A shortened version of the Sparrow Fable goes something like this: a group of sparrows have a referendum on whether to train an owl to act as their guardian – to protect them from avian hunters.
- Some owls are all for it – great solution to a life and death problem.
- Some are concerned about the logistics – training, recruitment, management eg., how to find and train a baby owl, because training an adult owl will be tricky (inbuilt DNA that eats sparrows for breakfast); baby owls grow into adult owls and will having one in the sparrow community end up like a Trojan Horse scenario?
- One wise sparrow suggests that it may be better to address the preceding issues (logistics, management) before bringing a sparrow predator into the sparrows’ nest. Once the logistics of managing and controlling the owl have been worked out and tested, then there is potential for working with an owl in a sparrow guardian role.
Team Big 3 – The Enigma of Technology
Bostom (2016 iii) uses, the ‘Unfinished Fable of the Sparrows’ to sum up the inherent problems of technologically generated Superintelligence. Most of us want it, we are in awe of its potential; we award it mythological status, but have absolutely no idea about what it actually is or what it can actually do. Our awe overrides everything to the detriment of any sense of Social Responsibility: Sparrow Group 1.
Others, notes Bostom, are wary of technologies’ potential. They would like to understand a little bit more about embracing new technologies before giving technological developments per se a carte blanche remit. They recognise that technological developments could be useful, but they could also be problematic. These problems need to be solved, or at the very least addressed, before any changes to the community are initiated. Sparrow Group No. 2: technological developments are potentially problematic.
The minority make up Sparrow Group No.3: until you know how to control the owl, set its scope of work (rather than the owl setting it) – don’t let the owl into the nest. In terms of technology this means that until humanity understands the pros and cons of machine generated intelligence and the importance of managing its development – tread carefully, because by putting all our sparrow eggs (excuse the pun) into the technological basket the sparrows might end up breaking their own nest: a sparrow without a safe nest – a home to rest in – won’t last long.
Team Big 3 – The Invisible Conundrum of Social Change
Technological and Climate Change may appear to exist independently of Social Change – in reality they are its unruly off-spring – innately tied to their progenitor.
Thus, without significant Social Change:
- the chances of technological developments – in any field – being used for the betterment of humanity per se – are slim: technological development will continue to be problematic – even nefarious in nature.
- there can be no significant Climate Change: Sparrows won’t have a nest because Climate Change will annihilate their leafy habitat.
Conservative estimates place social change (in the OECD group) as 20 years behind where it needs to be to successfully tackle climate change and understand the implications of an unpredictable and swiftly changing technological landscape.
Sparrow Group 3, therefore, has to take responsibility for solving the problem generated by the Big 3 – Social, Technological and Climate Change. It can’t solve the problem of managing technological intrusion into its habitat without addressing the Social Change that birthed it; if it makes this mistake – its habitat will be at the mercy of Climate Change.
Yet Social Change – to most of humanity – is largely invisible, impersonal, and kinda just happens. It’s a slippery sucker to pin down (https://louisebricknell.com.au/let-fish-swim-and-monkeys-climb-active-intelligence-ai-for-everyone/).
People recognise that life in the 60’s differed from life in the 80’s; that the first quarter of the C21 bears little resemblance to the first quarter of the C20, but few people understand their roles, or agency, in this change. Without such an understanding, it is difficult to create change – this problem needs to be solved.
Yet if we solve problems focusing only on Social Change – we run the risk of negating the very real, and potentially positive and life enhancing (for all inhabitants of Earth and the planet) benefits that technological (and scientific) developments can offer. Furthermore, we run the risk of isolating key potential change players, such as, big business, global corporations, scientific communities, fossil fuel and Tech giants, financial institutions, governments – nations.
If we – like former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison suggested in relation to climate change – put all our eggs in the technological /science basket – we fail miserably to fulfil humanity’s potential in terms of creating solutions that enhance the quality of life for ourselves, and our planet. Why? Because most technical/ scientific research rarely factors humanity’s innate fear of change (structural and personal) into their work: we’re mammals, and like other mammals most of us prefer the path well-trodden.
How do we develop strategies – that can be applied to any context, anywhere – to solve ANY problem and elicit change that unleashes the potential that each individual element of the Big 3 (Social, Climate, Technological) offers? We CONNECT THEM – they’re a team. If humanity wants to successfully challenge this team we need a team approach – one based on collaboration across all areas of life; one that connects the personal to the political, the scientific to the everyday, the big picture to the micro picture – and does this in a collaborative, interactive, adventurous, fun, supportive and exciting way. Change needs to be fun – and supported.
“A head’s Up”: Living and Working with the Big 3
For example, a group of trades people, many still completing apprenticeships in building based trades, listed the following as key reasons for undertaking their apprenticeships:
- employment longevity,
- demand for their skill set and
- opportunities to set their own pay grades – given the demand for their skills.
Technology was viewed as a friend – an enabler to the trades sector. It enabled:
- jobs to be finished more quickly (allowing ‘tradies’ to cover more jobs – increasing their income)
- jobs to become cleaner eg., cleaning drains (using visual and remote cleaning equipment)
- specialisation – generating employment avenues for those that specialised
- reduced apprenticeship times (low income periods), because instead of having to learn all the aspects of building a house, trades people could focus on specific aspects eg., installing windows and frames.
