ONE
SECOND TO MIDNIGHT
A striking and familiar image has been used to put the human race into its cosmological context.
If the span of time from the formation of the earth until now be represented by a complete twelve-hour cycle of the clock face, then all human pre-history and history takes place in the last tick of the clock before midnight.
It would appear that we are now in the last few nanoseconds of this countdown.
As implied by my Editorial Chaos and Catastrophe, it
might be that the relatively minor deflection of a major trend
could avert our otherwise inevitable plunge into a scenario of
very real chaos and catastrophe. All we need is the insight, the
means and the will to bring it about.
1. IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE?
In the late fifties a renewed interest arose in the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy or its neighbours. Several factors contributed to this: astronomical insights, theories of how life originated and the universality of the evolutionary process, our own widespread use of telecommunications throughout the electromagnetic spectrum.
The number of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy was calculated on the basis of certain assumptions, and it was thought that even the most pessimistic estimates would amount to half a million or so.
The "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" was given the acronym "SETI", and various radio-telescopes undertook modest programmes of scanning certain sectors of the sky using some logically-selected microwave frequencies. In 1967 excitement arose over some apparently-coded signals, but these were soon understood to be the product of "pulsars" - very rapidly rotating stars that were remnants of collapse following supernova explosions.
To date, nothing even remotely indicative of intelligent communicating extraterrestrial lifeforms has been received.
Should we wish ourselves to transmit even a simple message - such as a series of primary numbers - then a vast amount of power would be required even to reach the nearest stars a few light-years away.
In the seventies, ingenious message plaques were attached to space probes which, after their missions were accomplished, would continue indefinitely through space. The thought was that they might eventually be intercepted and understood by remote intelligent beings who would at least then know that there had once been another civilised race in the universe and where they had been located.
There are two factors which work against even the remotest chance of a "SETI" programme achieving success. One is the vastness of interstellar distances. The other is a consideration that has profound significance for us at the present time, namely: how long typically will a technologically-advanced civilisation remain at peak, or even survive as a race? Are there one or more short-term self-destruct mechanisms inherent to such a stage in a dominant species?
By technologically advanced I mean with atomic power, electronics, significant technical infrastructures and at least some ability to undertake off-planet excursions.
The human race has been at this stage for less than half a century and, despite the entertaining hypotheses of some imaginative writers, I am quite certain that we are the first such generation. Were it not so, then palaeontology would have shown otherwise. The same applies to "theories" that suggest extraterrestrial intervention at an earlier stage of human evolution.
Therefore we have no precedents for our situation, and can
only speculate on the range of possible outcomes. Should it be
that our type of advanced civilisation is inevitably doomed to be
merely a brief flicker of light before the plunge into darkness,
and that this universally applies in all such cases, then SETI
becomes irrelevant. The "windows of opportunity" for
interstellar communication become vanishingly small, and in any
event no-one would be around to react to, and follow-up, any
response to messages.
2. HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
No one likes being a prophet of doom, unless their forebodings can serve to alert people to potential danger and provoke adequate remedial measures. Such motivation will tempt many writers to heighten the gloom and exaggerate the dangers so as to expedite the desired responses. The cumulative effect of a succession of these types of pronouncement, each followed by the non-appearance of the predicted disaster, is to induce a complacent "we've heard it all before" attitude on the part of some. However, in many cases awareness levels have been raised, attitudes changed and actions undertaken in consequence.
In the eighteenth century the Reverend Malthus wrote an essay in which he propounded that populations grow by geometrical progression while means of sustenance can only increase by arithmetical progression. The former will always overtake the latter. Therefore, in the absence of commensurate checks and balances (natural or otherwise) an inevitable crisis will occur sooner or later. This thesis is indisputable (only the time-frame is open to debate) and was taken up by many writers.
Following the second world war, the "cold war" confrontation between the superpowers gave rise to a very well-founded apprehension that a "showdown" involving nuclear escalation could indeed lead to planetary extinction. Ironically, the activities of unilateral disarmament advocates made such an outcome more, rather than less, likely. However, in the event, the threat of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) maintained an uneasy balance for more than forty years - long enough for the major confrontation to ease and a new, more fragmented, situation to develop. (Although I have no direct knowledge of this, I have little doubt that it was the assessments and recommendations of the military computers possessed by both sides - programmed to evaluate threats, responses and consequences - that restrained the impetuosity of the warlike and with their cold logic maintained the "cold peace".)
This new situation is far less predictable than its predecessor, and gives rise to some very real concerns which might almost tempt one to yearn for the good old days of the "MAD" standoff!
