An unpaid debt?

Collective Responsibility

Do you, like me, find yourself questioning whether we are precipitously close to tipping our planetary home beyond a point of no return sometime soon? A point upon which nature would casually shake us off as a dog might shake off water after an outing into a lake?

I have been a keen follower of world events for many years now. Thanks to the Internet we are more aware than ever of the relentless destruction and over exploitation of our world’s natural resources that is happening every day. Resources that it is dubious that we could ever rightfully claim ownership of in the first place. As we endlessly continue to exploit and consume I find myself forced to consider the question: When might this colossal debt need to be paid back?

Rather than seeing ourselves as the almightily powerful and rightful owners of this ball of spinning mass in outer space, I am wondering if all along we have merely been trustees tasked with keeping it in good working order for the benefit of all life that exists upon it?

It is apparent to me that nature has her own means to make us take note and consider our position. One might even wonder whether she has already started to do so. But will we take heed in time? There is no greater danger to humankind right now than the existential threat of self-destruction. I am not at all convinced that the majority of my  fellow humans across the globe have yet realised just how serious this is. Right now, I’m not even sure if it is possible to find a way back out of this dead end, but we would be absolute fools to not even bother to try!

Every day I am grateful to this planet for providing me with the resources I need to stay alive and be this entity that I call ‘me’. Every day that I continue to see nature abused for profit or greed I remain determined to do what I can, in my own small way, to at least try and change what might otherwise be an inevitable outcome. There is too much on the line right now, we owe this to future generations surely?

With this in mind, the future is not looking like a great place to be right now. If we somehow manage to avoid the ever present risk of nuclear war in the first instance then there is likely to be even greater inequality and competition for resources in the not too distant future. If we already look bad for our selfish ways now then what might we look like when there is more to feed and less to feed them? This truly is a recipe for disaster and it will take the utmost will and determination to have any hope of changing this.

This will not be an easy task, the most intelligent species on the planet is unfortunately not worthy of that title. Ignorance and greed abound. This job will require some help, if you have a care in the world like me perhaps you might join me and the other contributors to this site and we can open an organic discussion as to how we might restore some balance back into the World?  If I didn’t believe in my ability to cause change I would have not even bothered to write this. And if you did not in some way believe in what I have written you would probably not even bothered to read this far.

The collective power of determined individuals should not be understated. As a collective we have more power than we realise. I hope that you will take this opportunity to participate in the solution rather than the problem. Perhaps you already have some clear ideas about where our species has gone wrong in the past, and on that basis how we might avoid making similar mistakes in the future? If you would like to contribute to this site with your own blog posts on the theme of ‘Collective Responsibility’ then please get in touch. If you have any other ideas, comments, suggestions, feedback or anything else to offer then any help is welcome. Whatever brought you here, I hope you now leave with a bit more to think about than when you arrived…

If you would like to subscribe for more discussion and articles like this please use the link provided. Thank you.

 

Advertisements

The Race to Automate

Collective Responsibility

It is hard not to notice the surge in interest in producing driverless technology of late. It seems most car manufacturers and plenty of big technology firms are desperately trying to get their PC’s on wheels into the public domain as quickly as possible and whilst some countries and governments have rallied against idea (India a prime example) they are definitely in the minority. A far greater proportion of countries and governments however seem to exhibit considerable excitement at the prospect of autonomous travel.

I wonder to myself why this may be, when I think it is fair to say there is pretty low demand for driverless technology among the general population. I would almost go as far as to suggest that some of us actually enjoy driving so why would we want computers to have all the fun? Where is the driving force for this technology really coming from (excuse the pun)? Well, let’s consider the amount of money logistics and delivery firms could potentially save not paying human drivers wages. That would surely be huge, the incentive there alone must surely be enough to convince any capitalist profit hungry mega corporations with a glint in their eye for a few more billion in the bank (or the off shore accounts). Let’s be realistic, pretty much all the demand for this technology is being generated by the entities that stand to make the most money from it and they will throw vast sums of money at capitalist and any other governments open to donations to support their cause – thereby providing the framework for the prophecy to fulfil itself.

Over the course of my life I have had cause to use computers a great deal, having experimented with programming in a variety of languages and seeing the technology rise from being ‘something for geeks’ to becoming something that is intrinsically woven into the fabric of our lives. Computers are without a doubt really useful, in fact in many ways they are essential and we would struggle to do lots of things without them, but would I trust a computer and it’s man made algorithms in an autonomous driving vehicle on the road with other human drivers? Not a chance.

I can envisage countless scenarios where humans will ALWAYS be the most capable of making the best decisions in a split second when compared to algorithms and a set of electronic sensors. It’s not just the obvious stuff like what is around you, driving is so much more than that and the argument that it will make the roads safer is utter nonsense. Unless you remove all humans from the roads (and I can guarantee that it something that will never happen) there will always be an element of unpredictability and algorithms can only cope with so much unpredictability. We encounter it so much on a daily basis that it’s become very much instinctive as to how we deal with it.

