David Hunter Tow, Director of the Future Planet Research Centre argues that the combination of the recent triple major disaster in Japan, the GFC and looming world recession, together with the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movement, have provided the final triggers for the rapid evolution of Civilization 3.0 in the fight for human survival.
These world-shaking events send a timely message to the rest of the world, that the form of civilisation and the social norms we have become accustomed to and lived by over the last few centuries, is over.
Civilisation 1.0 began over 15,000 years ago with the founding of the earliest settlements and villages around the world, as hunter gatherers settled down to take advantage of the rich sources of edible grasses and natural foods growing mainly around the fertile delta areas of the great rivers and coastal areas of the world. These early habitats evolved into the first towns, cities and eventually nation states. At the same time, the first writing and number systems evolved to keep track of the products and services that developed and were traded by modern humans. Also with the growth of towns and trade across the world and the use of wood for building and smelting, the clearing of the forests across Europe began.
Civilisation 2.0 then emerged, with more sophisticated means of production using wind and water; rapidly accelerating following the industrial revolution in the 18th century with the harnessing of steam and later electricity and combustion engine power. These innovations were dependent on the burning of fossil fuels- coal and oil on a massive scale, allowing the West to steal a march on the rest of the world; colonising its populations and exploiting its wealth.
The manufacture of goods and services then increased on a massive scale; everything from food, textiles, furniture, automobiles, skyscrapers, guns and railway tracks- anything requiring the use of steel, cement or timber for its production.
The major cities expanded on the same original settlement sites as Civilization 1.0 - coastal ports, river delta fertile flood plains, regardless of the risk from subsidence and earthquakes.
The energy revolution was rapidly followed by the communications and information revolution- grid power, telephone, wireless, radio, television and eventually computers. Later, nuclear power was added to the mix.
Then in the second half of the 20th century the realization finally dawned that the planet’s resources really were finite, following the many dire predictions for decades previously.
Now at the current rate of consumption by a global population of 7 billion, projected to grow to 9 billion by mid-century, combined with the Armageddon of global warming, the planet is rapidly running out of fresh water, food, and oil. At the same time the grim effects of the escalating levels of carbon in the oceans and atmosphere has triggered more frequent and severe weather events- major droughts, floods and storms, adding to the impact of earthquakes in highly populated urban areas.
These problems are now bigger than any one nation can handle and can only be effectively addressed on a global basis. This will inevitably need to be coupled to a higher level of social awareness and democratic governance, in which everyone, not just politicians, are involved in the key decision processes affecting the planet.
Welcome to Civilisation 3.0.
Civilization 3.0 is just beginning, but is already being tested. From now through the rest of this century comes the hard part. Tinkering around the edges won’t do it for the planet and its life- including humans, any longer.
The planet’s climate is already in the throes of runaway warming, regardless of what forces caused it, because of the built-in feedback processes from the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, to the release of huge methane reserves in the northern tundra and ocean floor.
But this is just the start of our problems.
Some areas may get a short term reprieve with local cooling, but overall the heating process appears to be unstoppable. The Faustian bargain that humans struck to establish Civilisation 1.0 and 2.0, when the planet was teeming with natural resources, is about to be redeemed. Humans are being called to account.
By 2020 the cost of solar, wind and biofuels is likely to be at a baseline level comparable to that of fossils fuels, due to major technological advances currently underway, such as artificial photosynthesis. But because of the flawed democratic process, major businesses and corrupt governments can still undermine the critical mindset needed for radical change, with calls for short term profits drowning out the desperate call by future generations for long term survival. It is therefore highly likely that we will still be emitting copious amount of carbon by 2020 and starting to exceed the safe limits of temperature rise.
In addition, supplies of fresh food and water, particularly in developing countries are already dwindling, with the potential to create further malnutrition and conflict.
So Civilisation 3.0 has to get serious.
One of the major recent initiatives at the heart of the fight-back revolution is the concept of a smarter planet. The Japanese experience has now reinforced that concept. Every built object and operational process will eventually need to be embedded with sensors and its performance and integrity continuously monitored and assessed in relation to natural disasters and sustainability.
Everything from roads, transport, bridges, railways, buildings, dams, power plants, grids and information systems, as well as human knowledge and skill capacities, will need to be urgently upgraded. Even towns and cities will have to be redesigned to avoid future worst case natural and manmade disasters and provide a more sustainable living space for future generations.
In addition, the loss of critical ecosystems and species will compound the infrastructure problems of the planet, requiring re-prioritization of the value of the natural environment and fair re-allocation of its resources on a global scale.
The current level of risk and waste in the built environment is now seen as both unacceptable and avoidable. By applying new technologies already available such as smarter materials, safer engineering methods, improved communications and sophisticated computer modeling, risk can be dramatically reduced.
The new sustainability standards will need to be set much higher; at a much smarter level than previously accepted, in order to reduce carbon emissions, optimize performance and enable more responsive adaptation within a fast deteriorating physical and social environment. This will be mandatory as the escalating scale of the risk becomes apparent.
At the heart of this revolution will be the powerful mathematical algorithms and intelligence capable of making optimum decisions at a far greater speed and with less human intervention. In turn this will require instant access to the Intelligent Web’s global resources of specialized knowledge, artificial intelligence and massive grid computing power.
By 2030 however, panic will be building across the globe. The safe levels of temperature rise of 2%, expected to hold until the end of the century, will likely be breached and physical and social problems will escalate.
Any realistic solution for human survival will require living and working together cooperatively and peacefully as one species on one planet, finally eliminating the enormous destruction and loss of life that wars and conflict inevitably bring.
Although cooperation on a global scale will be vital, individual nations will be tempted to free ride, as populations react with violence and anarchy to shortages of basic necessities through rising prices and inadequate infrastructure, particularly in hard-hit developing economies.
A massive mind shift will be required across the planet to achieve this level of cooperation; a more collaborative and creative process will need to evolve and quickly, harnessing all human knowledge and technological resources. To achieve this level of cooperation non-democratic states will need to democratize or be excluded from the resulting benefits and the old forms of democracy will have to be upgraded to a more inclusive and participatory level if human civilization is to avoid slow annihilation.
The stress of the human fight for survival will also present myriad ripple-on challenges relating to maintaining a cohesive social fabric. Democracy and justice are basic options, but also providing adequate levels of health, work and education will get a lot harder. This will require adaptation on a vast scale.
By 2040 the trendlines will be set and through the social media, the risks will need to be openly and clearly relayed to all populations. This will be similar to the collective discipline and mindset required many times in the past by nations threatened by the fear of war and decimation.
It will now need to be replicated on a global scale
Beyond increasing renewable energy and reducing waste, the fight for survival will require the implementation of other more radical innovations, including the eventual geo-engineering of the weather and climate. The science and technology needed to achieve such a complex outcome is unlikely to be achievable before 2050 and in the meantime our civilization may be in free fall. However it will probably be the only solution capable of reversing rather than just slowing the headlong rush to chaos.
Other radical solutions will involve the need to accelerate our level of knowledge generation. This is already taking place through advanced methods of automatic pattern analysis and algorithm discovery, applying artificial intelligence methods and the immense computational intelligence of the Web.
It will be a bootstrapping process. The faster the increase in knowledge acquisition, the more powerful the potential intelligence of the Web will become, which will then further accelerate the increase in life-saving expertise. This exponential process may be further accelerated by promoting higher levels of networked ‘swarm’ behavior, combining human intelligence on a grand scale across the planet. The benefits of collective intelligence acting like an advanced insect hive are already being realized, with research teams combining in larger and larger groups to solve more and more difficult problems. It has been demonstrated that an increase in synergy resulting from collective intelligence in complex self-organising systems allows ‘smarter’ problem solving as well as greater decision agility.
For example 50 European Universities have recently combined in the FuturICT project; an EU billion dollar flagship project to model, predict and solve future planetary and social problems. And this is only one collective project out of thousands, with increasing collaboration between US, European and Asian science and technology groups.
With all these initiatives, will Civilization 3.0 survive ?
It will likely be a very close call, dependent largely on whether our increase in beneficial knowledge can outstrip the planet’s rapid descent into environmental and social oblivion- a potential runaway pre-Venusian scenario with no end in sight.
It is similar to the Red Queen scenario in Lewis Carroll’s- Alice through the Looking Glass, in which the red chess queen has to run faster and faster just to maintain her position. Humans will also have to become smarter and smarter just to stay ahead of the approaching Armageddon.
The odds in fact will be very similar to the climate bottleneck that almost eliminated our early Homo sapien ancestors 20,000 years ago as they struggled to survive the last ice age. Only a small band of perhaps several hundred survived thousands of years of frozen hardship, finally regrouping and reaping the rewards that evolved following the great melt.
Modern humans can also can reap a future cornucopia if they have the courage and skill to survive the looming crisis in our evolution.
Many other civilisations across our universe may well have faced a similar bottleneck. Those that survived will have gone on to reap the untold riches of Civilisation 4.0 with its mastery over the physical laws governing our world and galaxy. Along the way Civilisation 5.0 will emerge, possessing not only the immense scientific capability needed to solve any physical problem, but enough wisdom to avoid future social catastrophes.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The Japanese catastrophe and many others, including the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in 2004 leaving 300,000 dead, should have given us all a clarion call.
This is not a bad dream, from which we’ll all awake tomorrow with business as usual. The future of Civilisation 3.0 and our unique intelligent life-form really is in the balance. Let us hope ours will be one of the few or perhaps the only advanced civilisation to have survived such a test, so that our children and our children’s children can live to experience the untold wonders of our planet and universe.
But the Red Queen will have to run very fast indeed.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Future of Diplomacy
The author argues that the current model of Diplomacy is out of synch with the new participatory model of democracy in the 21st century and needs to be replaced with a more inclusive vision.
The age-old art of Diplomacy was never going to cut it in the 21st cyber century.
Let’s take a closer look at the heart and soul of the traditional model of Diplomacy.
According to Wikipedia, Diplomacy is based on the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states, including the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats, usually relating to matters of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, the environment and human rights; with treaties usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.
It also employs a number of techniques to gain a strategic advantage or find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge. This is basically a process of vetting, exchanging and assessing information with the overall aim of extracting an advantage by the major players involved. One might sum this up in the modern day context as the informal application of Game Theory as applied to the social sciences.
Diplomacy therefore acts as more of a back channel to the day to day negotiations carried out between politicians, expert advisers and bureaucrats and still operates largely opaquely within the public domain.
Until its European beginnings in Greece, such behind the scenes negotiations were considered beyond the remit of the general population and were conducted largely in secret. The criteria for deciding this cloaking of information interplay were inevitably fuzzy, depending on the perceived political sensitivities of the issues involved. This fuzziness continues today, ranging from outright censorship and obfuscation, to qualified and partial disclosure on a need-to-know basis, to the open and transparent release of all relevant information, albeit governed by a minimum time limit between an event and its disclosure; the rationale being that past decisions with hindsight may prove either embarrassing or adversely impact ongoing resolution.
Of course the semantics of diplomacy have always been fuzzy - as indeterminate in fact as a government finds expedient. And it is argued that this is an inescapable fact of life because human behavior and politics are not precise sciences, but based to a large degree on the shifting sands of perception, uncertainty and personal bias.
Gleaning reliable information at a dinner party on the state of trade, build- up of arms or a county’s UN voting intentions is increasingly unlikely to yield any information of significant value, as the contents of CableGate has demonstrated. Such information, until recently, was supposedly kept safe from public or competitive gaze in encrypted government cyber vaults. Now however the credibility of this scenario is in tatters as ‘state secrets’ are increasingly being disinterred for public consumption by whistle blower organisations such as WikiLeaks. But the sky hasn’t fallen in – primarily because of the limited relevance of this ‘top secret’ data menagerie.
But the primary reason for the rapidly approaching use-by date of diplomacy in its current form is its confliction with the increasing transparency of modern democracy.
At the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current 2st century, democracy continues to spread throughout Africa and Asia and significantly also the Middle East, with over 130 states in various stages of democratic evolution.
Democracy is supposedly based on the principle that populations should have access to the reasoning behind national policy so as to better participate in the decisions that affect their lives. This principle should therefore extend to the practice and protocols of diplomacy as it provides part of the input to the decision-making process.
In other words, democracy although imperfect, should offer each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision outcomes and on that basis, behind the scenes diplomatic maneuvering can act to subvert that process. For example 80% of the UK population was against involvement in the Iraq war. At the same time the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was actively working behind the scenes with the US government to impose his own view and counter the groundswell of public opinion. The same counter-democratic process occurs over and over again on critical issues affecting government policy throughout the world, legitimising the covert and often regressive nature of diplomacy.
But democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is still evolving. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of model, which harnesses the expert computational intelligence of the Web.
By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place.
However the cloak and dagger practices still embedded in standard model of diplomacy is putting it at odds with this more open participatory model. The business of diplomacy is therefore increasingly out of synch with the modernisation of democracy: and increasingly this gap is widening and the rumblings of disquiet are becoming louder.
