First and foremost: why the title?
Since 2009 I posted few (ok- well over 100) articles.
Eventually, technologies and political options intertwined.
But each bit of technology, and each political development require a couple of interpretation keys: experience in relevant activities, and plenty of readings to update experience.
In the end, each article is semi-self-contained, as there is, of course, partial overlap.
Coming July, when two of the national holidays that I remember fall, I was considering how to summarize everything- and I decided the usual trick: set a date in the future, and do a “what-if”.
The convergence between changes is accelerating: what have have now technology that would have been considered almost science-fiction in the 1980s, when I started working in ICT.
Also on the political side, with all the up and downs, were are way past what was shown in the early 1980s on TV as our early XXI century integration.
I selected 2015 because I remembered two reports prepared by RAND that I recently read and reread, issued in 2000 and 2001, both focused on 2015 (one on e-government in the EU, the other on the overall evolution of technology; just search for 2015, and then “European Commission” or “NIS”).
So, 2015 it is.
But then, how could I make sense of all the bits and pieces (a preview picture of the mindmap containing the main “threads” from previous articles that I tried to summarize).
I had a similar issue when I completed a summer study period in Sweden: we were supposed to write during the exam a short essay on policy advice for cross-cultural integration- i.e. showing that I had understood all the material.
Well, it could be a quite dull exercise both for the writer and the reader, so I resorted to a different approach, that I had used in high school whenever asked to do something similar: I wrote an article as if it were written by a reporter (I wrote about an imaginary visit to the Parthenon, instead of just describing it, and a report… from Dante’s Hell), converted into something different.
Therefore,I imagined to write a political speech: then, it worked quite well (approved by my professor).
The issue with a political speech? You have to imagine an audience, so that you can tune language and content, and balance precision with ability to convey the message (i.e. you are not writing a legal contract or Ph.D. Dissertation, but something that should be understandable).
And, if you look at the picture, you will see that just the main issues discussed cover a wide range of technological and political/ethical subjects.
I did not include anything about medicine, biology, genetics, predictive behavioral modelling- for that, search the blog for “GMN2009”, a series of articles that I wrote last year.
Did I succeed as well as I did in that exam speech? I will let you be the judge.
P.S. Each section is composed by 500 words, the speech… you’ll see.
Preamble
A speech cannot be everything to everybody: if what you talk about is already shared with your audience, you can focus on motivation.
But if you want to create a new attitude, you cannot just deliver a surprise and then keep talking: you will have already lost your audience.
Build on something that you and your audience share, and keep adding what is new through known “reference points”: in the end, it is as when you learn something new.
I would have expected few articles or discussions or public events or news discussing what somebody called “the surveillance society”.
I keep repeating: online privacy is dead- killed by search engines, social networks online, and, yes, automated systems looking at what you looked before, to “suggest” what you should look now.
The speech is set in 2015- there are still few years… to make it worse.
More sensors scattered everywhere, from the clothing that you buy with an embedded RFID (i.e. electronic, unique, individual label), to your credit cards, to your transactions with your banking account and your mobile phone that you always carry with you.
I remember when, abouth ten years ago, I had a frequent flyer card from Swissair- with a chip inside.
And the Swiss police at the airport passport control greeted me by name before I even approached their booth and showed my passport- as they could see everything on their screen (ok- I was travelling often twice a week to/from Swizerland by plane).
But it is not just institutions and companies that have been chipping again at your privacy: try, as in an old episode of CSI, to ask bystanders if they saw an incident when it happens- and you will see dozens of people who used their mobile phone to document it.
Few years ago. Nowadays, probably they already posted the video on YouTube, twittered to their friends, and it is making the rounds on the Internet- instant communication.
It is too late to recover privacy- let’s get used to the new approach, and make the lack of privacy more “egalitarian”- through grassroot issue advocacy and news reporting.
But privacy and new technologies are only part of the speech.
Another important trend is converging multi-national decision making, first on economic (trade, the WTO), and then on security issues (e.g. the joint multinational force fighting piracy).
