Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms, by Hannah Fry

I was initially very disappointed with this book as it is not very much about algorithms. That might not be Hanna's fault as the title on the American edition is "How to be Human in the Age of the Machine".

I still would have liked more discussions about different kind of AI:s and how they are shaped, as I think this is an area where more knowledge is needed to ensure a substantive discussion. But perhaps the book Hanna has written is needed before that discussion can happen.

This book basically just state that AI have some skills, especially  pattern recognition, classification and prediction. Given these skills it can do different things more/faster than humans, including mistakes.   

Hanna's main point form my perspective is to help us understand that we should apply the same ethics and thinking that we have always done. AI are a reflection of us and as such will always come with flaws. But also that it is the combination between humans and machine that tend to get the best results. So we should try to design systems based on how AI and humans work together. It is a noble goal, but I would have liked to see more discussions about how to increase the probability of that happening.

What I lack is a specific discussion about the kind of flaws we need to look for in AI systems, and even more how to mitigate these flaws. There are a number of areas that could have been covered such as the role of the training data (if you only train your AI for detecting hands on white middle-aged men the AI will struggle to recognise a the hands of black young girl. Or if you only focus on the simple things that are easy to quantify and get the AI to look for, you will miss the non quantifiable aspects that are important.

As a general introduction to the field for those who are "afraid" of computers and AI I think this book might be valuable. For those who wants to dive deeper this is not the book. Being critical in the same way as we always should be is the message Hanna leaves us with, and maybe that is what is needed right now, that we "stop seeing machines as objective masters and start treating them as we would any other source of power. By questioning their decisions; scrutinizing their motives; acknowledging our emotions; demanding to know who stands to benefit; holding them accountable for their mistakes; and refusing to become complacent. I think this is the key to a future where the net overall effect of algorithms is a positive force for society."

Brief Answers to the Big Questions, by Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking is a well known icon for science, but I think he is less known for his wisdom. Hopefully this book will change this. He has been a supporter of so many of the most important issues of our time, bringing wisdom and guidance to everything from space exploration and the question of God to the existential threats facing humanity and the nature of intelligence.

The book provides insights into a number of the grand scientific challenges of today when it comes to astrophysics, particle physics, and genetics. The focus is obviously astronomy, with emphasis on Hawking's work on Black Holes. He explores fundamental questions such as "how did it all begin", "what is inside a Black Hole", "is time travel possible", and "if there is other intelligent life in the Universe".

He does not shy away from difficult issues, but he does not go into details (my only significant frustration with the book is that I think it should have benefited from a "further reading" part. It does have an overview of Hawking's other books, but I would have linked to know what books Hawking would have recommended in the areas he covers in the book). This is however a small gripe with a book that is very short, and might possible best be read when each chapter can be discussed. My own bullet points where almost as long as the chapters.

For someone who have spent time working with existential threats, i.e. those that threaten the very existence of our survival, it is refreshing to read someone who is bringing those to the forefront and also challenges us with some fundamental questions.

Hawking manages does what anyone who is intellectually honest should do. He clarifies some basic facts, such as "We now have the technological power to destroy every living creature on Earth."

He then provides some context for this situation, such as "Aggression, in the form of subjugating or killing other men and taking their women and food, has had definite survival advantage up to the present time. But now it could destroy the entire human race and much of the rest of life on Earth. A nuclear war is still the most immediate danger, but there are others, such as the release of a genetically engineered virus. Or the greenhouse effect becoming unstable."

Instead of concluding in a doom and gloom scenario he brings in fundamental issues that are seldom discussed, such as "It is not even clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single-cell organisms, may live on if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. Perhaps intelligence was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution, as it took a very long time—two and a half billion years—to go from single cells to multi-cellular beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence.".

He is also honest when he is making value judgments and not stating facts such as "The Earth is under threat from so many areas that it is difficult for me to be positive. The threats are too big and too numerous.". This is great as it provides us we a platform for further discussions. This who say that the facts indicate that we are moving in the right direction have to answer what threats they dismiss or what kind of impacts they do not consider relevant.

One of the most striking features is how Hawking's manages to move on timescales that sometime feels as if they are, if not extinct, a dying breed. In an age where people in media seriously talk about discussions on Twitter that come and goes in hours it is refreshing with an intelligent mind who look at things from at least a millennium, but often billion years, perspective.

