Maldivian people on their own terms, as well as meet their new president.

    Mohamed ‘Anni’ Nasheed has had an extraordinary life, and he’s only 42. In 2008 Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (born in exile in Sri Lanka, and Wiltshire) ended the 30 year dictatorship of Maumoon Adul Gayoom, a man who wasn’t shy of conducting human rights abuses, particularly against those who didn’t like his autocratic government. Detention without trial, torture and politically motivated assassinations were all part of the portfolio.

    In a speech given a year before he became president to the UK Conservative Party (who’d helped Nasheed organise and gain international recognition for the MDP) Nasheed said:

    “The minute we mention the Maldives it’s very hard for us to convince you that it really is hell for a lot of people, because it’s such a beautiful place. Its beauty doesn’t quite go with brutality, torture and all the atrocities that happen there.”

    Two years later Nasheed returned to the Conservative party conference, as the first democratically elected president of the Maldives to say ‘thank you’ and lobby for increased action on combating climate change. He recalled:

    “I speak as a man who has personally experienced the worse a regime can contrive in order to suppress its people. I was imprisoned on 16 different occasions and spent a total of 6 years in jail. Of these I spend 18 months in solitary confinement. The thing that saddens me most about these experiences is that I was not able to witness the birth of my two daughters.”

    In the same speech he remarked, “Not surprisingly these obscenities were never mentioned internationally as an incentive to visit my country.” Human rights abuses don’t sit well with tourism and the international community was slowly waking up to the unsavoury political picture on the islands. On the home front too things were getting sticky for Gayoom. Despite his penchant for criminal repression, civil unrest was growing. A 2004 protest saw 3,000 democracy protesters take to the streets of the capital to demand reform. (On Malé that’s a huge demonstration). Gayoom sent in the riot police – hundreds were arrested and the day became know as ‘Black Friday’. Internationally, he went on the PR offensive, hiring the London PR firm Hill and Knowlton, who were reportedly paid £13,000 a month for their services. Not long after, the move rather back-fired for both Gayoom and his Soho-based advocates, by attracting a whole bunch of bad press for all concerned and drawing even more attention to his regime’s shortcomings.

    Modernisers in his own government convinced Gayoom that if he wasn’t careful he’d have a full scale revolution on his hands and he reluctantly agreed to official recognition of other political parties, the MDP being the first. The Asian tsunami of Boxing Day 2004 also brought indirect pressure. It’s hard to ask for international aid when you’re known for imprisoning and murdering your own people. Elsewhere though he continued to stall on constitutional reform and in 2005 Gayoom reverted to old habits. At a demonstration marking the anniversary of Black Friday Gayoom sent police to arrest Nasheed – and subsequently charged him with terrorism (also telling him the loudspeaker he was using to address the crowd was ‘a weapon’). One wonders what Hill and Knowlton had been teaching Gayoom. Surely in the rule book of PR there’s something that says,

    “Rule 46: when under the watchful eye of the international community and human rights organisations try not to arrest popular democracy reformers. In particular don’t send a pack of armed police into a large crowd where lots of people have cameras to drag away one unarmed man. It looks bad, trust us. Instead, we suggest a cocktail reception.”

    The arrest, unsurprisingly, sparked further public dissent and international observers voiced concerns that Nasheed would not receive a fair trial. It took a nearly a year but in the end Nasheed walked free, in exchange for a promise not to foment revolution. But the revolution had already happened. Despite Gayoom now trying to paint himself as a political reformer (not and easy task when it’s your own rule that needs reforming) Nasheed won the first free presidential election last year.

    In a speech earlier this year, Nasheed gave an example of how democracy is slowly taking root:

    “One of the first people released after the election was a man who four years ago held a banner calling for the resignation of my predecessor. I urged him to exercise his new found freedoms to hold the government to account. I’m pleased that the fellow has already started his work and has called for my resignation! I am proud to report that there are no political prisoners in the Maldives.”

    Other popular moves included destroying the buildings used for detention and torture, and choosing to turn the opulent multi-million dollar presidential palace built by his predecessor over to the judiciary to house a new supreme court. That palace I think is one of the biggest smoking guns when it comes to nailing Gayoom’s ‘evil bonkers dictator’ reputation. The absolute giveaway is the gold plated toilet (pictured below). I mean, come on. If a bullion-encrusted commode doesn’t cry out, “I really am a self serving bastard” what does?

