WHERE are WE?

Why Crossroads?

BEYOND THE CROSSROADS

WHERE were WE?

WHY CROSSROADS?

WHERE were WE?

WHERE are WE?

BEYOND THE CROSSROADS

Why Crossroads?

Why crossroads?

The world is out of time. Climate change, geo-political instability and societal divisions all point to an unavoidable fact: the solutions that helped us manage the 20th century are not working in the 21st.

Amongst all these complex, interacting issues is an ever-increasing array of digital technologies.  Each new technology is promised as the panacea for the world’s problems, even though the previous ones have all failed to make a genuine impact.  We have moved from IoT to blockchain, to cloud computing to Artificial Intelligence all promising to save the world in the space of less than two decades.  Each new generation of technology raises false hopes until progress falters when people realise how complex many problems really are.

Moreover, at exactly the time humanity needs new ideas, formed in the 21st century to solve 21st century problems, one digital technology in particular – Generative AI – is a tool designed to learn from our old data, our old successes and our old frameworks for solving problems.  It is not designed to innovate, but to merely combine our old ideas together and present them in a new form.  Its greatest danger is that it makes us feel that it is innovation, when it is instead like asking a pilot who retired in the 1980s to write the handbook for the latest plane rolling off Airbus’ lot.  When our 20th century approaches are being so dramatically highlighted as the problem, AI is not providing new answers it is rehashing old solutions.
We as humans need to think.  At depth. To forget the dopamine-fuelled knee-jerk responses of the day-to-day world around us and think about how to solve the problems we face.  I truly believe that digital technologies can help us – but we cannot continue to design, develop, implement and maintain them as we have for the last decades.  We need to stop, accept we are at a crossroad and use all the capabilities and capacities afforded to us by these technologies to build a new path.

Far too often, instead of taking the time necessary to assess what is happening with digital technologies and its interactions with the world around it, conclusions are hurriedly drawn.  With no proper process, it is a rapid movement to acquire knowledge by grasping the latest buzzword and imbuing technologies with hopes and fears.  Some hope technologies will solve climate change, others fear that digital solutions worsen inequalities and reduce privacy.   These are entirely emotional responses.  What is needed are very practical solutions based on fact.

Over the last 20 years, I have delved deeply into many aspects of digital technology and it has become all too clear to me that hurrying to conclusions is ineffective.  The roller coaster reactions that currently exist will produce further problems.  If digital technology is to truly benefit the world now and into the future, it is time to pause and think.  To be brave enough to put 20th-century thinking and structures into perspective and forge a more appropriate path for the 21st century.  A path that successfully implements digital technologies with the well-being of humanity and the world in clear focus.  Crossroads aims to help humanity find that path.

About me

Normally, I start any description of who I am with a list of degrees and accolades.  If you need those, head this way.  Here, however, I thought it better to explain how I got here, how I have pulled together the concepts that I have and perhaps most importantly why this is a burning passion for me.

In 2005 I started my academic life rather later than most people do wanting to investigate the role of digital technologies on sustainable development globally.  I turned up to my first meeting with my PhD supervisor overeager to discuss the impact of digital technologies – armed with econometric models that I thought would help me prove my ideas to the world.  My supervisor was beyond unimpressed and said something to me that has stuck with me every day since.

"...models, built on past understanding, past assumptions and past data - were not fit to measure things that displayed completely new properties.”

Initially confused by my supervisor’s scathing attitude towards econometric models – several of which were Nobel prize winning - I decided to trust him and I set out to redefine my research.  I built from the base up.  Setting aside yesterday’s models, I simply went out into the world to see what was happening with a view to understanding the truth.  That meant talking to people – lots of people from lots of different parts of the world, because my supervisor also demanded that I not just take a western view of the world.

It wasn’t long before I understood my supervisor’s wisdom.  Old theoretical views were incredibly narrow – too small to handle what was happening with digital technologies at the time.  Moreover, econometric models, built on past understanding, past assumptions and past data - were not fit to measure things that displayed completely new properties.  This problem is compounded in today’s world – as digital technologies have developed at lightspeed.  A lot of our theories about how the digital technologies work are based on assumptions, not truth.  If you want to genuinely solve problems, you need to know the truth of it.  Assumptions in a world affected by climate change and geopolitical uncertainty might be deadly.
Cathy Mulligan is a well-known expert in emerging technologies for sustainability and resilience.

She’s worked with leading governments, corporations, and NGOs to drive deeper understanding of the implications 
of cutting-edge technologies for our economy, environment, and society.  

Driven by a deep belief in the transformative potential of technology, Cathy advocates for its responsible use to create meaningful change and a more sustainable future.
My PhD came and went.  However, this conundrum given to me by my supervisor about the pursuit of truth still lived rent free in my head.  I needed more time to figure this out, to dedicate myself to understanding the foundations of this new economic system.  Foundations formed by ephemeral digital solutions, rather than solely physical ones.  I wanted to understand if Adam Smith’s prediction of increasing specialised labour still hold in a new digitally enabled, globalised economy?  Would Karl Marx look at AI today and still assert that human labour was the ghost in the machine?  Would Karl Polanyi classify the era we are living through among one of his ‘great transformations’?