Consider if you will, the other senses that we have at our disposal, the ability to hear things coming – I’m sure driverless cars can and may already be fitted with sound sensors, but the amount of data they may need to process at any one time, it is ridiculous to expect a computer to pick out a hazard from the noise around it. How will an autonomous vehicle know a beep from another car near it is not intended for itself? How will it know that the car that has just flashed its lights at it is saying a ‘thank you’ rather than there is a problem with your headlights? I mean we struggle enough with these sorts of scenarios let alone leaving it to Windows 95 on wheels!

Of course it’s not just our sight and our hearing, we also have highly refined sensors to ‘feel’ and react to all sorts of vibrations, from the smaller ones; such as when you can feel a strong gust of wind blow your vehicle into the path of a large lorry a long way ahead of you. With a human driver of said lorry you will find that most capable lorry drivers are quickly able to apply the appropriate reaction to counter this effect. But you need to be ready to react as well, and as a human you are already prepared for the possibility. A computer driven vehicle is making decisions based on data that is to all intents and purposes incomplete and at times irrelevant. The small vibrations are one thing but when an autonomous car does have an accident and crash into something (note there are no if’s here!) how can its mixture of damaged and still functional sensors detect the most appropriate response to ensure the best possible end result in terms of safety? I believe the proponents of driverless technology hugely underestimate the adaptability of humans in comparison to computers. It is no secret that most accidents are caused by humans, that’s never going to go away but putting soulless monolithic technology with vague accountability into the mix of real world drivers definitely won’t improve that, if anything it will make things worse!

When I say driving is so much more than vision that is a massive understatement. There are so many subtle nuances that come with driving in the real world that just can’t be picked up by computers, the barely detectable hand gestures or facial expressions from other (human) drivers, the moments in driving situations where nobody is sure who has right of way to go first and either everybody goes at the same time causing a gridlock, or it is up to someone to go first and hope for the best. The roadworks, the pedestrians, the drunk pedestrians, the temporary traffic lights, the animals running across the road, the damaged parts of the roads, the natural disasters and sinkholes, you name it, we know how to deal with it better. The roads in the US are one thing, long and wide a lot of the time, lots of space and more than a few half decent places to try out this technology, but if you have ever driven in Europe there is level upon levels of complexity to add to this and to take into account. Smaller windy roads, tiny carriageways that only have space for one vehicle at a time to pass through in either direction at various points along their length, and we haven’t even mentioned the ‘r’ word!

If you have ever driven in Europe and navigated a simple roundabout then that’s one thing but in the UK there are these unique things such as double roundabouts, even triple and quadruple roundabouts! There are places in Europe where the roundabouts are so fiendishly complex to navigate your way around that even with advanced electronic sensors to match most human senses I can envisage most driverless technology experiencing the driving equivalent of the Windows Blue Screen of Death! If I could pick one example that is like no other, go and see the Arc de Triomphe in Paris at any busy time of day (which to be fair is pretty much all the time anyway) and prove to me that any computer in the world could cope with that, let alone do so consistently! It is pure and utter chaos on a grand scale, everyone taking their lives in their hands at any given moment and we actually want to entertain the idea of adding stupid driverless vehicles into this madness?! It’s asking for trouble but we give computers too much credit to expect them to cope. They can’t and they won’t.

Here’s my humble take on how I expect driverless technology to play out for the next 5-10 years: the proponents of it (have) and will come to realise that it is much more complicated a problem than they first thought. But by the time Uber, Amazon, Google and all the other firms peddling these wares realise this it will be too late and in some places around the world very real and terrible accidents are going to occur and there will be plenty of legal wrangling over accountability. Some of these firms are going to find themselves facing some significant legal bills and whilst there will be some places where the technology can and will work reasonably well, there will be horror stories coming in from other places and reputations and share prices will be made or broken. And let me also throw in the huge protests that will come with this technology. To the enterprising capitalist keen to pay the least possible price for deliveries, logistics or human transportation, once this technology does start to gain traction there will be huge job losses in industries that employ millions around the world. These people, who rely on their ability to drive to pay the bills are not just going to disappear quietly and go off and find new careers easily, you can expect a very hostile reaction from them and understandably so.

We’re still in the early stages of letting this monster out of the box, there are various ways this could play out and right now we have still have the ability to shape our own destiny with this to some extent. But as a society and as a species we have a duty to ensure that we do not just arbitrarily accept the notion that computer controlled vehicles will make us safer, and we should certainly question the motives and the need for this technology in the first place. In our race to create the most advanced machines to do more and more demanding tasks we forget that the most advanced being in the (known) universe that requires the least power and fuel to do the widest range of tasks is reading this very sentence.

The site is called collective responsibility and I think in this area, like many others we do have a responsibility to do what is most sensible and responsible rather than what can generate the most profit. My opinion, for what it’s worth is that rather than trying to integrate the world of human and driverless vehicles, why not create new roads for the driverless vehicles and let them only have to deal with other computers that (one would hope) have far greater predictability than humans and could also offer a genuine possibility to not only be safer and just maybe even save on journey times! I have not come across many other mentions of this potential solution in my reading elsewhere on this topic but I would certainly be interested to know if others are making similar propositions? Yeah there is no doubt this approach is going to cost more, but might it be a price worth paying for getting this right?

