Changes arriving for the Future: Sometimes necessary things don't just spontaneously happen

     Back in 1811, the Luddite movement started in Nottingham, England. It was composed primarily of weavers and home textile workers who had lost their jobs as the looms and cloth production plants became automated. People who had developed skills all their lives, sometimes as a third or fourth generation craftsperson, found themselves with no way to support themselves and family. They would mask themselves and destroy factory equipment, trying to regain their livelihood.

     Of course, the tides of change overwhelmed them. Many suffered. Most survived and retrained with nostalgic stories of their past lives. They had no support from the English government which gave full violent support to the owners of the factories.

Technology changes whether we want it to or not

     This is not an uncommon scenario throughout history. The advancement of the automobile pushed horses (literally) out to pasture and changed roads, use of land, and an entire industry which went from supporting the living horse to support of the “iron horse” (which term was primarily applied to locomotive engines but could apply, in principle, to the personal automobile). As Danny Devito says in “Other People’s Money”, a couple of suppliers of horse harnesses and “buggy whips” survived and they probably made “the best buggy whips ever”. But the vast majority of leather workers had to find other outlets or trades.

     As is true with the climate, people are used to change. Humans have survived throughout the centuries because they are adaptable. They make tools, they move, they change their daily habits. But a mass of people can adapt to change that takes place over multiple generations (hundreds of year) much more easily than they can over a period of a couple of years or even a decade.

     Self-service options are available at more and more stores and fast food restaurants. At the grocery store, my wife and I avoid the self-checkouts. Why? Though, by ourselves, we do not make much difference we are putting on the brakes, just a little, on a transition that is happening too quickly for people to adapt to.

Rapid change requires coordination, including climate change

     Some islands (primarily in the Pacific Ocean) with only low elevation are disappearing. Their people need someplace to move to. Some areas that have crops used to regular rainfall are having periods of drought on a more frequent basis. They need crops that are bred for the newer climate and/or different crops that will work in the new climate. The same holds for areas that are now experiencing more rainfall — especially when it occurs in multiple brief periods causing flash floods and mudslides. New reservoirs may be needed and, preferably, they need to be designed such that they do not disrupt the local ecology too badly. I fear greatly what will happen as the glaciers, providing major sources of water to large populations, disappear.

     100-year-floods are now occurring every five years. Hurricanes are stronger and more frequent. Tornadoes are happening in areas of the US that have no recent memory of tornadoes. It is too soon to know if earthquakes, and reactivated volcanoes, have generally increased but there certainly have been a few global ones that were unexpected. When they happen off the coast, tsunamis need to be allowed for.

     Such phenomena are occurring now. In the relatively near future, they are likely to get worse. Population shifts need to be coordinated between governments. Support, in both transition subsidization as well as hybridization and crop planning, for farmers and resource harvesters needs to be increased. New building regulations need to be made to have housing better resistant to new weather disasters and climatic situations. Is your government actively working on such? The government in the US is definitely not.

Technology changes directly lead to economic needs.

     Some technology changes can make smooth transitions. People typing on computer keyboards is not much different from typing on typewriters (though the ease of mistake correction can lead to “bad” typing habits). Using calculators (or calculator apps on phones) is not that much different than using slide rules, although I am sure the manufacturers of slide rules would not agree with me. I received a beautiful bamboo slide rule for my high school graduation. Small iterations are noticeable but not alarming. Most people can adapt.

     The Luddites saw a transformation in a very few years that displaced their skills entirely. Right now, executives are being told all kinds of things about what AI can do and they are leery of continuing business as usual. Perhaps they are right but they are also running into situations where AI can NOT improve things in the ways they were told, or hoped. This AI bubble is making everything shaky and there is a decent possbility that a large section of workers will not just have to learn new skills in their profession but may have to change professions.

     There is a general consensus that AI will displace many administrative and clerical jobs. It is much less certain about the technology sector. Some high level administrators are loudly proclaiming that they can get rid of 90% of their staff. Others indicate only a minor change (primarily a requirement of AI experience before hiring). Only time will tell. However, the delay, and uncertainty, is putting new graduates in Computer Science through purgatory. Two of my sons are among them. Other disciplines, and recent graduates, are also affected but not as much as within technology majors.