Yes, joint multinational decision making includes both the purse and the sword: but this implies an eventual convergence not only in aims, but also in means- otherwise, it will never work.
In the end- after 9/11 we started to consider acceptable a gradual erosion of our post-WWII freedoms: as B. Franklyn wrote… “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
The paradox is: probably, countries that have added basic freedoms and keep re-assessing and expanding their own participative democracy are our best ally in finding a common ground that balances freedom and security.
Technicalities
Moving now to a short description of the speech: its audience is assumed to be non-technical, but used to the “buzz” about technology, multinational decision-making, and so on.
Shift that three years in the future, and it will cover probably 80% of the potential voters.
Already now, just few years after it was created as a “virtual college facebook”, Facebook hosts from teenagers to their grand-parents.
But we should not forget that since 2008 we have been used to 3D in movie theatres- so that we could be ready (for the early adopters) for the current 3D TVs.
In 2015, it will probably be as common to use immersive multimedia (3D, and so on) also in political speeches, as now is for a politician to quote statistics, or talk about the Internet.
Probably, the “karaoke” model is the closer I can use to describe what I foresee: every word will be surrounded by additional information.
No more need to explain technology, or events, by quoting information: the background to what you are saying will be floating around the speaker (yes, an advanced, interactive evolution of the “red button” on Sky).
And, of course, you will be able to “grasp” details with your hands, as they were boxes, see what is inside, save for later, and then return to the main speech.
It is not science-fiction: political communication did the same with any new technology, from printing, to radio, to TV.
But, as shown by Thomas Paine and his “American Crisis” during the Independence War, you need an audience used to the new medium (in his case: the high level of literacy in the Army).
We are also constantly shrinking our attention span- better: increasing our capacity to follow a speech (or anything else) by “alerts”, i.e. doing multiple activities at the same time, and then focusing on what “catches our attention”, maybe for seconds, maybe for minutes.
Therefore, also political communication about policy will need to move from rambling speeches, to “performances”- with a value added.
It is not gimmickry: a savvy mix of different media would reinforce the message, and increase its retention, further improving the chance that the audience will actually “spread the message”.
And multimedia will be the best ally of any savvy politician: instead of buying “points” in advertisement, add something worth sharing, and your initial audience will snowball.
This is the side-effect of crowdsourcing and multi-tasking.
If I have limited time split across multiple stimuli, I will end up relying for in-depth information on any subject on trusted “knowledge gatekeepers”- somebody in my circle of friends who is more knowledgeable than me on a specific subject, and whose ability to pass over interesting information I will rely on.
I am saying “passing over”- not “assessing”.
In this new media-intensive 24/7 world, we will not listen only to those we agree with, but also those who can trust as fair “reporters”.
The speech
Actually, no speech.
You can derive your own version by reading the previous sections and the visual outline that I include here- or have somebody doing it on your behalf (yes, myself included).
The point being: the purpose of this blog is to stimulate thinking by presenting information..
My role, as I wrote in previous cases, is to be a mere “scribe” (or analyst).
What matters is the rationale (explained in the introduction), the “mechanics” (see the previous two sections), and, finally, the data collected- or that inspired the rationale.
I have prepared a speech outline, but then I run into a small “glitch”: a speech has to be tuned to the person delivering the speech- no person (or personality), no way to create the speech.
Therefore, my outline for a potential speech on the subject will keep being an outline.
Instead, I will report here few talking points about each item in the draft picture.
