optimistontour.com
  • Archives
  • April2nd

    The industrial revolution changed everything.

    It changed the way we organised society, it changed the way we educated ourselves, it changed the idea of work, and it changed the way we did business. We built infrastructure the like of which had never been seen before. Railways, roads, sewers, waterways, ports. These were new technologies. Today we don’t think of the road as a technology, or a sewer. But they are. As Google’s ‘Internet Evangelist’ Vint Cerf says, “If you grow up with a technology, it’s not technology. It’s just there.”

    In 2009, John Seely Brown ex-Chief Scientist of the Xerox Corporation told a crowd of Silicon Valley business leaders how deep the industrial revolution was embedded in their high-tech business structures. “The structure and architecture of the firm reflects the structure and architecture of the infrastructure on which the firms are built,” he said. “Organisational infrastructure leverages the properties of infrastructural architectures.” Now, as a couplet this may fail to grab you as much as “You killed my father!” / “No Luke, I am your father!” did me when I was six, but Brown (paraphrasing the work of Harvard’s Alfred Chandler) is saying something profound.

    Society is built on top of those roads, railways and schools, rather than those things being created underneath us as a means of support. Seely is saying that roads and schools shape us far more than we shape our roads and schools.

    Educationalist Sir Ken Robinson points out that, “there were no systems of public education around the world before the nineteenth century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism”. We built our school systems on top of the industrial revolution. We didn’t build the industrial revolution because of the collective effort of a pre-existing state-wide school system. (If you haven’t seen Ken’s TED talk, I recommend it. Not only is it a revelation, he’s also very funny).

    We develop new technologies, that became infrastructure that shape society – and the infrastructure of the industrial revolution is still with us. That infrastructure grew rapidly and then reached a plateau. Cars are not radically different, nor are trains or indeed aircraft from their counterparts a generation ago. Neither are roads, railway tracks, airports, the judiciary, the school system or our systems of government. “Our infrastructure has been stabilised for a shockingly long period of time,” says Brown, “and we have now built institutions on top of that that expect that kind of stability.”

    Our institutions are also still promoting a educational mindset that is born of the industrial age too. Ken Robinson says:

    Every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one, doesn’t matter where you go, you’d think it would be otherwise but it isn’t. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth.

    Skills that will get you a job in an industrial society are valued the highest. The problem with this is that we’re moving from the industrial age to the information one and our institutions and education needs to shift. This isn’t to say that mathematics and languages aren’t valuable, but that those qualities that come from studying the humanities (understanding social systems for instance) or the ability of the arts to promote creativity and curiosity will become more so.

    “We have a brand new type of infrastructure,” says Brown – and that infrastructure is the internet technologies that allow us to tease out and manipulate the world of data in a way never before possible. This new infrastructure will shape us just as profoundly as our industrial infrastructure did.

    -*-

    A man walks into a shop and picks up a packet of kitchen roll. As he does so an image appears on the packet telling him how much bleach was used in its manufacture. He picks up another and compares. The second gets a ‘green light’ that appears as ghostly image on back of the packet, signifying eco-friendliness. He chooses the latter as his purchase. Now he makes a phonecall, holding out his hand where the numbered buttons of a keypad appear sketched in light on his palm. He dials the number by tapping his own skin. Later, on the way to the airport, he pulls out his boarding pass and across the top some text appears telling him his flight is twenty minutes delayed.

    This sounds like a scene from an (admittedly quite dull) science fiction movie, but it is not. These are scenes from a demonstration of a new device developed at MIT’s Fluid Interfaces Group – a combination of mobile phone, wearable camera and tiny projector that the lab’s director, Pattie Maes, calls ‘Sixth Sense’ – a technology designed to provide seamless and easy access to “information that may exist somewhere that may be relevant, to help us make the right decision about whatever it is we’re coming across,” to help us “make optimal decisions about what to do next and what actions to take.” (Click on the video below to see ‘Sixth Sense’ in action).