The sixties saw a major revolt against traditional values and also an upsurge of concern about the environment, ecology and pollution. Unfortunately these two aspects tended to overlap, giving rise to the image of the bearded "eco-freak". It is a pity that so many good causes are taken over by the lunatic fringe and thereby lose credibility.
Political polarisation can also confuse the issue: we have seen that the "greedy capitalists" - although by no means blameless - have in fact inflicted less long-term damage to the planet than have the leaders of the "glorious proletarian revolution".
Nevertheless, the apprehensions of those who predict ecological disasters should be heeded - and to some extent have been.
Would that the warnings of Malthus, simple and incontestable as they are, could bring about a general recognition and universally-agreed course of action. However, this issue provokes such contention of political persuasion, ideology, class, nationality, race, religion and much else that such a responsible outcome is too much to hope for. There are too many conflicting parties for any agreement to be possible, and this applies to all the major issues that confront us in resolving the problems of our "terminal society".
In previous pages I have adumbrated the "doomsday scenario" of our present situation. All the trends are clearly apparent, and daily impinge on our awareness.
The problem in forecasting outcomes is that as each aspect nears crisis it will provoke extreme and desperate actions (and barbaric purges) on the part of opportunistic power groups that will modify the scenario. However, to leave matters to be resolved in this manner would be a deplorable abdication of responsibility and would result in the triumph of evil - and in human misery and despair on an unimaginable scale.
This is where I find myself in ideological conflict with the many intelligent, kind-hearted and compassionate people who, while opposing any objective recognition of the stark underlying realities, in effect seek to bind the wounds and ease the hardships (often self-inflicted) of a multitude who are moving inexorably towards the protracted and ghastly nightmare that inevitably awaits.
How easy it is to characterise any attempt to control this drift as "elitist" and "fascist".
How difficult to take the painful and contentious decisions that might avert the ultimate disaster.
I forget who it was that said: "You must be ruthless in decision and compassionate in action", but I subscribe to the sentiment. However, any human leader who sought to carry out a rational policy in this respect would almost certainly be overthrown by an incongruous alliance of disparate ideologies.
So who could impose such a programme? Should it be a synod of
wise men, an omniscient deity, a benign super-being from another
galaxy....or a computer?
3. WHO IS IN CONTROL?
The social insects, such as ants and bees, have been on this planet for scores of millions of years.
Quite possibly they could be around for at least as long again after the human race has ceased to exist.
What is the secret of their success? They live in hierarchical communities, each individual knows its place and is dedicated to the service of the group, they have total communication and common purpose. They have no dependency-culture underclasses, crime or power politics.
Neither do they have individual minds and aspirations - nor do they have technology.
It is almost as if each community were governed and controlled by a pre-programmed computer in which the individuals are redundant elements.
However successful they may be in their ecological niches there is no way in which we would wish to emulate their organisation. Human beings are essentially individualists - this is both our strength and our (potentially fatal) weakness.
Despite their individuality, people can often submerge their identities and function as a crowd or mob which then becomes a compound entity with the characteristics of the "lowest common denominator". Demagogues and rabble-rousers exploit this tendency in pursuit of their aims, and many inadequate people seem to find a release and fulfilment in such a surrender. Some religious movements also create this type of mob-psychology situation.
Military organisations and armies are hierarchically structured with a detailed pattern of specialisations, and so long as discipline and control remain intact they can function remarkably well as a co-ordinated mass in achieving predetermined objectives.
Such principles have been applied to the government of nations from the feudal societies of the Middle Ages to the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.
In some situations, and over certain periods, these regimes have been effective - sometimes even beneficial. However, they are oppressive and can stultify the human spirit and its innate genius. Their more recent manifestations have brought about a widespread belief in democracy as the only acceptable form of government.
While democracy may be seen as the most effective counter to tyranny, it has many inherent defects and weaknesses. Consensus politics give rise to compromising, manipulative and exploitive politicians - more concerned with achieving and retaining power than with solving the real long-term problems.
Democracy is also opposed to meritocracy: it promotes "conforming down" tendencies in culture and education, and leads to the "apotheosis of the sub-norm".
Civilisation with a prefrontal lobotomy!
With these trends comes a worldwide loss of faith in institutions, resulting in selfishness, lawlessness and violence on the part of many. Incongruously, this has been accompanied by a heightened sentimentality and overindulgent compassion on the part of others. Some take refuge in pre-rational mysticism or "feel-good" causes.
In developed countries we live in a civilised society which possesses high culture (in which I include pure science) and advanced technology. However, the majority do not participate in the former nor do they truly understand the latter - and they tend to distrust those who do!