    Smoking Gun

    Smoking Gun

    Nasheed and Gayoom may not share an interest in gaudy bathroom furniture, but they do both understand the power of PR, although Nasheed’s a damn sight better at it than Hill and Knowlton. Nasheed is an ex-journalist (it was criticism of Gayoom in his magazine Sangu that first brought him into direct conflict with the previous regime) and has used his media savvy to bring the most pressing problem the Maldives faces to the international stage.

    Not one of the 1190 islands that make up the nation is more than six feet above sea level. So as the planet warms and the seas expand the risk is that they’ll be less and less of the Maldives to see. “The challenges facing us are great,” says Nasheed. “I need not rehearse here the statistics relating to climate change. I will simply tell you that if the process continues unchecked my grandchildren will find their island home has disappeared completely under the seas.” In an impassioned speech to the UN assembly he was unequivocal. “It’s crystal clear to us…. If things go business as usual we will not live. We will die. Our country will not exist.”

    He has described the Maldives as the equivalent of the ‘canary in the coal mine’ that miners used to help detect build ups of deadly methane and carbon dioxide. (Above certain concentrations of these gases canaries tend to die, hence the analogy of the ‘canary in the coal mine’ as a warning to others that prevails today). Nasheed argues that, “If we cannot save 350,000 Maldivians from rising seas today we cannot save the millions in New York, London or Mumbai tomorrow.” To the world he says, “we are all Maldivians now” and compares his country to Poland in the second world war, ‘a frontline state’ in the global battle against CO2 rise. But Nasheed isn’t a pessimist, instead using the climate challenge problem to position the Maldives as a nation-sized laboratory of change, an example to the world of how we might battle global warming.

    “The Maldives is determined to break old habits,” he told the UN. “From now on we will no longer be content to shout about the perils of climate change. Instead we believe our acute vulnerability provides us with the clarity of vision to understand how the problem may be solved.”

    Too much of the debate over climate change has been debilitating he argues. “The Kyoto protocol and the current narrative about global climatic change has been about not doing things, about not emitting gas, about not going on holiday, about not having an icecream,” Nasheed told Al Jazeera. “My feeling is this is the wrong way to go about it. We should be demanding we do things, do greener things, invest in renewable energy. Renewable energy is doable, it’s feasible and will give you a handsome return.”

    He wants to provide a template, or ‘survival kit’ for other nations. One of his first big announcements upon coming to power was to commit his nation to becoming carbon neutral within 10 years, and I’ve been reliably informed that some concrete announcements will be made concerning this plan in the coming week or two. This might go some way to answering Nasheed’s critics who claim he’s all publicity but has little political substance.

    Those same critics will no doubt see tomorrow’s attention grabbing event as another example of a president interested more with publicity than policy. Nasheed will lead the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting, three metres below the waves, complete with a table, national flags and a scuba support team.

    I’m going.

  • October16th

    I’m in Dubai airport on the way to the Maldives to meet President Mohammed Nasheed and attend an underwater cabinet meeting (which is not a sentence I ever thought I’d write). I don’t understand airports. They are a potential melting pot of people from all countries and cultures and yet they are some of the simultaneously dullest and most alienating places on the planet, full of naff shops and lacklustre restaurants. Dubai airport is like a cross between Walmart and the rib cage of some deceased leviathan. As Douglas Adams once wrote “It’s no coincidence that in no known language does the phrase ‘As pretty as an airport’ appear. Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort.”. I’d call Dubai airport ‘medium ugly’. It’s not even got the ambition to really take ugly and make it it’s own.

    I don’t want to buy a raffle ticket for a car. I don’t want to buy overpriced (yet ‘duty free’) sunglasses or perfume. I have no need for an 8-pack of Toblerone, or enough cigarettes to kill a dinosaur. I would like a space that encourages meetings between travelers. International airports could be a force for cultural understanding, or places that showcase the best of their host nations. Instead they seem to separate us from one another and suggest that the country outside has the lowest of aspirations. ‘Welcome to our nation, would you like a bumper pack of M&M’s?’

    I do hope that future spaceports (which I’ll cover in the chapter ‘Spacestation Hilton’) learn not to emulate this worldwide virus of soul destroying termini. Author Anthony Price summed it up when he wrote the devil himself has probably redesigned Hell in the light of information gained from observing airport design. Any second now I expect to hear the announcement “Paging passenger Stevenson. This is the last call for your soul. Your soul is now departing from gate 7.”