So, I kept going with the research.  By endeavouring to investigate digital technologies and their role in society and the world by using far more than just economic models or statistics.  I just kept talking to people from all walks of life. Continually observing and analysing in-depth how digital was used globally.  After 20 years’ across multiple countries, including India, Malaysia, Australia, the EU and the USA, I began to gain a genuine feel for how technologies have been adopted.

Everywhere I go I debate, watch, make extensive notes and take photos of digital technology.  Don’t get me wrong, I love a great Instagram worthy sunset photo as much as the next person.  But what truly floats my boat is taking snaps of bits of digital technology being used across the world – you’ll often find me photographing mobile network antennae.   I know, it sounds a bit unique, but once the idea was ignited, I became fascinated with digital technology and pursuing the truth of if it can help us transform the world to a more sustainable place. After my experience with high-level UN Panels, the World Economic Forum and various other high-level fora – I came to the realisation that these organisations are poorly prepared for the changes to come.  Many are stuck in 20th century modes of organisation and 20th century methods of thinking about technology – and when it comes to digital, they are reliant on advisors who are often pushing agendas on behalf of companies or industry lobbying bodies.  The bad news is that it really is up to us average everyday people to create the necessary change – the good news is that this is wholly within our grasp.
Understandably, the academic and business worlds do not take kindly to 20-year studies – they prefer shorter time frames for understanding and exploiting results.  As a result, a lot of the academic work studying the impact of digital technologies on our world are very narrow, and in my opinion, fail to grasp what is truly happening in the digital era.  Meanwhile in the business world only a handful of companies have truly grasped the new methods of industrial organisation of the digital economy.  Several have built monstrous monopolies that constantly expand by gathering data and they now dominate the current building blocks of this new digital world.

Through all these ever-burgeoning trajectories of digital technology, I remain on my journey. I don’t accept the latest buzzword or attempt to hurriedly create some framework; I continue to seek depth and hopefully some truths about the issues surrounding digital technologies.  Fortunately, I have met many others who are just as engaged as I am in this topic.   After meeting so many wonderful people on this wild 20-year ride, I can safely say the greatest secret about digital technologies is that everyone and anyone can make the greatest change.  Just by using everyday technology in slightly different ways  The purpose of this website is to give us some tools to build our crossroads, to connect people and transform the way digital technologies are conceived of and delivered.

I hope to meet you on the road.
LinkedinSubstack
© 2024 Crossroads
Website By O Street

WHERE were WE?

Where were we?

Black text is digital.  Blue text is the environmental aspect.

Origins

Digital technologies have transformed our world since at least the 1960s.  While we can trace the origins of computing to the Babbage machine and Ada Lovelace’s work on the Analytical Engine, it is most useful to start from the 1960s.

The digital era began in the 1960s when the first integrated circuits started to make computing power cheaper and more readily accessible to the industrial economy.  Digital technologies soon expanded beyond a military role and into commercial usage, such as mainframes for banks.   Due to the high cost of digital solutions at the time, paper-intensive and high-risk areas of business processes such as accounts or payroll were digitalised first.  During this period, small steps were also made with connectivity, with the development of the first protocols that laid the ground for the internet in 1969.
(alongside all this, people start to notice environmental degradation as a result of human interactions – books like Silent Spring are published)

The PC Era

Over time we see increased usage of digital technologies.  Prices fall whilst performance increases until the birth of the PC era in the early 1980s.   During this period digital technologies become commonplace in most companies, especially with the rise of the desktop computer for employees.  Since the early 1970s, specialised computing equipment was marketed to home users for gaming.  By the mid-1980s both IBM and Apple offer generic home computers to the mass market.  All of these devices, were still prohibitively expensive for many people to own and not interconnected – either to one another or the internet, thus limiting their usefulness.
The limits to growth is published in 1972, outlining how humanity is overshooting planet earth’s carrying capacity; acknowledging the need to change how we live in order for humanity to survive.

The Internet Emerges

By the mid-1990s, technology prices were again falling and the broad majority of employees in companies globally had connected desktop computers. At the same time, the internet as we understand it today started to emerge thanks to the work of innumerable people globally and the commercial launch of internet service providers (ISPs) that enabled everyday people to “dial-up” and connect to the internet.  The WWW was developed and launched to facilitate easy reading of the different websites on the internet, and the exchange of information increased.  By the early 2000s, significant numbers of people are connected to the internet, but online services are in their infancy.  Over time, despite small hiccups like the dotcom bubble, the world still looked increasingly to internet and web-based solutions.  There was no going back.
Increasing focus on Climate Change across the world.  Scientific studies start to confirm the suspicions that humans are the cause of global warming. The first Conference of the Parties (COP) is held in 1995.  Elkington’s “Triple Bottom Line” is published in 1994 in the Harvard Business Review.
By the early 2000s, significant numbers of people are connected 
to the internet, but online services are in their infancy.

Digitalisation and Datafication

The early 2000s saw a period of rapid digitalisation.  Digital technologies become common place not just in the office, but also at home.  More importantly, devices were now connected to one another.   Solutions in the workplace start to automate even more tasks from human resources to time sheet reporting, and provide email to communicate with colleagues, suppliers and customers more quickly.  The corporate architectures that had been developed and implemented in the early 20th century did not change -  Digitalisation was used to make business processes quicker more secure and much more global.  Information technology was rapidly inserted into every business process possible.