Perhaps they have good reason. The pronouncements of "experts" (particularly in the psuedo-sciences) are notoriously fallible.
Intelligence and wisdom do not necessarily correlate. Some of the world's greatest minds have succumbed to megalomania, instability and paranoid delusions.
So we have no effective control over the destiny of our race.
We are just muddling along!
4. THE CUSPS OF FATE
I referred in one of my Editorials to the Mathematics of Chaos and Catastrophe Theory. The fascination of these concepts is that they appear to show that incredibly tiny factors can bring about total changes in enormous systems.
This runs counter to "commonsense", which would assume that the major deflection of an overwhelming trend must require a proportionately large force.
A fanciful image is that of a flap of a butterfly's wings triggering a typhoon thousands of miles away. Of course, it would be impossible to establish a causal relationship between these two events but (in theory) if all the other factors were in balance and cancelled each other out then the typhoon event would be in a "cusp" and the minutest force could bring it about.
It is tempting to look at history from this aspect and to identify relatively trivial causes that might appear to have brought about truly global manifestations.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Karl Marx - an obscure German refugee scribbling in the reading room of the British Museum - wrote Das Kapital and thereby set in train a political movement that changed the lives of more than half the world's population.
On 28 June 1914 the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo precipitated the first World War - one of the most catastrophic events in world history.
Of course, the "trigger event" in such examples need be no more than one of many possible trifles any of which could have brought about an event that was "just waiting to happen". An analogy might be that of a "hand-clap" in the Alps resulting in the great avalanche that was poised on the edge and would have occurred at about that time as a result of any insignificant perturbation.
In cases like these we do not have a true "cusp" in which either of two widely-differing outcomes could be equally possible.
By the time that a disastrous impending asteroid-strike on our planet became predictable it would probably be too late to take any effective action. However, there could have been at least one occasion during its approach when various gravitational pulls were so close to equilibrium that it could have been in a cusp, and a small deflecting force could have changed its dire trajectory.
The disaster truly facing the human race would seem to be not one of a single cataclysm, but that of a succession of trends leading to breakdowns which cumulatively (and appallingly) will destroy the entire fabric of civilisation. Degenerate survivors, should there be any, will have reverted to the Stone Age and might - or might not - recreate civilisation after a millennium or two (although by then the loss of the best genetic material could have become irreversible).
Some of these trends may still be in cusp, and susceptible to minor deflections which could convert vicious into benign spirals.
Others are well advanced and near-inexorable, and would require Draconian countermeasures. Only a computer could have the objective subtlety to tackle the first category and the impartial ruthlessness to deal with the second.
Some decisions are too painful and contentious to be made by
human beings. Few people possess the true objectivity and cold
impartiality required, and most are subject to subconscious
motivations and emotions which colour their views. For this
reason also, many will suspect their motives and challenge their
judgements.
5. COMPUTER RELIABILITY AND MODELLING
Computers play an increasingly important part in the lives of all of us, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
There are two major consequences of this quiet revolution: a significant reduction in employment prospects for some, and - more positively - the fact that many things that not long ago could scarcely have been dreamed of are now abundantly possible.
All developments in technology are prompted by perceived needs and assured returns.
Hence the amount of undoubted talent and effort put into creating hardware and software for computer games - perhaps a frivolous use of such abilities but one which nevertheless creates markets and revenue.
Many developments which were funded by military or Space programmes have led to civil and commercial applications.
The cost and bulk of computing hardware has undergone amazing reductions while the sheer power of such equipment has increased to an incredible extent.
Today's automobiles have had their efficiencies greatly improved by onboard computers which continually ensure the optimum settings for a number of parameters in the light of various factors.
Whenever we travel by air we literally trust our lives to computers which could, if required, control the flight from takeoff to landing without human intervention.
In critical applications the equipment is triplicated, with continuous cross-checking so that the effects of any component failure are overruled by the majority findings of the other two channels.
More worrying in such applications would be a software "bug" that might remain totally concealed until invoked by a rare combination of circumstances. Again, there are techniques for reducing such risks: these can involve duplicating the programming teams, with each team working completely independently.
Thus total reliability can only be obtained at a price, but one that is well worth paying, for example, in Space projects where many millions are at stake.
Modern computers are wonderfully dependable and efficient, particularly in well-proven applications which admit of precise scientific and mathematical definition.
A computer is supreme when it comes to handling sheer volumes of data that would overwhelm a human brain, although at present the latter's insights and concepts are necessary to program and instruct it.