     Consider a store, in which one quarter of its staff deals with collecting money from customers in transactions of buying products. If you have lots of stores no longer needing one quarter of its staff that adds up to a lot of people.

Will there be jobs available for those who want them?

     No one knows. Historically, technology changes have left holes that were rapidly filled as new technology led to new job types and positions. This change is somewhat different however in that both the repetitive labor jobs (automation) and creative/interpretative jobs (AI) are being assaulted. It is pretty well certain that new types of jobs will be needed and there must be a market for them in order to work within existing economic models.

     There is a definite possibility of further increases in income inequality. With continued automation and AI increments, a business might be able to reduce staff by 25 to 40%. Presumably, the workers remaining are the ones with the greatest experience and skills to continue to be useful in the business. If they are paid in accordance with their contributions then profits will be distributed in a more equal fashion. If the remaining staff continues to be paid the same as before, then profits will rise and be directed to the pockets of owners of capital and stockholders, which will increase income inequality.

     Populations continue to increase their average ages and the numbers in their oldest brackets. This is happening at the same time as population growth levels off or shrinks. Health care needs are expected to grow considerably but the economic system in the US does not support this and the US healthcare system is more and more expensive and much less dependable (on purpose to increase profits).

     Jobs that require physical presence should be safe through this shift in the job market. Trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, …) should be safe until automation/robotics is adequately flexible to do the same type of work. Social/health work will continue to grow as population ages and population pressures increase. In order for such to be paid, some changes in the infrastructure will be needed. Jobs requiring originality, creativity, and aesthetic judgement should continue to be safe and even potentially expanding. Note that it can be envisioned that continued advances of AI and automation might still put these positions in danger.

     What would those potential new jobs be? Most of them would exist in the “soft”, non-physical, job areas. The incorporation of such may require economic changes. The spread of wealth, or reduction of income inequality, would allow greater use of, and payment for, such new “soft” professions. That will be greatly resisted.

Conclusion

     Humans have survived for thousands of years because they can adapt to changes. But, for rapid change, coordination and planning is needed to minimize suffering and thrashing. In addition, concentration of wealth and resources to a very minor section of the population will make it much more difficult to create new job niches and categories with livable wages.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What is a Technoglot?

I am a geek, a dweeb, and a nerd. On the other hand, I have lived almost 50 years in the land of the "normal" and I have survived and have even thrived at times. I also started off with a love of languages -- studying French in high school, continuing with German and Russian in college or after, and working on Farsi and Spanish nowadays. In high school and college, I learned the basics (or more) of about 14 computer languages from assembler to JCL to COBOL to FORTRAN to LISP to C. I have also been involved with music (violin and voice), art (lithography and drawing), and "crafts" (which can also attain the level of art, in my opinion) such as weaving and woodworking.

Language shapes thought and thought shapes language. This is true of all languages, be they "natural" languages, computer languages, or the languages of music, art, and craft. The inclination of Russian speakers to enter into the passive form or the propensity of the French to fall into allusion and metaphor reflect (or mold?) the way they are perceived and interact with the world. A programmer starting from the object-oriented world will look at problems from an object-oriented viewpoint as someone starting from a "structured" language environment will have their own orientation.

And here we start to show the differences between languages. What does "object-oriented" mean? How does it differ from "structured"? What is allusion? What is passive? Even when we believe that we are speaking in the same language, our history, education, experience, and environment changes what we actually hear and understand. An Inuit may have more than a dozen words for "snow" and Greek may have five (or more) words for "love" but in order to translate that to a language which does not have those words you end up with a definition that is not always able to be used directly within the context of a sentence or thought. English has grown to be the most widely spoken (not necessarily first language) language in the world by its extreme inclusionistic attitude; if you don't have the word in English then adopt it.