Data Gets Mobile

From the early 1990s, work on mobile phones exploded onto the scene.  As chipset prices dropped over the decades, phones that were initially built for voice calls only underwent a rapid transformation in the 1990s. By the early 2000s many of these systems were using the same internet technologies as laptops to enable end-users to connect to the internet via their handsets.   Solutions such as RFID systems evolved during this period and became the “Internet of Things” (IoT), enabling the datafication of different types of assets. Datafication relates to turning activities, behaviours, or processes into meaningful data.   Examples could include inventory management, supply chain management or other types of solutions that required data about moveable objects to be sent to a central location and analysed.
During the early 2000s, there were several attempts to enforce environmental reporting within companies.  Few were legally binding and there was confusion about how this reporting could be measured.
By the early 2000s, the world was starting to be transformed by these two separate forces—digitalisation and datafication. In 2004, new companies emerged, taking advantage of the new focus on data and building large data sets about end-users.  Some of the key companies of this era were Facebook and Google, which had the foresight to see the value of data as part of the new era of the internet in web 2.0 and 3.0.  By gathering data about end-users from their websites and devices, these companies were able to amass a vast amount of data about people’s behaviour.  

Smartphones from the 2009 launch of the iPhone collected data from end-users on a 24/7 basis.  It wasn’t only tracking data about their devices, it was also accumulating data on the end-user themselves, their moods, movements, dating habits and personality types amongst many other things.  Combined with data gathered across multiple platforms, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft were building vast data resources require to trigger the AI revolution.  Without these data sources, they could not have built the algorithms for many of the AI systems we see today.

Over time, other companies followed suit – giving rise to a new type of corporation – Datalists.  These are companies that instead of pursuing traditional monopoly power are pursuing monopoly over data.  This datalism, much like monopolies in 18th-century capitalism, indicates a new type of economic system is emerging.red
“...giving rise to a new type of corporation – Datalists. These are companies that instead of pursuing traditional monopoly power are pursuing monopoly over data."
Without datalism, the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) would not be possible.  It is crucial to realise that AI is merely the first example of this new economic system of datalism.  More – as yet unimagined – uses of data will emerge over the coming decades if humanity is able to maintain a stable living environment in the face of climate change.  Without Datalism, technology companies would not be able to sway elections, and create highly tailored advertising for products and services, or turn everyone into influencers.
In 2015, the Paris COP produces a legally binding international treaty on climate change.  Adopted by 196 countries at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. The agreement’s intent is to reduce and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.e

Datalists Emerge

By the mid-2010s, companies that understand the new logics of organisation structure based on 21st century models of Datalism, rather than 20th-century models of capitalism, start to dominate the global economy.  It is important to note that this does not replace the preexisting capitalist economy, but rather something new has emerged alongside it – the Datalist economy.Datalists, while often following some aspects of traditional 20th century capitalist principles of organisation, also realise that there are a new set of precursors to success and economic growth, which are:
In 2015, the Paris COP produces a legally binding international treaty on climate change.  Adopted by 196 countries at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. The agreement’s intent is to reduce and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.ed.
Computational Capacity
Memory
Bandwidth
Access to data sources
With an insufficient understanding of the data economy by regulators globally, they can amass vast monopolies over data.  By the time regulators act, they are scrambling to respond and create regulation around privacy rather than regulation around data itself.  One of the most crucial misses of the early 20th century has been the lack of understanding of the data economy by regulators globally who instead apply 20th century views of technology into a 21st century industry.
Companies in command of this new space hunt for new data sources.   Data colonisation occurs by these companies in a bid to constantly improve their AI models.   This takes all sorts of forms – web scraping, buying up access to large data sets, or pushing free products to end-users to extract more data.  The development and implementation of Google Android can, for example, be seen as an attempt to gain information about end-users for creating more finely grained advertising mechanisms based on 24/7 monitoring of a mobile phone owner’s behaviour, not just their searches.

Datalist companies are fundamentally different from other technology companies in one crucial way:  since the early 2000s, these companies deliberately gathered data about human beings and ultimately learned that they can significantly influence patterns of human behaviour.  Discussions often frame these practices in terms of “privacy invasion” or “targeted advertising,” but it is worthwhile to interpret them from a slightly different viewpoint.  These technologies can be used – and now often are - to disrupt the creation of collective memory, a system that enables stability by allowing people to find common ground and achieve widely accepted interpretations of occurrences nationally and globally.  Twitter, Instagram and even TikTok have all been accused of manipulation of their end-users for various – often political - means.  Using monopolies of data gathered about individuals, Datalists change public opinion and sway political sentiment for their own benefit, all via the manipulation of algorithms and type of content delivered to people’s feeds.  In short, while the Russians and other nations may be using digital technologies and AI to cause rifts in democratic processes, they may just be copying the American Datalists own game.

It is not only technology companies that are Datalists, however. Companies in agriculture, such as John Deere and Monsanto are following definite Datalist strategies to the point where they don’t just have more information on farms in different parts of the world – they are now controlling farmers’ lives and daily routines.  Meanwhile many other technology companies are struggling to make effective use of the new data logics of the 21st century.

Building Alternatives?

