Thursday, July 24, 2003
CORRESPONDENCE WITH A JOURNALIST
His draft in sections marked >, mine in the rest, italicised
From: Ian Miles
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:45:46 +0100
> When it comes to the sustainable development debate, there are many
> who argue that changes in our everyday behaviour are the key to
> ensuring a better environmental, economic and social future.
> Cut waste, we're told. Use less energy. Drive less. Take the bus. Join
> a community group, take more exercise, get involved.
(Some of the analysts of sustainability issues are of the view that
without radical lifestyle changes we will simply waste away all
technological gains - e.g. use the resources more so the overall
impact is the same. "Boomerang effect" I don't think the case is
proven but (a) it does need to be taken seriously as a possibility -
one that needs proper research to answer when, where, why it
happens; and (b) to my mind there's something fundamentally
wrong with a society where people are happy to litter, throw away
perfectly usable devices, etc. on the assumption that "someone" will
clear them up (or else that it just doesnt matter). So please try not
to stoke complacency (can complacency be stoked??)
Additionally, technologies could help people be more aware of the
enviro and econo costs of their activities. Eg smart meters that
explain just how you're using electricity and even suggest ways of
conserving it.
> But arguably this is only one part of the solution. One crucial
> question to ask is this: can major leaps in scientific discovery or in
> technological development make a difference, too?
Major leaps - we can differentiate between incremental innovations
(minor changes) radical ones (new ways of doing things, based on
quite new technical knowledge) and revolutionary ones 9where the
knowledge is so fundamental it can be applied across a hige range
of social and economic activities). Of the latter, we could see
steam and electric power as examples, IT more recently, beginning
to realise just how pervasive biotech is, and nano is just beginning
to pop its head up.
My view is that the IT revolution still has a long way to go - even
were we to somehow stop people developing more powerful chips,
etc., there would be decades of new things that could be done with
what we have. Despite the dotcome bubble, the opportunities
offered by networking computer power are immense. (There ae
people at lancaster working on one version of this - ubiquitous
computing - the idea is that communicating chips will be so cheap
that they will be capable of being put just about anywhere, to monitor
or even control many things. The current scare about RF chips in
Tesco is just the early step here. Imagine having little sensors all
over the place - e.g. in parks...) Bio and nano are newer, and thus
more unpredictable still. They have applications well beyond the
narrow health/food and materials areas. For example, new energy
systems might be based on nano materials that mimic biological
systems capturing of solar power (or of polllutants)... GMO crops
that provide fuels... new materials that act as much better solar cells,
fuel cells, refrigerants, superconductors,etc. Remediation may be
achieved by GMOs, small robots, etc.
There will continue to be incremental innovations based on
established technologies (thus windmills get bigger and bigger).
We will see the revolutionary technologies applied within trad ones
(IT controlled windmills are old hat - consumer owned solar panels
feeding back into the mains have been discussed for ages). As the
revolutionary technologies generate products that get top be
familiar, there will continue to be invremental innovation in these
products - e.g. continual software upgrades, better mobile phones,
grr. (Some of these foster throw-away society tendencies, so
should design for recycling/reuse)>
> Will energy be hydrogen based, fuelling cars and homes and businesses
> whose only exhaust fume is hot water vapour? Will we take recycling to
> another level and close the loop of resource use, making new products
> from old, creating a zero waste system?
I bet we soon have dire warnings about water (steam) pollution!
Could we have roadside "trees" that soak up pollutants (water or
whatever)?
>
> On social issues, will we uncover new ways of creating safer
> communities?
Surveillance, personal alarms (with instant location detection), etc
are a simple if inefficient tech fix (and one that feeds the sense of
insecurity). There's also a lot that can be done with urban design
etc - but the crucial issues are matters for social innovation and of
course good old methods like meaningful jobs, decent social
facilities...
Will new technologies bring more learning and more
> services to more people?
Yes, and more licentiousness and lowest common denominator
crud, unless we can eduate critical faculties.
>Will medical advances mean longer, more
> satisfying lives?
Life extension anti-ageing etc. must be on the way. How will
societies deal with this? Definitely need antiageing to avoid punitive
health bills for infirm...
More satisfying is a bigger issue. Psychometric measures of
satissfaction (not very good) show only very slow increases in this
with increased affluence and overall health, in part because
apsirations increase, probably in part because our personal lives
and social relations probably dont improve commensurately.