    Right I’m off to catch a plane.

  • September27th

    I’m in the UK, finally back home after flying in early morning yesterday and going straight to Oxfordshire to attend the wedding of friend (and co-director of ReAgency) Quentin Cooper to his (now) wife Suba.

    The flight turns out to be more inspirational than I might have expected. By luck I find myself sitting next to Imran, who’s returning to the UK after a week’s training in working with Autistic children. Imran radiates positive vibes and practical optimism, which is all the more surprising when he tells me some of his life story. As a Pakistani Muslim who fell in love with an Indian Catholic, he was ostracised by his entire community. His family won’t speak to him. “It was complete rejection,” says Imran. “I mean, I lost everything”. The couple have two daughters, the youngest of whom was born with autism (hence his trip to the States). You might expect someone facing the twin challenges of cultural abandonment and a child with developmental problems to be rather serious. Imran by contrast almost exudes light. I don’t get the feeling this is over-compensation, a contrived cheery demeanour that seeks to reject or not look at what has happened. More that these experiences have helped him find the essence of who he is. He just seems to embody himself without artifice, sacrifice or apology.

    Both of us find the muffin that comes with breakfast hilarious, made as it is by US food supplier Otis Spunkmeyer. I kid you not.

    Questionable taste

    Questionable taste

    Before parting we agree to meet up sometime back in London. I’m looking forward to that. Imran is as inspirational as any of the ‘great thinkers’ I’ve been meeting.

    After touching down at Heathrow I head not home, but north to Quentin and Suba’s wedding, via the Aylesbury Holiday Inn. I eat a lunch that reminds me of something Frank Zappa once said before heading over to the nuptials.

    There’s a certain cachet to saying you’ve just ‘flown in from New York’, especially at a wedding – which makes up for the fact you feel jetlagged and jaded. I think I managed to pull off an acceptable appearance, with the help of not insubstantial amounts of champagne, and I met some lovely people, including the incomparable Vivienne Parry (something of a science presenting deity), Mai Davies (who you’ll know if you watch TV in Wales) and uber-music journalist Mark Ellen (the man who set up both Word and ‘Q’ magazines and presented the Old Grey Whistle test). I like weddings. Everyone looks their best and most people are usually in a good mood.

    I finally made it home this morning to a pile of junk mail and brain full of new ideas. It’s fair to say the world doesn’t look the same anymore. When I started this project I thought it was going to be a journey to understand how the science happening now will impact on my future. What I have found out so far has blown my mind. In fact I’ve got used to having my mind blown. But that science is only half the story.

    In the very early stages of researching this book I met with a futurist called Stephen Aguilar-Milan, a key player in the European chapter of the World Future Society. He told me that there were two historical ways of looking at the future. “One way is to say that technology leads society,” he said. “This is the American model of futurism that says technology drives societal change”. The other ‘European’ perspective is that society leads technology. “This argues that we create the technologies that society demands.” But there’s a third model. “This is the Asian school of futurism. That actually it is our values that lead both society and technology”. There’s something happening at the back of mind that I can’t quite put my finger on, but I know it’s going to be important to the book. It has something to do with values, but that’s not all of it. I think it’s something to do with attitude…

  • September23rd

    It’s a big question, but one that is particularly pertinent to my interview today with Robotics and Artificial Intelligence researcher, Hod Lipson. Because Hod and his team build machines that find truths.

    The search for truth has a long history (one could argue it is history) which I’m not about to get into (and it’s not the book I’m writing) but if someone said to me ‘Go on then, history of truth in 5 minutes’ I’d probably reach for two key figures – Socrates (born Greece, 469 BC) and Francis Bacon (born England, 1561), not least because they both died in interesting ways (which is useful for storytelling).

    Socrates was put to death by the state of Athens for “refusing to recognise the gods recognised by the state” and “corrupting the youth” (explaining perhaps why Black Sabbath rarely toured in Greece). Despite clear chances to escape his fate, Socrates placidly took a drink containing poison hemlock prepared by the authorities. Francis Bacon, many believe, died as a result of trying to freeze a chicken. It might seem odd therefore to hold up both as key figures in the history of reason.

    Socrates natural hier?

    Socrates' natural heir?