Communication is the process of producing information, transporting it, and understanding it. This happens with speech which is created, spoken, and heard. Or with sign language which is created, formed, and seen. It also happens between a user and a computer which is essentially a task of translation from one medium (screen display, keyboard, mouse) and language (symbol, letter, position) to/from storage and analysis. It also happens directly between computers in a method of communication protocols.

Protocols consist of the syntax and semantics of a language. I have worked with protocols most of my life -- from learning English as a baby, to learning to program, to more than 20 years of design and implementation of protocols allowing both data and signalling communication between microprocessors (or computers, if you prefer). In this area, I have published books on Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (see "ISDN Implementor's Guide" at amazon.com) and Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) architectures ("ADSL: Standards, Implementation, and Architecture") which help to explain how these protocols work and can be used. From my work on these, and dozens of other data, transport, and signalling protocols, I have a sound foundation for understanding and defining other protocols that may not even yet be created.

Yet computer-to-computer protocols are still "easy". Why? Because the same definitions are used for the sender (transmitter) and receiver. If communication fails, it is because something was not implemented correctly or the definition of the protocol was faulty. So, it is altered until it does work.

But the the same is not true for user-to-computer and people-to-people communication. Why? Because people do not use the same language as other people or computers. Even people who are both, in theory, speaking the same language really are not. This is because their understanding (as opposed to hearing, seeing, or feeling) of the language is based on their own viewpoint which, in turn, is created by their history, education, and environment (physical, societal, and cultural).

So, back to the beginning and the title. What is a technoglot? It is someone who "speaks tech". In these blogs, I will strive to help understanding of technology for the non-technologist and to communicate ideas from one language to another. I hope that you have fun and that my blogs are useful.

Catalyst: Sometimes presence is all that is needed

 

     Catalysts are used in all kinds of chemical events. The presence of the catalyst allows other reactions to happen -- or happen more efficiently. At the end of the process, a catalyst is unchanged -- though it sometimes is directly used as part of a series of reactions during the process. In physical chemistry events, catalysts are often metals.

     Catalysts are called enzymes in biochemical events. The enzyme may be a protein or it may be ribonucleic acid (RNA). A simple description of the action of an enzyme would be that it acts as a specific carrier, or receptacle, where components may gather. (It is not always initially clear as to how a catalyst performs its task -- but finding out how sometimes has significant benefits with new processes and understanding.) The close proximity within the space of the receptacle speeds up, or causes, the further reactions between components. Afterwards, the enzyme is still available for the gathering of more components and continued processing.

     Catalysts can also exist in living events. Most events that come to mind immediately are not catalysts because, although they may cause considerable effects, they change in the process. A deluge may cause a mudslide or a flood but the form of the water will continue to change. It is not a chemical change but it is a physical change.

     A process that is not a catalyst can produce a catalyst. An earthquake may cause a river to be dammed which will form a lake. The lake will potentially not change (the level may change due to rain or drought) but the very presence of the lake will change the ecosystem with some animals, and plants, better able to survive and others less able to survive.

     A rock sticking up from a lake bottom will still be a rock sticking up from a lake bottom after a boat has hit it, causing the boat to sink. The dropping of a seed by a bird may start the process of a huge tree growing and the tree may become the center of a community.

     As you can see from the last few examples, the definition of a catalyst stretches from a physical, or biochemical, substance to that of things existing, whose presence causes changes to the area just because of their existence.

     In the area of social interactions and in business, a speaker can be a catalyst for change. Whether it is an "I have a dream" speech or a "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech -- words do have the power to cause others to create change. These can be considered as transient catalysts. The speeches do not change but they continue to exist only in recorded forms.

     But what about a person who just exerts a presence? An adult sitting (awake) in a room of children will usually have a quieting effect on the group. The presence of a  leader, or managerial observer, will often cause debate and discussion to be of a more constructive level. Perhaps it is because of an awareness that the person is capable of more than static presence -- that they can have active responses -- but the presence still matters.

     Finally, a leader can be a nexus of active example. Since they are no longer remaining in the same state, perhaps it is not proper to call them a catalyst. But, by being an active part, in isolation, their presence and activity may encourage others to participate.