Technolgy inputs could include lifestyle drugs, interventions based
on understanding genetic and neuropsychological dimensions of
cognition, biofeedback (nice that this is coming back - piece on
radio today about theta wave {I guess, wasnt liistening at the crucial
moment] boosting for pianists. Biofeedback offered great
opportunities for dealing with a range of health and related issues,
so its lack of take-off always intrigued me.) new ways of adding
value to participatory sports, exercise, etc.>
> And importantly are there risks associated with scientific
> advancement? Should we be more readily applying the precautionary
> principle to the future development of science and technology?
Very hard to apply, since the long-term implications of innovations
are hard tpo assess, and since innovations are themselves on the
move (with incremental and radical change a fact of life). need early
warning systems of various kinds - to anticipate problems (there has
been a tendency to be very naive about the way in which almost all
innovations get used for purposes other than their creators
intended) and to pick them up at early stages. This requires much
more systematic effort than is currently applied - some sort of risk-
oriented Foresight.
Its undeniable that as we get ever more fundamental knowledge
and poerful techniques, our power to shape the world for good or ill
increases. While some technologies require such resources to
control them that its mainly their use by military, corporations etc that
gives rise to concern, we see that some others are very amenable
to small-scale seizure. Aircraft in 911, little bits of computer code
by viurus makers and spammers.. and in the near future control of
genetic material (I recall reading that gene splicing was already on
the lab curriculum of a US high school... dont quote me on this).
There are real problems here - recall the accidental discovery that
playing with mousepox rendered it much more virulent. If some
simple way of modifying say E Coli to carry killer properties was in
the public domain, we would be likely to see kids and cults able to
replicvate this in, say, 10 years. I'm going on a bit here, but there
are real dangers, and it took 911 to start to wake up the security and
risk communities to some of these possibilities.
On the other hand, I see the benefits of further knowledge to be so
immense, and commercially attractive, that the case for further
developing the new technologies is overwhelming. So I guess the
thing to do is to stress that we need to think serioiusly about ways of
anticipating threats as well as talking up these real opportunities.
Eventually we may have to put up with substantial changes in our
assumptions about privacy, etc. in order to deal with the worse
threats - and I say this with hesitation, thinking about the crass things
going on now with TIA and the like.
The important thing will be to have dialogues where those working at
the scientific frontier can relate with people more used to thinking
about social issues and unintended consequences. Free of the
sort of panic there's been about GM foods and "health hazards".
His draft in sections marked >, mine in the rest, italicised
From: Ian Miles
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:45:46 +0100
> When it comes to the sustainable development debate, there are many
> who argue that changes in our everyday behaviour are the key to
> ensuring a better environmental, economic and social future.
> Cut waste, we're told. Use less energy. Drive less. Take the bus. Join
> a community group, take more exercise, get involved.
(Some of the analysts of sustainability issues are of the view that
without radical lifestyle changes we will simply waste away all
technological gains - e.g. use the resources more so the overall
impact is the same. "Boomerang effect" I don't think the case is
proven but (a) it does need to be taken seriously as a possibility -
one that needs proper research to answer when, where, why it
happens; and (b) to my mind there's something fundamentally
wrong with a society where people are happy to litter, throw away
perfectly usable devices, etc. on the assumption that "someone" will
clear them up (or else that it just doesnt matter). So please try not
to stoke complacency (can complacency be stoked??)
Additionally, technologies could help people be more aware of the
enviro and econo costs of their activities. Eg smart meters that
explain just how you're using electricity and even suggest ways of
conserving it.
> But arguably this is only one part of the solution. One crucial
> question to ask is this: can major leaps in scientific discovery or in
> technological development make a difference, too?
Major leaps - we can differentiate between incremental innovations
(minor changes) radical ones (new ways of doing things, based on
quite new technical knowledge) and revolutionary ones 9where the
knowledge is so fundamental it can be applied across a hige range
of social and economic activities). Of the latter, we could see
steam and electric power as examples, IT more recently, beginning
to realise just how pervasive biotech is, and nano is just beginning
to pop its head up.
My view is that the IT revolution still has a long way to go - even
were we to somehow stop people developing more powerful chips,
etc., there would be decades of new things that could be done with
what we have. Despite the dotcome bubble, the opportunities
offered by networking computer power are immense. (There ae
people at lancaster working on one version of this - ubiquitous
computing - the idea is that communicating chips will be so cheap
that they will be capable of being put just about anywhere, to monitor
or even control many things. The current scare about RF chips in
Tesco is just the early step here. Imagine having little sensors all
over the place - e.g. in parks...) Bio and nano are newer, and thus
more unpredictable still. They have applications well beyond the
narrow health/food and materials areas. For example, new energy
systems might be based on nano materials that mimic biological
systems capturing of solar power (or of polllutants)... GMO crops
that provide fuels... new materials that act as much better solar cells,
fuel cells, refrigerants, superconductors,etc. Remediation may be
achieved by GMOs, small robots, etc.