- 1 Global approaches for global issues
Overall, international coordination on common issues is developing shared approaches, first by building mutual trust where is needed- at the operational level, and then by creating consensus for political coordination: a convergence moving beyond not just the Cold War, but also many of the competitive scenarios discussed in the 1990s. -
1.1 Warming
IPCC is only the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended): the shared concern on tackling with global warming inspired renewed and better focused efforts such as expanding the interconnection of the electricity networks in Europe, the “loop” now connecting also North Africa, along with projects such as the “solar farms” in Spain, Northern Africa- all projects that had been previously dismissed as economic not viable.1.2 Trade
Despite all the brouhaha for the Doha Round of the WTO, we moved from G7 to G8 to G20, while additional countries joined the OECD, further increasing the coordination of trade policies- if you want, a kind of OPEC for trade; the aim: allow trade without making it too disruptive, and fostering global development.1.3 Security
Joint activities such as the multinational anti-piracy patrols are currently developing the same kind of seamless integration that allowed NATO countries to progressively “harmonize” their operations, i.e. operating jointly if and when needed, with a chain of command based on political convenience, but operational because the countries’ armies are used to work together- sharing protocols, logistics, and all the nuts-and-bolts required.1.4 Banking
The recently proposed international tax is the most recent step: but convergence began long ago, first on the technical side (the first Basel rules), and then on further coordination, that probably will eventually result in a network of IMF-style regional “stabilization” institutions, closely coordinated by the IMF on the technical side, and via international institutions on the political side. - 2 New technologies
The main characterstic of the few communication technological developments and trends that I listed in this section? Pervasivity: these technologies are the basic building blocks for new products, services, and, yes, new ways to connect people and everything around them. -
2.1 TCP IPv6
The computers that you are currently using started few years ago to add the basic building block for the “Internet of things”: from your fridge to your mobile phone, everything will be able to be connected to the Internet, and enable, say, your fridge to talk with your grocery store when you need to buy milk- or monitor if you are exceeding your planned calories consumption.2.2 Tracing routers
One of the current nightmares of the original Internet was one of its original strenghts: Arpanet was built to allows continuing computer communication also after a disaster (or a nuclear war)- but this implied that any communication can find an alternative route, if the original one is not available anymore- the aim is to deliver the communication. Eventually the basic machinery of the Internet, called “routers” will be replaced by the new ones, that can keep track of both the source and the destination- potentially allowing to divide the Internet world in jurisdictions, i.e. each country applying its own rule (as it happens already for the phone network).2.3 VOIP
It is a technical detail- but every voice communication should soon travel using an approach similar to the one used by Internet- actually, a kind of Internet communication. The benefits? The ability to have more communications through the same network- and merging communications of any form and type in a single, unified network, easier to manage and coordinate.2.4 Global Internet
Lesotho was the last country to be connected to the Internet- few years ago. Now, we are continuing to move one step further, as the Internet is moving from connnecting computers, to connecting (also thanks to VOIP, IPv6) anything anywhere anytime.2.5 Pervasive surveillance
It started as a security issue for limited, local needs (e.g. shops, troublesome areas), it became part of our post-9/11 world, and it is now so common, thanks also to the miniaturization of cameras, that we are almost oblivious to the presence of cameras and other forms of surveillance (e.g. sensors, RFID also in clothes, etc) everywhere. Next step: a Gattaca-style DNA tracking (science-fiction, for now)- why do you need keys or IDs, when you have yourself and you own unique combination of DNA and other biometrics?2.6 Citizen’s surveillance network
This is an unintended consequence of all the above mentioned technologies, as almost every owner of a mobile phone (at least in the developed world) is already used to have a camera and other sensors on your GSM (e.g. you can find kits to convert your mobile phone into an health monitoring device)- and soon, every mobile phone will come with an Internet connection (so that you can immediately share what you see around you). - 3 Converging politics
But it is not just technology that is changing: the Post Cold War world over the last few years vindicated Francis Fukuyama’s theory about democracy as the end of history (i.e. democracy as a self-improving political and social system): and we are converging- also if converging usually is toward the middle, not toward any of the extremes. -
3.1 From democracy vs communist to market democracy