The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State.
Diplomacy has traditionally soft pedaled on such human rights issues in private forums, but it is increasingly seen as the wrong approach and the wrong forum. Issues relating to democratic rights are best delivered in the open forums of the UN or other public institutions open to the media. Even if diplomacy is restricted to pre-vote lobbying, the modus operandi should be made transparent to avoid the potential for a conflict of interest and corruption that has often surfaced for example in Olympic and world sporting venue lobbying.
The spread of democracy is now also irreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level, openly within the European parliament. While lobbying pressure from voting blocs is still commonly applied, the political and philosophical bias of the lobbying groups is in most cases transparent.
The raison d’etre of diplomacy therefore is to oil the decision wheels of democracy and as such the basis of its operation should be equally available to all members of a democratic state. Diplomats as well as politicians have party allegiances and obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best of democratic intentions
The global spread of new technology and knowledge not only provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing, but is an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy, limiting the value of traditional back channel diplomacy. Such cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive and open public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution.
Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries or political controls. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funneling them to the political process. These are often coupled with online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. As this back channel explodes it leaves little space for former closed room hearsay.
In an age of Google and satellites, no information is sacred- not even the site of a nuclear facility in North Korea, a logging fire in the Amazon or an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea. There are also a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis.
By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise to that offered by the best human advisers, including diplomats.
It might be argued that there is still a need for the role for foreign affairs apparatchiks and diplomatic staff in lobbying, interpreting, nuancing and promoting the national interest on behalf of their political masters. But this is also rapidly becoming redundant in the modern networked world where every policy decision, utterance, and body language shift among political leaders is recorded, analysed and spread instantly around the world via the social media.
Decisions are being made increasingly in real time and the reasons behind them are also exposed and discussed around the world in real time. The days of closed clandestine meetings are over. News feeds and aggregation, blog and video sites ravenously ingest and recycle every piece of political and economic information captured by smart phones and citizen journalists for popular consumption on an endless 24/7 cycle.
The main argument for maintaining the diplomatic status quo is that making such social substrate information generally available might act against the ‘national Interest’ by providing a non-complying country with a significant negotiating advantage. In other words, not all sovereign states might be equally willing to share their inside knowledge with others.
This of course this is self-serving nonsense.
The National Interest is almost always best served by open discussion and debate within its population and peers, with all information cards on the table, leading to better decision-making whether relating to welfare or war as well as making the policy makers more accountable. The record shows that the opposite almost invariably leads to corruption as well as bad decision-making skewed by political conflicts of interest. Those that don’t comply with future global ethical standards in political or financial dealings, as already with corruption, will pay a heavy price in lost investment and prestige in regional and global forums and accelerate the scourge of global cyber-war.
We are also accelerating towards a globalised society in which all major decisions by any one state will affect all others, whether relating to global warming, financial governance or technology advances. In such a world there can be no free riders. The decisions of every nation will be scrutinized continuously to ensure conformance with global governance norms. The stakes will be too high and the interests too interrelated for it to be any other way.
Information is increasingly spread equally around the world by the ubiquitous power of the web invading traditional walled gardens, using a variety of tools such as video phones, Google Maps and citizen journalism; with the results spread globally within seconds by social media sites. Information captured in this way is far more relevant than recycling snippets of ‘who said what’ at a late night bar.
Of course this shift to the general public’s involvement in the diplomatic process is strongly objected to by the thousands of bureaucrats and technocrats in the diplomacy industry, threatening the mystique of their raison d’etre. But inevitably their future role is more likely to be restricted to implementing policy – not creating or influencing it.
As the expert knowledge and expertise from the 7 billion minds connected to the world’s continuously updated storehouse of knowledge on Web 4.0 begins to permeate all levels of society, the pervasive influence of yesterday’s diplomatic overtures will finally dwindle away.
The recent exposure of gigabytes of leaked diplomatic cables and emails, like the Pentagon Papers before it, is an expression of the fault lines between the old and new worlds of diplomacy. WikiLeaks however is also an expression of the power of real democracy at work, where the connivances and shallowness of the substratum of diplomatic knowledge has been excavated and the Emperor has been found to be stark naked. What it exposed was a mountain of largely banal and uncomplimentary cross-talk relating to foreign governments and their machinations, with little real substance. The exception was video footage of a number of US atrocities including the cold blooded gunning down of Reuters correspondents and many other obscenities that had previously been covered up in the name of maintaining diplomatic relations.
Certainly information of substance such as the strength of a nation’s economy or trade surplus could have been more accurately and cheaply obtained by trawling the Web and in the future will be infinitely more reliable, extracted from a variety of expert sources.
The same could be said of information relating to current or future military conflicts, using Google maps to pinpoint the size and strength of nuclear installations or clandestine buildup of forces. Information relating to sensitive military planning and deployments will need to be kept securely encrypted, much more rigorously than previously, but this is hardly the stuff of diplomacy. It should not be confused with the need in a true democracy for full public transparency and acceptance of the arguments for and against involvement in a conflict in the first place.
As demonstrated in the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, governments are not above applying spurious non-sequitor arguments for home consumption to justify their own agendas. Human rights information about political activists is another casualty of the skewing of diplomatic double-speak, distributed still on many news channels. But the web is rapidly reaching the point of knowledge and inference maturity that can expose most diplomatic obfuscation. It is also equipped as mentioned, with algorithms to weigh evidence and the probabilities of truth in future decision processes.
Diplomacy’s future role therefore, if it is to survive at all, is as a complementary subset of the new democratic model, for an open cyber society. As such it must keep in lock-step with democracy’s fast evolving shift towards a more inclusive model, avoiding the artificial disjunction between overt and covert social knowledge management with its divisive overtones and elitist origins.
The age-old art of Diplomacy was never going to cut it in the 21st cyber century.
Let’s take a closer look at the heart and soul of the traditional model of Diplomacy.
According to Wikipedia, Diplomacy is based on the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states, including the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats, usually relating to matters of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, the environment and human rights; with treaties usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.
It also employs a number of techniques to gain a strategic advantage or find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge. This is basically a process of vetting, exchanging and assessing information with the overall aim of extracting an advantage by the major players involved. One might sum this up in the modern day context as the informal application of Game Theory as applied to the social sciences.
Diplomacy therefore acts as more of a back channel to the day to day negotiations carried out between politicians, expert advisers and bureaucrats and still operates largely opaquely within the public domain.
Until its European beginnings in Greece, such behind the scenes negotiations were considered beyond the remit of the general population and were conducted largely in secret. The criteria for deciding this cloaking of information interplay were inevitably fuzzy, depending on the perceived political sensitivities of the issues involved. This fuzziness continues today, ranging from outright censorship and obfuscation, to qualified and partial disclosure on a need-to-know basis, to the open and transparent release of all relevant information, albeit governed by a minimum time limit between an event and its disclosure; the rationale being that past decisions with hindsight may prove either embarrassing or adversely impact ongoing resolution.
Of course the semantics of diplomacy have always been fuzzy - as indeterminate in fact as a government finds expedient. And it is argued that this is an inescapable fact of life because human behavior and politics are not precise sciences, but based to a large degree on the shifting sands of perception, uncertainty and personal bias.
Gleaning reliable information at a dinner party on the state of trade, build- up of arms or a county’s UN voting intentions is increasingly unlikely to yield any information of significant value, as the contents of CableGate has demonstrated. Such information, until recently, was supposedly kept safe from public or competitive gaze in encrypted government cyber vaults. Now however the credibility of this scenario is in tatters as ‘state secrets’ are increasingly being disinterred for public consumption by whistle blower organisations such as WikiLeaks. But the sky hasn’t fallen in – primarily because of the limited relevance of this ‘top secret’ data menagerie.
But the primary reason for the rapidly approaching use-by date of diplomacy in its current form is its confliction with the increasing transparency of modern democracy.
At the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current 2st century, democracy continues to spread throughout Africa and Asia and significantly also the Middle East, with over 130 states in various stages of democratic evolution.
Democracy is supposedly based on the principle that populations should have access to the reasoning behind national policy so as to better participate in the decisions that affect their lives. This principle should therefore extend to the practice and protocols of diplomacy as it provides part of the input to the decision-making process.
In other words, democracy although imperfect, should offer each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision outcomes and on that basis, behind the scenes diplomatic maneuvering can act to subvert that process. For example 80% of the UK population was against involvement in the Iraq war. At the same time the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was actively working behind the scenes with the US government to impose his own view and counter the groundswell of public opinion. The same counter-democratic process occurs over and over again on critical issues affecting government policy throughout the world, legitimising the covert and often regressive nature of diplomacy.
But democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is still evolving. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of model, which harnesses the expert computational intelligence of the Web.
By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place.
However the cloak and dagger practices still embedded in standard model of diplomacy is putting it at odds with this more open participatory model. The business of diplomacy is therefore increasingly out of synch with the modernisation of democracy: and increasingly this gap is widening and the rumblings of disquiet are becoming louder.
The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State.
Diplomacy has traditionally soft pedaled on such human rights issues in private forums, but it is increasingly seen as the wrong approach and the wrong forum. Issues relating to democratic rights are best delivered in the open forums of the UN or other public institutions open to the media. Even if diplomacy is restricted to pre-vote lobbying, the modus operandi should be made transparent to avoid the potential for a conflict of interest and corruption that has often surfaced for example in Olympic and world sporting venue lobbying.
The spread of democracy is now also irreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level, openly within the European parliament. While lobbying pressure from voting blocs is still commonly applied, the political and philosophical bias of the lobbying groups is in most cases transparent.
The raison d’etre of diplomacy therefore is to oil the decision wheels of democracy and as such the basis of its operation should be equally available to all members of a democratic state. Diplomats as well as politicians have party allegiances and obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best of democratic intentions
The global spread of new technology and knowledge not only provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing, but is an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy, limiting the value of traditional back channel diplomacy. Such cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive and open public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution.
Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries or political controls. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funneling them to the political process. These are often coupled with online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response. As this back channel explodes it leaves little space for former closed room hearsay.
In an age of Google and satellites, no information is sacred- not even the site of a nuclear facility in North Korea, a logging fire in the Amazon or an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea. There are also a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis.
By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise to that offered by the best human advisers, including diplomats.
It might be argued that there is still a need for the role for foreign affairs apparatchiks and diplomatic staff in lobbying, interpreting, nuancing and promoting the national interest on behalf of their political masters. But this is also rapidly becoming redundant in the modern networked world where every policy decision, utterance, and body language shift among political leaders is recorded, analysed and spread instantly around the world via the social media.
Decisions are being made increasingly in real time and the reasons behind them are also exposed and discussed around the world in real time. The days of closed clandestine meetings are over. News feeds and aggregation, blog and video sites ravenously ingest and recycle every piece of political and economic information captured by smart phones and citizen journalists for popular consumption on an endless 24/7 cycle.
The main argument for maintaining the diplomatic status quo is that making such social substrate information generally available might act against the ‘national Interest’ by providing a non-complying country with a significant negotiating advantage. In other words, not all sovereign states might be equally willing to share their inside knowledge with others.
This of course this is self-serving nonsense.
The National Interest is almost always best served by open discussion and debate within its population and peers, with all information cards on the table, leading to better decision-making whether relating to welfare or war as well as making the policy makers more accountable. The record shows that the opposite almost invariably leads to corruption as well as bad decision-making skewed by political conflicts of interest. Those that don’t comply with future global ethical standards in political or financial dealings, as already with corruption, will pay a heavy price in lost investment and prestige in regional and global forums and accelerate the scourge of global cyber-war.
We are also accelerating towards a globalised society in which all major decisions by any one state will affect all others, whether relating to global warming, financial governance or technology advances. In such a world there can be no free riders. The decisions of every nation will be scrutinized continuously to ensure conformance with global governance norms. The stakes will be too high and the interests too interrelated for it to be any other way.
Information is increasingly spread equally around the world by the ubiquitous power of the web invading traditional walled gardens, using a variety of tools such as video phones, Google Maps and citizen journalism; with the results spread globally within seconds by social media sites. Information captured in this way is far more relevant than recycling snippets of ‘who said what’ at a late night bar.
Of course this shift to the general public’s involvement in the diplomatic process is strongly objected to by the thousands of bureaucrats and technocrats in the diplomacy industry, threatening the mystique of their raison d’etre. But inevitably their future role is more likely to be restricted to implementing policy – not creating or influencing it.
As the expert knowledge and expertise from the 7 billion minds connected to the world’s continuously updated storehouse of knowledge on Web 4.0 begins to permeate all levels of society, the pervasive influence of yesterday’s diplomatic overtures will finally dwindle away.