    Everything is surrounded by a cloud of data you can’t see. A piece of clothing isn’t just the physical garment. In the shadow-world of data it is also how much it costs, whether it was manufactured ethically, the instructions for how best to wash it and so on. Crucially, your behaviour towards it may alter with access to any one of these pieces of data. Imagine walking into a trainer shop and being able to instantly see, by looking at a product’s bar code, whether it was made in a sweatshop or not, or if the shop around the corner had the same shoes on sale.

    We are already beginning to layer this world of data on top of our day-to-day experiences. Download the ‘Better World Shopper’ App onto your iPhone for instance and it will give you an instant rating of a manufacturer’s record in regard to human rights, environmental policy, animal rights, social justice and community involvement. Google Goggles makes use of your mobile phone’s camera to recognize landmarks, book covers, even wine labels and return internet searches that relate to what you’re pointing it at. This is data layered over reality, or (depending how you look at it), reality revealed by data.

    At a rapid pace we are becoming used to the idea that data should be accessible wherever we are, and on whatever subject we demand it, yet at the same time it’s hard to comprehend that the Internet is younger than I am, and the World Wide Web younger than my eldest niece. The ability of Internet services like the web and e-mail to connect both humans and machines has already had implications for society that we’re only just beginning to wake up to, implications as profound as those of the Industrial Revolution. We are now in a relationship with Internet-based technologies that we can’t get out of. Physicist and computer scientist W. Daniel Hillis has written:

    We have linked our destinies, not only among ourselves across the globe, but with our technology. If the theme of the Enlightenment was independence, our own theme is interdependence. We are now all connected, humans and machines. Welcome to the dawn of the Entanglement.

    As Vint Cerf said to me recently, “This is not new. We have always been entangled with our technology, we’ve always been entangled with knowledge. It may be more obvious now, because of the way it manifests. But if you were a cave man you might have become quite dependent on tools that you built, because without them you might be able to feed yourself, so you needed the knowledge to make those, or you needed the knowledge to find somebody who could make them. And then you also had to know that that thing over there was a sabre tooth tiger and it was a really good idea to get away from it, because the people who didn’t understand that didn’t survive to put their genes into the gene pool.” In short, entanglement with knowledge and technology keeps you alive.

    Technology’s story is our story. Knowing how to turn Entanglement into Symbiosis and how the new infrastructure of data and networks can shape us, will determine who wins and who loses as we continue our shift from the Industrial to Information age. Countries that do not grasp the shift, especially in the way they educate their citizens will suffer. “We need to rethink a whole set of institutional architectures,” says Brown, to enable us to build organisations that focus on what he calls “scalable peer-based learning”, and what you and I would call ‘staying smart enough to keep up.’ Last year in Boston I met Juan Enriquez, author of As the Future Catches You and a seminal speaker on how technology and knowledge are transforming us.

    “I worry that if you’re not educated in this stuff, you’re toast,” he said. He’s very clear that new technologies quickly change the fate of nations, especially as knowledge becomes ever more accessible. “You don’t have to own a large piece of land or a lot of resources to get rich very quickly, but you do need to go to school. That didn’t use to be true. It used to be that it didn’t matter how smart you were, if you weren’t the king or part of the noble classes you were toast. Now you can get wealthy, and you can do it very quickly, but you have to do it through education. You see, the consequences of not being educated today are far different from what they were. You know, in the 1950s you had a high school diploma, you went to Detroit you did fine. That’s not true anymore.”

    As Ken Robinson remarked to his audience at TED. “You were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked on the grounds that you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don’t do music, you are not going to be a musician. Don’t do art, because you won’t be an artist. Benign advice. Now profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution.” He continues,

    Our education system has mined our minds in the way we strip mine the earth for a particular commodity and for the future it won’t suffice. We have to rethink the fundamental principals on which we are educating our children. What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely … and the only way we’ll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being so that they can face this future.

    In short, critical thought, creativity, curiosity are the skills that need to get up the educational hierarchy as society shifts to a fluid infrastructure built on data and the links between it. Where we were taught to be arithmeticians now we must become mathematicians. Where we were taught vocabulary now we must learn semiotics. Where we taught to accept the industrial infrastructure as a fixed edifice we must now learn that the information infrastructure is a fluid tool to be pulled and shaped. Where we worked in silos, now we must learn to harness the crowd, to play our part in manipulating our collective creativity to solve the world’s problems and embrace its opportunities. Margaret Thatcher famously said, “There is no such thing as society.” She was entirely and completely wrong.

    Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems by thinking at the same level we were at when we created them” and by the same token we cannot solve our problems by leveraging the same infrastructure we used in creating them either. Politics, education and the press must, and will, out of necessity, change. Already we are seeing this shift, as the press wonder how to survive spreading a meme of division and conflict in a world that is increasingly collaborative. We are turning away from our newspapers and turning to each other. MIT is placing its courses online for free. TED is putting the world’s greatest speakers at our fingertips. Politics is the luddite. It’s not just industrial, it’s pre-industrial. It’ll change the last and it’ll hurt the hardest. Those nations who fail to understand this, that fail to change their institutions and equip their populaces by shifting to an educational paradigm born out of the coming information age instead of one made of the old industrial one, face a bleak future. Some nations will leapfrog ahead, offering a unprecedented opportunity for the developing world, perhaps taking something of story of the 60s most notable failed state (Singapore, now a knowledge powerhouse) to heart.

    I call it the ‘Knowledge Combustion Engine’ and you are the fuel in the tank.

  • September21st

    I wake with a not insubstantial hangover. Colin’s tiny shower offers little solace for my aching head, but slowly I return to normality and head into Manhattan to meet Rachel Holtzman, my US publisher at Penguin Avery for lunch. This is the first time I’ve met Rachel in person, although we’ve had many phone conversations since she bought the American rights for the book (demonstrating her obvious good taste and intelligence).

    There’s an easy, but steely calm to Rachel. If she were an animal she’d be a swan, a powerful grace that I suspect, if necessary, could quite quickly become formidable, but rarely has a need to. “I don’t have trouble with many authors,” she says, “but some do turn out to be stealth assholes.” I laugh. I’m looking forward to working with her. She just seems, well, solid.

    I’m full of excitement about the book and talk hurriedly and a little disconnectedly about everything I’ve been discovering (there is so much in my head it’s still a little jumbled up). It’s pouring out of me in a less than coherent fashion, not helped I’m sure by the bath of red wine and beer I subjected my neurons to the previous evening. On the basis of this I suspect Rachel may be thinking ‘If he talks like this, then God alone knows how much editing his writing will need.’

    One thing that does concern me is the proposed publication date for the book, a whole 18 months after I’m due to deliver my manuscript. I’m worried this may compromise its grasp of the zeitgeist. For instance, there’s a very high possibility that synthetic life will have been created by the time the book hits the stores, yet my manuscript will read as if it hasn’t happened. Sub-orbital tourists will likely be in space by the time you can buy a book that describes them as a near-future possibility. Advances in machine learning (already moving faster than I had expected) may have delivered headlines in the time between the delivery of my manuscript and publication that will make my work seem, well, behind the curve (hardly good for a book about the future). I’m struck by how fast everything I am investigating is moving, and how slow book publishing seems in comparison.

    Ideally I’d like the book out before Christmas 2010 but both Penguin and Profile (my publishers outside the US) are talking of mid-late 2011. It seems impossibly far away, but there are a number of good reasons for the delay. There is the process of working with my editors to hone the manuscript – an experience I’m rather looking forward too (I tend to work better with a sounding board). There is the need to consider marketing strategies, design book covers, and schedule promotional activities. The various TV, radio shows, book fairs etc that will form part of my promotional duties need to be approached and slots booked well in advance. In the end, the speed of publication is largely dependent on the quality of my initial manuscript. The closer it is to the mark, the easier it is for Rachel and Mark (Ellingham, my publisher at Profile) to expedite its route to market.