"One way or another, I regard it as almost inevitable that either a nuclear confrontation  or environmental catastrophe will cripple the Earth at some point in the next 1,000 years which, as geological time goes, is the mere blink of an eye. By then I hope and believe that our ingenious race will have found a way to slip the surly bonds of Earth and will therefore survive the disaster. The same of course may not be possible for the millions of other species that inhabit the Earth, and that will be on our conscience as a race."

I think it takes a certain mind to wander to the limits of knowledge and push beyond it. There is also a special kind of mind that moves freely in multiple dimensions. I think much of Hawken's brilliance when it comes to areas outside his specific area of expertise is due to the capacity to think long-term and put things in perspective. Hopefully this book will inspire people to think outside the box with regards to their normal constrains in time, space and ethical boundaries.

I like to end with a long quote from the last chapter:

"But what lies ahead for those who are young now? I can say with confidence that their future will depend more on science and technology than any previous generation’s has done. They need to know about science more than any before them because it is part of their daily lives in an unprecedented way.

Without speculating too wildly, there are trends we can see and emerging problems that we know must be dealt with, now and into the future. Among the problems I count global warming, finding space and resources for the massive increase in the Earth’s human population, rapid extinction of other species, the need to develop renewable energy sources, the degradation of the oceans, deforestation and epidemic diseases—just to name a few.

There are also the great inventions of the future, which will revolutionise the ways we live, work, eat, communicate and travel. There is such enormous scope for innovation in every area of life."

It has perhaps never been a generation that have lived in a time with more significant challenges, but also there have probably never been a generation with more opportunities.  If we can get more people to read books like this, I think we will increase the capacity to recognise, understand and address the challenges and also recognise, understand and capture the opportunities.

Ecological Civilization and the Belt and Road Initiative as a two global concepts

Over the last 12-24 months the concept of “Ecological Civilisation” and the Belt and Road Initiative are finally moving into mainstream thinking and media. It looks like the end of 2018 and 2019 could see some transformative shifts due to these two concepts.

The photos above are from three interesting events where these two topics have been discussed.

1. European Business Summit

2. The Vienna Energy Forum

3. NEOMA Confucius Institute for Business

Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, by Edward O Wilson

My first reaction after reading this book was “thank you Edward Wilson for making such an important contribution to a very important issue, and doing it with such a fantastic book”.

This is a book that engages heart and mind. It manages to both explain the science behind the fieldwork that can inform our biodiversity/conservation strategies and also provide a passionate description of what it is to approach nature in all its beauty. To read a book by someone who has knowledge that is so deep that it is better described as wisdom, and so much passion that you can feel the energy oozing from the pages feels like a privilege.

But the book it more than another call for biodiversity/conservation. The books central message is the title of the book “half-earth”, a concept so radical and that it requires us to fundamentally rethink our place on this planet.  How do we, Homo Sapiens, that represents one species, relate to the millions known - and millions unknown - other species that we share this planet with?

A disclosure, the main reason I read this book is that I have discussed the idea of “half for our species/ half for all the rest (living organisms on the planet)” for a few years now. I have done this from a purely ethical standpoint, not – as Wilson is doing –  (also) from a (scientific) biodiversity perspective.  My own “half-approach” was the result of trying to define the vague term “sustainable development”, in a way where it actually could be used in strategies with concrete targets for biodiversity.

While exploring different aspects of sustainability, the ethical aspect (see below), “acknowledging the rights of all individuals, groups and species to evolve” emerged as one of the most interesting aspects. I have argued that “half for our species/ half for all other species” arguably is an appropriate starting point, and that it is not a very radical proposition from an ethical perspective. Most people define the starting point for basic equity as “equal”, i.e. same for me and same for you. This simple equity can later be modified, but it is hard to find a better place to start. When we think about all the different species, all the “individuals” that are non-human, and think about their rights and needs; a “contract” where half of the planet would be for all other species and half for us humans feels as a very (too) good deal for us. So if we start from what could be considered ethical, instead of what we are used to, half-earth seems like a good start.