The recent exposure of gigabytes of leaked diplomatic cables and emails, like the Pentagon Papers before it, is an expression of the fault lines between the old and new worlds of diplomacy. WikiLeaks however is also an expression of the power of real democracy at work, where the connivances and shallowness of the substratum of diplomatic knowledge has been excavated and the Emperor has been found to be stark naked. What it exposed was a mountain of largely banal and uncomplimentary cross-talk relating to foreign governments and their machinations, with little real substance. The exception was video footage of a number of US atrocities including the cold blooded gunning down of Reuters correspondents and many other obscenities that had previously been covered up in the name of maintaining diplomatic relations.
Certainly information of substance such as the strength of a nation’s economy or trade surplus could have been more accurately and cheaply obtained by trawling the Web and in the future will be infinitely more reliable, extracted from a variety of expert sources.
The same could be said of information relating to current or future military conflicts, using Google maps to pinpoint the size and strength of nuclear installations or clandestine buildup of forces. Information relating to sensitive military planning and deployments will need to be kept securely encrypted, much more rigorously than previously, but this is hardly the stuff of diplomacy. It should not be confused with the need in a true democracy for full public transparency and acceptance of the arguments for and against involvement in a conflict in the first place.
As demonstrated in the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, governments are not above applying spurious non-sequitor arguments for home consumption to justify their own agendas. Human rights information about political activists is another casualty of the skewing of diplomatic double-speak, distributed still on many news channels. But the web is rapidly reaching the point of knowledge and inference maturity that can expose most diplomatic obfuscation. It is also equipped as mentioned, with algorithms to weigh evidence and the probabilities of truth in future decision processes.
Diplomacy’s future role therefore, if it is to survive at all, is as a complementary subset of the new democratic model, for an open cyber society. As such it must keep in lock-step with democracy’s fast evolving shift towards a more inclusive model, avoiding the artificial disjunction between overt and covert social knowledge management with its divisive overtones and elitist origins.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Future of Democracy
Democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of democratic model and the harnessing of the expert intelligence of the Web. By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be largely in place.
Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice.
As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom.
According to the Freedom House Report, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, the world has made great strides towards democracy in the 20th and 21st centuries. In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa and Asia and significantly also the Middle East, with over 130 states in various stages of democratic evolution.
Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police human rights in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State.
The global spread of democracy is now also irreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy.
The current cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response.
In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis.
By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers.
It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved.
However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations.
A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries.
By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm. Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web 4.0.
Over time democracy as with all other social processes, will evolve to best suit the needs of its human environment. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate.
By 2050 a form of global consciousness will have evolved, where the back channel of opinion and reason will gradually subsume today’s hierarchical and populist consumer/brand filtered political models. New forms of the democratic process at the community and regional level are already growing, pointing towards the emergence of a new form of truly representative public participation and cooperation.
This trend towards a fairer and more peaceful society must continue if the human race is to survive the uncertainty and turmoil ahead..
Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return. There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice.
As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nation’s collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom.
According to the Freedom House Report, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, the world has made great strides towards democracy in the 20th and 21st centuries. In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the world’s population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But at the end of the 20th century 119 of the world’s 192 nations were declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa and Asia and significantly also the Middle East, with over 130 states in various stages of democratic evolution.
Dictatorships or quasi democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations. However two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police human rights in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The evolution of democracy can also be seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State.
The global spread of democracy is now also irreversibly linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an essential prerequisite for a stable democracy.
The current cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution. Web 2.0’s social networking, blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, allowing the public to deliver requests to Government and receive a committed response.
In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular hypothesis.
By 2030 it is likely that such ‘intelligence-based’ algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human advisers.
It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moment’s reflection leads to the opposite conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the US’s war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian lives and is still unresolved.
However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations.
A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- today’s storehouse of the world’s information and expertise. By increasing the flow of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizen’s needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries.
By 2040 more democratic outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm. Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance. Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web 4.0.
Over time democracy as with all other social processes, will evolve to best suit the needs of its human environment. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change. Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters in the global warming debate.
By 2050 a form of global consciousness will have evolved, where the back channel of opinion and reason will gradually subsume today’s hierarchical and populist consumer/brand filtered political models. New forms of the democratic process at the community and regional level are already growing, pointing towards the emergence of a new form of truly representative public participation and cooperation.
This trend towards a fairer and more peaceful society must continue if the human race is to survive the uncertainty and turmoil ahead..
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Future of Migration
The author contends that the future of Global Migration is governed by the laws of physics and that the flow of information, knowledge and education across borders will inevitably be followed by a flow of human skills on a global scale.
This scenario is based on the physics of the Least Action Principle, which postulates that any dynamical process, whether the trajectory of a ray of light or orbit of a planet, follows a path of least resistance or one which minimises the 'action' or overall energy expended.
Physicist Richard Feynman showed that quantum theory also incorporates a version of the Action Principle and underlies a vast range of processes from physics to linguistics, communication and biology. The evidence suggests a deep connection between this principle based on energy minimisation and self-organising systems including light waves, information flows and natural system topographies, such as the flow of a river.
Information is now flowing seamlessly to every corner of the planet and its populations, mediated by the Internet and Web; reaching even the poorest communities in developing countries via cheap PCs, wireless phones and an increasing variety of other mobile devices.
Half the population of the developing world in Asia and Africa now have access to the Web via inexpensive mobile phones. Individual local farmers and small businesses increasingly use them to transfer money, track commodity prices and supplier deliveries and keep in touch with relatives and their community. They are also the ideal medium for transferring knowledge as the basis of the education process.
In sync with the flow of information and knowledge there is now a global flow of educational material online including open access courseware resources. Courseware is a critical resource already offered by a number of prestigious tertiary institutions including- The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Harvard, in addition to free knowledge reference sites such as Wikipedia.
The trend-lines in this open learning revolution are already evident and will become pervasive in the near future. They include online 24 hour access to the Web, open content via free courseware, and real-time wireless web delivery; making it much cheaper and easier for the flow of knowledge to reach previously illiterate societies and communities, particularly as a generational shift takes place.
At the same time the human learning process is being driven by the need to adapt to a fast changing work and social environment, to provide ongoing support for society’s needs in the new cyber-age. This shift in turn is being driven by the increasing rate of knowledge generation providing new opportunities.
By 2030 the full power of the Web will be deployed towards this new paradigm. At the same time work practices will become increasingly fluid, with individuals moving freely between projects, career paths and virtual organisations on a contract or part-time basis; adding value to each enterprise and in turn continuously acquiring new skills, linked to ongoing advanced learning programs.
And so by 2040, the flow of information followed by the continuous flow of educational courseware, together with improvements in standards of living, will have largely eliminated the inequalities of skills and training that currently exist between developed and developing nations.
The Action Principle will finally allow the developing world to achieve equal status with the developed world in terms of access to knowledge, training and the realisation of human potential and facilitate the free movement of human workers and their families between workplaces globally.
Already there is a large transfer of skills between countries like India, with a vast pool of engineering and computer science graduates, and the West’s need for such skills. This may be in the form of virtual outsourcing or physical transfers of a skilled labour force on short term contracts. The same process currently operates between EU countries to fill capacity shortages on a regular and continuing basis.
At the same time as the information/education/workflow convergence is occurring at a worldwide level, two other major drivers of global migration are accelerating - global warming and global conflict.
Planet earth is now reaching a catastrophic tipping point, where it is realised that humans have probably left their run too late to limit global temperature rise to the maximum safe 2 degrees centigrade and atmospheric carbon levels to less than 450 ppm.
The evidence is starting to become apparent from a number of sources. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and mountain snows feeding the major river systems in Asia and Africa, the disintegration of the northern tundra threatening the release of vast amounts of methane, the catastrophic loss of biodiversity, disruption of most ecosystems including the coral reefs and tropical forests, ocean warming, threatening the phytoplankton base of the food chain, and increases in extreme climate related events- droughts, floods, rising ocean surges in coastal areas, tornados etc. These are already threatening to overwhelm even the wealthier nations’ capacity to rebuild damaged and obsolete infrastructure.
Rampant global warming will inevitably lead to major disruption of the world’s food and fresh water supply chains, seriously affecting at least half the world’s population. This will result in vast migration movements as the rivers and food bowls of China, India and Africa dry up and deadly tropical diseases such as the malaria and dengue fever, spread.
In turn these factors will result in increasing social chaos and conflict unless managed on a global basis.
To stabilise the situation, the 1951 UN convention on refugees will need to be strengthened and expanded to establish a world humanitarian body with the powers to override national sovereignty and mandate the number of climate and conflict refugees that each region will be required to accept, according to capacity and demand.
Migration has always been a routine way of coping with floods and droughts going back to the earliest civilisations, when there were few borders and the numbers affected were trivial in comparison with today’s 7 billion population and its vast infrastructure.
The magnitude and frequency of environmental hazards is now beginning to place enormous pressure on the capacity of many communities to survive. The recent IPCC / Stern Review of the economics of climate change estimates that climate refugees will reach 200 million by 2050.
An idea of the coming wave of human migration can be glimpsed from a sample of recent natural disaster statistics, which do not include earthquake, volcanic or tsunami events.
Mexico was a source of 1 million environmental refugees a year during the 1990s with increased hurricanes and floods also the root cause of its economic crisis.
Large-scale government enforced relocation programs in Vietnam and Mozambique moved hundreds of thousands of people to cope with worsening floods and storms in 2000.
Six million environmental refugees in China have been created by the expanding Gobi desert. Migration in China and India has also been greatly amplified by development of projects such as China’s Three Gorges, which displaced 2 million people.
The 1998 monsoon floods in Bangladesh covered two thirds of the country and left 21 million homeless.
In 2008, floods following the Burma cyclone forced hundreds of thousands to flee, with little assistance from the Burmese junta.
In 2010, record monsoon rains in Pakistan caused the Indus River to burst its banks, causing millions to relocate.
Although most of these events created internal rather than external migration, it is unlikely that this will continue to be the case, with rising temperatures forecast to force tens of millions to move from tropical to more temperate regions, due to ongoing droughts over the next twenty years.
There are also an increasing number of conflict refugees from autocratic and despotic regimes and failed states. Tribalism and fear and suspicion of the ‘other’ is still strongly embedded in the DNA of human evolution, leading to scapegoating of migrant groups in tough economic times. Examples include Muslim harassment in Christian countries, Neo-Nazism in Europe targeting African refugees and inter-religious conflict in Asia and the Middle East.
The refugee diaspora has greatly expanded in conflict zones across the globe over the past two years, driven by upheavals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast, as well as persecution of ethnic minorities in China, Burma and Bhutan. Criminal violence, as now endemic in Mexico, is likely to add to this misery.
It is estimated that almost a million people are smuggled and trafficked across international borders each year, using increasingly sophisticated methods by criminal organisations linked to a range of other crimes- identity theft, corruption, money laundering, and violence ranging from debt bondage to murder- earning of the order of $10billion.
By 2030 mounting humanitarian crises are likely to make assistance to all climate and conflict refugees mandatory as it is realised that a piecemeal national approach will result in far worse disruptions to society in terms of the uncontrolled spread of violence in a very unstable time.
Any country that avoids its international obligations and attempts to free ride the system will be ostracised and severely sanctioned.
Europe already contends with a growing number of refugees from North Africa, which include economic, climate, disaster and conflict refugees, but with the upturn in Middle East violence and difficult economic times is battling xenophobia in its member states.
By 2040/50 most of the new migration infrastructure will be in place and communities will have to adjust accordingly. In an already largely globalised multicultural world where most nations have already accepted other cultures for several generations, even if begrudgingly, this will not be as revolutionary a development as many might expect.
It is therefore likely that the paradigm of controlled but flexible migration worldwide will cease to be controversial, endorsed and managed under the auspices of the UN, as a globalised One Planet philosophy gains traction.
It will be the only solution capable of managing cross border refugee flows in a time of looming climate disruption, but also the most economic means of allocating valuable human resources in a globalised educated world to areas of greatest need, as humans fight to save their planet.
This scenario is based on the physics of the Least Action Principle, which postulates that any dynamical process, whether the trajectory of a ray of light or orbit of a planet, follows a path of least resistance or one which minimises the 'action' or overall energy expended.
Physicist Richard Feynman showed that quantum theory also incorporates a version of the Action Principle and underlies a vast range of processes from physics to linguistics, communication and biology. The evidence suggests a deep connection between this principle based on energy minimisation and self-organising systems including light waves, information flows and natural system topographies, such as the flow of a river.
Information is now flowing seamlessly to every corner of the planet and its populations, mediated by the Internet and Web; reaching even the poorest communities in developing countries via cheap PCs, wireless phones and an increasing variety of other mobile devices.
Half the population of the developing world in Asia and Africa now have access to the Web via inexpensive mobile phones. Individual local farmers and small businesses increasingly use them to transfer money, track commodity prices and supplier deliveries and keep in touch with relatives and their community. They are also the ideal medium for transferring knowledge as the basis of the education process.