    All that said, I’m feeling that the book will be a lot more about ethics, attitudes and moral frameworks than I had previously thought. These themes are perennial, and if I weave them well into the text, it should remain ‘current’ whatever the publication date. Indeed, Juan Enriquez’s As the Future Catches You is largely out of date, in terms of the statistics and studies he quotes, but the intellectual and moral issues he asks us to consider have a ongoing resonance. Perhaps I’m worrying too much…

    I spend the early part of the afternoon walking down the west side of Manhattan spending time in Rockefeller Park and watching yachts sail up the Hudson. On one I see an advert for ‘America’s only gay sailing tea dance’ – surely one of the few businesses where a single supplier can saturate the market. Seriously, how many gay sailing tea dances can one economy support? Wandering into the island I hit a sea of humanity, a wall of intent. Everyone has something to do in New York, somewhere to go, someone to see, something to be getting on with. I too have an appointment, with neuroscientist René Hen.

    René is the head of Colin’s neuroscience lab at Columbia University Hospital where his team research Stem Cell Biology and the ‘Neurobiology of Learning and Memory’. He’s also incredibly French. Immediately you know you’re in the presence of someone with a wildly playful spirit. It goes beyond the kind of comic book Gaelic exuberance you might imagine (although he has this in abundance). It’s a look in his eyes. They’re bright from deep within as if little pinpricks of pure inspiration are burning somewhere behind the retina. He smiles easily, laughs easier. He wears his brains like a great musician wears his instrument, not as a badge of honour, or a mark of their profession – but as something they just have a great deal of fun with.

    René Hen - impossibly French

    René Hen - impossibly French

    I ask René how he got into neuroscience. He laughs. “Um… it was my experience with magic mushrooms a long time ago. The idea a tiny amount of this discrete compound could have such a powerful behavioural effect was interesting. You take half of a mushroom and you get effects that are pretty profound and last for hours…”

    “In fact they’ll turn you into a neuroscientist,” I say.

    “Yes! But beyond that I thought that a lot of the mystery had gone out of biology and immunology. Then, and now, the biggest mysteries lie in the brain. That was the other attraction.”

    The problem with neuroscience, to put it bluntly, is it’s bloody complicated. One of the reasons ‘the biggest mysteries lie in the brain’ is that it is an inordinately complex piece of kit. There are, for instance, 400 miles of blood vessels and100 billion nerve cells in that jellylike mass of fat and protein sat inside your head (that’s approximately the same as the number of stars in the galaxy). Trying to understand the interplay of all that cognitive wetware is a mammoth task. Isolating and studying specific in-brain systems or processes is hard to do, akin to trying to concentrate on a single shade of blue throughout a picture of the entire ocean.

    For many years neuroscience made use of those unfortunate enough to have suffered a brain injury or ‘lesion’ as a way to try and understand how the whole system worked, the method of deduction roughly being, ‘well it seems if you take that chunk of the brain out then the patient loses the ability understand basic social etiquette’ (this is actually a direct quote from a physician looking at a brain scan of Boris Johnson).  The brain is not divided into neat departments. As René says, “you can lesion many parts of the brain and get similar behavioural deficits, say in memory or mood. Or, you can lesion one part of the brain and get a particular behavioural outcome, but there could be 50 reasons for it.” Similarly, even though the genetic mutations that are related to diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s are long identified we still don’t understand how these mutations eventually lead to behaviour we see in patients. There’s just too many variables to consider in the way the brain develops and compensates for us to have a model of how these diseases develop. “If you have a mutation early on, you have the whole cascade of developmental compensations, re-wiring afterwards, and at the end there is no way to trace it back to the mutation,” says René. At least not yet.

    Trying to ask specific questions about brain chemistry and physiology is a bit like asking my mum about whether she enjoyed her dinner. “Well, I had fish, which reminds me that there was a great deal on fish at Sainsburies this Saturday, which I found out from talking to Beryl, you remember Beryl? we met her on holiday in Greece and it turned out she lived just down the road in Dunchurch, where by the way the statue in the square was hit by a car, it was in the paper, front page, did you know your brother’s bought a new car…?” (My mum does an amazing thing. She will eventually tell you if she enjoyed her dinner and in the process of getting there will tie up any loose ends she’s left hanging during her tangential asides. It all comes together like the video of an explosion being played in reverse.)