Unsurprisingly, alternatives have been proposed and built in response to the rise of the datalists, often built on open-source principles. Multiple communities were created around them, but the broad majority of these options struggle in various ways to reproduce the same scale as the Datalist for several reasons.

Let’s take one example - the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure – or DPI which is a set of open-source solutions that is meant to help nations deliver digital public services in close collaboration with many companies.  As well as speeding up access to services, DPI could potentially also create far more significant security risks for countries that do not currently have the cyber security staff to manage them.  This may increase their reliance on foreign nations to also deliver national cyber and digital security defences, leading to a reduction in the overall agency and decision-making capacities of the nations in question. This is especially complex when dealing with nations from the so-called global south, where increasing datalisation can cause security colonisation through a dependency on other nations or corporations.
Sadly, the general belief that the internet was designed for openness and free societies is woefully misguided. It's essential to remember that the internet's origins are rooted in warfare and behavioral science. The first internet project, developed in the 1950s by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was created partly to control people with computers. DARPA wanted to control the Russians or, at least, influence those in charge of Russian nuclear weaponry with digital technology. Placing the design of this system into its original context enables us to more clearly think about its implications when we discuss concepts such as “open source”.

A crucial aspect of many of the proposed open-source alternatives is that they still attempt to recreate the organisational structures of the 20th century.  As we will discuss, it is instead by changing these organisational structures through digital technologies, rather than trying to adapt or fit in with them that we can transform our overall system.

Trying to Regulate

Europe attempted to regulate large-scale platforms that were using its citizens data.  Numerous new regulations have emerged – GDPR, DSA, EU AI Act and even MiCA. There is, as yet, no universal approach to data.  Moreover, there is a disjointed understanding within regulation about how to apply digital technologies for ensuring a sustainable and liveable region.

In addition to regulation, huge amounts of European funds have been injected into Horizon projects.  These projects are often repetitive, disconnected and do not learn from past successes and failures of previous EU research.  Nations are, therefore, committing immense sums of money to large-scale digital research projects – with little understanding of the impact of these projects in the long run.

Europe is dominated by small to medium enterprises (SME’s).  They form 99% of the EU economy.  However, they only contribute to 50% of its net turnover.  It is safe to say that most SMEs are not always able to absorb new technologies effectively, let alone lead the development of innovations such as AI.  If SMEs cannot create AI solutions now or in the immediate future, what chance do they have of integrating the next generation of technology solutions that will dominate the Datalist era?

The remaining 50% of Europe’s net turnover is produced by the 1% of its economy:  large companies.  However, due to regulation, many of these companies also struggle to innovate fully – as they need to deal with complex regulations that are not designed with a Datalist economy in mind.

An effective approach to regulating data comprehensively, rather than each type of technology (advertising, AI, platforms and cryptocurrencies) would be an innovation-positive regulatory environment focused on building growth for European countries rather than a restrictive, preventative environment that exists now.  Moreover, through understanding that it is a data economy, rather than a digital one, regulation could be streamlined and reduced.

Ironically, the one thing that causes Europe’s complexity – the fact that it is formed of 27 national borders and as many languages is one of the things that enables its resilience and diversity.  Correctly harnessing these will be crucial for the future of the European project.  The Datalist economy poses a significant risk for the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by the EU – it is critical that it creates an environment that is able to support companies developing this and the next generation of datalist technologies such as AI.

In addition to Europe, China, India and other nations attempted to regulate the increasing dominance of Datalist companies, with various levels of success. Nations such as China responded by launching their own Datalist companies that focused on the Chinese market.
By the early 2020s, it became apparent that many COP 21 (Paris) commitments were not being met.  Climate change reached a tipping point that exceeded the most doomsday expectations of scientists.  Digital technologies, long hoped to deliver climate-saving solutions – such as blockchain and AI - were causing environmental damage through over consumption of energy and precious metals.  There was a disconnect between the consequences of day-to-day digital systems activities and their contribution to problems with the natural world.  The 1st August, 2024 was Earth Overshoot Day - the date when humanity’s demand on nature’s resources surpassed Earth’s capacity to regenerate them for the given year.

The writing is on the wall, we need to find a new way to exist as a species on planet earth.  Digital can assist with this if we use it effectively... it is time for the complex work to start and it needs to be enduring.

The writing is on the wall, we need to find a new way to exist as a species on planet earth.  Digital can assist with this if we use it effectively.  It will be a balancing act that includes managing any cybersecurity risk.  This cannot be done with quick fixes – it is time for the complex work to start and it needs to be enduring.
LinkedinSubstack
© 2024 Crossroads
Website By O Street

WHERE are WE?

Where are we?

At the closing of the first quarter of the 21st century digital is profoundly impacting the world.  The world is trying to deal with the issue of digital in various ways – Datalism is the corporate response, while governments are attempting to regulate and support smaller-scale, ‘public’ infrastructures developed to combat the dominance of the Datalists.

