The Rise of the Robots (Martin Ford)

Martin Ford
The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future

Not sci fi as such, or a critique of a Stranglers tune, but a studied analysis of how robots will be taking over all jobs in the not too distant future and indeed may take over completely if artificial intelligence and / or nanotech goes out of control. Robots aren't just your Woody Allen Sleeper types but include advances in the computer brains running a lot of our world such as air flights, stock markets and winning chess games and Jeopardy. Whilst a very readable book it did go into more detail than strictly necessary to put over the point for my liking. There again the amount of detail tells a compelling story for sceptics. The examples are very US and UK biased but I think it was originally written with US examples and then added many from the UK. The bottom line is that technology is advancing and unless we (i.e. everyone globally) does something to slow it down it will replace nearly all jobs. And the human race won't "do something" globally. After all the Luddites and Levellers are ridiculed rather than applauded. I'm not sure I agree with all his statements. Saying that no one can say there's anything wrong with electricity is ignoring the production and how it's affected those near nuclear plants that have leaked and coal fired plants that have brought massive pollution often thousands of miles from where they are sited (do we ever hear of acid rain these days?)  Ford dips in and out of economics and politics in his analysis. As robots take over then those who own and run them (i.e. corporates) will reap the rewards and most of us will find ourselves without work. Ford implies that there should be ways to redistribute income and / or wealth as this occurs. He talks a lot of off shoring as a sign of things to come (off shore, then automate) and although this is a topic all of itself this is about wealth redistribution, or at least job and income redistribution even if absolute income is less, and whilst his point that if a job can be off shored the next step is likely to be automation the economic and political analysis is very different between the two.

Having given many examples of where capital wealth is making the rich richer and the rest of society poorer, and many examples of why robots will take over more and more jobs with the rewards going to the owners of them (i.e. the owners of capital), Ford paints a fairly depressing picture for the future. And that's ignoring the possibility that robots will take over everything themselves in a sci fi scenario. The book ends with an analysis of the economics of the future. His remedy is to have some sort of minimum income for everyone that the wealthy will presumably be happy to fund as they can only spend so much on consumer goods (how many smart phones can one person have). This ignores the reality that as society gets more wealthy and produces more (for the time let's ignore whether that has been a slippery slope into the environmental problems we are facing) the equality within society has decreased and is doing so ever faster. We have more wealth and consumption now than ever yet across the globe the mantra is the free market and for those who own capital to keep everything they earn (again, let's ignore whether they "earn" it - they end up getting it) and there is little indication that they are prepared to close the inequality gap. Indeed there is more and more pressure to increase this. Following the financial crisis in 2008 governments have poured billions into propping up the financial sector (taxpayers money) whilst at the same time slashing benefits and government spending which invariable assists those less well off. Bankers get even more money now than they did whilst those at the lower end of the wealth pyramid are pushed further into the mire. Taxpayers have to subsidise businesses more and more so that they can give us zero hour contract jobs. Not much sign of those in power wanting to close the inequality gap Ford. The economic arguments are all within the context of liberal free market capitalism with a certain amount of state aid. Whilst this would help alleviate poverty in the short term (a big "if" as to whether this would even happen) it's not going to address the problem. There is also an assumption that we have to have economic growth. There is no analysis of other economic systems. Let's say, moving the means of production out of the hands of a few (indeed fewer and fewer) corporates and into the hands of the proletariat. I guess that sounds too radical if it's put in terms of those who own capital (capitalists) and those who own their labour (workers)? And that's one of the conclusions of the book. That those who are currently thought of as middle class professionals (not currently thought of as "workers" as they earn a lot of money, but in fact don't own working capital and make their income through selling their labour) will be hit hard by automation and their wages will fall rapidly if they are lucky to be working. Maybe a dip into Marxist theory will tell us the likely outcome of capital vs labour. And the societal outcome once crisis point is reached. There is also no analysis of alternatives to growth. Let's say, growing what we need to eat sustainably and restricting consumption to what we really need rather than being lured into over consumption to feed the greed of capital(ists). To be honest Ford is tracking the inevitable conclusion of free market capitalism regardless of whether robots are taking over or not. They may well accelerate us to a crisis point which a lot of economic political theory suggests we'd get to eventually even without technology advances. An unsatisfactory conclusion and feels rushed especially given the detail and varied analysis of the rest of the book.

All this assumes that one scenario doesn't occur. This is that nano robots don't deconstruct everything into it's component molecules and atoms and reduce the whole world to a "grey goo". I guess that would bring some sort of equality although in that case we may feel that relative inequality is better than absolute equality.