The young apprentices were adamant – technology was a friend. They had let the owl into the Sparrow’s nest without questioning its MO.
I asked the trade apprentices about the impact of robotics on the building / trade industry. They didn’t see any impact, except the opportunity for playing Star War’s with them during ‘smoko’s’ – coffee breaks.
Walsh (2017 285 ) aka “the rock star of the digital revolution,’ suggests that by the middle of the 21 Century a robotic soccer team will be able to beat the then Soccer World Cup holders. Programmed with every game plan that has ever been played coupled with a level of robotic corporeal manoeuvrability that matches that of a human world cup soccer player – the human team would lose.
Robotic builders, with the dexterity to manage any building site in any weather – with no site/union rules for excessive heat, cold or wet; that can work 24/7 with no need for a ‘smoko’ or toilet break – running on battery power from a renewable energy source – would be more efficient than a human trades person and generate a smaller carbon footprint than the average human over the same life cycle period; eg., no travelling to work emissions (they would be based on site for the length of a job), no food production required, no clothing manufacturing emissions – the list goes on.
2050 is 27 years away – the young trades people would be in their early 40’s and technology – in the form of robotics – might have cut their earning capacity by half; by the end of the C21 – there may only be robotic trades people – with the exception of the odd highly skilled, and in demand, artisan crafts person.
My comments about robotics unnerved some of the young trades people, who noted that specialisation was something they were encouraged to do – quicker learning outcomes and so on. Some realised how this supported technological developments at their expense, – one reflected:
“It would be harder for a robot to build old school – like do everything – proper joinery etc, but they could fit a window quicker than a specialist window person could, that wouldn’t be hard.”
This led to a discussion about understanding the whole process of building – how all the dots connected, the different pieces fitted together, and the merit in that system of learning and working.
These young trades people connected to the robotics example in a way that moved – the majority of them – to want to learn and work in different ways, In part, the motivation for this was personal – they wanted to secure life long employment, they didn’t want to have to re skill later in life, and, as one asked:
“What skills won’t a robot or a machine be able to do … (and) who’s gonna give us the heads up on all this stuff?”
Connecting potential developments in technology with something these young people were connected to – their employment futures – resulted in a problem solving discussion that explored the relationship between:
- rapidly developing technologies
- Employment life cycles
- Family (how to support them)
- Climate Change (how can human workers reduce their carbon footprint – in all areas of their lives) and
- Whose Responsibility is it too alert humanity to the rapid and escalating changes that are coming its way?
Addressing these questions highlights the crucial role that the relationship between Social Responsibility, Technological Development, Climate Change has in generating contemporary solutions to current and future problems – anywhere with anyone – from individuals to CEO’s of multi national corporations.
The ineffable Match of the C21: Humanity V Team Big 3
Machines can and will increasingly be able to specialise more efficiently than humans. Learning scenarios that support individuals to think, to connect, to problem solve, to make connections between their day to day habits, practices, feelings, thoughts – to develop lateral thinking skills – are profoundly important in a world where specialisation is the norm – in just about any profession.
Current and future problem solving leaders will be adaptable, creative, innovative thinkers who can make connections between diverse problems and communicate these connections to multi skilled audiences in ways that elicit change on a personal and professional level – globally.
Solutions that support the development of innovative thinking skills and creative problem solving, that can be adapted to any context, with anyone, anywhere – are the harbingers of change (Climate, Social, Technological). These three are a team – to stand any chance of playing this team all three have to be addressed simultaneously. This is a big call, and best done in bite size pieces.
Bostrom (2016) and Walsh (2017) note that debates on machine consciousness are robust and abundant, but those concerned with an evolutionary shift in human consciousness are muted and rare.
Yet without a shift in how we make sense of, and connect, our individual lives, feelings, thoughts, actions to the technological, scientific, sociological and environmental changes occurring at warp speed around us:
- the Climate Action Now, that so many seek, will elude us;
- benefits of technological and scientific developments will support a decreasingly small minority of people, and fail to reach their potential;
- the global (and local) social consequences of the above – for humanity and the planet – will be bleak. Ice will melt, Polar bears will die, as will millions of human climate refugees – and cutting edge scientific research won’t be able to save them – by itself.
On the plus side – technological and scientific developments can support the creation of connections between social responsibility – personal change, and Big Picture issues – such as, Climate Change. They can connect fossil fuel giants with climate change activists; local with global populations; lead change through the creation of innovative learning experiences that connect personal experiences to cutting edge scientific development.
Such leading and learning experiences, however, are the creation of the human mind. A mind that seeks – not just specialisation and separation – but collaboration and connection. In this way, the technological owl can come into the human nest and support an evolution in human consciousness that allows humanity to play with, on a level playing field – Team Big 3: Climate, Technological, Social CHANGE.
Bostrom N (2016) Superintelligence, Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford University Press)
Walsh T (2017) It’s Alive! (La Trobe University Press)
Walsh T (2022) Machines Behaving Badly: The Morality of AI (La Trobe University Press)