There are seismic shifts across all axes of the world’s structures.  We are lucky enough to be witnessing one of the most significant upheavals the world has seen.  Previous similar transformations include the steam engine, mass transport, electrification, and ICT.  All of these shifts differ significantly compared to our current era, meaning that using our old frameworks and paradigms to solve them will not work.  We need to forge new solutions that are suitable for the 21st century.  Some of the major differences include:
Due to the large scale of connectivity across the globe, significantly more people are now engaged in these transformations. As a result, we have a complex, multipolar geopolitical world.
In previous transitions, governments made decisions behind closed doors.  The high level of digital technology usage means governments face an increasing level of public scrutiny.  The decision-making process is now entirely subject to popular opinion.
Climate change will catastrophically impact on our way of life unless we are able to adapt quickly enough.
Shorter timespans for profit and elections mean that companies and governments find it difficult to make long term decisions, even if it is the right decision, under the threat of being ousted in the short term.
Throughout history monumental types of shifts are often accompanied by societal upheavals.   For example, the British Industrial Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment coincided. Regulations such as the Enclosures Act (where public land became privately owned) forced many people to become economic refugees in their own country, driving them off living on land and into factories to survive.  Adam Smith outlined his idea of the ‘invisible hand’, that the capitalist market should be left to its own devices instead of being controlled by the government.  At the same time religious and superstitious beliefs diminished and were replaced by rational thought. Long-standing control previously held by clergy and the king was replaced with industry, and individualism, which came to be viewed as the basis for progress. This period also saw the emergence of the concepts of the scientific revolution, through which the world was irrevocably altered.

Many Enlightenment concepts continue to drive our world today despite it having ended a few hundred years ago.  The free market and the constant pursuit of data needed to create ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ data analyses of the world both have echoes of Enlightenment principles in them. In fact, social media might be viewed as the ultimate expression of Enlightenment individualism.  It is a space where everyone has a voice and can express their ideas, thoughts and opinions.  It could be said that we are the first humans to live with almost too much individualism, where we are now spending a lot of time merely expressing ourselves.  But is that true individualism?

Digital and the Nation State – Money and War

Today, multi-national corporations can operate 24 hours, 7 days a week due to digital technologies.  As chipset prices have fallen over the decades, it has become commonplace for individuals to have access to computational power that was normally only affordable by companies.  Smartphones, laptops and other devices now proliferate in our lives.  This has led to boundaries between companies, individuals and governments reducing as new means of interacting are developed and expanded on.  An interesting development and a core part of the Datalist era is juxtaposition of global companies and global technologies against the boundaries of the nation-state, or traditional country borders.  Governments have ignored these signs for years and at their peril.  

Bitcoin is a prime example of boundary spanning made possible by digital technology. It is the first truly global currency; it is not tied to a controlling entity of any kind – unlike national currencies such as the USD, EUR, AUD or GBP.   Through digital technologies, the issuance of money –normally solely under the control of governments and the nation-state – was now in the hands of average everyday people and not bound by any fiat currency.

So, money, that had previously been captive to the nation state, moved beyond national boundaries. Distracted by personal opinions on its efficacy as a currency, its ability to replace the existing financial system or even the number of scams perpetrated – governments overlooked the real lesson of Bitcoin.  Not that it was a new currency that was going to replace fiat currency, but that it was a technology that illustrated how easy it was for individuals to ignore traditional nation-state boundaries.  It provided inspiration for new types of digital technologies.  Without ignoring nation-state and copyright boundaries, for example, generative AI solutions would not have been possible.
On a more serious note cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding have been used to help fund wars.  Previously, war funding was exclusively a government function. However, the recent war in Ukraine saw cryptocurrency being used to fundraise for the war efforts.  This is a significant shift in both culture and warfare, where a civilian instead of waiting for their government to act can send money directly to efforts they wish to support.  This has the potential to shift how war is waged globally if left unchecked.

Without ignoring nation-state and copyright boundaries, for example, generative AI solutions would not have been possible.  Datalism was the entire foundation for the creation of Large Language Models (LLMs); without the vast troves of data harnessed from the public internet and from individuals through search engines, phone data and facebook profiles these new models would not have been developed.  AI and its hype would never have existed without the boundary spanning of Datalism.

A key issue to note about AI is that it really is only capable of making predictions based on existing data and understanding of that data.  When used, therefore, AI is often providing solutions within the scope of the 20th century.  AI cannot innovate the new solutions that are required in the 21st century – despite what they hype wants us to believe.  AI has, therefore, possibly come at an incredibly dangerous time for humanity – exactly when we need to innovate and develop new strategies to deal with geo-politcal uncertainty and climate change, digital technologies are reinforcing old ideas.

Digital and the Nation State – National Identity

Traditionally, people found political identity within their nation.  Nowadays, people can find common ground internationally.  Social media in particular globalised ideological connections and provided a platform for worldwide movements of political identification.  These digital platforms have enabled the far right, previously limited to national politics, to achieve global success.  Digital technologies have made people feel that it is no longer necessary to be in mutual agreement with their fellow countrymen by making it easier to share values and societal ideas on the global stage.  Voters in the US elections are seen wearing t-shirts stating that they “would rather be a Russian than a Democrat.”  Steve Bannon’s influence, enhanced by digital technologies, went beyond his American sphere and into Europe effectively anointed superstar status to Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and others non-American nationals.  This would not have been possible during the 20th century.  Regardless of the lofty free speech ideals of the individual and the right to publish what you want on social media, digital is contributing to global divisions.  The 21st century needs new organisational structures, and new political responses to the boundary spanning nature of digital spaces.

Continue the past or forge a new path?