    You may also wonder why I am suddenly diving into the past when I’m writing a book about the future. Bear with me, and blame Hod Lipson and his robots.

    Both Socrates and Bacon were very good at asking useful questions. In fact, Socrates is largely credited with coming up with a way of asking questions, ‘The Socratic Method’, which itself is at the core of the ‘Scientific Method’, popularised by Bacon during ‘The Enlightenment’ – a period of European history when ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ had an almighty bunfight and the balance of power between church, state and citizen was being questioned. Lots of philosophers and scientists challenged the prevailing orthodoxy of religious authority by saying ‘we need to make decisions based on critical thinking, evidence and reasoned debate, not on sacred texts and religious faith’ and the church replied with ‘yes, but we own most of the land, plus people really like the idea of God. Ask them’.

    I'm pretty popular, actually

    I'm pretty popular, actually

    The Socratic Method disproves arguments by finding exceptions to them, and can therefore lead your opponent to a point where they admit something that contradicts their original position. It’s powerful because it kind of gets people to admit to themselves that they’re wrong. It’s also pretty good at exposing your own (as well as others’) prejudices and gaps in reasoning. Lawyers use it a lot. Don’t let this influence you against it. Lawyers also use toilet paper and you’re not about to reject that idea.

    Used by lawyers

    Used by lawyers

    Here’s an example.

    During excessive bouts of hard and progressive rock emanating my older brothers’ bedrooms my dad used to say, “people only play electric guitars because they can’t play real ones” (by which he meant acoustic guitars played by nice chaps called Julian with sensible haircuts, as apposed to electric guitars played by long haired geezers called Dave and Jimmy).

    First step of Socratic method: assume your opponent’s statement is false and find an example to illustrate this. This You Tube clip of Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour playing acoustic guitar for instance. Clearly Dave Gilmour can play a ‘real’ guitar as well as an electric one and my dad must grudgingly accept the fact. At this point dad would assert that Dave Gilmour was ‘the exception that proved the rule’.

    Next step. Take your opponent’s original statement and restate it to fit their new modified position. “So, dad, you’re saying that people only play electric guitars because they can’t play acoustic ones, except for Dave Gilmour who can do both?”. Then return to step one.

    Ironically this led us to playing dad far more Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin than if he’d kept his theory to himself. (MTV’s ‘unplugged’ series would become his nemesis). Eventually dad would have to admit the truth – which was not that the rock musicians we listened to weren’t talented, but that he just didn’t like rock music.

    This example is trivial but you can use the method to demonstrate some pretty esoteric points, and expose fundamental new insights. A popular example that can really annoy your mates in the pub is proving that things don’t have a colour.

    Socratic argument, while undoubtedly one of the most useful things ever devised can also annoy the tits of people, as the man who lends it his name found out to his cost. The story is that Socrates used his technique to prove a lot of bigwigs in Athenian society were mistaken in their thinking – and they responded by having him killed. This proves that engaging people’s brains is never enough if you want change. You have to engage their emotions too. As Professor George Church said to me during our talk last week “Politicians know how effective emotion is in comparison to rational thought. You can really move mountains with emotion.  With rational thought you just end up getting people to change the channel”.

    By the time Francis Bacon went to university, teachings of one of Socrates’ students, Aristotle, had become entrenched as the way to conduct ‘scientific inquiry’. Aristotle had pioneered deductive reason, the practice of deriving new knowledge from foundational truths, or ‘axioms’. In short, it was generally believed that if you got enough boffins together to have a solid debate, scientific truth would be teased out over time. This worked well for mathematics where axioms had been long established (e.g. the basic mathematical operations – plus, minus, divide, multiply) but was less good for finding out new stuff about the physical world. Much to Francis’ dismay it seemed that science involved sitting around in armchairs. Nobody was getting off their arse and observing anything new or doing any experiments. Nobody was finding the ‘axioms of reality’ (which is arguably a good name for a progressive rock outfit).

    'Let's do it in 13/8!'

    'Let's do it in 13/8!'

    In common with Socrates Bacon stressed it was just as important to disprove a theory as to prove one – and observation and experimentation were key to achieving both aims. In a way he was Socrates 2.0 (which is another good name for a prog band). He also saw science as a collaborative affair, with scientists working together, challenging each other. All of this is hallmark of scientific good practice today – observe, experiment, theorise… and then try to prove yourself wrong – all in collaboration with peers who can give you a hard time. It’s important to note that Bacon himself wasn’t a distinguished scientist. His main contribution was the articulation and championing of an empirical scientific method. That said, he did do the odd experiment, including the one that killed him.