Digital property: An opportunity for a marketing advantage

 

     I am in the process of downsizing -- primarily because the next place to which we move will be smaller (that place may be leaving the US) but also because having less means less to move, less to store, and less to be aware of. It is a form of simplification but some of that clutter is moved to the digital space rather than true elimination.

     I have had thousands of books (my highest total was around 3,500) and I have had hundreds of laserdiscs and, then, hundreds of DVDs (with a few Blu-Ray tossed in). My music library has been a more gentle transition as CDs became prevalent before I collected much -- but I still have a hundred LPs and 1,000+ CDs. I have moved from one format to another -- being blessed to have sufficient resources to be able to play this "keep up with technology" game. Moving all to digital is obviously the most compact (as of now) method for storage of text, graphics, audio, and video media.

     So, I am making what I expect to be the final transition of media for my collections. I have already found new homes for a couple thousand of my books and plan to find homes for almost all of the rest (I will retain a hundred or two of my most cherished ones). Our children have agreed to take some of them -- though the more recent generations have the wise tendency to not have lots of bulky things. (They have done the same "keep up with technology" game as I have -- but with videogames.)

     As I find homes for my physical media, some are "replaced" with digital copies. It is somewhat nuts for me to do that as my wife (who is much more practical and reasonable than I am in many ways) rents and borrows movies and books. But, as is true of many in my generation, I have been raised to consume and accumulate and recognition of that situation does not make it easy to live one's life differently.

     I mentioned above that I expect to continue to have a couple of hundred books. But CDs are hard to find new homes for -- and our children have not made a decision as to whether they want the CDs. I am keeping them for the time being. One thousand CDs weigh about 250 pounds (113.4 kg).

     A previous blog talked about the Houseboat Philosphy which expands on the idea of a houseboat (on Lake Union in Washington, to be specific) requiring the gross weight to stay below a certain limit. If more comes on, something goes off. 250 pounds of something that I have backed up in digital content seems like extra weight.

     But here we come to the "rub". All of the content I have imported into iTunes is now in Apple accessible format. If I get rid of the CDs and Apple (not likely but totally possible) decides to stop supporting audio media then I have lost my music collection. I was poking around a certain enormous online shopping site on which I have been a customer for 25 years. I was thinking about possibly dropping audiobook service. As I was looking through the possibilities, I came across the "by the way" fact that if I closed my account, I would no longer have access to any digital content -- a thousand (and still growing) books would no longer be "mine". If Apple decided to stop hosting digital movies, my 1000+ movies would be gone.

     If I have physical copies of books, records, CDs, DVDs, (laserdiscs, LPs) then they are mine. I can sell them, loan them, give them away, lose them, do a "Fahrenheit 451" on them or anything else I want. If I have a digital version of that content that is hosted by a company with its own format or theft control code then I am really only "leasing" the content. Digital books often cost the same as paperbacks -- but I have only very limited loan capabilities. If I die, my account must stay alive -- albeit as a "zombie" account -- for any of my family to continue to access "my" digital content and that is at the discretion of the digital storage provider.

     It is totally reasonable for a digital service provider to place restrictions on content such that it cannot be duplicated without additional royalties and service charges. It is also totally reasonable that, especially if the price is the same or greater, I should have the same ownership attributes for my digital property -- to give away, loan, or sell. I am certain that the companies can find someway to satisfy both needs. They just need incentive to do such. A company that finds a way to do that will immediately have a significant marketing advantage over all the other digital content providers. If no company will step up to the challenge, then legislation may be needed to protect property rights for the consumer.