In sync with the flow of information and knowledge there is now a global flow of educational material online including open access courseware resources. Courseware is a critical resource already offered by a number of prestigious tertiary institutions including- The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Harvard, in addition to free knowledge reference sites such as Wikipedia.
The trend-lines in this open learning revolution are already evident and will become pervasive in the near future. They include online 24 hour access to the Web, open content via free courseware, and real-time wireless web delivery; making it much cheaper and easier for the flow of knowledge to reach previously illiterate societies and communities, particularly as a generational shift takes place.
At the same time the human learning process is being driven by the need to adapt to a fast changing work and social environment, to provide ongoing support for society’s needs in the new cyber-age. This shift in turn is being driven by the increasing rate of knowledge generation providing new opportunities.
By 2030 the full power of the Web will be deployed towards this new paradigm. At the same time work practices will become increasingly fluid, with individuals moving freely between projects, career paths and virtual organisations on a contract or part-time basis; adding value to each enterprise and in turn continuously acquiring new skills, linked to ongoing advanced learning programs.
And so by 2040, the flow of information followed by the continuous flow of educational courseware, together with improvements in standards of living, will have largely eliminated the inequalities of skills and training that currently exist between developed and developing nations.
The Action Principle will finally allow the developing world to achieve equal status with the developed world in terms of access to knowledge, training and the realisation of human potential and facilitate the free movement of human workers and their families between workplaces globally.
Already there is a large transfer of skills between countries like India, with a vast pool of engineering and computer science graduates, and the West’s need for such skills. This may be in the form of virtual outsourcing or physical transfers of a skilled labour force on short term contracts. The same process currently operates between EU countries to fill capacity shortages on a regular and continuing basis.
At the same time as the information/education/workflow convergence is occurring at a worldwide level, two other major drivers of global migration are accelerating - global warming and global conflict.
Planet earth is now reaching a catastrophic tipping point, where it is realised that humans have probably left their run too late to limit global temperature rise to the maximum safe 2 degrees centigrade and atmospheric carbon levels to less than 450 ppm.
The evidence is starting to become apparent from a number of sources. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and mountain snows feeding the major river systems in Asia and Africa, the disintegration of the northern tundra threatening the release of vast amounts of methane, the catastrophic loss of biodiversity, disruption of most ecosystems including the coral reefs and tropical forests, ocean warming, threatening the phytoplankton base of the food chain, and increases in extreme climate related events- droughts, floods, rising ocean surges in coastal areas, tornados etc. These are already threatening to overwhelm even the wealthier nations’ capacity to rebuild damaged and obsolete infrastructure.
Rampant global warming will inevitably lead to major disruption of the world’s food and fresh water supply chains, seriously affecting at least half the world’s population. This will result in vast migration movements as the rivers and food bowls of China, India and Africa dry up and deadly tropical diseases such as the malaria and dengue fever, spread.
In turn these factors will result in increasing social chaos and conflict unless managed on a global basis.
To stabilise the situation, the 1951 UN convention on refugees will need to be strengthened and expanded to establish a world humanitarian body with the powers to override national sovereignty and mandate the number of climate and conflict refugees that each region will be required to accept, according to capacity and demand.
Migration has always been a routine way of coping with floods and droughts going back to the earliest civilisations, when there were few borders and the numbers affected were trivial in comparison with today’s 7 billion population and its vast infrastructure.
The magnitude and frequency of environmental hazards is now beginning to place enormous pressure on the capacity of many communities to survive. The recent IPCC / Stern Review of the economics of climate change estimates that climate refugees will reach 200 million by 2050.
An idea of the coming wave of human migration can be glimpsed from a sample of recent natural disaster statistics, which do not include earthquake, volcanic or tsunami events.
Mexico was a source of 1 million environmental refugees a year during the 1990s with increased hurricanes and floods also the root cause of its economic crisis.
Large-scale government enforced relocation programs in Vietnam and Mozambique moved hundreds of thousands of people to cope with worsening floods and storms in 2000.
Six million environmental refugees in China have been created by the expanding Gobi desert. Migration in China and India has also been greatly amplified by development of projects such as China’s Three Gorges, which displaced 2 million people.
The 1998 monsoon floods in Bangladesh covered two thirds of the country and left 21 million homeless.
In 2008, floods following the Burma cyclone forced hundreds of thousands to flee, with little assistance from the Burmese junta.
In 2010, record monsoon rains in Pakistan caused the Indus River to burst its banks, causing millions to relocate.
Although most of these events created internal rather than external migration, it is unlikely that this will continue to be the case, with rising temperatures forecast to force tens of millions to move from tropical to more temperate regions, due to ongoing droughts over the next twenty years.
There are also an increasing number of conflict refugees from autocratic and despotic regimes and failed states. Tribalism and fear and suspicion of the ‘other’ is still strongly embedded in the DNA of human evolution, leading to scapegoating of migrant groups in tough economic times. Examples include Muslim harassment in Christian countries, Neo-Nazism in Europe targeting African refugees and inter-religious conflict in Asia and the Middle East.
The refugee diaspora has greatly expanded in conflict zones across the globe over the past two years, driven by upheavals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast, as well as persecution of ethnic minorities in China, Burma and Bhutan. Criminal violence, as now endemic in Mexico, is likely to add to this misery.
It is estimated that almost a million people are smuggled and trafficked across international borders each year, using increasingly sophisticated methods by criminal organisations linked to a range of other crimes- identity theft, corruption, money laundering, and violence ranging from debt bondage to murder- earning of the order of $10billion.
By 2030 mounting humanitarian crises are likely to make assistance to all climate and conflict refugees mandatory as it is realised that a piecemeal national approach will result in far worse disruptions to society in terms of the uncontrolled spread of violence in a very unstable time.
Any country that avoids its international obligations and attempts to free ride the system will be ostracised and severely sanctioned.
Europe already contends with a growing number of refugees from North Africa, which include economic, climate, disaster and conflict refugees, but with the upturn in Middle East violence and difficult economic times is battling xenophobia in its member states.
By 2040/50 most of the new migration infrastructure will be in place and communities will have to adjust accordingly. In an already largely globalised multicultural world where most nations have already accepted other cultures for several generations, even if begrudgingly, this will not be as revolutionary a development as many might expect.
It is therefore likely that the paradigm of controlled but flexible migration worldwide will cease to be controversial, endorsed and managed under the auspices of the UN, as a globalised One Planet philosophy gains traction.
It will be the only solution capable of managing cross border refugee flows in a time of looming climate disruption, but also the most economic means of allocating valuable human resources in a globalised educated world to areas of greatest need, as humans fight to save their planet.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Future of the Media
The end of traditional media as we know it is forecast by 2050, with the demise of large media oligarchies, the dominance of ubiquitous personalised web channels, freelance citizen reporting and blogging, automated online news aggregation and analysis, the downgrading of traditional advertising to an entertainment role and the rise of the Global Commons model, combined with the power of the Intelligent Web.
By 2012- most major print media will have been forced to radically adapt towards an online multimedia model. Newspapers are already in turmoil as they switch to a primarily online model with revenues collapsing as traditional advertising revenue streams dry up. Loss of classified and banner advertising is unable to be compensated by online revenues.
New revenue models are already being frantically trialled, with more flagship publications resorting to pay-walls as well as smart phone and tablet PC download apps, using the same model as the music and now book industries. These are having limited success, but as the stream of multimedia news and commentary outlets expands, offering alternate options to the larger publishing oligopolies, it is clear that this strategy will have a limited shelf life. At the same time page layouts, features and editorial are being outsourced, further fragmenting the print media industry.
To boost news gathering and editorial in the face of diminishing returns, both traditional news and specialist commentary sites will simultaneously open up reporting to largely unpaid citizen journalists and freelance bloggers, as is already occurring. This in turn will encourage syndicated commentary. There is also the beginning of a major trend to personalised and hyper-local online reporting by major news publishers, aimed at attracting small community interest groups and advertisers. This trend will also be increasingly reliant on local citizen reporting.
Traditional news media, both local and global, will be rapidly reduced to a stream of headlines with minimal analysis. Special editions and feature articles will continue in reduced quantity, but online short-burst information- text, video and audio streams, will be increasingly popular, distributed via multimedia mobile platforms such as new generation smart phones and tablets, already evident.
By 2020- traditional free-to-air broadcast television channels will have largely disappeared, along with many cable channels, with television advertising similarly caught in the headlight glare of tumultuous change. The switch will be to web channels covering every topic, personalised to individual taste, viewable anywhere, anytime- primarily on mobile media screens in 3D. The personalised channel will be ubiquitous with news and information filtered and customised to cater for every personal whim.
All print media including magazines and books will have followed newspapers to a multimedia model distributed over the web, using almost exclusively new generation multimedia readers for flexible viewing. Terabyte flash memory will be used for offline personal media storage, but will be largely redundant due to the availability of virtually unlimited archival storage utility/cloud sites run by Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc.
Most print and video media will be available via direct ultra-fast wave division multiplex wireless downloads. Bookstores will also convert largely to downloads, already accelerated by Google Edition’s retail alliance with the US Independent Booksellers Association. In turn, traditional booksellers will be forced to compete for download business with coffee houses and other social/cultural hubs, offering additional direct media experiences. These hubs will morph into the dominant local community knowledge and workplace centres of the future (ref Future of Cities). On demand direct 3D retinal projection technology will also begin to compete with download media access.
In addition, the trend towards alternate realities will continue, with media spaces such as virtual worlds combining with social gaming to become the dominant entertainment form. News, entertainment and sport will then become truly interactive, overlapping with gaming and increasingly available within 3D holographic environments for maximum immersive reality effect.
The media will now evolve as differentiated reality streams available from thousands of web hubs, aggregation sites and social networks in three broad forms. First- news headlines and short synopses of current events available online, competing with traditional news feeds and wire services. Second- in-depth reviews and features relating to past events and narratives, merging with traditional book and blog storyline formats. And third- future scenario analyses and forecasts tied to current trends. These scenarios will also feed back into current events creating ongoing news scenario loops.
In addition the number of individual and small group freelance multimedia blogs, twitter-type conversation feeds and wikis, distributed via syndicated web sites, webcasts, social networks, media feeds and aggregation sites, will have grown exponentially, exploring every aspect of societal experience and linked to ubiquitous location-based and augmented reality options. The blurring of professional and citizen journalism via blogging, stream-of-consciousness conversations and automated story generation and will continue to expand.
By 2030- free-to-air networks, except for some public broadcasting, special demographic and dedicated sponsored channels will have disappeared, eliminated by reduced advertising revenue and the ready availability of unlimited web on-demand content.
Public broadcasting will continue to receive strong support from community groups.
Specialised channels covering real-time activities, such as major sporting events, will survive, but increasingly these will be produced by freelance spaecialised groups and directly brokered for distribution to consumer groups on social networks and hubs.
Film and video production will also fragment, dominated by small independent producers and creative groups working on particular projects within virtual teams; marketing their services directly to consumer groups and market intermediaries.
By 2040- all news category coverage including- political, economic, financial, cultural, environmental and technological, will be handled automatically as 24 hr feeds, operating largely independently of human intervention. Analysis will be available as a product of contracted specialists supported by the web- not permanently tied to any particular media organisation.
The web behemoths such as Google and Microsoft will have become the largest media as well as advertising players. However a reverse trend will have begun, with greater acceptance of the Global Commons model- a free sharing marketplace of technology and knowledge, freely accessible for the global benefit. This trend will eventually make tied in-house news-gathering and reporting functions largely redundant.
In addition, traditional advertising models will have become increasingly irrelevant as markets fragment and consumers begin to take control. This will utilise ultra- intelligent media search/knowledge mining agents, allowing consumers to dictate their own in-depth information requirements on a need-to-know basis. Low key informational advertising, embedded within social media and available only on a request basis, will become the last remnant of the original dominant form.
Alternate knowledge and social hubs such as the thousands of Wikipedia look-a likes, controlled by consumer groups, will start to compete with and displace the power of the media and ultra-web enterprises such as Google. These will be forced to cede part of their global knowledge dominance in their own survival self-interest.
The Internet/Web will now be controlled by and open to all people on the planet via the global commons in conjunction with a specially constituted body such as the present ICAAN, finally devolving away from US control.
By 2045 news analysis, as well as its gathering and distribution, will be largely automated and fluid- available independently on demand and on a push/feedback basis; tailored to all net-citizens and ever-changing special interest groups and operating in diverse virtual social realities.
Advertising as we know it will have largely disappeared. Product and service information will be available instead via reliable consumer assessment feedback networks, supported by semantic and intelligent web assessment (ref Future Web) and assisted by a small number of specialised human information researchers; continuously updated, with strictly authenticated information available on demand or pushed to meet personal preferences. The remaining informational advertising forms will have morphed to provide consumer virtual experiences on an entertainment and educational knowledge basis only.