There will continue to be incremental innovations based on
established technologies (thus windmills get bigger and bigger).
We will see the revolutionary technologies applied within trad ones
(IT controlled windmills are old hat - consumer owned solar panels
feeding back into the mains have been discussed for ages). As the
revolutionary technologies generate products that get top be
familiar, there will continue to be invremental innovation in these
products - e.g. continual software upgrades, better mobile phones,
grr. (Some of these foster throw-away society tendencies, so
should design for recycling/reuse)>
> Will energy be hydrogen based, fuelling cars and homes and businesses
> whose only exhaust fume is hot water vapour? Will we take recycling to
> another level and close the loop of resource use, making new products
> from old, creating a zero waste system?
I bet we soon have dire warnings about water (steam) pollution!
Could we have roadside "trees" that soak up pollutants (water or
whatever)?
>
> On social issues, will we uncover new ways of creating safer
> communities?
Surveillance, personal alarms (with instant location detection), etc
are a simple if inefficient tech fix (and one that feeds the sense of
insecurity). There's also a lot that can be done with urban design
etc - but the crucial issues are matters for social innovation and of
course good old methods like meaningful jobs, decent social
facilities...
Will new technologies bring more learning and more
> services to more people?
Yes, and more licentiousness and lowest common denominator
crud, unless we can eduate critical faculties.
>Will medical advances mean longer, more
> satisfying lives?
Life extension anti-ageing etc. must be on the way. How will
societies deal with this? Definitely need antiageing to avoid punitive
health bills for infirm...
More satisfying is a bigger issue. Psychometric measures of
satissfaction (not very good) show only very slow increases in this
with increased affluence and overall health, in part because
apsirations increase, probably in part because our personal lives
and social relations probably dont improve commensurately.
Technolgy inputs could include lifestyle drugs, interventions based
on understanding genetic and neuropsychological dimensions of
cognition, biofeedback (nice that this is coming back - piece on
radio today about theta wave {I guess, wasnt liistening at the crucial
moment] boosting for pianists. Biofeedback offered great
opportunities for dealing with a range of health and related issues,
so its lack of take-off always intrigued me.) new ways of adding
value to participatory sports, exercise, etc.>
> And importantly are there risks associated with scientific
> advancement? Should we be more readily applying the precautionary
> principle to the future development of science and technology?
Very hard to apply, since the long-term implications of innovations
are hard tpo assess, and since innovations are themselves on the
move (with incremental and radical change a fact of life). need early
warning systems of various kinds - to anticipate problems (there has
been a tendency to be very naive about the way in which almost all
innovations get used for purposes other than their creators
intended) and to pick them up at early stages. This requires much
more systematic effort than is currently applied - some sort of risk-
oriented Foresight.
Its undeniable that as we get ever more fundamental knowledge
and poerful techniques, our power to shape the world for good or ill
increases. While some technologies require such resources to
control them that its mainly their use by military, corporations etc that
gives rise to concern, we see that some others are very amenable
to small-scale seizure. Aircraft in 911, little bits of computer code
by viurus makers and spammers.. and in the near future control of
genetic material (I recall reading that gene splicing was already on
the lab curriculum of a US high school... dont quote me on this).
There are real problems here - recall the accidental discovery that
playing with mousepox rendered it much more virulent. If some
simple way of modifying say E Coli to carry killer properties was in
the public domain, we would be likely to see kids and cults able to
replicvate this in, say, 10 years. I'm going on a bit here, but there
are real dangers, and it took 911 to start to wake up the security and
risk communities to some of these possibilities.
On the other hand, I see the benefits of further knowledge to be so
immense, and commercially attractive, that the case for further
developing the new technologies is overwhelming. So I guess the
thing to do is to stress that we need to think serioiusly about ways of
anticipating threats as well as talking up these real opportunities.
Eventually we may have to put up with substantial changes in our
assumptions about privacy, etc. in order to deal with the worse
threats - and I say this with hesitation, thinking about the crass things
going on now with TIA and the like.
The important thing will be to have dialogues where those working at
the scientific frontier can relate with people more used to thinking
about social issues and unintended consequences. Free of the
sort of panic there's been about GM foods and "health hazards".
Comments:
Post a Comment