Digital technologies, when used correctly, enable a global society that is inclusive and considerate of cultural differences.  The ability to manage diversity maybe the most important characteristic of digital technologies the 21st century.  Properly handled, this capability can help us shift our world into a new era.

First, we need to recognise that many current views of the digital world are driven by concepts born in the Enlightenment period.  Second, we need to modernise these old-world assumptions and bring them into line with the 21st century. If Enlightenment thinkers were alive today, at the very least they would be asking us to think deeply and logically about what we are facing, if not telling us that their ideas from several hundred years ago are long past their retirement date.   Let’s discuss three high-level ideas:

Beginning with the most pressing issue of the 21st century, the need for inclusion and the creation of sustainable autonomy and universality.  Enlightenment thinkers spoke of universality, everyone’s equal moral worth but, in reality, they only bestowed such status on primarily white men of suitable financial means.   The current hangover we are experiencing globally is the power shift from King and clergy to white men of financial standing through colonialism.

Perhaps the most urgent issue in the 21st century, is to redistribute these benefits to all people, world-wide. We need ways for a multitude of heterogenous voices and ideas to be heard.  We need methods to enable us to live together in a complex multi-polar world, based on equality and justice.

Second, in order to achieve global solutions, we must pivot away from the ‘invisible hand’, Adam Smith’s 1759 assertion that governments (or the monarchy) of the day should not be in control of the economy.  Instead, the invisible hand, or “the market” should drive the economy; a concept that endures to this day.   Most governments are so highly invested in the idea of a mythical market that we must tip-toe around so as not to upset it, making it difficult to introduce regulations or innovations that will affect the status quo. There are too many corporate stakeholders influencing governments and not enough action is taken to curb environmental damage and wealth imbalances.  In the 21st century, therefore, we must admit that the economic system is a man-made object – and we can remake it however we like to suit our new conditions.  Indeed, as climate change takes hold, we may be left with little choice.
Another example is John Locke’s 
concept of property rights; all current solutions around data are based on “who owns this data”?
Finally it is simply time to rethink John Locke’s concept of property rights, especially in regards to data.  Currently, wealth creation lies in access to data and the ability to interpret it; on one side, we have Datalists who are amassing large amounts of data to build new economic structures, while those combatting Datalism often suggest that the “individual should own their own data”.  Both of these viewpoints, however, have echoes in them of John Locke’s concepts of property rights.  Data is inherently ephemeral and therefore it is hard to ascribe property rights in the same manner as for ownership of a house, mobile phone, or a pair of shoes.  Who owns data?  Corporations or the individual buying products from them? Using the same principles of ownership that have driven our world system has simply not worked as it has not enabled regulators to challenge their own concepts of what monopoly power looks like in the 21st century.  Datalists have highlighted that there is a completely new path possible and if we want to harness the power of data for all of humanity, it is time to challenge the overall structure of data ownership.  21st Century digital – and economic - architectures must challenge our established orthodoxies of data ownership.
The world is in a period of transition.   We are experiencing an era of strong individualism, but we need to find common ground, a way for the common good that enables us all to live together.  There is the possibility of a smooth landing.  Digital technologies can help us do this, but we cannot use the assumptions of the 20th century, nor the building blocks that have gone before us.  We must follow the suggestions of the enlightenment thinkers and question everything, even their ideas.
LinkedinSubstack
© 2024 Crossroads
Website By O Street

BEYOND THE CROSSROADS

Beyond the Crossroads

At the beginning of the 21st century, we find ourselves a crossroads to assure humanity’s survival.  Creative solutions are needed for humanity to go beyond its current state of maintain the status quo.  It is no longer viable to fix today’s problems with yesterday’s ideas.

A world transformed by climate change and geo-political shifts is coming.  Our actions will determine the fate of generations to come but the seed of opportunity lies within the current challenges.  Our collective potential knows few bounds, and it is in this collective potential that we can discover the corner stones for 21st-century organised logic.

Imagine a world where every voice is valued, our environment flourishes, and we collaborate to construct a brighter, more resilient future. This isn't just a dream—it's our destiny, a future that's not just feasible, but certain if we act now.

Rather than using digital technologies to reinforce 20th century structures, lets ensure they assist in the creation of resilient communities, cities and societies. That they build bridges between globalised solutions and local ones and enable flexible structures that can function both independently and as part of larger formations.  Let’s develop logic to help humans cope with shocks from climate change and geopolitical shocks; better still let’s build solutions that help avoid climate change altogether.  Let’s use digital to deliver a vision of the future that will see global benefits on a local scale and vice a versa, rather than pitching them against one another.

In our discussions around responses to climate change, we often refer to the resilience of infrastructure with the aim of ensuring that our water, energy, telecommunications systems all continue to operate as we understand them today even though these systems themselves may be contributing to increasing climate change.  Why, you might wonder, would humanity continue to use systems that are effectively ensuring its downfall?  Why are we clinging so desperately to systems that have failed many of us?

Donella Meadows, one of the leading lights in systems thinking gave us the clearest explanation of this when she said that the purpose of a system is to ensure its continued existence.  For us to create a truly sustainable society, we must transition away from the organisational structures and systems that have caused so many environmental, social, and economic problems.  We need to change the system itself – and this leaves many people panicked.  But it really doesn’t need to.