By 2050 the major media organisations will now be extinct, with the last of the media barons and dynasties departed. Instead media generation and dissemination will have shifted to countless creative individuals and small-scale media enterprises operating cooperatively and seamlessly in tandem with the medium of the Global Commons and Intelligent Web.
Future Trend analysis and scenario creation will become the new buzz- increasingly significant to knowledge creation and the largest media growth segment; merging with the gaming and entertainment markets, as humans commit to increasingly virtual and future-based development technologies. At the same time there will be an inevitable loss of direct individual control over media processing, as all aspects of reality event discovery, aggregation, processing, analysis and distribution are automated as a function of the combined fusing of artificial and human intelligence and the rigorous decision capacity of the Web 5.0.
The media will instead become a pervasive medium for recording local and global experience, generating new forms of knowledge and immersive entertainment for human civilisation. This will be facilitated by the automatic collection of events by embedded sensors in every artefact and all environments on the planet- delivered instantly via ultra-fast bandwidth and direct neural/brain connection.
Its role will encompass documenting and projecting the evolutionary progress of all cultural, political, scientific and technological experience of life's existence.
Web 5.0, as a synthesis of human and cyber extended knowledge, sensory experience and intelligence, will merge with and start to take ultimate control of this medium.
By 2012- most major print media will have been forced to radically adapt towards an online multimedia model. Newspapers are already in turmoil as they switch to a primarily online model with revenues collapsing as traditional advertising revenue streams dry up. Loss of classified and banner advertising is unable to be compensated by online revenues.
New revenue models are already being frantically trialled, with more flagship publications resorting to pay-walls as well as smart phone and tablet PC download apps, using the same model as the music and now book industries. These are having limited success, but as the stream of multimedia news and commentary outlets expands, offering alternate options to the larger publishing oligopolies, it is clear that this strategy will have a limited shelf life. At the same time page layouts, features and editorial are being outsourced, further fragmenting the print media industry.
To boost news gathering and editorial in the face of diminishing returns, both traditional news and specialist commentary sites will simultaneously open up reporting to largely unpaid citizen journalists and freelance bloggers, as is already occurring. This in turn will encourage syndicated commentary. There is also the beginning of a major trend to personalised and hyper-local online reporting by major news publishers, aimed at attracting small community interest groups and advertisers. This trend will also be increasingly reliant on local citizen reporting.
Traditional news media, both local and global, will be rapidly reduced to a stream of headlines with minimal analysis. Special editions and feature articles will continue in reduced quantity, but online short-burst information- text, video and audio streams, will be increasingly popular, distributed via multimedia mobile platforms such as new generation smart phones and tablets, already evident.
By 2020- traditional free-to-air broadcast television channels will have largely disappeared, along with many cable channels, with television advertising similarly caught in the headlight glare of tumultuous change. The switch will be to web channels covering every topic, personalised to individual taste, viewable anywhere, anytime- primarily on mobile media screens in 3D. The personalised channel will be ubiquitous with news and information filtered and customised to cater for every personal whim.
All print media including magazines and books will have followed newspapers to a multimedia model distributed over the web, using almost exclusively new generation multimedia readers for flexible viewing. Terabyte flash memory will be used for offline personal media storage, but will be largely redundant due to the availability of virtually unlimited archival storage utility/cloud sites run by Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc.
Most print and video media will be available via direct ultra-fast wave division multiplex wireless downloads. Bookstores will also convert largely to downloads, already accelerated by Google Edition’s retail alliance with the US Independent Booksellers Association. In turn, traditional booksellers will be forced to compete for download business with coffee houses and other social/cultural hubs, offering additional direct media experiences. These hubs will morph into the dominant local community knowledge and workplace centres of the future (ref Future of Cities). On demand direct 3D retinal projection technology will also begin to compete with download media access.
In addition, the trend towards alternate realities will continue, with media spaces such as virtual worlds combining with social gaming to become the dominant entertainment form. News, entertainment and sport will then become truly interactive, overlapping with gaming and increasingly available within 3D holographic environments for maximum immersive reality effect.
The media will now evolve as differentiated reality streams available from thousands of web hubs, aggregation sites and social networks in three broad forms. First- news headlines and short synopses of current events available online, competing with traditional news feeds and wire services. Second- in-depth reviews and features relating to past events and narratives, merging with traditional book and blog storyline formats. And third- future scenario analyses and forecasts tied to current trends. These scenarios will also feed back into current events creating ongoing news scenario loops.
In addition the number of individual and small group freelance multimedia blogs, twitter-type conversation feeds and wikis, distributed via syndicated web sites, webcasts, social networks, media feeds and aggregation sites, will have grown exponentially, exploring every aspect of societal experience and linked to ubiquitous location-based and augmented reality options. The blurring of professional and citizen journalism via blogging, stream-of-consciousness conversations and automated story generation and will continue to expand.
By 2030- free-to-air networks, except for some public broadcasting, special demographic and dedicated sponsored channels will have disappeared, eliminated by reduced advertising revenue and the ready availability of unlimited web on-demand content.
Public broadcasting will continue to receive strong support from community groups.
Specialised channels covering real-time activities, such as major sporting events, will survive, but increasingly these will be produced by freelance spaecialised groups and directly brokered for distribution to consumer groups on social networks and hubs.
Film and video production will also fragment, dominated by small independent producers and creative groups working on particular projects within virtual teams; marketing their services directly to consumer groups and market intermediaries.
By 2040- all news category coverage including- political, economic, financial, cultural, environmental and technological, will be handled automatically as 24 hr feeds, operating largely independently of human intervention. Analysis will be available as a product of contracted specialists supported by the web- not permanently tied to any particular media organisation.
The web behemoths such as Google and Microsoft will have become the largest media as well as advertising players. However a reverse trend will have begun, with greater acceptance of the Global Commons model- a free sharing marketplace of technology and knowledge, freely accessible for the global benefit. This trend will eventually make tied in-house news-gathering and reporting functions largely redundant.
In addition, traditional advertising models will have become increasingly irrelevant as markets fragment and consumers begin to take control. This will utilise ultra- intelligent media search/knowledge mining agents, allowing consumers to dictate their own in-depth information requirements on a need-to-know basis. Low key informational advertising, embedded within social media and available only on a request basis, will become the last remnant of the original dominant form.
Alternate knowledge and social hubs such as the thousands of Wikipedia look-a likes, controlled by consumer groups, will start to compete with and displace the power of the media and ultra-web enterprises such as Google. These will be forced to cede part of their global knowledge dominance in their own survival self-interest.
The Internet/Web will now be controlled by and open to all people on the planet via the global commons in conjunction with a specially constituted body such as the present ICAAN, finally devolving away from US control.
By 2045 news analysis, as well as its gathering and distribution, will be largely automated and fluid- available independently on demand and on a push/feedback basis; tailored to all net-citizens and ever-changing special interest groups and operating in diverse virtual social realities.
Advertising as we know it will have largely disappeared. Product and service information will be available instead via reliable consumer assessment feedback networks, supported by semantic and intelligent web assessment (ref Future Web) and assisted by a small number of specialised human information researchers; continuously updated, with strictly authenticated information available on demand or pushed to meet personal preferences. The remaining informational advertising forms will have morphed to provide consumer virtual experiences on an entertainment and educational knowledge basis only.
By 2050 the major media organisations will now be extinct, with the last of the media barons and dynasties departed. Instead media generation and dissemination will have shifted to countless creative individuals and small-scale media enterprises operating cooperatively and seamlessly in tandem with the medium of the Global Commons and Intelligent Web.
Future Trend analysis and scenario creation will become the new buzz- increasingly significant to knowledge creation and the largest media growth segment; merging with the gaming and entertainment markets, as humans commit to increasingly virtual and future-based development technologies. At the same time there will be an inevitable loss of direct individual control over media processing, as all aspects of reality event discovery, aggregation, processing, analysis and distribution are automated as a function of the combined fusing of artificial and human intelligence and the rigorous decision capacity of the Web 5.0.
The media will instead become a pervasive medium for recording local and global experience, generating new forms of knowledge and immersive entertainment for human civilisation. This will be facilitated by the automatic collection of events by embedded sensors in every artefact and all environments on the planet- delivered instantly via ultra-fast bandwidth and direct neural/brain connection.
Its role will encompass documenting and projecting the evolutionary progress of all cultural, political, scientific and technological experience of life's existence.
Web 5.0, as a synthesis of human and cyber extended knowledge, sensory experience and intelligence, will merge with and start to take ultimate control of this medium.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Future of War
Hyper-aggressive wars and conflicts- that is those not waged directly in defence of a nation or region, cause massive destruction to human life and its environment as well as the lives of future generations.
Therefore it is morally incumbent on all governments and populations to avoid or minimise the horrendous social and economic consequences involved.
In addition, wars are not only destructively immoral in terms of life and property but also illegal under National and International law. At the Nuremberg trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany, aggressive wars were judged to constitute the worst of international crimes, with prevention the major reason for founding the United Nations.
Methods for managing such conflicts and avoiding escalation of violence between major powers have been greatly bolstered since the end of WW2, with the creation of institutions such as the UN, NATO and the EU. In addition, new methods of mediation and diplomacy have gradually evolved in which third party nations and groups are involved in the resolution and management of conflict and peacekeeping processes. Although these methods are far from perfect, there are grounds for optimism that over time, combined with increasing globalisation ensuring the intermeshing of all national interests and cultures, major conflicts between and within States will become impossible to sustain.
Post cold war there have been numerous civil and neighbouring national conflicts, often involving ethnic or separatist groups, creating great suffering and subsequent large flows of refugees. However there is room for optimisim as a study of wars and armed conflict, The Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century, shows that the number of armed conflicts has fallen by 40% since the end of the Cold War.
Also since its establishment, the UN has played a significant role as effective peacemaker, with a positive outcome achieved in 66% of peace missions. There has also been a sixfold increase in UN efforts to prevent wars from starting, a fourfold increase in UN peacemaking missions to end unresolved conflicts and an elevenfold increase in the number of states made subject to UN sanctions.
A variety of techniques from mediation and peace-keeping to trade sanctions and threat of reprisal, are being applied in order to force warring parties to the peace table. These have been applied with mixed success in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, Northern Ireland and the Sudan, with Burma a recent success, while high-pressure mediation is continuing in more intractable conflict areas such as Palestine, Somalia, The Republic of Congo and North Korea.
There is no doubt that that we are witnessing the evolutionary genesis of globally mediated methods for permanently maintaining peace across the planet.
But it is now clear that most military analyses relating to the future of war are severely skewed and one dimensional, failing to adequately factor in drivers beyond traditional geopolitical pressures. These future drivers- primarily global warming, globalisation and cyber-culture are now approaching with the force of a tsunami and will overwhelm all other historical and traditional military drivers by mid-century.
Failing to adequately take their consequences into account is to blindside both history and future reality, with the potential to lead to further irrevocable impacts on a fragile world.
Globalisation involves the interweaving of the cultural, educational, legal, economic, political, and technological protocols of all nations in a dense web of dependencies and relationships. China and the US for example are now joined at the hip on trade and economic matters despite ideological disparities and are mutually interdependent. The US needs China’s financial reserves to prop up its massive dollar debt and as an export market, while China needs a strong US dollar to guarantee its investments and US markets for a large proportion of its exports. Although there are moves to disengage this will not happen in the foreseeable future.
These two superpowers are also indirectly connected by the web of alliance and trade networks within the international community as a whole. They are now both too big, too interconnected and too focussed on trying to improve the quality of life of their own populations to become involved in massively destructive global warfare.
The outstanding template for globalisation is of course the European Union, which now links the economies of 27 nations, that up until a century ago warred continuously, with massive loss of life and potential. Now their populations work together, trade together, marry together and share a common currency despite the current difficulties in the Eurozone. The EU is the third force in an increasingly multi-polar world, counterbalancing both the US and China. Emerging economic powerhouses such as Brazil, India, South Africa and Russia make up a fourth force, with other major regions such as the South East asian bloc also exerting an inceasingly powerful influence.
Globalisation is also being accelerated by the Cyber revolution- providing access by all populations to the world’s knowledge base and providing an unstoppable catalyst for democracy, despite short term futile attempts at national censorship. It now mediates civilisation’s social, scientific and commercial progress, with the potential to provide enormous computational and decision power for future global governance.
Simulated war-gaming, involving complex scenarios based on holistic social, cyber and economic factors, will therefore be increasingly applied to pre-evaluate the potential outcomes of waging war. The result will be that military imperatives will play a significantly reduced role in the future. This will be accelerated by the emerging dimensions of cyber and economic warfare, which within the next decade will overtake military systems capacity as key determinants in the geopolitical supremacy stakes.
Cyber warfare in particular will become increasingly common, used as a proxy for direct weapons-based assault. Recent major attacks on 3,000 major companies and Government institutions worldwide, demonstrate the potential for even small groups to wage global computer and economic warfare- cking and hijacking strategic planning data and shutting down critical control systems and infrastructure.