    While traveling from London to Highgate with the King’s personal physician, Bacon wondered whether snow might be used to preserve meat. The two got off their coach, bought a chicken and stuffed it with snow to test the theory. In his last letter Bacon is said to have written, “As for the experiment itself, it succeeded excellently well.” Some historians think the chicken story is made up, but the popular account is that the act of stuffing the chicken led to Bacon contracting fatal pneumonia. This is possibly the only instance of bacon being killed by eggs.

    Reason's nemesis?

    Reason's nemesis?

    Hod Lipson looks like a very friendly bear. He has a round, but not chunky frame, thick black hair and looks healthy and happy. His features are open and innocent. He’s almost childlike if it weren’t for his demeanour – a kind of solid confidence that only comes with age. You get the feeling Hod knows exactly what he wants to achieve. I suspect he was a mischievous child, curious, poking his nose into most things. And whilst most of the scientists I’ve met are driven by an almost insatiable curiosity, Lipson takes curiosity to a new level, literally. He’s curious about curiosity.

    “ ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is a moving target,” he says. “So, you can build machine that plays chess, then you build one that can drive through city streets and so on. People argue about whether it’s really intelligent or not – and usually it’s argued it isn’t. I want to create something where nobody can argue it isn’t intelligent. So, I was thinking about what’s an unmistakable, unequivocal hallmark of intelligence, and I think it’s creativity and particularly curiosity.”

    “Does a curious and creative machine mean a sentient machine?” I ask.

    “Well, what does that mean?” asks Hod. “I have to push you on what you mean by ‘sentient’.”

    Bollocks. I’ve just been asked by a leading researcher into intelligent machines to define sentience – one of the biggest pending questions in philosophy. This is worse than when Cynthia Breazeal asked me to come up with an alternative word for ‘robot’. Or if Andrew Lloyd Webber asked me to say something nice about one of his musicals. I feel out of my depth and we’re barely into our chat. I do the only thing I can.

    “Well, let me ask you,” I say. “What do you mean by it?”

    Hod pauses. I’m not sure he was expecting a return serve, especially one that in any decent rule book would be considered cheating.

    “I interpret it as deliberate versus reactive. Er… human-like…” He pauses again. “I don’t know.”

    A-ha! Well, like I said, it is one of the biggest pending questions in philosophy.

    “Alive?” I venture.

    “It’s difficult to identify what life is right?”

    And there’s the rub. Life has avoided a definitive definition for as long as we’ve tried to make one – as has ‘intelligence’. So if you’re trying to create ‘artifical intelligent life’ you’re already in a quagmire of semantic lobbying. I’m reminded of my chat last week with George Church (Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School). “I think life is actually quantitative measure,” said George, by which he means something that can be defined not with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but on a scale. “It’s not something where either you either have it or your don’t. So I would say that there are some things that are more alive than others.” And  I don’t think it’s overstating things to say that Hod certainly has made machines that are ‘more alive’ than many others.

    Then he says an interesting thing. “I think men have this hubris of wanting to create life. We try to create life out of matter.”

    ‘Hubris’ is one of those words like ‘semiotics’ and ‘insurance’ that I’ve heard a lot but didn’t really know what it meant for a long time (I’m still struggling with ‘insurance’). I look up ‘hubris’ when I get to back to my hotel. It means excessive pride or arrogance. In classical literature it’s usually a precursor to, and the cause of, a character’s downfall. The legend of Icarus is a good example. With that one word Hod has encapsulated the two defining criticisms aimed at Artificial Intelligence research. On one end there are those who say we’ll never create a truly artificial intelligence and that we’re arrogant to believe we can. On the other there those who worry we will build smart machines and in our arrogance be blind to the danger that they will one day do away with or enslave us. (There are more measured positions in between the two such as Hubert Dreyfus’s and Hod’s own – both of who suggest that a lot of AI research has been in the wrong direction).

    Hod doesn’t believe in the latter James Cameron-esque scenario, but sees a confederacy of man and machine. He has some sympathy for the ‘singularity hypothesis’ of Ray Kurzweil (who I’m interviewing early next year) which talks of a ‘merger of our biological thinking and the existence of our technology’ but doesn’t see a machine-human hybrid (Juan Enriquez’s Homo Evolutis) as the only scenario. “Merging could also mean intellectually merging, meaning that they explain stuff to us.”

