Tag Archives: future

Gears aren’t aligned

Have you ever ridden a bicycle when the gears aren’t aligned properly and so every full cycle of the peddles ends up with a jarring ‘clunk’ that breaks the flow of your peddling? If you have, you know exactly what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, imagine walking and every second step with your right foot it feels like someone tapped your knee with a finger. At first it’s uncomfortable, then you just kind of accept it as the norm.

I feel like March was a long month of the gears being misaligned, but we just got used to it. Now the Match break is over we are back at school and we have to adjust to a whole new misalignment with students staying home and the reality that Covid-19 will likely impact us for months to come. So April begins with a new misalignment that we need to adjust to, and while we know the ride won’t be smooth, we know we will get used to it.

I am excited about how this year will change the dynamic of teaching and learning in the future. In 2011, I wrote that ‘the future of education will be open and distributed’. In this post I said,

“Within 5 years, every student from Grade 6 or 7 right up to Grade 12 will be involved in some level of distributed learning.”

I was wrong. Things go much slower than I envisioned. In 2014 I wrote about ‘flexible learning opportunities‘ and I shared this graphic:

I said in the post:

“I think we are only 5-7 years away from the term ‘blended learning’ being obsolete in the same way that the term Distance Learning is now.  Here is an analogy to think about: The move from ‘Distance’ to ‘Distributive’ learning was the switch from having a ‘phone extension chord’ to the cordless phone. The switch from ‘Distributive’ to ‘Blended’ is the switch from a cordless home phone to cell phones. Now, the ubiquitous use of data-rich phones everywhere is similar to the leap we will see.“

It looks like we might get there.

While I think that teaching students, who are not coming to our schools daily, is going to finally catapult us forward in ways that I thought would have happened years ago, I also think it will take some time to get over the feeling that gears are misaligned. In fact, for the next while, it’s going to feel like we are riding up hill in the wrong, clunky gear.

I’m excited about where we are headed. I’m just feeling like the ride to our destination will be a bit uncomfortable. Hopefully by May we feel like our gears are aligned.

The not-so-normal path ahead for young adults

It’s challenging to look ahead these days and try and imagine what the new normal will be?

My youngest daughter is in Grade 12. In a month and a half she was supposed to have a lead part in her spring musical. I don’t think that will happen as we imagined it would. Next up for her is graduation. Will the dinner/dance happen? Will she cross the stage with her peers? Will parents be invited?

Imagine being in senior year of NCAA basketball and you are a starter. You aren’t good enough for the NBA, so this is your final season playing for huge audiences, and your season is cut short because of a virus?

In the grand scheme of things these might seem like trifle thoughts compared to exhausted health care workers, or people on ventilators and their concerned family members. But to a young adult this is a crushing blow to their plans and aspirations.

The new normal ahead is not one that will be kind to young adults in our community. Let’s remember this when they get restless and feel down. Let’s remember this when they are connecting with friends digitally. Let’s remember this when they join us in talking about the challenges ahead.

Everything we do to bring normalcy to the coming weeks will still be far from normal, and not all young adults are ready to cope with that. Let’s try to be helpful and supportive of them.

Biohacking human abilities and the future of CRISPR

We are comfortable altering our bodies to maintain our abilities: laser eye surgery, hip replacements, hearing implants… What about genetically enhancing our abilities? Is this different?

Imagine three men, all of them 82 years old and generally healthy. But they are all quite different.

The first man is mostly bald with gray hair over his ears, hunched over, walks with a cane, wears thick glasses, has hearing aids, has bent fingers from arthritis, and his hands shake slightly… and although he has a couple stints in his veins, he has no life-threatening ailments. Unless he meets an unexpected or untimely death, he will likely see his 85th birthday.