Problems can arise, however, when computing solutions are injudiciously invoked in areas which are ill-defined and imperfectly understood. This particularly applies in the modelling of very complex systems such as economics (where a president sneezing in the morning can lead to a fall in share prices by the afternoon!).
In the late fifties, when I was involved with analogue and hybrid computers, I remember seeing some extraordinary models which claimed to provide "what if...?" predictions in the field of economic planning. One of these comprised a maze of glassware with taps, variable restrictions, multiple inlets and reservoirs, through which flowed coloured water. Another used ball-bearings of various sizes which rolled along channels of different widths with a series of obstructions - like a glorified pinball machine. Such models had the seductive appeal of visibility, and could well have enlivened a lecture. However, to use them for planning and prediction purposes was sheer self-delusion, since they could be set up to "prove" whatever pet theory was held by their originators.
Now, all these years later, we have really powerful equipment on which to run such models, but the problem still remains. The model will be no more valid than the completeness of the data and the relevance of the interrelationships permits.
Global weather systems and meteorological forecasting have long provided a real challenge to computer modelling. Continual enhancements have been made to the structuring and to data capture - including satellite observations. The improvement in the accuracy of short-term forecasts has become most noticeable in the last few years. However, when it comes to predicting, say, rainfall amounts in specified areas over the next twelve months, or the probability of local droughts for years ahead, the uncertainties are too great.
One of the problems is the truly vast body of data involved and the complexity of the relationships.
Another difficulty arises from the Mathematics of Chaos and Catastrophe Theory in which, as we have seen, major consequences can result from the slightest of causes. This means that the most trifling error or omission could completely invalidate a model.
Computer modelling is an area in which continual development is possible as the mathematical theories are improved. An advanced system could be self-refining if actual outcomes are fed back, enabling relationships to be verified - and modified where necessary.
Consider the problems of setting up a model of society - other than in a grossly oversimplified form.
It would involve establishing the basis for classifying and profiling individuals, with their attributes, qualities and capabilities, their potential positive or negative economic contributions. Then it should cater for the categories, groupings, attitudes, disparities, tensions and conflicts - and much else.
Even if such a complex matrix of factors could be assembled, no two people could agree on the interrelationships, causal chains, trends and influences. It is all far too subjective.
It would make the most sophisticated global weather model seem child's play by comparison.
Nevertheless, there is a wealth of data to be captured, organised and maintained. Initially this would only provide a mass of statistical information - in itself of great value.
In time, from all these data a model could grow and develop,
continually refining as the interplay of factors is revealed.
However, only a super-intelligent computer could preside
successfully over this process. Eventually it would be able to
forecast a range of probable outcomes and advise on necessary
measures to be taken.
6. THE "MACHINE INTELLIGENCE" DEBATE
There will always be philosophical controversy concerning the possibility of "true" machine intelligence - even after it has been achieved!
I have made my views explicit elsewhere, when I was careful to recognise the many cases of "seeming intelligence" and to distinguish these from the truly intelligent machines which have yet to come into existence (if civilisation and technology survive long enough for this to happen).
Opponents of this notion fall into several categories.
The metaphysical arena has been well-trampled, and to debate the existence of the "soul" with its theological and spiritual advocates would be like discussing the theory of evolution with a Fundamentalist. We can only agree to differ, so must set this aside.
Some maintain that there are scientific arguments against the notion. They see it as reducing intelligence to the level of algorithms and scientific calculations. They point to "non-computability" aspects in conceptual thinking, mathematics and sub-atomic physics. I feel that in at least some of these examples the problem lies in an imperfect understanding of aspects of the natural world. This is particularly so in sub-atomic physics, which abounds in anomalies.
Were we still (absurd thought!) clinging to a geocentric view of the universe, then the tortuously erratic motions of the planets ("wanderers") would seem non-computable. However, a computer set to this task might well solve the problem by discovering that their paths were elegant ellipses - once one assumed the sun to be centre of our system (of course, this solution was actually found centuries ago by human brains - in the teeth of fierce opposition).
Similarly, the perceived world of sub-atomics with its host of "fundamental particles" - many of which exist for only a few nanoseconds and exhibit anomalous properties - will (I feel sure) one day yield to a simpler, more elegant, picture. Perhaps a computer will discover it!
I think that some opponents of machine intelligence are in a situation analogous to that of reputable scientists who, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, would have declared powered heavier-than-air flight as impossible. So it was, when steam engines were the only practicable power source that could be envisaged. Another example of the "event horizon"!
When it comes to considerations such as intuition, artistic creativity and self-awareness, then we are in a highly subjective area.