What if we instead of looking at creating resilient infrastructure, we instead looked at creating resilient nations and communities?  Communities and nations that can continue functioning if one aspect of their critical services becomes intermittent or fails.  Rather than falling into disaster recovery mode, resilient communities can feed, water and keep themselves going with energy until the larger scale systems can reconnect.  This is far simpler than it sounds and has the added benefit of creating agency and local employment.

If we take this different perspective, we can also take a different view of the role of digital solutions in helping us deliver such critical services.  We can use digital technologies to enable community-based resilience.  Communities that are organised locally but connected to the larger-scale systems globally.  Communities that take advantage of digital technologies, rather than get taken advantage of by them.  If climate change continues unchecked, we may have only our neighbours to rely on.  If we start now, however, we can build a significantly more resilient society while reducing our overall environmental impact.  This is not far-fetched – to achieve it, we need two things: resilient communities and resilient institutions.

Resilient Communities

Resilient communities are developed by identifying and enabling dynamic strategic networks.  Amongst the most common emerging forms are dynamic strategic networks where individuals form short-term supply networks that deliver a service or product to a customer or citizen when other services have failed.

For example, digital technologies could be used for simple things like re-use of clothing and equipment and reducing food waste or it could be more advanced like co-ordinating the demand and supply of locally grown food or locally produced energy.  These systems work primarily locally but are able to connect to the national or global communities as required.  Many of these activities are already ongoing at a local level, but they are not effectively co-ordinated; digital can make that co-ordination simple.

Strategic networks are nothing new – they have long been associated with a variety of organisational forms within the economy, from farmers who co-ordinate a stable supply of organic lamb to regional restaurants in Italy to strategic networks of companies within an industrial structure. These networks were generally static for some time. Through digital technologies, however, they can now dynamic, urban-based and operating at near real-time.  Individuals can now locate, connect and create a supply chain network of other individuals with small to non-existent transaction costs.  Instead of the purely rational human described in economics textbooks, people can act both with self-interest and as a member of a community.  This opens the potential for entirely new forms of economic, social and environmental organisation that reduces climate impact and increases the ability of communities and nations to adapt climate reality.

An important aspect of these dynamic strategic networks is risk management. Networks enable entrepreneurs to develop and apply products, services and knowledge in a manner that can also provide the entrepreneur with a buffer or level of protection.  By leveraging the networks of their peers, an individual can agree to deliver a much larger-scale project than before. Effectively, individuals can develop flexible pathways by which to manage risk.

Resilient Corporations and Institutions

To create community-based resilience, we need resilient institutions; ones that are capable of co-ordinating heterogeneity.  This may represent the most challenging aspect of transitioning the systems we currently work within.

Delivery of new global structures depends on a new breed of engineering and a new breed of management.  From the engineering perspective, we must bring into being systems that go beyond interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary ideas and instead provide new organisational logics.  This demands placing the role of digital technologies firmly into the 21st century – as the foundation of a new type of institutional logic rather than a support mechanism for the archaic institutions of the 20th century.  We must use the capabilities of digital technologies to deliver these 21st century organisational structures – ones that are loosely coupled, rather than top down.

What actions are currently being taken to create resilient communities? Many countries are devolving powers to subsections of the nation so they can manage responses to climate change and other social issues more effectively.  Part of this devolution requires new types of governance structures to assist national coherence through regulation, international negotiations, etc.  Sections of the government develop overarching rules within a geographical boundary, whilst local communities hold responsibility and are accountable for delivering those objectives in a manner that best fits the local context.  With the implementation of community-based resilience, we need greater co-ordination efforts at a national and regional level.

Meanwhile, 20th century nationality has rested on homogenous ethnic communities (the people or the citizens) and coincides with territorial legal governments (the state).
Through digital technologies, we have the ability to adopt expanded democratic norms and processes - legitimacy, transparency, inclusive participation, efficient decision-making through 
qualified majorities.
Digital technologies can help us break out of 20th century logic and help us achieve new 21st century interactions between officials and the citizens and with due process that assist us with global governance.It is possible that we could even replace institutions like the United Nations.  The United Nations itself was born in 20th Century logic and in many ways, it is struggling to respond to 21st century geopolitical issues, let alone climate change.  It is a large organisation in an era that will increasingly require nimble, agile responses delivered in dynamic strategic networks.  In the same way our economy needs restructuring, so does the way global co-ordination is conducted.  Alternatively, we could build a more flexible and dynamically connected United Nations, again using digital as a re-organising capability.

We need to take the bull by the horns so to speak.  It’s obvious that current structures – both physical and institutional - are being eroded one way or another and that the world cannot sustain humanity’s current trajectory.  But there is hope if we take time now to look objectively at the problems and identify how digital technology can assist.

A move towards community-based resilience indicates a reversal or at least a countertendency of generational-long trends toward aggregation and economic concentration at a national and global level.  Digital technologies create opportunities for aggregation and concentration at a local level.  Are we finally ready to face this moment honestly and with integrity?

What does success look like?

We face a monumental task in rethinking how to  apply digital technologies – but it is extremely achievable.  We already have all of the pieces, it is really just an issue of rearranging them slightly. Perhaps the most inspiring thing I have learnt over the last 20 years, however, is that success lies in the ingenuity of the average person on the street to be the innovator for their local community’s strength and resilience. Many communities already have some form of resilience – with digital, we can amplify this.