With this disclosure of my personal interest in “half-earth” out of the way the challenge of what aspects of the book should be discussed emerges. My notes, after reading the book, are almost as long as the book itself. This is a book that really should be read so instead of trying to capture the most important ideas I will begin by highlighting some of the things I really like about the book, then discussing some of the key issues where I think further discussions are needed, finally I will list a few ideas for possible ways forward.

The first thing that struck me when reading this book is that it is written with a balance of knowledge and passion that for me approaches wisdom. This mix is something I appreciate when a new radical concept is presented. Talking about wisdom, do not imply that everything in the book is correct, or that Wilson does not have personal grudges that makes the book difficult to read sometimes. It is clear that he does not care much about fame, money, or any other mainstream gratification. His focus is on biodiversity conservation and he really wants to know why we are not better when it comes to taking care of our planet.

The language is also very beautiful. Just read the introduction:

What is man?

Storyteller, mythmaker, and destroyer of the living world. Thinking with a gabble of reason, emotion, and religion. Lucky accident of primate evolution during the late Pleistocene. Mind of the biosphere. Magnificent in imaginative power and exploratory drive, yet yearning to be more master than steward of a declining planet. Born with the capacity to survive and evolve forever, able to render the biosphere eternal also. Yet arrogant, reckless, lethally predisposed to favor self, tribe, and short-term futures. Obsequious to imagined higher beings, contemptuous toward lower forms of life.

Have the evolution of humanity and our current highs and lows ever been better described better in less than ten sentences? Complementing the beautiful language are illustrations of different animals and plants from each chapter, such as the two waterleafs below.

waterleafs

The book is also entertaining. It is easy to imagine the kind of people that will be scared/frustrated and/or even angry when their lack of capacity to think beyond incremental change is exposed. The only time where he feels diplomatic (dishonest/not as frustrated as you can read between the lines) is when he talks about current conservation organisations. I understand that he does not want to make the people fighting for the same thing as he does frustrated, but I would have liked to see a more frank discussion about the limits of the current conservation strategies.

The discussion about current trends is very good. Wilson makes it clear that the fact that we over the last few years have managed to slow down the extreme speed of extinction cannot be seen as a victory. He is rightfully frustrated that too many are celebrating a slightly slower mass extinction as a victory.

The discussion about future trends is not as good as current trends, but still much better than most discussions out there (and definitely better than almost everything relating to biodiversity, as those books tend to ignore future disruptive trends). He addresses both macro aspects of biodiversity, population and lifestyles/technology. For the population he is long-term optimistic as much indicate that the population growth will stabilize when people move out of poverty, but he also acknowledges that before that stabilization we will have a lot more people on this planet. There is however not a discussion about the risk of continued population growth in the book. A serious omission, as the probability for continued population growth should not be dismissed (the continued population growth are a significant part of the of the UN populations probability curves).

For the global population, we know that we could see continued population growth well beyond 10-15 billion people. That we need to focus on how to avoid such scenarios should be highlighted in books like this. Population growth is a sensitive issue, so I understand that Wilson did not spend too much time on it. However, the risks with new technology would have been good to address in some detail.

He also discusses the potential for future technology breakthroughs, but that part is not very good. However, it is not often you find a hard-core conservation activist talking about biology, nanotechnology, and robotics.  Still, what is seriously lacking in these areas is a proper discussion about the risks, both technological and political

In Wilsons defence I would like to add that he is obviously aware of the dual nature of technology and writes:  “The explosive growth of digital technology, by transforming every aspect of our lives and changing our self-perception, has made the “bnr” industries (biology, nanotechnology, robotics) the spearhead of the modern economy. These three have the potential either to favor biodiversity or to destroy it.” But he needs to be careful as it will be too easy for people to interpret him as naïve when it comes to the problems with technology. I say this from personal experience, as someone who have spent a lot of time talking about the opportunities that technology provides. I know that it is important to keep in stressing obvious negative possibilities also as the current discussions about technology is very polarized.

The different stories from the field add to the overall narrative. Rather than an attempt to provide an authentic alibi that only feel artificial, as these kind of “snapshots from reality” tend to feel like, Wilsons stories from nature provide both a reminder of what is at stake, but also a glimpse into the experience that helped shape Wilsons passion for nature.