But global warming is the biggest challenge, with its impact the greatest potential threaT ever faced or likely to be faced by our civilisation. By the middle of this century the budgets of all countries, particularly those of the major and middle powers will be focussed on mitigating the massively destructive and disastrous outcomes including- increased frequency and severity of catastrophic events such as floods, droughts, blizzards and hurricanes resulting in massive damage to both the natural and engineered environment, acidification of oceans, loss of biodiversity, scarcity of food, water and energy, disease pandemics and unprecedented refugee flows.
The stresses on all societies will be enormous, but only through global cooperation will anarchy and conflict will be constrained. This will require planning and allocation of resources on a global scale. The budgets and assets of all major powers including the US, China, India and the EU will need to be synchronised and focussed on avoiding this over-riding threat to the future of humanity. National rivalries will be subsumed and military and weapons programs drastically cut.
A timeline on the evolution of this process is as follows-
By 2020- battlefield strategy will evolve towards one that is increasingly fought in covert form – not through the use of large-scale traditional weaponry as in previous wars, with conventional military values becoming obsolete. Most attacks will be focused on subduing increasingly integrated terrorist and criminal groups, military juntas and authoritarian regimes as well as legitimate minority ehtnic groups.
A high proportion of battlefield operations will be automated, with drones and robots operating remotely and eventually autonomously, using satellite and sensor surveillance and the latest Web based intelligence for decision support. Cyber and economic warfare will also play an increasing role, conducted both by governments and criminal and terrorist groups.
At the same time there will be greater emphasis on a variety of peace-keeping and mediation initiatives, involving a range of alliances between Governments, NGOs and military forces such as the new-look NATO, operating at the local level in cooperation with civilian populations. These strategies will increasingly be applied to support failing and dysfunctional states and establish democratic institutions in fragile states such as Iraq and Afghanistan where clumsy US policies have largely failed. This will become the primary template for future military operations.
By 2030- superpower states – US and China, will no longer able to sustain long term conflicts using 20th century arsenals of air, sea and land forces. The US will be forced to abdicate its traditional 20th century role of global military dominance as its resources become spread too thinly and it struggles to maintain quality of life for its population against unsustainable mounting levels of debt.
Similarly China, India and middle power nations will be forced to channel most of their resources to developing infrastructure, capacity and social services. Numerous flashpoints involving quelling local insurgencies and ethnic uprisings will remain. Increasingly the UN and representative government groups such as the present G20 will work together to minimise conflict globally. The EU will be seen as the template for global cooperation and peace-keeping will become the norm for conflict containment.
By 2040 – it is realised by most nations that conflict and wars are increasingly unsupportable on both moral and economic grounds. Globalisation wikk
ll continue to accelerate, with the creation of more complex networks of alliances and treaties binding nations and regional groups. At the same time countries will start to lose their traditional sovereign status, with pressure for more fluid cross border immigration relaxation and economicmanagement as in the EU. The mixing of races and nationalities will ease pressure for conflict, and provides greater accessibility to global health, education, and knowledge resources.
The reality of climate change, with its increasing frequency of disaster events, will force ideological disparities to play a secondary role.
By 2050- all available global resources will be marshalled to overcome the immense problems associated with global warming, with the end of wars between nations in sight.
Therefore it is morally incumbent on all governments and populations to avoid or minimise the horrendous social and economic consequences involved.
In addition, wars are not only destructively immoral in terms of life and property but also illegal under National and International law. At the Nuremberg trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany, aggressive wars were judged to constitute the worst of international crimes, with prevention the major reason for founding the United Nations.
Methods for managing such conflicts and avoiding escalation of violence between major powers have been greatly bolstered since the end of WW2, with the creation of institutions such as the UN, NATO and the EU. In addition, new methods of mediation and diplomacy have gradually evolved in which third party nations and groups are involved in the resolution and management of conflict and peacekeeping processes. Although these methods are far from perfect, there are grounds for optimism that over time, combined with increasing globalisation ensuring the intermeshing of all national interests and cultures, major conflicts between and within States will become impossible to sustain.
Post cold war there have been numerous civil and neighbouring national conflicts, often involving ethnic or separatist groups, creating great suffering and subsequent large flows of refugees. However there is room for optimisim as a study of wars and armed conflict, The Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century, shows that the number of armed conflicts has fallen by 40% since the end of the Cold War.
Also since its establishment, the UN has played a significant role as effective peacemaker, with a positive outcome achieved in 66% of peace missions. There has also been a sixfold increase in UN efforts to prevent wars from starting, a fourfold increase in UN peacemaking missions to end unresolved conflicts and an elevenfold increase in the number of states made subject to UN sanctions.
A variety of techniques from mediation and peace-keeping to trade sanctions and threat of reprisal, are being applied in order to force warring parties to the peace table. These have been applied with mixed success in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, Northern Ireland and the Sudan, with Burma a recent success, while high-pressure mediation is continuing in more intractable conflict areas such as Palestine, Somalia, The Republic of Congo and North Korea.
There is no doubt that that we are witnessing the evolutionary genesis of globally mediated methods for permanently maintaining peace across the planet.
But it is now clear that most military analyses relating to the future of war are severely skewed and one dimensional, failing to adequately factor in drivers beyond traditional geopolitical pressures. These future drivers- primarily global warming, globalisation and cyber-culture are now approaching with the force of a tsunami and will overwhelm all other historical and traditional military drivers by mid-century.
Failing to adequately take their consequences into account is to blindside both history and future reality, with the potential to lead to further irrevocable impacts on a fragile world.
Globalisation involves the interweaving of the cultural, educational, legal, economic, political, and technological protocols of all nations in a dense web of dependencies and relationships. China and the US for example are now joined at the hip on trade and economic matters despite ideological disparities and are mutually interdependent. The US needs China’s financial reserves to prop up its massive dollar debt and as an export market, while China needs a strong US dollar to guarantee its investments and US markets for a large proportion of its exports. Although there are moves to disengage this will not happen in the foreseeable future.
These two superpowers are also indirectly connected by the web of alliance and trade networks within the international community as a whole. They are now both too big, too interconnected and too focussed on trying to improve the quality of life of their own populations to become involved in massively destructive global warfare.
The outstanding template for globalisation is of course the European Union, which now links the economies of 27 nations, that up until a century ago warred continuously, with massive loss of life and potential. Now their populations work together, trade together, marry together and share a common currency despite the current difficulties in the Eurozone. The EU is the third force in an increasingly multi-polar world, counterbalancing both the US and China. Emerging economic powerhouses such as Brazil, India, South Africa and Russia make up a fourth force, with other major regions such as the South East asian bloc also exerting an inceasingly powerful influence.
Globalisation is also being accelerated by the Cyber revolution- providing access by all populations to the world’s knowledge base and providing an unstoppable catalyst for democracy, despite short term futile attempts at national censorship. It now mediates civilisation’s social, scientific and commercial progress, with the potential to provide enormous computational and decision power for future global governance.
Simulated war-gaming, involving complex scenarios based on holistic social, cyber and economic factors, will therefore be increasingly applied to pre-evaluate the potential outcomes of waging war. The result will be that military imperatives will play a significantly reduced role in the future. This will be accelerated by the emerging dimensions of cyber and economic warfare, which within the next decade will overtake military systems capacity as key determinants in the geopolitical supremacy stakes.
Cyber warfare in particular will become increasingly common, used as a proxy for direct weapons-based assault. Recent major attacks on 3,000 major companies and Government institutions worldwide, demonstrate the potential for even small groups to wage global computer and economic warfare- cking and hijacking strategic planning data and shutting down critical control systems and infrastructure.
But global warming is the biggest challenge, with its impact the greatest potential threaT ever faced or likely to be faced by our civilisation. By the middle of this century the budgets of all countries, particularly those of the major and middle powers will be focussed on mitigating the massively destructive and disastrous outcomes including- increased frequency and severity of catastrophic events such as floods, droughts, blizzards and hurricanes resulting in massive damage to both the natural and engineered environment, acidification of oceans, loss of biodiversity, scarcity of food, water and energy, disease pandemics and unprecedented refugee flows.
The stresses on all societies will be enormous, but only through global cooperation will anarchy and conflict will be constrained. This will require planning and allocation of resources on a global scale. The budgets and assets of all major powers including the US, China, India and the EU will need to be synchronised and focussed on avoiding this over-riding threat to the future of humanity. National rivalries will be subsumed and military and weapons programs drastically cut.
A timeline on the evolution of this process is as follows-
By 2020- battlefield strategy will evolve towards one that is increasingly fought in covert form – not through the use of large-scale traditional weaponry as in previous wars, with conventional military values becoming obsolete. Most attacks will be focused on subduing increasingly integrated terrorist and criminal groups, military juntas and authoritarian regimes as well as legitimate minority ehtnic groups.
A high proportion of battlefield operations will be automated, with drones and robots operating remotely and eventually autonomously, using satellite and sensor surveillance and the latest Web based intelligence for decision support. Cyber and economic warfare will also play an increasing role, conducted both by governments and criminal and terrorist groups.
At the same time there will be greater emphasis on a variety of peace-keeping and mediation initiatives, involving a range of alliances between Governments, NGOs and military forces such as the new-look NATO, operating at the local level in cooperation with civilian populations. These strategies will increasingly be applied to support failing and dysfunctional states and establish democratic institutions in fragile states such as Iraq and Afghanistan where clumsy US policies have largely failed. This will become the primary template for future military operations.
By 2030- superpower states – US and China, will no longer able to sustain long term conflicts using 20th century arsenals of air, sea and land forces. The US will be forced to abdicate its traditional 20th century role of global military dominance as its resources become spread too thinly and it struggles to maintain quality of life for its population against unsustainable mounting levels of debt.
Similarly China, India and middle power nations will be forced to channel most of their resources to developing infrastructure, capacity and social services. Numerous flashpoints involving quelling local insurgencies and ethnic uprisings will remain. Increasingly the UN and representative government groups such as the present G20 will work together to minimise conflict globally. The EU will be seen as the template for global cooperation and peace-keeping will become the norm for conflict containment.
By 2040 – it is realised by most nations that conflict and wars are increasingly unsupportable on both moral and economic grounds. Globalisation wikk
ll continue to accelerate, with the creation of more complex networks of alliances and treaties binding nations and regional groups. At the same time countries will start to lose their traditional sovereign status, with pressure for more fluid cross border immigration relaxation and economicmanagement as in the EU. The mixing of races and nationalities will ease pressure for conflict, and provides greater accessibility to global health, education, and knowledge resources.
The reality of climate change, with its increasing frequency of disaster events, will force ideological disparities to play a secondary role.
By 2050- all available global resources will be marshalled to overcome the immense problems associated with global warming, with the end of wars between nations in sight.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Future World Order
Three years ago the emergence of a New World Order was a relatively simple outcome of the political process- both to understand and predict. The prognosis primarily involved the rise of Asia in economic terms followed by a relatively orderly transference of political and financial power from the West to the East, resulting in the emergence of a more multi-polar globalised world over the next 30 years.
The signals for such a shift were clear then and still are- up to a point.
Following a rapid period of industrial development, as occurred in Europe after its industrial revolution, Asian nations are now playing social and technological catch up.
The speed of Asia's advance has been breathtaking, Before the West's industrial revolution, Asia accounted for almost 60% of the world's economy. By WW2 this had slipped to 20%. It is now projected to rise back to 60% by 2020. Asia is in the middle of a long-term growth phase, even accounting for the current financial meltdown mark 2, that extends back to the Meiji Restoration period in Japan in the 19th century and the end of Imperial rule in China at the beginning of the 20th century. By 2040 it is predicted that China will be the world’s leading economy, followed by the US and India.
In India and China the middle class now accounts for over ten percent of the population. It is also upwardly mobile in terms of its consumer and knowledge culture. Combined with improved access to education, science and technology, this means the push for political pluralism is now inevitable. It is also inevitable that the new regional Asian grouping- the East Asian forum will begin to play a dominant over the next 5 years, extending the present ASEAN forum to include over 2 billion people in a model similar to that of the EU.
This transition to equalization of opportunity in the east was always a given. Then along came the greatest financial catastrophe of the modern era with the potential collapse of the Eurozone and the contagion spreading throughout the west.
The US is US$15 trillion in debt and counting and the main lender is Asia. China has a US$2 trillion surplus in currency reserves. Within the decade economic power will have passed to Asia, with the US no longer in the drivers seat of the world’s capital markets. Its banking structure is already emasculated and unlikely to ever recover its former glory.
China is now banker to the world.
But creating a new multi-polar and globalised world order has only just begun. It is about much more than Asia’s rise to power. The current economic and political architecture is totally bankrupt and will have to be rewritten in a radical new language- a hybrid of socialism and capitalism with various other ethical and green sustainable strands woven in. And this new architecture will need to have the flexibility to continue to evolve and adapt as the cultural, social and technological landscape around it changes at breathtaking speed.
