Longitude Prize 2014 - Objectives all wrong (in my opinion)

No, but it would be an option we would both consider and even plan for, even if it was our plan B. I think most people, regardless of culture or social standing, and whether individually or as a collective, would ask first (if they could, which they can't always). We see this all the time, where organisations and groups make as much noise as they can to raise awareness of their plight in a non-violent, non-aggressive way, but we also know that people will do what they feel they have to do if their preferred approach proves fruitless.

There was something on telly recently about shoplifting statistics in the UK. It seems since our latest economic crisis, shoplifting has risen, and of all the different categories of products to be stolen, food theft rose most significantly. Its not that there was a sudden lowering of standards (I don't think), just a sudden increase in desperation. That's here in the UK where we have a half decent welfare system which is meant to ensure that nobody goes hungry. Imagine if that pressure happened in a much more vulnerable community, like many of the poorer parts of the world, where there is no welfare system and people aren't just hungry, they're starving. Increasing the pressure on them by pilfering their resources to 'increase production for all', would have to lead to trouble, because such communities would simply have no other option.

We see proof of this on the news every time there is a natural disaster. People lose their homes, and food and water supplies, and more or less immediately crime, especially looting but also outright violence suddenly breaks out.

 

I used to think it was mainly Americans who are technology-obsessed, but I see now it's a widespread attitude that 'Technology will save us.' Tech won't help us reduce demand, although it might be able to help reshape it in some way; if anything, technology has made disproportionate demand possible as nothing else could have done.

But all technology really is, is applied knowledge.

 

When I was a bit younger, I used to think that technology was about laziness. My logic being this (and this coming from someone who's job it is to make the technology work for us), we must be a fundamentally lazy species, because although it takes effort to develop technology, we do it with the aim of reducing the effort we have to put into other stuff. Everything a programmer does is about making the machine do something that a person used to have to do, or providing entertainment that requires less energy than actually doing something. Online shopping is the classic example. From the consumer's perspective, we no longer have to trail round lots of shops, wait in queues, and carry stuff. From the retailer's point of view, they no longer have to have people sat at check-outs, nobody needs to count stock and add up what's in the till, because its all fully automated. All that's left is the warehouse picking, where the pickers don't even have to decide the best route around the warehouse because the computer knows where the stock is located and prints the picking list in the right order for them.

So for most of my adult life so far, I thought it was about laziness. But more recently I got to thinking its actually something much deeper and more primal than that. Most species instinctively know not to simply waste energy, because food might be scarce so why waste it? Sure, young animals will play, but that's not waste, that's survival training in case they have to escape or fight or hunt. Some animals train, for example geese get themselves fit by doing training flights in the weeks leading up to migration, but again that's not wasted energy either because they instinctively know that if they don't train, they wont make it.

So now I think technology is just us using what nature blessed us with to make life a bit easier, allowing us to save energy. Just as a few thousand years ago, our clever brain architecture allowed us to figure out that farming is better than hunting and gathering, that same cleverly evolved brain nowadays gives us the ability to make technology with the aim of making life easier and more efficient.

The trouble is, well two things that combine against us really. Firstly, when mother nature figured out evolution, I bet she didn't figure that once we started on the technology, the technology would advance the technology. I.e. one generation of software/hardware makes it easier to make the next generation. The result being that it advances at an exponentially increasing rate, and certainly a hell of a lot faster than us biological things with typically 20 or more years between generations. That means we simply can't evolve to match the changes we are making ourselves. Finding a way to save us 1000 kcals worth of effort per day might have been useful a generation or two ago when people had to work hard all day, so burning several thousand kcals, while food was more expensive and less available, but saving 1000 kcals worth of energy expenditure per day now doesn't help us, it just makes us fat, because from an evolutionary perspective we're still programmed to stockpile while we can, and save energy where we can.

The other problem is that we've developed moral standards now that people might not have had a few thousand years ago. This combined with the situation described above, gives us a dilemma. At the end of the day, us humans are just animals like any other. We'll always try to get the best share for ourselves and our offspring that we can, and we'll form packs/herds because like many pack animals, we're programmed to know that we can achieve mutual benefits this way, as opposed to working as competing individuals. A few thousand years ago, that would have meant that one tribe that is more successful than another would simply just accept that its tough luck for the less fortunate ones, and would have happily taken their resources from them if the situation arose (as evident by the remains of many, many forts and strongholds dating back to prehistoric times - why make a stronghold if you didn't think your neighbours would nick your resources). Nowadays of course we do think about our fellow man in more difficult parts of the world, but at the same time, we're still animals programmed to stockpile resources when we can, and whoever has the best tech, is the most successful tribe. Whoever hasn't got it, is the less successful one, and the one that therefore loses out.

There are three ways for us to deal with this moral conundrum. We can go against instinct and try to promote fairness and sharing. We can do this as long as we ourselves are comfortable, because if we are not, then we revert to trying to gain.

The second option is to just accept that there are winners and losers, and that immediate gains might have long term consequences, but its ok now and is not likely to become a problem for us personally.

There will be some people who each choose one of the above options, but many more, probably the majority, will choose the third option. Just accept the positives and don't think about the negatives.

 

I cannot agree on this point. Humans are animals, I agree: We retain an animal heritage we'll never be parted from. In fact I think we retain heritage from single-celled organisms and onward, including plants, whether we are aware of its relevance or not (biophilia).

But animals like any other? I can't agree: Other animals don't have moral conundrums, AFAIK. Much mischief has resulted from confusion on this point. Hundreds (thousands) of maladaptive developments in the 20thC were\are excused by the assertion that we're just animals, don't expect us to imagine or use a moral compass (howl, slobber, scratch, belch).

I suppose in the end it's a personal decision, as to whether or not one is an animal like any other. The decision involves acceptance of or default on consciousness itself. Human demand, the human burden on the biosphere, can't be augmented without a human commitment to being a particular kind of animal: the kind that reasons, reflects, and reckons time.

Even with such a commitment, we may fail. That anciet animal heritage will remain with us.

I do believe a man or woman can be willing to steal to feed the children and remain an animal committed to consciousness -- or, more to the point, to conscience. Animals like all others go on as they are and die.