The idealist phase of democracy vs communism was really never a black/white issue: on both sides there was a debate, and both sides to a certain degree cooperated. In the XXI century, both those starting with democracy or starting with the market or another system are converging toward a kind of global market-based democracy (funny, if you consider that mercantilism was a kind of zero-sum between nations), and the “sustainable development” movement sometimes echoes prior mercantilist overtones. Instead of markets, a single market, with the WTO as a “traffic cop”.3.2 Post-9/11 convergence toward the semi-open (or gated) society
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we talked (a lot) about open society- but we are actually developing a semi-open society, that sometimes gets closer to a technology- assisted “cuius regio eius religio”, the XVI century religious truce between Catholics and Protestants, allowing coexistence- something eerily similar to a a speech from President Obama, referring to China. Why “gated society”? Because technology will allow to “tune” each country on an agreed level of openness and freedom- while enabling co-existence. As I wrote above, convergence is almost never to the extremes.3.3 Increased cooperation and research of the middle ground
The interesting issue is that we are moving from “bloc cooperation” to “issue cooperation”: also within regional blocs, the general agreement can sometimes produce occasional disagreements, that result in cooperation with another country on specific issues, ranging from anti-piracy to fisheries, education, trade, and so on- more than a “multiple velocities” model, a constant negotiation. - 4 Beyond the borders
But the end of the history has been going hand in hand with the end of borders: do you remember the last time you had to reserve a phone call abroad? Nowadays, I can have a conference call with people in, say, Texas and Rwanda, without spending a single penny. But Skype is just the visible part: a side-effect is the creation of different attitudes to social connections and interactions, political representation and participation. -
4.1 Online social networks and communication
500 million members on Facebook- also discounting the people with multiple profiles and those who registered but never connected again, it is still larger than any phone directory you can think about. But social networks online do not disrupt communication: create new, parallel patterns of communication- sometimes, allowing individuals to become intertwined in multiple “virtual societies”. Side-effect? While in the past being part of multiple “social networks” (offline) required physical deplacement, nowadays you can communicate in parallel- something more common in those who see the technology as part of the background (the so-called “natives”) and those who simply use it for what it delivers, without necessarily rationalizing technology per se (usually- people who use it but refuse to try to understand how it works); and everybody else? Struggling to try to fit the new tools in the old customs.4.2 Grassroot-campaigning
Political campaigning used to be by local, physical contiguity, with international, joint organizations (e.g. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, MSF, WWF) operating locally through franchising or branches, to coordinate occasional international initiatives, and focus on adopting local causes. We are now instead seeing grassroot-campaigning that is self-organizing, without central organizations- simply, initiators on specific causes. And, moreover, transcending the political, national, socio-demographic boundaries.4.3 Crowdsourcing politics
Or: rent-a-crowd. It is still too early, but it is already beginning: asking people to volunteer ideas for new policies, or just to participate in events or door-to-door campaigning, with limited or no real local coordination. The difference from grassroot-campaigning? It is organized and initiated by the top, to produce then a result by design, not by consensus.4.4 From political parties to political temporary consensus
The most challenging issue is for the traditional political parties: I see online people joining tens of causes- sometimes with outbursts of activity that reminds the news cycle- or the solar flares. The challenge for political parties? Navigating between crowdsourcing and grassroot-campaigning, while trying to keep a consistency (the “why” for the existence for the politicla party), and getting used to work with a skeleton staff, not a traditional structure.4.5 Issue-oriented political organization
We had already international political organizations focused on specific issues- the point is that probably also “from the top” organizations will become increasingly like EEIG (European Economic Interest Groupings)- created on a purpose (a programme, an event), and then dissolved, after leaving behind maybe a permanent website documenting what has been done, should somebody decide later on to re-launch the same issue: without necessarily contacting the original creators.4.6 Multiple loyalties
All the previous points, and many more, point to just one result: every citizen, voter or not, will increasingly balance between different loyalties, and not necessarily giving priority to those that are linked to her/his physical reality. To “win the eyeballs” (forget about winning “hearts and minds” on a longer term), there will be a constant pressure to continously re-inforce the sense of belonging- welcome to the new world of XXI century political communication.