Teenage Kicks: My Life as an Undertone (Michael Bradley)

Michael Bradley
Teenage Kicks: My Life as an Undertone

God almighty why didn't I learn the bass when I was 14 instead of in my 50's. Ah well, you shouldn't live life with regrets just do what you wanna do at the time. I guess this is the essence of this book and the story of The Undertones. Act your age (i.e. immature when a teenager) and have fun. Whilst trying to find the cheapest food (free if available). Mickey has his own take on The Undertones adventure and I'm sure the others will have their own stories. This story is a simple one of friends getting into punk rock, forming a band in the musical wastelands (i.e. no other punk rock groups, this was year zero when no previous music mattered) of Derry (aka Londonderry but let's stay with Derry as our heroes support the Free Derry movement if you catch my drift) and making it big before imploding due to musical differences. OK, maybe not imploding but fizzling out due to boredom. I always thought of the band as on the poppier side of punk and I still think that they are the pop side of the punk coin as opposed to the hard rock side of the Ramones. But they are definitely the same coin and The Undertones' simple tunes have lasted the test of time. John Peel saw that straight away. I always wondered why he thought Teenage Kicks was the best song ever. Especially given his eclectic taste and at that time he was playing what we now think of as post punk. I now know why he thought that. Five Derry boys not immersed in the London or mainland trend scene creating classic punk rock direct from their influences of New York proto punk, British glam and Bowie with a bit of rock thrown in. And Irish traditional music channeled through Feargal. 7 inches of pure heaven that everyone loves. Yeah of course it was played at my wedding. Maybe the most played punk song ever: surely at weddings? And my kids know it not from me forcing punk rock credentials into their ears (this isn't my first choice of punk education) but from adverts and backing music to you tube videos. Other songs by The Undertones are available.

Back to the book. After learning about their start as a band their rise to stardom is charted with a leg up by my mate Gavin Martin who first wrote about them in a Bangor fanzine called Alternative Ulster and in the NME. They were soon on Top of the Pops and then touring the UK and creating albums. I won't go into the details as the book's not that long to read but it has a homely feel as they always return to Derry and live lives normally (OK, without working as such, which probably wasn't that uncommon in the late 70s early 80s anyway) rather than moving to London to live the life of rock stars. The Undertones seem more interested in getting their tea and toast in the morning and playing footie than getting laid by groupies and jacking up. Men of the people. Kids. Likeable. The end of the band seems to be due to boredom but as I say, there's probably another side (or 4) to that. I hope that Michael has enjoyed his life not as a rock star as much as he would have had he gone all out to conquer America. I'm sure he has and he knows he's made some truly classic records. I regret not playing a few gigs (there's still time, just about) but would I have enjoyed life in a celebrity bubble as a punk rock bassist? Living in LA surrounded by sex and drugs and rock and roll? Definitely not. I'd miss cycling in London which, as Mickey points out, I sometimes think is the best thing ever. It isn't of course.

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Book (Yuval Noah Harari)

Yuval Noah Harari
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind



A fascinating and very readable run through of, well, the entire history of homo sapiens with a bit about our cousins such as Neanderthals thrown in. The premise is that we are wired to be hunter gatherers living in small groups of up to 200 or so (as an aside this is the maximum team size that a lot of progressive companies are implementing even if they have 10,000's of employees). The book charts the progressive revolutions that have taken place over time that on a micro level seem to improve the lot of humankind but at a macro level have led to unsatisfied individuals (who knows whether hunter gatherers were satisfied or not) at best and abhorrently abusive societies at worst (slavery, slums, agro industrial treatment of animals). The conclusion to our advancements may well be the destruction of life as we know it through environmental or nuclear catastrophe. On the other hand we may evolve into a new half bionic life form that is truly satisfied. Or be taken over by our own cyborg inventions. Yes, the latter part of the book does go into sci fi a bit but the possible future scenarios given are all backed up by current scientific research and heavily caveated. But that's the end of the book. The most part is taking us through history starting with the cognitive revolution - possibly our first evolutionary mistake in having awareness of ourselves and how we can significantly effect our environment and actively migrate and populate seemingly inhospitable landscapes. Next comes the benefits and drawbacks of the agricultural revolution (settlements) through to the scientific and industrial revolutions enabling us to significantly change both our environment and ourselves through drastic medical processes. Harari doesn't write as if he knows it all but puts forward his arguments as possibilities with many and varied examples of why he holds his view of history. It's thoroughly thought provoking and, as I said, a fascinating read. I don't agree with everything that is written and to be honest if you read the entire book without disagreeing with any of the content then you're probably one of the future cyborg creatures programmed to not question life as we know it. He steadily dismantles or questions many human "faiths" whether they are religious, economical or political. If you don't disagree with some of that you're unlikely to have bothered to start reading this book in the first place. Despite what seems to be a broad dismissal of why humans do and think what we do Harari always putting forward reasons as to why we've gone down these paths and how they have helped (some) humans at that point in time. I find it very refreshing that he has identified our treatment of animals (who after all are our cousins who didn't (yet) go through the cognitive revolution) as comparable to other abusive regimes we've forced on other humans. Or I should say other sapiens as he constantly reminds us that we had about five other human cousin species (I think that's the right term?) and indeed many of us have a fair bit of the Neanderthal still in us particularly those whose ancestors migrated from Africa in our early pre-history. Great book which is very thought provoking. Highly recommended. With the caveat that I don't agree with all the analysis or conclusions. But there again, as I'm a homo sapien who is a very collective and community based animal, I strive to see all sides of analysis and am open to what others have to say even if I don't expect to agree with them. At the end of the day I know that I'm right. Again, a homo sapien trait of arrogance. Or confidence?