Deciphering ‘Collective Responsibility’

Collective Responsibility

The suggested topic heading is:-

“Collective Responsibility”

accordingly, I offer the following:-

Collective responsibility

let us examine the term,

firstly then the word responsibility

is it about a response?

Might it be about something that’s done again? Thereby possibly highlighting the first two letters:- re-,

might it be asking or indicating how one responds?

At the end of the day, what EXACTLY is a responsibility? Who or what provides the criteria by which we might measure this phenomena?

What parameters, if any, do we use in order to delineate, or place boundaries on our responsibilities?

We might now move on to the word Collective, this word implies a choice, referring to the part of the word that says “lective”,

then the prefix- “co”, often indicating togetherness, or with.

Together then, the two words, “collective responsibility”, might imply “choices” (electives”, which we make in conjunction with others.

This brings to mind a single word:-

“consensus” !

Often throughout our  (humanities) “recorded history”, there is a lot of forced, might that be enforced collective responsibility ?

There are also recorded instances of collective responsibility which appear to have been voluntarily entered into.

Humans, could indeed work together, however because we are human we are constantly looking for either the catch, or, how we as individuals might benefit from this alleged cooperation.

The “what’s in it for me” syndrome.

I remember a quote, now I’m not sure which American president it was that said it:-

” ask not what the country can do for me , but ask instead what can I do for my country?”

using this as a basis one might alternatively ask:-

not how can the rest of Mankind help me, but instead, ask how might I in my small way help others?

This more inclusive thought might offer the beginnings of something we might refer to as collective responsibility.

Submitted by The-Ancient-Hive@outlook.com

Working in the Old ways

 

Is Intelligence a myth?

Human Intelligence

Vitruvian_Man_by_Leonardo_Da_Vinci_small

Humans like to ascribe some credence to their endeavours and discoveries as going some way to proving that they are intelligent beings, but is it fair to judge the achievements of a few as the sum of progress for the whole?

As many attempt to move ever closer to the holy grail of Artificial General Intelligence I cannot help but wonder if we humans are even qualified to determine if something else is ‘intelligent’ when we could scarcely prove our own intelligence, let alone that of an inanimate object. Are we just kidding ourselves into believing we are a truly intelligent species or are we intelligent but with caveats perhaps?

Would a truly intelligent being display such belligerence to its life support machine? An author, polymath and widely regarded knowledgeable person that I have found myself paying particular attention to of late is Noam Chomsky. Mr Chomsky puts forward a very interesting question in a number of his publicly available talks on YouTube. He raises the question, is it better to be smart or stupid?

If we look at the evidence available so far it would appear that being the most ‘aware’ mammal on the planet has done us very few favours. The ‘so called’ lower forms of life, do not seem to exhibit our self-destructive tendencies. In fact there is much evidence to suggest other forms of life have learned (now there’s an interesting word!) to work together to serve a common and unifying purpose. One has to wonder if this world might be a better place without us altogether.

Has this alleged increase in intelligence (or is it just awareness) over the course of our evolution brought with it unparalleled arrogance? Without any recent tangible evidence of Gods existence in the modern world have some now decided that through technology they can now assume the role for themselves? I note with considerable alarm the comments of certain influential members of society who identify as ‘trans-humanists’ that are eagerly wanting to upgrade their particularly limited human bodies so that they can live for hundreds of years through technological advancements.

I will come back to this particular topic in another post as I find the whole subject of how to attempt to cheat death in this way quite narcissistic, but for now I will simply pose the following question: did the trans-humanists ever stop to consider that they are actually meant to die to satisfy their right to live? Our technological developments have brought many wonders to the world, few would dispute this, but for every ground breaking way we find to save lives we cannot help ourselves from inventing (or discovering) ways to end them – is this the behaviour of intelligent beings? The ego in some of us still seems to be rigidly stuck with the ‘I’ worldview rather than the ‘We’ and for those egoists that cannot accept their mortality I struggle to understand why they are not putting all of their effort into making the future a more desirable place to be before trying to reach it before anyone else?

Despite the wishes of the transhumanists I am of the opinion that nature is and always has been one step ahead of us. We are learning all the time, more and more people are starting to wake up from this slumber and realise that we are all in this together, to do nothing is to wait for the end credits. I would like to put the idea forward that right now, as I write this, human consciousness is still evolving and perhaps much more than we realise.

Are we starting to regain an awareness that has faded into obscurity since the days of our early ancestors, the recognition that all life is joined together like the strands of a spider’s web? Upset the balance at our peril. We are yet to prove our true claim to the lofty realms of intelligent beings but what we can probably start to claim with some confidence is our ever increasing awareness that we are both the problem and the solution to most of the threats to our existence.