Out-of-sync: When social evolution lags technical innovation

     Humans, as a whole, are very capable intellectually. They're "smart". They can figure out how to take something and improve it. They can take two or more, apparently unrelated, items and figure out something completely new that can be done by using all of them together in a way that has never been done before. This is called "technological advancement" or "technical innovation".
     This is good. It has allowed us to move from caves to weather-secure buildings with running water and toilets and to be able to go from point A to point B in hours rather than weeks or months. It has allowed us to be able to feed 100 people, for a year, from an acre of land rather than 20. In most areas of the planet, it has helped us to be able to spend some time each day doing something other than trying to survive.
     What humans, as a whole, are NOT very good at -- is using technology consistently for constructive purposes. We invent ways to initiate, and control, fire and some individuals start burning down forests, or houses, or even tying alternative health specialists to stakes and burning them. We figure out ways to communicate at the speed of light across the planet and use it to spread false information more quickly. We work on methods to cure disease and help those who have incurable problems to live more easily and efficiently -- then we use those same methods to create diseases that kill millions. These are examples of "social evolution" (or lack thereof 😢).
     This is an example of being "out-of-sync" (or out of synchronization). Technology becomes capable of certain actions before people have matured sufficiently to consistently make use of the technology for good. Another way of putting it is that technology advances faster than people's ability to use it properly -- and the spread between these two appears to continue to widen.
     In order to curtail this problem, of course, one of two solutions can be applied. The first would be to slow down technical innovation. This is unpopular and unenforceable. As stated at the beginning -- humans, as a whole, are very capable intellectually. If one government, or group of people, agreed to slow down technological development in one area then another group of people will be completely willing, and able, to proceed on the development path on their own. A similar method could be done on an individual basis (since usually there is someone who is first with a technical innovation) with that person deciding to slow down, or withhold, research or results. This might work for a while but it disrupts many social policies of reward and competition.
     The other thing to do would be to accelerate social development. This sounds great but it also has problems. One problem is there no way to accelerate social development universally. In other words, if you have a nuclear bomb it only takes ONE finger to "push the button". And, within current economic patterns, there is no incentive to devote the resources (time, people, energy, "money") to help people to develop socially; there is no direct, short-term, "profit" from a more mature, socially capable, human.
     So, we have a problem. The problem doesn't appear to have a solution. They why talk about it? Because awareness of the problem is, in itself, an approach to a solution. If most scientists and engineers and tinkerers keep this problem in mind then technology can be presented in such ways that constructive ideas are promoted before destructive ones. This doesn't stop abuse but it does reduce it and slow it down. Such awareness can also avoid the social problem of technical abandonment -- "I just invented it -- it's not my responsibility how it is used". A true, but very lazy, excuse.
     Do you have any suggestions as to how to keep technical innovation and social responsibility at the same point?

Money as Energy: Increasing the pool of money

    In the previous post, I talked about how money is basically an abstraction of the combination of resources, labor, and energy. We are fortunate that we do, presently, have more than adequate amounts of each. Distribution of such, however, is very uneven and, thus, causes areas of poverty, famine, and other physical and social lacks.

    I ended the previous post with the idea that -- although our current problems are more concerned with distribution rather than actual shortages -- the New Age idea of an unlimited pool of money is not currently a reality. Is there anything to be done about that? Is there actually a way that everyone can have more (even with distribution problems)?

    To address that question, it comes back to the three components of money -- resources, labor, and energy. It also requires a fourth "catalyst" which is technology. By using technology, energy can be converted into additional resources and increased labor availability. This argues that energy is the prime limiting factor within economics.

    We can look around at the world and see how the availability of energy (applied via technology) has increased the "wealth" of the world. Farmers, via the use of equipment (using energy and technology to create and energy to keep active), can produce much greater amounts of food than what one person working the ground with manual labor can do. Harvesting of material resources -- trees, ores, fish -- are possible on a much larger scale than a single person could do making use only of manual labor (allowing a hand-built boat and fishing equipment).

    The above paragraph indicates how energy (with technology assistance) can increase the amount of labor. It does NOT increase the amount of resources. But the amount of food for people has been increased -- isn't that an increase in resources? No, it isn't -- because the ecological pyramid has not changed. The amount of base-level food has not increased. The plankton, plants, and other solar-using food plants have not increased. The labor has been used to change the varieties of food harvested and the distribution of the food (from other animals to people). In fact, due to pollution and other side-effects of application of energy to increase labor, the total amount of food resources may go down (decrease in sea life in general, decrease in fish population, decrease in non-human animal population).