We all live in our heads, and see the world through the windows of our eyes (and our other senses). We are not aware of the complexity of the retina with its rods and cones, the incredible gathering of data into the relatively minute optic nerve, the multiplexing, coding and decoding that passes the information into our neural matrix, its interpretation. We see, we hear, we feel. These seem direct processes without intermediate stages. But all this had to be learnt. This is why we have few, if any, memories before the age of four.
I know I am self-aware. You know that you are. But how can you know that I am, or I you?
Is a cockroach self-aware? Or a frog? Or a rabbit? Or a cat or a dog.
Particularly in the last examples, anthropomorphised by sentimentalists, we feel that they are.
So how would we know whether or not a machine intelligence (when it comes about) is self-aware?
Only by inference - if it seems to be, then it is.
In effect, an extension of the well-known "Turing
Test".
7. COMPUTERS IN CHARGE
Today none can fail to recognise that computer applications are omnipresent and all-pervading.
Their impact on business, work and human activity is such that if they ceased to exist there would be significant breakdowns in all these areas. Things have gone too far to permit a reversion to manual methods.
None can doubt that this process will continue. It will lead to further improvements in business efficiency, with greater volumes and complexities of operations than would otherwise have been possible, and an inevitable erosion of many traditional areas of employment.
The driving forces behind this process are the potentialities of the technology and the very real payoff in economic terms that can arise from its effective application.
However, all these developments still lie mainly in the field of relatively mundane clerical and administrative functions. I envisage, and advocate (in progressive cautious steps), an upward move. This will comprise three major interlinked elements.
This "machine triumvirate", as it develops, could progressively undertake ever-greater responsibilities in the planning and directing of human affairs.
Just as planning for the computerisation of a business activity can in itself create major insights and improvements even before the machine solution is implemented, so the very fact of preparing for this mode of government would lead to a much clearer and more generally-agreed set of principles - looking to rational long-term objectives rather than immediate crowd-pleasing amelioratives in an atmosphere of adversarial polarisation.
Let us consider how this entity, in its more advanced stages, could govern society.
It would be "briefed" to optimise the human condition in the light of certain criteria, including its prime directive - to ensure the survival of human civilisation in a worthwhile form.
A democratically-elected House of Representatives could concern itself with day-to-day matters, raise issues for arbitration and consideration, and present arguments.
The entity might well propose measures which would offend or outrage large sections of the population.
However, unlike a human demagogue, it would not advocate ethnic cleansing, extermination programmes or religious purges. It might (for example) limit the production of offspring solely to genetically suitable individuals, but would respect the sanctity of life - even of inferior or inadequate people.
The dependency-culture underclass would be fed, housed, looked after, given appropriate solaces and diversions. They would be denied the right to breed - or indulge in criminal and terrorist activities. On such conditions this would be an acceptable (if not welcome) short-term burden in view of the long-term objectives for the race.
The entity would be free of personal ambition, bigotry or prejudice.
People would be able to get on with their lives and seek
personal fulfilment just as well - probably better - than they
can today under a succession of ephemeral governments, many of
which run counter to their legitimate aspirations.
8. THE CHOICE
Compassion and tolerance are rightly regarded as admirable human qualities, but if we seek to preserve everything we will destroy everything.
I have been advocating an evolving "Supermind" to transcend conflicting ideologies and put the human race on the right path to a viable long-term future.
I suppose that in preceding pages I have to some extent been anticipating the measures that such an entity might promote to this end, but it would be wrong for me to pre-empt its totally objective and impartial directives.
Many of them might give rise to a veritable howl of protest from an army of "do-gooders" and "liberals".
(It is tempting to fantasise putting some of these people into suspended animation and then later restoring them to see the outcome of their policies. However, it would avail nothing. They would refuse to recognise any causal relationship and would remain smugly certain that the hell they had created was due to their opponents' elitist attitudes.)
It would be lamentable if our society continues to blunder from crisis to crisis while the underlying problems become increasingly insoluble. I have been putting forward a case for embarking on a different approach - and one more consistent with the hope that advanced technologies can offer us in our plight.
The choice that we have is not that of instantly invoking a ready-made solution, since the means has yet to evolve. It is rather to recognise the long-term goal and to put in hand the earlier stages that will lead to it.
Here I must rest my case. The trends that I dread may only become marginally worse in what is left of my lifetime, since their growth is exponential.
But I grieve for my grandchildren and their descendants - and for the fate of the human race, so full of promise, that might become just another evolutionary experiment that didn't quite work out.
Before us lies the pathway to the stars - or the slippery slope to oblivion.
We have a choice, but time is short.
For midnight is close upon us.