    Lipson became famous (in robotic circles) for his work building robots that are arguably self aware. His Starfish robot, which I see sitting forlornly on a shelf in his lab, is iconic for learning to walk from first principles. It wasn’t given a program that told it how to move its various motors and joints to achieve locomotion. Instead Lipson gave it a program that enabled it to learn about itself – and use this knowledge to subsequently work out how to move.

    “The essential thing was it created a self image,” Lipson tells me. “It created that self image through physical experimentation. So it moved its motors, it sensed its motion and then it created various models of what it thought it might look like – ‘maybe I’m a snake? maybe I’m a spider?’ We told it to create models – multiple different explanations that might explain what it knows so far.”

    The robot then stress-tested those models by sending them into competition with each other. “It creates an experiment for itself that focuses on the area where there’s the most disagreement between what the models predict. We put in the code to look for disagreements,” explains Hod.

    For example, let’s say the robot is wondering which move to do next in order to learn about itself more. It could try a movement that, when completed, the models all predict it will be sitting at an angle of about 20 degrees. One model might predict 19 degrees, another 21 degrees, a third 21.2 degrees. However, if it tries another move the models have very different ideas about the result. One says the robot will be at an angle of 12 degrees, another predicts 25 degrees, a third says 45. This latter movement is more likely to be the one the robot chooses next, because it will learn the most from it, and get an idea of which model is closer to the truth. It’s where there’s most disagreement that there’s most to learn. “We tell it ‘you create models – multiple different explanations for what you see – and then look for what new experiment creates disagreement between predictions of these candidate hypotheses,” says Lipson “That’s the bottom line of curiosity”.

    The models that do best ‘survive’ and the program kills off the others. The remaining models ‘give birth’ to a generation of slightly mutated tweaked versions of themselves and another round of ‘survival of the fittest’ ensues. Or to put it another way, over many iterations the program hones in on a model that describes reality. The predictions get closer and closer to what actually happens until one model is deemed sufficient for the robot to say ‘this is what I look like’.

    If all this talk of ‘mutation’, successive ‘generations’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ sounds slightly familiar that’s because this kind of mathematics takes its inspiration from Darwin’s theories of evolution. Mathematicians might call it ‘reductive symbology’ or say Lipson’s work is a good example of ‘genetic algorithms’ – and it’s a technique that’s been around for decades. What’s different about Lipson’s work is the implementation, something he calls ‘co-evolution’.

    “We set off two lines of enquiry. So one of them is the thing that creates models and the other is the thing asks questions, and they have a predator/ prey kind of relationship. Because the questions basically try to break the models.” The questions try to find something the models disagree about so they can kill off the weaker ones. It’s like Anne Robinson in code.

    It has to be said that if you see the Starfish robot ‘walking’ you wouldn’t immediately think it had a future career as a dancer. It doesn’t so much walk as stagger and flop forward. It’s less Ginger Rogers and more gin and tonic. Still the achievement is not to be sniffed at. It had no parents and no role models. This was a robot actively learning to do something no one had taught it to. And robots that learn this way have all sort of interesting possibilities – as Lipson was about to find out.

    You can see Hod’s demonstrating his starfish robot in this TED talk.

    With colleague Michael Schmidt he wondered if the same computer program he’d placed at the core of his Starfish robot could go beyond working out merely what its host body looked like and begin to reach useful conclusions about the wider world.

    “We said ‘let’s take it out of this particular body and let it control motors of any experiment’ ”.  Their first idea was to give the robot brain control of motors that set up the starting position for a ‘double pendulum’ before letting it fall. The robot was also able to record the results of each experiment using motion capture technology – allowing it to accurately record the pendulum’s motion.

    A double pendulum is a bonkers little contraption. It consists of two solid sticks jointed together in the middle by a free moving hinge. Double pendulums do wacky things (You can see one in action here). Whilst the top pendulum swings from left to right the bottom one likes to mix it up. Because it’s not attached to a stationary point (like the top pendulum) but something moving (the bottom end of that swinging top pendulum) it will swing left, swing right, spin round clockwise, or counter clockwise, seemingly at random. Lipson and Schmidt chose the double pendulum because it’s a good example of a system that’s simple to set up but which can quickly exhibit chaotic behaviour – and therefore would be a good test of the technology’s ability to build a useful conceptual model of what was going on. The results were startling. In fact, the program went a long way to deriving the laws of motion. In 3 hours.