    Because the physiology of the brain is not unlike my mum’s method of answering a questions (everything is related to everything else) isolating useful lines of enquiry is quite hard. You need to get rid of a lot of ‘noise’. This is why when I visit Colin’s bit of the lab (which I have to say needs a damn good tidy up!) he is peering at individual rat neurons under his microscope. Neuroscience is now a largely ‘bottom up’ profession. When neuroscientists therefore find a system that seems to behave in a predictable way within the brain they get excited. Neurogenesis – the ability of the brain to generate new neurons is one such system.

    That our brains generate new brain cells still comes as a surprise to a lot of people, even though it’s been 20 years since neurogenesis was discovered occurring in the hippocampus (a part of the brain associated with long term memory and spatial awareness).  “The dogma was that no new neurons are added in the mature brain,” says René..

    (Another popular myth is that alcohol kills brains cells. Roberta Pentney, professor of anatomy and cell biology at the University at Buffalo concluded it doesn’t, but it does hamper the ability of your brain cells to communicate – although the effects are not permanent. René, I notice has a fine selection of beers and spirits sat on his desk).

    “For some reason we still don’t understand anti-depressants stimulate the production of young neurons – neurogenesis – in the hippocampus,” says René. “So here we have a form of brain plasticity that’s very easy to manipulate, it’s a cell type that’s very unique, you only find it in the hippocampus and maybe one other area. So it’s a window into a brain function. In a sense nature gave us a tool here.”

    “Almost a little laboratory in the brain?” I ask

    “Exactly.”

    You can stimulate neurogenesis yourself. Exercise, learn something new. ‘Enrichment’ says René is good for your brain. “It’s probably a good idea to have more of these neurons,” he says. “We actually don’t know for sure how much more is good though”.

    The discovery and understanding of neurogenesis offers hope to those battling neurodegenerative disorders. If we can learn to switch on the process, coaxing stem cells in the brain to become neurons then we may be able to reverse the damage done to memory by Alzheimer’s, or to repair brain damage caused by more direct means (say a head injury or listening to James Blunt).

    Warning. May contain Andrew Lloyd Webber.

    Warning. May contain Andrew Lloyd Webber.

    “There are stem cells all over the brain,” says Rene. “So even though there are only two niches where neurogenesis is taking place in normal conditions you could wake them up in other parts of the brain. We know that they are elsewhere because if you lesion other parts of the brain, you can get neurogenesis there. So clearly the stem cells are there or are recruited from outside. Theoretically you could treat any neurodegenerative disease. Or a spinal cord injury. Or a cortical injury. That’s something that’s still science fiction but I would not be surprised if we can achieve that.”

    “That’s an incredibly exciting proposition?”

    “Yes, it is very exciting. The interest in this area is enormous.”

    My time with René is up, but I’ve been invigorated by talking to him. He’s like a cross between Winnie the Pooh, Jean Reno and Albert Einstein. That’s a compliment.

    Colin takes me to the pub with another neuroscientist, Clay, who I am reliably informed is ‘beyond clever’. We drink Guinness and talk about girls.

  • August28th

    I’m very happy to have secured Juan Enriquez and an interviewee for the book.

    Don’t know who he is? Juan Enriquez is one of the leading authorities on the impact of ‘the life sciences’ on our economies and philosophy. He’s the CEO of Biotechonomy (a life sciences research and investment firm) and was the founding director of the Life Sciences Project at Harvard Business School. He’s mates with everyone who is anyone in the life sciences field, and spreads his formidable intellect between business, science and international politics. Of the same standing as a thinker as Ray Kurzweil (who I’m meeting, I hope, in January) he’s ‘Mr. Big Picture’ when it comes to genomics. He’s probably got a better view of where the science is leading us than most. I’m quite surprised (but very happy) he agreed to be interviewed. Enriquez believes that humans will be increasingly controlling the code of life and the ‘new maps of life’ will profoundly affect countries, business, religion and ethics. “There is a whole genomic continent to discover, and we’ve just mapped part of the coastline so far.”

    To get a (great) flavour, you might enjoy this (I did):

    And if you haven’t read it, then his ‘As the future catches you’ is compulsive (yet surprisingly easy) reading…