Tinkering around the edges with an infusion of Government backed liquidity and greater regulation isn’t going to cut it this time around. After all what we are witnessing is at least a 50% write down of the world’s wealth, which among other downsides is going to force a return to poverty for tens of millions in the developing nations.
The US has been living with serious structural deterioration for more than a decade- negligible levels of private savings, chronic balance of payment s deficits and domestic budget shortfalls. Foreign savers have funded these gaps. Half the US treasury bills on issue are now foreign owned, while sovereign wealth funds are diversifying out of US debt and taking influential positions in some of America’s iconic companies. While China’s growth rate has retreated below 7 percent, the West’s growth rate is negative.
And still the world leaders, bankers, economists and investors have no real solution to this cataclysmic disaster, let alone a real willingness to take responsibility for it. It’s as if after a few years and an infusion of a few tens of trillions of dollars the bad news will go away and life will return to ‘normal’ – business as usual again.
When you’ve got the current level of uncertainty in the collective economic and political mind and basically flying blind, you know there is zero probability that this will happen.
But this is just the beginning of a great unwinding of current civilization. The sudden shock to the world’s traditional order will create many unforeseen ramifications- some chaotic and violent. We already see social unrest in China, Russia and Europe. This has the capacity to turn anarchic as the economy continues to deteriorate. Combined with worldwide food, water and energy shortages in a time of global climate change, this shock has the potential to put immense pressure on social norms.
We’ve arrived suddenly and unexpectedly at the beginning of the 21st century at a great impasse, a great disjunction in human affairs.
But there is also a great opportunity to fast track reform of a flawed system from the ground up. This crisis can be turned to huge advantage for all humanity, providing the solutions are applied with great creativity, courage and cooperation.
It’s not a time for more of the same- for more great leaders and hubris. Instead it requires the harnessing of collective wisdom, knowledge and responsibility; extending beyond the false pride and patriotism of the national political process, tangled in its debilitating web of self-interest, delusion and corruption.
We can already see the tentative beginnings of this New World Order- Mark 2.
Pressure to reform unrepresentative voting structures of the UN; moves to establish a more inclusive grouping of middle power decision-making nations- from the G8 to G20; initiatives to reform the IMF and World Bank; the rise of the NGO community as an ethical counterweight to political decision-making; the continued rise of democracy; greater national cooperation supporting global conventions on human rights, conflict mediation, global warming, the sea, trade, health, science, legal and financial protocols etc; and the rise of the internet with its promise of providing equal access for the developing world to the sum of human knowledge.
But time is short. The luxury of leisurely progress toward achieving these critical goals is past. All options must now be on the table and open to radical reform- ideological, economic and social.
After all, nothing less than the future of human civilisation and the well being of the planet’s seven billion inhabitants is at stake.
The signals for such a shift were clear then and still are- up to a point.
Following a rapid period of industrial development, as occurred in Europe after its industrial revolution, Asian nations are now playing social and technological catch up.
The speed of Asia's advance has been breathtaking, Before the West's industrial revolution, Asia accounted for almost 60% of the world's economy. By WW2 this had slipped to 20%. It is now projected to rise back to 60% by 2020. Asia is in the middle of a long-term growth phase, even accounting for the current financial meltdown mark 2, that extends back to the Meiji Restoration period in Japan in the 19th century and the end of Imperial rule in China at the beginning of the 20th century. By 2040 it is predicted that China will be the world’s leading economy, followed by the US and India.
In India and China the middle class now accounts for over ten percent of the population. It is also upwardly mobile in terms of its consumer and knowledge culture. Combined with improved access to education, science and technology, this means the push for political pluralism is now inevitable. It is also inevitable that the new regional Asian grouping- the East Asian forum will begin to play a dominant over the next 5 years, extending the present ASEAN forum to include over 2 billion people in a model similar to that of the EU.
This transition to equalization of opportunity in the east was always a given. Then along came the greatest financial catastrophe of the modern era with the potential collapse of the Eurozone and the contagion spreading throughout the west.
The US is US$15 trillion in debt and counting and the main lender is Asia. China has a US$2 trillion surplus in currency reserves. Within the decade economic power will have passed to Asia, with the US no longer in the drivers seat of the world’s capital markets. Its banking structure is already emasculated and unlikely to ever recover its former glory.
China is now banker to the world.
But creating a new multi-polar and globalised world order has only just begun. It is about much more than Asia’s rise to power. The current economic and political architecture is totally bankrupt and will have to be rewritten in a radical new language- a hybrid of socialism and capitalism with various other ethical and green sustainable strands woven in. And this new architecture will need to have the flexibility to continue to evolve and adapt as the cultural, social and technological landscape around it changes at breathtaking speed.
Tinkering around the edges with an infusion of Government backed liquidity and greater regulation isn’t going to cut it this time around. After all what we are witnessing is at least a 50% write down of the world’s wealth, which among other downsides is going to force a return to poverty for tens of millions in the developing nations.
The US has been living with serious structural deterioration for more than a decade- negligible levels of private savings, chronic balance of payment s deficits and domestic budget shortfalls. Foreign savers have funded these gaps. Half the US treasury bills on issue are now foreign owned, while sovereign wealth funds are diversifying out of US debt and taking influential positions in some of America’s iconic companies. While China’s growth rate has retreated below 7 percent, the West’s growth rate is negative.
And still the world leaders, bankers, economists and investors have no real solution to this cataclysmic disaster, let alone a real willingness to take responsibility for it. It’s as if after a few years and an infusion of a few tens of trillions of dollars the bad news will go away and life will return to ‘normal’ – business as usual again.
When you’ve got the current level of uncertainty in the collective economic and political mind and basically flying blind, you know there is zero probability that this will happen.
But this is just the beginning of a great unwinding of current civilization. The sudden shock to the world’s traditional order will create many unforeseen ramifications- some chaotic and violent. We already see social unrest in China, Russia and Europe. This has the capacity to turn anarchic as the economy continues to deteriorate. Combined with worldwide food, water and energy shortages in a time of global climate change, this shock has the potential to put immense pressure on social norms.
We’ve arrived suddenly and unexpectedly at the beginning of the 21st century at a great impasse, a great disjunction in human affairs.
But there is also a great opportunity to fast track reform of a flawed system from the ground up. This crisis can be turned to huge advantage for all humanity, providing the solutions are applied with great creativity, courage and cooperation.
It’s not a time for more of the same- for more great leaders and hubris. Instead it requires the harnessing of collective wisdom, knowledge and responsibility; extending beyond the false pride and patriotism of the national political process, tangled in its debilitating web of self-interest, delusion and corruption.
We can already see the tentative beginnings of this New World Order- Mark 2.
Pressure to reform unrepresentative voting structures of the UN; moves to establish a more inclusive grouping of middle power decision-making nations- from the G8 to G20; initiatives to reform the IMF and World Bank; the rise of the NGO community as an ethical counterweight to political decision-making; the continued rise of democracy; greater national cooperation supporting global conventions on human rights, conflict mediation, global warming, the sea, trade, health, science, legal and financial protocols etc; and the rise of the internet with its promise of providing equal access for the developing world to the sum of human knowledge.
But time is short. The luxury of leisurely progress toward achieving these critical goals is past. All options must now be on the table and open to radical reform- ideological, economic and social.
After all, nothing less than the future of human civilisation and the well being of the planet’s seven billion inhabitants is at stake.
Future Darwinism
Future Darwinism - Towards a Unified Theory of Evolution
Darwin's year in 2009, celebrating the 200th birthday of perhaps the most profound thinker of the modern era, is also an appropriate time to explore the ramifications of next stage in the Darwinian revolution.
The biological theory of evolution is undoubtedly the most powerful paradigm ever conceived by humans to explain their own existence. Since Darwin's epoch-making treatise, Origin of Species, published a hundred and fifty years ago in 1859, evolution has been centre-stage, universally recognised as the driving force in the emergence of all life, including modern humans, from the genesis of the first cells on this planet, almost 4 billion years ago.
However, despite its ubiquitous brilliance as the jewel in the crown of human intellectual achievement, the notion of Darwinian evolution has never been developed to its full potential. It remains instead largely constrained within its biological cradle, often limited in its everyday connotation to the lowest common denominator of 'survival of the fittest'.
The intention of this and subsequent columns on the Future of Darwinism will be to re-evaluate and explore the future potential of the Darwinian model and to demonstrate that its current scope and application is only the tip of the intellectual iceberg.
By combining its formidable biological principles including the immense field of genetics, with those of systems, network, quantum, complexity and information theory, it emerges as an incalculably deeper and richer model than previously contemplated.
The major thesis currently now being explored by a number of eminent researchers drawn from the spectrum of physical and social sciences, demonstrates that the evolutionary engine that drives biological development also drives all other dynamic adaptive processes at the physical, social, cognitive, economic, political and technological level and is in fact the major dynamic governing the Universe, past present and future.
It is further proposed to explore in future posts the social ramifications of recent developments in artificial intelligence and the immense computational power generated through the Internet, that mark the next crucial stage in human evolution; involving the inevitable symbiosis of vast computational intelligence with the power of the human mind.
These two 21st century conceptual goals - a universal all-encompassing Unified Theory of Evolution based on the original Darwinian model - coupled with the emancipation of human intelligence via the future Web, together provide a vastly more powerful paradigm for exploring the future of Darwinism, life and human potential.
Darwin's year in 2009, celebrating the 200th birthday of perhaps the most profound thinker of the modern era, is also an appropriate time to explore the ramifications of next stage in the Darwinian revolution.
The biological theory of evolution is undoubtedly the most powerful paradigm ever conceived by humans to explain their own existence. Since Darwin's epoch-making treatise, Origin of Species, published a hundred and fifty years ago in 1859, evolution has been centre-stage, universally recognised as the driving force in the emergence of all life, including modern humans, from the genesis of the first cells on this planet, almost 4 billion years ago.
However, despite its ubiquitous brilliance as the jewel in the crown of human intellectual achievement, the notion of Darwinian evolution has never been developed to its full potential. It remains instead largely constrained within its biological cradle, often limited in its everyday connotation to the lowest common denominator of 'survival of the fittest'.
The intention of this and subsequent columns on the Future of Darwinism will be to re-evaluate and explore the future potential of the Darwinian model and to demonstrate that its current scope and application is only the tip of the intellectual iceberg.
By combining its formidable biological principles including the immense field of genetics, with those of systems, network, quantum, complexity and information theory, it emerges as an incalculably deeper and richer model than previously contemplated.
The major thesis currently now being explored by a number of eminent researchers drawn from the spectrum of physical and social sciences, demonstrates that the evolutionary engine that drives biological development also drives all other dynamic adaptive processes at the physical, social, cognitive, economic, political and technological level and is in fact the major dynamic governing the Universe, past present and future.
It is further proposed to explore in future posts the social ramifications of recent developments in artificial intelligence and the immense computational power generated through the Internet, that mark the next crucial stage in human evolution; involving the inevitable symbiosis of vast computational intelligence with the power of the human mind.
These two 21st century conceptual goals - a universal all-encompassing Unified Theory of Evolution based on the original Darwinian model - coupled with the emancipation of human intelligence via the future Web, together provide a vastly more powerful paradigm for exploring the future of Darwinism, life and human potential.
Future Blogsphere
A new force is shaping global political and social culture. The millions of Weblogs or blogs being generated and refreshed daily are now starting to provide a meta-communication platform- the Blogsphere 2.0 of incredible power and complexity.
Information and opinions are now being exchanged, transformed and sifted at a global meta-level in real-time across national and international boundaries and timezones. At the same time traditional blogs are merging with all other forms of media communication- online newspapers, social networks, news aggregation sites and micro conversations on mobile media such as Twitter.
The Blogging phenomena in general provides vast potential for collaborative learning, marketing, public relations, political, social and civic discourse and at the same time allows bloggers to bypass traditional corporate media gatekeepers.
Blogging is increasingly therefore seen as an extension of consumer and political activism. Fifty percent of bloggers express an opinion about a company or product at least once a week. Seventy seven percent of online consumers view blogs as a useful way to gaining insight into products they are looking to buy. And out of the estimated 20 million blogs, over a million feature discussion relating to environmental and ethical issues.
Major enterprises are also beginning to incorporate this resource into their marketing plans, with the accepted model of advertising changing to capitalise on the blogsphere’s connection-shaping influence in both the real and virtual social world. For example larger companies have started recruiting ‘brand ambassadors’ or key social figures in the community, paid to drop brand references into blog comments or background conversations on Twitter.
Future Trends
But the greatest significance of the future Blogsphere 2.0 will be felt at the social level. Blogs are increasingly being linked to social, professional, and political networks. Citizen journalism will flourish as more individuals publish their views and experiences and more information is distributed at both the community and global level. This will reshape the voice of community, civil rights and democracy as more people are exposed to new topics and opinions without the need for third party intermediaries such as politicians or television commentators, acting as filters. Citizen generated media will therefore be free of the restrictions of traditional top-down media and dramatically increase consumer control over media content.