    It followed the same process as it had when it sat in the robot – guessing at equations that might explain what it had seen so far, then setting up new experiments (in this case new starting positions for the pendulum) that targeted areas of most disagreement between the equations. “With the double pendulum it very quickly puts it up exactly upright, because some models say it’s going to fall left and some models say it’s going to fall right. There’s disagreement. It’s not a passive algorithm that sits back, watching,” says Hod smiling. “It asks questions. That’s curiosity.”

    Just like humans, it seems machines learn best when they ask their own questions and find their own answers, rather than being given huge amounts of data to absorb. “Most algorithms you see are passive. They’re data intensive. You feed in terabytes of data and these algorithms just sit back and watch. But in the real world you can’t sit back and watch. You have to probe, because collecting data is expensive, it takes time, it’s risky.” By constrast Lipson’s machine brain “only ever sees what it asks for. It does not see all the data.” In fact Lipson decided to compare the efficiency of this ‘active’ method of enquiry against a more traditional passive ‘here’s all the data, what can you tell me?’ method. “It doesn’t work. It has go through a reasoning.”

    Remind you of anyone? I see the hemlock taker and the chicken freezer partially re-incarnated in machine form. The programming consigns inaccurate models to the dustbin by getting the robot to admit there are others that offer a better explanation of the real world  (hello Socrates) and does this with evidence won via experimentation (hello Bacon). What Lipson has done is create a computational methodology for asking good questions. And asking good questions is what it is all about when it comes to understanding anything.

    “Physicists like Newton and Kepler could have used a computer running this algorithm to figure out the laws that explain a falling apple or the motion of the planets with just a few hours of computation,” said Schmidt in an interview with the US National Science Foundation (who helped fund the research).

    However, we’re still a long way off what I (or Hod) would call an intelligent machine. It still takes a human to work out if anything the machine has found is useful. The machine didn’t know it had found laws of motion, it took Hod and his colleagues to recognise the equations that were produced. “A human still needs to give words and interpretation to laws found by the computer,” says Schmidt. So, we’re still some distance from Hod’s confederacy of man and machine, where they explain stuff to us.

    One of the areas Hod’s brains could turn out useful is cracking problems where there is lots of data, but we still have little idea what’s going on. Indeed plenty of people with acres of data have been beating a path to his door including heavyweight data generators like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva. “The people as CERN said ‘there is this gap in a prediction of particle energy. Here’s data for 3,000 particles. Can you predict something?’ ” The result was a strange mix of elating and disappointing. “We let it run and it came up with a beautiful formula,” says Hod. “We were very excited but it was a famous formula they already knew. So for them it was a disappointment…. But for us… We rediscovered something that people are famous for.”

    Again, the crucial insight comes from humans who can tell if something means anything or not. It’s the crucial step – and without it the results are largely worthless (which is not to say the time saved is not incredibly useful). I’m reminded of a scene from Douglas Adams’ comedy The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in which a supercomputer called Deep Thought is built by a race of supersmart humanoids to answer the ultimate question. ‘What is the answer?’ ask the humanoids awaiting instant enlightenment. ‘To what?’ says the computer. ‘Life! The Universe! Everything!’ they respond. ‘The ultimate question!’ The computer announces there is an answer… but it will take several million years to compute. At the duly allotted time millennia later the humanoid’s descendants gather to hear the answer, which is announced to be ‘42’. The problem, suggests Deep Thought, is that they don’t really know what ‘the question’ is.

    "You're not going to like it"

    "You're not going to like it"

    No-one understands the irony in this story more than Hod Lipson. “In biology there are many systems where we do not know their dynamics or the rules that they obey”. So he set his machine looking at a process within a cell. True to form the program generated an equation in double quick time. But what did it mean?

    “We’re still looking at it,” says Hod with a smile. “We’re staring at it very intently. But we still don’t have an explanation. And we can’t publish until we don’t know what it is.”

    “You don’t understand what it’s saying?

    “No,” says Hod.