The outbursts of frustration that are sprinkled throughout the book are so good that those parts alone would make the book worth reading. I guess that says something about how good I think this book is. Just listen to this reaction by Wilson to those who dream about humanity evolving into a civilization capable of utilize almost unlimited amounts of energy. Here is a snippet from the book:

“Meanwhile, in imagination, we may attain the status of what the astronomer Nikolai Kardashev called Type I civilization, a society in control of all the available energy on Earth. Thus we conceivably could press on to Type II civilization, in control of available power in the Solar System, and even Type III civilization, taking control of all energy in the galaxy.

May I now humbly ask, just where do we think we are going—really?”

[…]

“We are still too greedy, shortsighted, and divided into warring tribes to make wise, long-term decisions. Much of the time we behave like a troop of apes quarreling over a fruit tree. As one consequence, we are changing the atmosphere and climate away from conditions best for our bodies and minds, making things a lot more difficult for our descendants.

And while at it, we are unnecessarily destroying a large part of the rest of life. Imagine! Hundreds of millions of years in the making, and we’re extinguishing Earth’s biodiversity as though the species of the natural world are no better than weeds and kitchen vermin. Have we no shame?”

The way Wilson describes the Kardashev scale (a scale to measure civilizations) and then put into context made me laugh hard and I hope some of those spending time on the Kardashev scale could reflect on the kind of issues Wilson discusses.

Further discussion needed The book is however far from perfect, as no really interesting book is. Below are six areas where I think further discussions in needed to take half-earth, or any serious conservation attempt forward:

1. A clear definition of half-earth and what is needed One of the major weaknesses is that there is no clear definition of half-earth.Where geographically should this half be (important from a biodiversity perspective and a human settlement perspective) and how connected must the different parts be? Perhaps even more important is what kind of protections from humans would this half have. Currently protected areas are categorized into seven categories. These range from “Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve” that is only light human use to “Category VI – Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources” where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation can take place. It is significant difference between the different categories and research has also shown that the categories with more intensive human activity often have significant problems. See for example the study “Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI” by Craig L. Shafer I find it difficult to imagine that Wilson would think it is enough to only have Category VI for half-earth.Also, currently there is no category that excludes all human use. In on our way to a half-earth future such a category, that moves beyond an anthropocentric perspective, should at least be explored.

2. Assessment of the direct and root causes of the biodiversity loss Another major problem is that Wilson does not provide an overview and assessment of the importance of different drivers of biodiversity loss. HIPPO (Habitat destruction, Pollution, Population growth, and Overhunting) is used to give an overview but it does not really say anything about the drivers. Also it is not very smart to include “population growth” as a separate category the way Wilson does. It is, as Wilson also writes, a multiplication of population and lifestyle that affects the biodiversity. The first example of a driver of biodiversity loss that Wilson use in the book is the Chinese craving for traditional medicine. This is obvious a significant problem, especially for some high profile animals, but it is insignificant compared to the western over-consumption lifestyle. A more detailed overview of different technology scenarios would also be very helpful, as this will affect the possibilities to deliver a half-earth solution. Many people skeptical to technology do not understand the enormous potential new technology has, but many technology optimists do not understand the risk we face and that current trends will result in a situation where new technologies are used to accelerate destructive trends and that new rules/regulations and values are needed to guide the development in a sustainable direction.

3. The arguments for half-earth A challenge for the half-earth idea, that hopefully can be turned into a strength, is that there are many arguments for it. Unfortunately Wilson does not provide much clarity in the book. Too often for my taste he uses short-term anthropocentric arguments; i.e. the species we threaten might have direct economic value to us, or that they provide some valuable “eco system service”. The survival of humanity argument is the anthropocentric argument I found most interesting, but I think much better probability data is needed if this is to support a half-earth strategy (most would argue that much less is needed for our survival). What is really lacking is more on the ethical side beyond the anthropocentric, especially as Wilson has introduced the very interesting concept of biophilia earlier.

4. The role of the poor, the responsibilities of the rich The need to move people out of poverty and create a more equitable society is something that must be integrated at the core of a half-earth strategy. Here Wilson is weak and that is strange. He does not even talk in general terms about the need to ensure that the poor will be helped by the half-earth process. He does not even mention the “poor” or “poverty” in his book and that feels very strange in 2016. I have no doubt that he has thought a lot about the issue as it is dominating most conservation discussions today. Perhaps he thought it was too obvious to include, if so I think he needs to rethink in future texts about half-earth.