Blogs already allow ideas and innovation to become part of popular culture. Once an idea exists in the online world it immediately also propagates globally in the real world, facilitating knowledge sharing within developing countries. A form of participatory democracy will then emerge, decreasing the elite power of traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, radio and television.
Most importantly, the emerging Blogsphere 2.0 will not just become a major new voice for the global mass media, but the beginning of a significant global consciousness, reflecting the views of all inhabitants of the planet, with the power to shape future opinion and consumer culture.
Information and opinions are now being exchanged, transformed and sifted at a global meta-level in real-time across national and international boundaries and timezones. At the same time traditional blogs are merging with all other forms of media communication- online newspapers, social networks, news aggregation sites and micro conversations on mobile media such as Twitter.
The Blogging phenomena in general provides vast potential for collaborative learning, marketing, public relations, political, social and civic discourse and at the same time allows bloggers to bypass traditional corporate media gatekeepers.
Blogging is increasingly therefore seen as an extension of consumer and political activism. Fifty percent of bloggers express an opinion about a company or product at least once a week. Seventy seven percent of online consumers view blogs as a useful way to gaining insight into products they are looking to buy. And out of the estimated 20 million blogs, over a million feature discussion relating to environmental and ethical issues.
Major enterprises are also beginning to incorporate this resource into their marketing plans, with the accepted model of advertising changing to capitalise on the blogsphere’s connection-shaping influence in both the real and virtual social world. For example larger companies have started recruiting ‘brand ambassadors’ or key social figures in the community, paid to drop brand references into blog comments or background conversations on Twitter.
Future Trends
But the greatest significance of the future Blogsphere 2.0 will be felt at the social level. Blogs are increasingly being linked to social, professional, and political networks. Citizen journalism will flourish as more individuals publish their views and experiences and more information is distributed at both the community and global level. This will reshape the voice of community, civil rights and democracy as more people are exposed to new topics and opinions without the need for third party intermediaries such as politicians or television commentators, acting as filters. Citizen generated media will therefore be free of the restrictions of traditional top-down media and dramatically increase consumer control over media content.
Blogs already allow ideas and innovation to become part of popular culture. Once an idea exists in the online world it immediately also propagates globally in the real world, facilitating knowledge sharing within developing countries. A form of participatory democracy will then emerge, decreasing the elite power of traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, radio and television.
Most importantly, the emerging Blogsphere 2.0 will not just become a major new voice for the global mass media, but the beginning of a significant global consciousness, reflecting the views of all inhabitants of the planet, with the power to shape future opinion and consumer culture.
Future Economics
The recent failure of classical economics to predict and manage the catastrophic failure of the world’s financial system has triggered a re-evaluation of the whole basis of current economic theory, which has been applied to sustain capitalism for the last 100 years. .
By the end of the 20th century traditional economics was dominated by the classical paradigm based on notions of rational consumers making rational choices in a simple supply/demand world of finite resources, with prices constrained by decreasing returns; all driving the economy to an optimal equilibrium point.
Twentieth century economists had finally realised their dream of creating a rational, rigorous and well-defined mathematical model for describing the workings of the global economy. This standard model has been applied by business leaders, finance ministers, central bankers and presidential advisers ever since.
Up until recently classical economic theory has appeared to work adequately by a process of trial and error. In stable times people are generally rational and optimistic and the theory describes reality reasonably well. But in extreme circumstances people panic and the theory fails spectacularly, including the performance of the quantitative risk algorithms beloved by hi-tech stock market traders.
Unfortunately such a clockwork model has proved over the last four decades to be seriously out of synch with reality, as global markets have been roiled by a series of disastrous credit, market, liquidity and commodity crises. The predictions of the standard model have failed to match real world outcomes, generated in succession by the Savings and Loan, Asian, Mexican, Dotcom and now toxic mortgage bubble disasters.
In this ‘mother of all’ excess greed debacles, high risk mortgage loans were repackaged many times over into opaque risk financial instruments, such as Collateralised Debt Obligations or CDOs, which ended up through the unregulated banking system in the portfolios of nearly every bank and financial institution around the world. Because of lack of regulation, members of the shadow system such as hedge funds and merchant banks borrowed scores of times their own worth in cash. When the CDOs finally failed, the losses rippled through the world economy. The banks stopped lending, leading to further business failures and investors were then forced to sell previously sound stocks causing a stock market crash.
But this crash is far more serious- perhaps even more than the Great Depression, as it cannot be contained within borders as easily or so simply solved by mass lending and job creation programs. Now we have the biggest banks, manufacturers, miners, energy suppliers and whole national economies from the US to Iceland toppling like dominoes around the world, under trillions of dollars of debt - with no end in sight.
In fact a number of interdisciplinary thinkers, starting in the seventies, began to question the credibility of the entire basis of the classical economic model, likening it to a gigantic academic exercise rather than a serious science. And it gradually began to dawn on this group that at a number of the key premises or axioms underpinning the existing model were seriously flawed.
As mentioned, the first is the assumption that humans are rational players in the great game of market roulette. They are not. Behavioural scientists have shown that while people are very good at recognising useful patterns and interpreting ambiguous or incomplete information in their decision-making, they are very poor when it comes to performing complex logical analysis, preferring to follow market leaders or flock. This can further amplify distorting trends.
The new theories of behavioural finance argue that during a bubble the rate of buying and selling can become manic, resulting in irrational decisions. Making money actually stimulates investor’s brain reward circuitry, causing them to ignore risk and making it difficult to value stocks accurately.
But perhaps the most critically flawed assumption is that an economic system always reaches an ideal point equilibrium of its own accord. In other words, the market is capable of self-regulation- automatically allocating resources and controlling excesses in an optimum way, with minimum outside interference.
Since the nineteenth century the fundamental principle underpinning economics has been based on the idea that the economy is an equilibrium system- a system that moves from one equilibrium point to another, driven by shocks from external disruptions - technological, political, cultural etc- but always coming to rest in a natural equilibrium state.
The new emerging evolutionary paradigm however postulates that economies and markets, as well as the internet, enterprises and the brain, are all forms of complex adaptive systems in which agents dynamically interact, process information and adapt their behaviour to a constantly changing environment- but never reach a final equilibrium or goal.
In biological evolution, the natural environment selects those systems that are able to best adapt to its infinite variation. In economic evolution, the market is a combination of financial, production, trading, cultural, organisational and regulatory elements which adapt to and influence a constantly changing ecological, social and business environment.
In essence, economic and financial systems have been fundamentally misclassified. They are not perfect self-regulating systems. They are enormously complex adaptive networks, made up of individual agents which interact dynamically in response to changes in their environment- not merely through simple price setting mechanisms, tax or interest rate cuts, liquidity injections or job creation programs. They must be understood and managed at a far deeper level.
Modern evolutionary theorists believe that evolution is a universal phenomena
and that both economic and biological systems are subclasses of a more general and universal class of evolutionary systems. And if economics is truly an evolutionary system and general laws for evolutionary systems exist, then it follows there are also general laws of economics which must be harnessed. This contradicts much of the standard theory in economics developed over the past one hundred years.
The economic ecosystem is now fed by trillions of transactions, interactions and non-linear feedback loops daily. It may in fact have become too complex and interdependent for economists and governments to control or even understand. It may therefore, as several eminent complexity theorists have recently stated, be on the verge of chaos. Too much or not enough regulation can distort the outcomes further- creating ongoing speculative pricing bubbles or supply and demand distortions.
There is now an urgent need to understand at a much deeper level the genie that modern civilisation has engineered and now let loose. This can only be done by admitting the current crumbling edifice is beyond repair and building a radical new model from ground zero; a system that incorporates the hard science of network, behavioural and complexity theory.
A new adaptive evolutionary model is not only essential- it is the only option.
By the end of the 20th century traditional economics was dominated by the classical paradigm based on notions of rational consumers making rational choices in a simple supply/demand world of finite resources, with prices constrained by decreasing returns; all driving the economy to an optimal equilibrium point.
Twentieth century economists had finally realised their dream of creating a rational, rigorous and well-defined mathematical model for describing the workings of the global economy. This standard model has been applied by business leaders, finance ministers, central bankers and presidential advisers ever since.
Up until recently classical economic theory has appeared to work adequately by a process of trial and error. In stable times people are generally rational and optimistic and the theory describes reality reasonably well. But in extreme circumstances people panic and the theory fails spectacularly, including the performance of the quantitative risk algorithms beloved by hi-tech stock market traders.
Unfortunately such a clockwork model has proved over the last four decades to be seriously out of synch with reality, as global markets have been roiled by a series of disastrous credit, market, liquidity and commodity crises. The predictions of the standard model have failed to match real world outcomes, generated in succession by the Savings and Loan, Asian, Mexican, Dotcom and now toxic mortgage bubble disasters.
In this ‘mother of all’ excess greed debacles, high risk mortgage loans were repackaged many times over into opaque risk financial instruments, such as Collateralised Debt Obligations or CDOs, which ended up through the unregulated banking system in the portfolios of nearly every bank and financial institution around the world. Because of lack of regulation, members of the shadow system such as hedge funds and merchant banks borrowed scores of times their own worth in cash. When the CDOs finally failed, the losses rippled through the world economy. The banks stopped lending, leading to further business failures and investors were then forced to sell previously sound stocks causing a stock market crash.
But this crash is far more serious- perhaps even more than the Great Depression, as it cannot be contained within borders as easily or so simply solved by mass lending and job creation programs. Now we have the biggest banks, manufacturers, miners, energy suppliers and whole national economies from the US to Iceland toppling like dominoes around the world, under trillions of dollars of debt - with no end in sight.
In fact a number of interdisciplinary thinkers, starting in the seventies, began to question the credibility of the entire basis of the classical economic model, likening it to a gigantic academic exercise rather than a serious science. And it gradually began to dawn on this group that at a number of the key premises or axioms underpinning the existing model were seriously flawed.
As mentioned, the first is the assumption that humans are rational players in the great game of market roulette. They are not. Behavioural scientists have shown that while people are very good at recognising useful patterns and interpreting ambiguous or incomplete information in their decision-making, they are very poor when it comes to performing complex logical analysis, preferring to follow market leaders or flock. This can further amplify distorting trends.
The new theories of behavioural finance argue that during a bubble the rate of buying and selling can become manic, resulting in irrational decisions. Making money actually stimulates investor’s brain reward circuitry, causing them to ignore risk and making it difficult to value stocks accurately.
But perhaps the most critically flawed assumption is that an economic system always reaches an ideal point equilibrium of its own accord. In other words, the market is capable of self-regulation- automatically allocating resources and controlling excesses in an optimum way, with minimum outside interference.
Since the nineteenth century the fundamental principle underpinning economics has been based on the idea that the economy is an equilibrium system- a system that moves from one equilibrium point to another, driven by shocks from external disruptions - technological, political, cultural etc- but always coming to rest in a natural equilibrium state.
The new emerging evolutionary paradigm however postulates that economies and markets, as well as the internet, enterprises and the brain, are all forms of complex adaptive systems in which agents dynamically interact, process information and adapt their behaviour to a constantly changing environment- but never reach a final equilibrium or goal.
In biological evolution, the natural environment selects those systems that are able to best adapt to its infinite variation. In economic evolution, the market is a combination of financial, production, trading, cultural, organisational and regulatory elements which adapt to and influence a constantly changing ecological, social and business environment.
In essence, economic and financial systems have been fundamentally misclassified. They are not perfect self-regulating systems. They are enormously complex adaptive networks, made up of individual agents which interact dynamically in response to changes in their environment- not merely through simple price setting mechanisms, tax or interest rate cuts, liquidity injections or job creation programs. They must be understood and managed at a far deeper level.
Modern evolutionary theorists believe that evolution is a universal phenomena
and that both economic and biological systems are subclasses of a more general and universal class of evolutionary systems. And if economics is truly an evolutionary system and general laws for evolutionary systems exist, then it follows there are also general laws of economics which must be harnessed. This contradicts much of the standard theory in economics developed over the past one hundred years.
The economic ecosystem is now fed by trillions of transactions, interactions and non-linear feedback loops daily. It may in fact have become too complex and interdependent for economists and governments to control or even understand. It may therefore, as several eminent complexity theorists have recently stated, be on the verge of chaos. Too much or not enough regulation can distort the outcomes further- creating ongoing speculative pricing bubbles or supply and demand distortions.
There is now an urgent need to understand at a much deeper level the genie that modern civilisation has engineered and now let loose. This can only be done by admitting the current crumbling edifice is beyond repair and building a radical new model from ground zero; a system that incorporates the hard science of network, behavioural and complexity theory.
A new adaptive evolutionary model is not only essential- it is the only option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)