The second man has had his genetic makeup altered by CRISPR, taking advantage of human genes being altered to reduce the effects of aging. He looks 55-60 years old, with a full head of hair, greying near his ears, an upright posture, 20-20 vision, good hearing, and steady hands, unaffected by arthritis… his cardiovascular health is like that of someone fit and in their 50’s. He has no life-threatening ailments. Unless he meets an unexpected or untimely death, he will likely see his 100th birthday.

The third man has had his genetic makeup altered by CRISPR, taking advantage of animal and plant genes being altered to enhance his life. His hair is naturally jet black, and has an attractive but unnaturally beautiful shimmer. His eyesight is as good as a hawk’s, 20/2 vision, meaning he can see something 20 feet away as if it is just 2 feet away. His hearing range is more like a dogs than a human… His muscles are huge and he has the physical and cardiovascular health of a man in his late 30’s. He has no life-threatening ailments. Unless he meets an unexpected or untimely death, he will likely see his 125th birthday, and he will still have the mental acuity of a man 1/3 his age.

My hunch is that you are not bothered at all by the health improvements of the second man, but the idea of the third man is a bit disturbing. We are ok with the idea of reducing the effects of aging… skin creams, laser eye surgery, cochlear hearing implants, plastic surgery, knee and hip replacements. All these things to help us hold on to our youth, and if we can do these things genetically, that’s great.

But the third man seems unnatural in a way that is scary. He seems more than human. He seems to be an enhanced species. And here is the truly scary thing… he is inevitable. We now live in a world where people consider themselves biohackers… self-taught amateurs who are DIY (Do-It-Yourself) biologists. And the technology is becoming easy enough for a person in their basement to alter the genes of a human being.

Stop and really think about that for a moment. An amateur biologist can alter the genes of a dog, and there is nothing to stop him from attempting to do the same to himself. This isn’t science fiction anymore. And if a DIY, basement biologist alters their own genetic makeup, then decides to have children, those genetic alterations will become part of the human genome. We are going to see altered and enhanced human abilities added to the genetic makeup of our future generations… with no oversight!

The question isn’t if this will happen, it’s how soon, by whom, and with what unforeseen consequences? Will biohackers be designing super humans? Will being an unaltered human 75 years from now be disadvantageous? Will these disadvantages be enough to be considered a sub-class of a super being… An upgraded human that is smarter, stronger, healthier, and lives longer, with more vitality in their later years, which will make a regular human being seem weak, and perhaps stupid too.

This is the stuff that science fiction is made of, and it’s happening right now. It’s happening in biomedical labs bound by ethics boards; And it’s happening unsupervised in the basements and garages of biohackers with both good and nefarious intentions. That’s both a very real and very scary concern to think about.

The future of the commute

My commute to work is 15 minutes, including going out of my way to drop my daughter to school. Other than my two years in China, since my wife and I moved to the city we work in 21 years ago, I haven’t commuted to work for longer than 15 minutes. I know this isn’t the norm. Many people must commute much longer than that.

Two days ago my sister came to town and I had to head to the airport and back during rush hour. Yesterday and today I travelled 40+ minutes to UBC to watch my daughter perform at Nationals for synchronized swimming. These trips are giving me a small taste of what many people face on a daily basis, although traffic today was light.

I know some people will always have to commute. A store clerk, a hotel concierge, a teacher, a factory worker, or a hospital doctor or nurse, all need to get to the building they work in.

Does a lawyer need to be in the office every day? An accountant? An architect? The list can go on… How many people commute to a building, travelling for over an hour-and-a-half a day, over 45 minutes each way, to get to a physical location that they don’t need to be at in order to get their job done?

What will the future hold for commuting when this every-day forced travel isn’t deemed necessary? What will happen when work weeks (potentially) move to 4 days a week? Will this reduce travel time, or will continued urbanization and densification of populations make traffic just as bad, even with the reduced number of trips individuals will need to take?

One last question is how automation of travel will change too? Will cars be able to travel more efficiently when they all communicate with each other, and can avoid accidents created by human error?