For the engineers and the digital solution designers out there - climate change and geopolitical instability are not new, nor were they unexpected – hundreds of minds before me have raised these issues, each with a new level of urgency.  However, we are still largely organised as we were in the 20th century, increasingly unprepared for what will have to face.  Our infrastructure is often ageing and is not designed for the climate parameters we are going to face with climate change; our infrastructure and critical service delivery is likely to fail.  Without change in our organisational structures, therefore, it is likely that humanity will face at least partial societal collapse.  As engineers, we have a duty to think deeply about the systems we build and how we can effectively create new architectures that enable community-based resilience.  We can we create modular systems that enable the coordination of critical services locally and globally; we just need to implement them well.
Our infrastructure is often ageing and is not designed for the climate parameters we are going to face with climate change; our infrastructure and critical service delivery is likely to fail.
I believe that digital can help us achieve this – largely through exploiting its capabilities and capacities for re-organising the way we deliver those services that are critical to human life.  Our world’s systems – from our built environment to our digital services, food, and energy systems are currently all built as mega infrastructures.  They are massive in scale and often rely on multiple complex connections.  Most importantly, they are co-ordinated as monoliths – as though they are one single entity.  Often, we can see that digital technologies have been used to create these often-global connections – without digital technologies the 24/7 operations that our supply chains, cities and social lives now depend on would not exist.  So far, therefore, we have used the capabilities of digital technologies for mass agglomeration and centralisation of resources.

If we stop and think, however, about the much broader set of capabilities enabled by digital technologies, some key aspects emerge that we are often overlooking:
Small scale interactions are just as possible as large-scale social media platforms.  They enable the creation of loosely coupled networks of actors
Real-time connectivity enables far more than just announcing our latest thoughts on a particular topic or product.  It enables the creation of loosely connected modular functions to deliver products and services
What we need, therefore, is the capacity at a human level to transform the capabilities of digital technologies into outcomes for sustaining human life.  This means enabling a reconfiguration of how we deliver critical services – to a flexible, modular architecture that allows sub-components to operate as a fully integrated entity or as independent modules, enabling seamless collaboration or autonomous functionality depending on operational needs.
Let’s take the example of energy it is clear that in order to use the full benefit of renewable energy, we need a new way to organise our energy system.  Renewable energy is often distributed, intermittent and can be complex to integrate towards the existing grid.  The national infrastructure of many nations are not designed to withstand the increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related events such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and heatwaves. These events can damage infrastructure, leading to prolonged outages.  In order to ensure that we have resilient delivery of energy, therefore, we need new organisational structures – ones that are modular and can work alone, when necessary, but still able to function as a whole ‘grid’ as often as possible.

For example, in the image below, we have several communities who have locally-produced energy – this could be solar, wind, biomass or other type of energy.  They provide their local energy needs but are interconnected to other communities and a national utility provider.  In normal operation, the energy is produced in the community and excess is shared back to the grid.  If a disaster strikes, the grid may get disconnected, but the smaller community is able to keep functioning until the grid comes back online.

In order to achieve this, we need a redesigned grid – one that is not just technically capable of receiving energy as well as delivering it, but one that is also organisationally capable of managing that.  And we need digital solutions that enable localised communities to share information about the performance, required maintenance, smoothing of supply and demand and provide demand / supply forecasts to neighbouring systems and the grid itself.  Instead of being used for ever increasing efficiencies of centralised management of energy, digital technologies are exploited for their small-scale capabilities to create a much larger national solution. This is briefly illustrated below
Such organisational structures are also possible within food and agriculture.  Once you start to think about digital capabilities in this way – you start to see these possibilities everywhere!

Of course, if we are to use digital technologies to achieve such aims, it is critical that digital technologies themselves can withstand climate impacts.  Currently, most digital and telecommunications systems are designed and implemented as monoliths. This will also need to change in order to respond more effectively to climate change.  Examples could include community-driven networks, but just as effective would be a redesigned core and radio network that was able to interact with community networks in a similar manner as our energy example above.  It provides several technical challenges, not least security and managing massively heterogenous community systems. But a new form of architecture is fully within our grasp; a dispersed-autonomous architecture.  This is not dissimilar to the aims of TCP/IP – a core protocol of the internet designed by the US Department of Defence during the cold war to ensure that networks were reliable through the ability to recover automatically from the failure of any device on the network.  This architectural pattern now needs to be repeated in the delivery of services critical to human life.

Success will mean that the ideas outlined in here are adopted broadly and delivered globally and that we are moving towards a new system and a new way of organising human life on this planet.  A method of organising that enables humans to balance our impact on earth while still retaining all the wonders and joys of a common human experience through global connectivity. Our current systems of human society need to be redesigned – let us hope that we can do this before it is too late.  Digital can help, but only if we set out now on a new path.  We will have to face these challenges as we face life itself – both alone and together.  Over the coming weeks months and years, myself and others will be sharing our deeper insights into the crossroads we face as a species and the solutions we think that digital may offer us to solve these.   We invite you to join us.

WOULD YOU LIKE 

TO GET INVOLVED?

JOIN US HERE
LinkedinSubstack
© 2024 Crossroads
Website By O Street