5. The technical solutions needed There is no concrete discussion about what technical solutions that are needed to make a half-earth solution possible. Wilson only talks in general terms about new technologies, but to be convincing it would be good to have more clear idea about the kind of solutions that are needed, not just the technological solutions themselves, but the administrative, legal, and economic systems that will allow implementation of such solutions.

6. Animal rights The total absence of a discussion about animal rights and how we “use” animals today is surprising, especially as Wilson is supposed to have written the following in an earlier book “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people". We are already using economic arguments to excuse a system where animals are seen as products, so it is important to show how a half-earth strategy can avoid worsening the situation, and instead be part of the solution.

Possible ways forward Below are four areas that I think would be good to prioritize to get the discussion and action needed

1. Create a global map that outline how a half-earth would look like. Perhaps the name should change to “full-earth”, but still keep the half for us/half for them focus, to better reflect that we are on the path to an “almost-empty-earth” with current trends.

2. Calculate what natural resources that are needed to provide all that is needed for more than 10 billion people to live a good and equitable life, so that companies, governments, academics can develop guidelines that encourage solution that do not use more resources than that.

3. Based on the calculations above provide examples of different half-earth lifestyles with solutions from different companies/entrepreneurs. To demonstrate that an attractive life is not just possible, but would be better than what we have today.

4. Identify next steps towards half-earth, for all countries and governments, but with special focus on the G20 countries and Global Fortune 500 companies in order to initiate a race to the top.

I look forward to follow the meme of “half-earth” and it will be my latest additions to current ideas that are interesting to discuss using the Overton window.

The Climate Casino, by William Nordhaus

This is a book that surprised me. I was looking for example of a good overview of marginal approaches to climate change and simplified thinking in relation to extreme risk. But found some very solid arguments and ideas for more transformative approaches.

This was unexpected as Nordhaus has an agenda in this book that I do not fully understand. In some ways it looks as if Nordhaus wants to position himself as a moderate academic that accept the science, but also distance himself from people he thinks are to radical for the political thinking in the US. It is as if he wants to translate the science to republicans in the US who thinks the bible is more important than the scientific process and findings among climate scientists.

For large parts of the book that makes him simplify things in ways that are interesting, not for an understanding of climate change, but for those of us who do not experience people who question evolution and basic physical science on a daily bases.

Still from an extreme climate risk perspective (>6C warming) there are arguments and graphs included that makes this a very interesting book. I actually do not think Nordhaus himself intended his book to be interesting form that perspective, but due to the way he honestly argues with basic economic theory he highlight a number of issues that are very interesting.

For example, in the book he writes about thresholds and how they define almost everything. He also discuss, and use, the concept infinity (although I would argue that this is one of the areas where he is making a few key mistakes; see if you agree when you reed it. Hint, it is about shifting perspective from science to rhetoric then mixing them up) when analysing the long-term consequences.

Still, I agree with - what I see as - his two main arguments in the risk area:

1. That cost benefit assessment can help us to invest in a strategic way so that future generations can get it better (under the condition that future generations will still exist and that the pricing is approximately right. Neither of these are obviously true in mainstream economics when it comes to climate change)

2. That thresholds easily become what defines what kind of action that is needed, as the costs at a threshold are magnitudes larger than anything else in the equations. It’s also worth noting that such a defining threshold for action happens long before an “infinite impact”, i.e. an impact that threatens all human life.

Where I think he fails, is to discuss these two paradigms in relation to climate change. If ignoring thresholds and the need for dramatic changes is something that is necessary to reach consensus in the US he should clearly explain that the actions we will take is not related to what is needed. Hence, there might be a price attached to ensuring a broader agreement among US policy makers today. Such an agreement is obviously important, but it would be very interesting if Nordhaus wrote a book where he focused on an educated audience that accept the science, he’s got a sharp intellect to could help move low probability high impact aspects up the agenda. This would probably also be a more important long-term contribution.

How to find cost-efficient solutions where signifiant transitions are needed and there are multiple possible development paths are important economic challenges where people like Nordhaus are needed.