My guess is that in the coming years commuting days for many will be reduced, but commuting times on average will remain the same or worsen. The global shift towards large urban centres will necessitate that many people will need to live in the more affordable suburbs, where commuting time will be necessary. So maybe we should explore what that time looks like, rather than just trying to shorten it.

I know that I’ve moved away from listening to the radio to listening to podcasts and audio books during commutes and longer drives, I wonder what people will use this time for in the future? Will work start when you enter your self-driving car rather than when you arrive at work? What will the commuting experience look like?

Be careful what you ask for

Turns out that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not always very intelligent.

See: The danger of AI is weirder than you think | Janelle Shane

I’m reminded of the saying,

“Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.”

Parents know about this: Ask a kid to clean their room and you get a disaster in the closet where everything gets shoved in, dirty laundry mixed with clean, etc.

Teachers know this:

If we are not providing the correct parameters to AI machines, the solutions these machines come up with will not necessarily meet the outcomes we intended.

While this can be humorous, it can also have serious consequences, like the examples shared in the Janelle Shane video above. We are still a long way from AI being truly intelligent. While computers are beating humans in strategy games, and although when AI gets as smart as us, computers will be instantly smarter, we are still tackling the really hard problem of putting the right information into more intelligent machines. The rules of a game are easier to define than the rules to hiring good people or interpreting unusual circumstances that a self-driving car will come across.

The challenge is that we don’t know our hidden biases, and our human biases that we are missing when we ask an AI to observe and learn. For instance, a dog, a cat, and a human all see a plate of food falling:

The dog sees access to delicious food.

The cat sees it fall and the crash of the plate sends it fearfully running away.

The human sees a waste of food and is angry for carelessly dropping it.

What would an AI see, especially if it hadn’t seen a plate accidentally drop before? How relevant is the plate? The food? The noise? The cutlery? The mess?

Is the food still edible? What is to be done with the broken plate? Can the cutlery be reused? How do you clean the mess left behind?

What we ask AI to do will become more and more complex, and our perspective of what we want and ask AI to do has inherent biases, based on how we view the world. What we ask for and what we actually want will be inherently different and that is something AI will take some time yet to figure out.

How long until we are all cyborgs?

We already have cyborgs living among us. Glasses and contact lenses are not built into us, but they allow those with poor sight to do more than if they didn’t have them. My uncle had a mechanical heart. My friend’s dad has had a pacemaker for decades now. Some diabetics have sensors embedded in them, either fixed or temporarily. These are not enhancements as much as accommodations to aid a deficiency, but how long will it be until we are all cyborgs in some way?

Imagine sensors in your eyes identifying someone from 150 feet away and letting you know their name before they come into focus. Imagine hearing a phone message from within your ear. Imagine a sensor telling you that you are having a mild heart attack before your body gives you any sensory indication of the oncoming issue.

There are apps that exist that can already tell you when people you know are nearby. Bluetooth let’s you have voices go privately to your ears without your phone being close to your head. Fitbits and Apple watches monitor your health regularly and more closely than we’ve ever been able to be monitored before. Apple watches are already saving lives.

How long until these external tools are embedded in us? Part of us? Enhancing us? We will be cyborgs in the future, because to choose not to be will be to choose to have a deficiency compared to those around us.

Metrics for a truly prosperous future

What if…

• Shareholders were Careholders?

• Profit was Pro-employee?

• Progress was Pro-human?

What if…

• News Agencies downplayed Violence?

• Social Engagement was less valued than Social Wellbeing?

• Joyful Memes spread faster and farther than Viral Anger?

How do we put our 5-star ratings on good ideas rather than just on good products? What metrics do we need to measure, and to value, to create a truly prosperous future?

500 Billion Dollars

Imagine if the richest 100 people in the world each put aside 1 billion dollars to change the world. Think that’s too much? I just looked up the top 20 billionaires and they could each give away 15+ billion. Realistically, there could be 500 billion or 1/2 of a trillion dollars given away from the top 100 billionaires without changing their lives significantly.