    “But in science you go from observations which produce data, to models which produce predictions, to underlying laws – and from there you go to meaning. What’s good is that we can go from data straight to laws, whereas previously people could only go from data to predictions. So now a scientist can throw it some data, go and have a cup of coffee, come back and see 15 different models that might explain what is going on. That saves a lot of time. Previously coming up with a predictive model could take a career. Now at least you can automate that so you can focus on meaning.” That’s a powerful enabling technology. More time to think. Hod is doing for thinking what dishwashers have done for after  dinner conversation. Although it may not always work out that way.

    Several months later I e-mail Hod to see if they’ve got anywhere with the equation his machine generated from the cell-observing experiment. “We’re still struggling,” he writes “We’ve been trying for months to get the AI to explain it to us through analogy. But we don’t get it.” It could be that Hod’s machine has discovered something our human brains are just not smart enough to see. “Maybe it’s hopeless,” he says “Like explaining Shakespeare to a dog.” This is why Hod is trying to convince his collaborators to publish the equation anyway – and see if anybody else out there can shed light on its meaning.

    "Shakespeare? It's above me."

    "Friends, Romans... Hey! Is that a biscuit?!"

    Because Hod is curious about what makes us curious I ask him if his program could come up with a model of how to learn.

    “Could we use your program to observe data about how machines learn, or how people learn, and come up with a model of learning?”

    We’re getting seriously abstract now.

    Hod laughs. “That’s what we’re working on now. We’re working on what we call self reflective systems. We want to make machines meta-cognitive – they are thinking about thinking.”

    This is something of a departure from a lot of AI research. “Almost all the AI systems program a way of thinking and they do that thinking for you – which is the extent of it. You could argue that’s about as smart as a lizard. But if you want to get to human-like intelligence, you need a brain that can think about thinking…”

    Sadly (for this blog) Hod’s work in this area is currently unpublished so out of courtesy I’m leaving a more detailed explanation of what we discussed until the book is published. In summary however, Hod is taking his model of ‘co-evolutionary AI’ to the next level. Instead of modeling robot physiology, the motion of pendulums or data from physicists in Switzerland he has one robot brain trying to model how another one learns – and then, in true Lipson style, he’s asking one to challenge the other – in order to find out more. In this way one brain builds a model of how the other learns, and can start to make helpful suggestions.

    “That’s self reflection,” says Hod. He adds, “That’s important in life. You can learn things the hard way, or you can think about how you’ve been thinking.”

    It’s something you can imagine Socrates or Bacon saying.

  • September22nd

    Today I take a five hour bus ride to the Ithaca campus of Cornell University, in preparation for my interview with Robotics and Artificial Intelligence researcher Hod Lipson, but not before eating the worst pizza in the world. My bus leaves from the Cornell Club on 44th Street, but having arrived three quarters of an hour before departure I decide to grab a bite to eat. This ranks as one of the worst decisions of my life, up there with asking out my landlady, arguing with security at the US embassy in London and agreeing to see Jimmy Nail live. There was once a rumour that Frank Zappa ate a shit on stage, which wasn’t true. As Frank pointed out, “the closest I ever came to eating shit anywhere was at a Holiday Inn buffet in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in 1973.” I don’t know how bad that Holiday Inn buffet really was, but I suggest it has stiff competition in the form of the Europa Café on 5th Avenue.

    Cornell’s Ithaca campus is beautiful. This part of town sits over one of the 100-plus verdant gorges that the city is famous for, along with a brace of impressive 19th Century Architecture dating from the College’s formation.

    Idyllic Ithaca

    Idyllic Ithaca

    There’s plenty of greenery and open spaces too and throngs of students wander about in a fantasy of American College life, their books clutched to their chests as they laugh, flirt and learn in equal measure. I feel incredibly old. And of course I am. It’s a fact that I’m over the twice the age of about 90% of the people I walk past. Another unequivocal fact is that there’s no shortage of students smoking weed at Cornell. I know this not because I see any toking on a huge bifter but because I find the Insomnia Cookies store advertising “Warm Cookies Delivered Late Night”.

    Like, you know, like, wow, I'm kinda hungry

    Like, you know, like, wow, I'm kinda hungry

    It is a store designed to perfectly service ‘The Munchies’ – and where better to put it than smack bang in the middle of a college campus? It’s a neat business model – and I subsequently find out that Insomnia Cookies has outlets on 18 university campuses throughout the states. Retail is all about location. I’m giggling uncontrollably as I walk past, which but for my age probably makes me look like a potential customer.