    Can energy increase resources available to us? Yes, in two ways. The first is a continuation, and expansion, of what we presently do -- redistribution. We find other, more energy intensive, methods of accessing resources. However, this often has negative environmental effects and is also just speeding up the use of resources. So, although it increases resources available on a short-term basis, it does NOT increase the amount of resource. A second aspect of this (still redistribution) is to bring resources from other places -- the asteroid belt, for example, is a potential area from which to redistribute resources.

    The second method of increasing resources requires much higher levels of energy. Besides the potential of alchemy (changing one element into another -- possible with huge amounts of energy), there are many endothermic reactions possible with increased energy available. Endothermic means "requiring the absorption of heat". Thus, it is possible to convert raw elements into more complex molecules and, finally, into "organic" materials needed for human eating, or use for furniture, or such. This is actually a metamorphosis of resources and not an increase -- but it's "close enough" for our uses.

    So, with energy, the pool of "money" becomes bigger. Distribution remains a major problem. A larger problem is making sure that the energy is renewable -- we do not want to empty the bank as that would cause widespread catastrophe for the existing economy. The other problems aren't directly concerned with energy-as-money but are related to social, and environmental, responsibility for using it in a life-affirming way.

What makes high tech "high"?

People, and the media, talk a lot about "high tech"? But what is high tech? Warren Buffett says that he does not invest in high tech -- not because he thinks that it is bad but because he feels that it is wisest to invest in companies that one understands. This allows a good understanding of the business and the market and the managerial capability to run the company.

High tech exists because of all of the levels of technology upon which it relies. Thus, it is at the apex (or top) of a very large pyramid. This is reflected by our education and what we are expected to be able to do at different periods of our education.

At the bottom of the pyramid are "simple machines" and, as listed in Susan Kristoff's "Introduction to Simple Machines", scientists in the Renaissance period listed six devices for simple machines. These are the lever, the wheel and axle, the pulley, the inclined plane, the wedge, and the screw. In order to create, or make use of, simple machines, a variety of "simple tools" are required -- such as hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches, pliers, saws, and shovels. To this list, I would add cutting instruments such as knives and chisels.

Of course, when you read through lists such as this, you will find yourself saying -- but what about scissors, and bolts, and nuts, and ...? Just because the Renaissance scientists made a specific list of six items doesn't mean that everyone will feel that is THE correct list. For example, I could argue that the wedge and the inclined plane are variations on the same thing. I would actually be tempted to classify into categories of mechanical movement such as lifting, pushing, pulling, and rotating.

It really doesn't matter. The fact is that there are some basic machines and tools that exist at the bottom of the pyramid. By using such basic devices, we can produce "low tech" -- a swing set, a door, a teeter-totter (for those that remember such ), pogo sticks, and so forth. These can all be easily built using basic devices and tools. Of course, the degree of "finish" for something will depend on the quality of the tools and the experience of the craftsperson. I can create hinges and a door but you probably wouldn't want it on the front of your house.

We now reach into the "middle technology" category. Note that things are not REALLY so nicely divided as something may easily be broken into parts that are of various levels of needs. When we get to middle technology, we get to phonographs (for those who remember such), steam engines, paddlewheels, flour mills, ships, and so forth. These are items where you might appreciate the work which goes into them but aren't likely to cause you to gasp with astonishment. And many moderately experienced modern young adults can probably make such. They take knowledge, tools, and the ability to design and follow directions. I could probably make a horrible sounding, but functional, record player (and record). Neither Bose nor Boston Acoustics will lose sleep over that.

Now, we come to high tech. High tech requires the use of middle tech tools and machines to create their products. A CD player requires the ability to create lasers, and smoothly precise rotating movements, and a lot of semiconductor chips, and wiring and special metals and materials. I could NOT create a CD player without first creating a lot of things that I would need prior to being able to create the CD player. High tech requires middle tech which requires low tech. And that is the real story -- high tech builds upon other techs.

http://technoglot.blogspot.com