What could that money be spent on?

Clean water, clean(er) energy, and food for the poorest 1/4 of the world. This would be a good start. Health & family planning would also be essential.

How different could our world be?

When I read articles like this: ‘Eye-Popping’: Analysis Shows Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion in Wealth Since 1989 While Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion

I wonder how these billionaires can imagine that their continued gains can benefit anyone, including themselves? At what point do gains like this have diminishing returns? At what point does compassion replace greed? At what point does social conscience take precedence over financial profit?

I don’t pretend to have the answers as to how to do this in a way that is equitable and helps people thrive, but with that much money, people smarter than me could be hired. There needs to be a redistribution or redirection of wealth to make our world more equitable, and more livable for those that need it most.

11 years ago, George W. Bush bailed out banks for 700 billion dollars. Since then, those banks have made the rich richer. What if the richest people in the world were to bail out the poorest? How many lives would be meaningfully changed for the better? What impact would that have on the overall well-being of humanity? The world needs another bailout. The richest people in the world have the means to provide it.

Image the possibilities!

Information overload

If you’ve never seen the work of Jessica Hagy, you are missing out. Her website, Indexed, is a treasure trove of Venn diagrams and graphs. In her words, “This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.”

Here is one of her drawings: Needles and haystacks and such.

I think that if you were a half-a-century old but you were living half a century ago, (let me simplify that, ‘if you were 50 in 1969’), then confusion usually came from a lack of information. You were hardly ever confused because you were overloaded with too much information. Roll the clock forward to today and I think the opposite is far more true. Today, if you are confused from a lack of information all you need to do is Google it, or search YouTube, or ask a few hundred or a few thousand people on Facebook or Twitter.

The only time you are slowed down is when there is too much information to search through. You searched, but you didn’t find the answer on the first page of Google. The instructions on YouTube are for a different version of the product you have and need help with, and so the video didn’t help you. You ask the question on social media and no one responds with the correct answer, but you end up responding to their unhelpful responses anyway.

While I think there will always be situations where there are misunderstandings, anxiety, and even confusion from a lack of information, I also think that somewhere between 1998 and 2005 we passed a threshold where real confusion usually stems from having too much information. We now live in the information age, and information overload is often at the root of our confusion. Will it be like this for a fifty year old in 2069?

The fate of humanity

The year is 2075 and my great grandchild decides to have a baby. Her and her husband visit the clinic a second time, the first time they shared some cell samples with a clinician. In the 2 weeks since their last visit, these cells were copied and modified into hundreds of egg and sperm cells.

Then through a relatively new process called SPICER, (Selected Polymorphic Induced, Cleaved and Enhanced Recombination), based on CRISPR, a series of ‘orders’ were followed to produce a few hundred ‘ideal’ embryos. These were then culled to the best 18 (this number varies between 12 and 20 depending on how well the top few embryos developed) and the happy couple now had a few final choices to make. I say ‘final choices’ because they already went through a huge ‘order’ list of features and enhancements at the start of the process.

Hair, eye, skin colour, and gender were carefully selected. Intelligence, both intellectual and emotional, were maximized. Strength, flexibility, vision, metabolism, and endurance/lung capacity were all enhanced. Now, the top 18 embryos were screened and tested and the happy couple had to select the ‘best of the best’ to be inserted into my future relative’s womb.

Will this child be human? My grandson, father to this soon-to-be mother, had a genetic birth defect that was fixed by CRISPR even before my great, great granddaughter was born… So before answering that question about her child, is she even human? After all, her father’s genes were modified and passed on to her. At what point do we consider these modifications different than a non-modified human?

The fate of humanity is clear. We are some of the last human beings on this earth. Future generations will be modified and enhanced. They will be more or less human depending on your perspective, but they won’t just be biologically evolved from their ancestors. They will be created.

__________

*Edited update: I totally made up ‘SPICER’… but the technology to do what I suggest is less than 50 years away.