Skip to main content

Future Politics - Jamie Susskind ***

Don't ignore this book if you are turned off by politics, as, despite the title, the theme of the book is how the internet, AI and the future of information and communication technology will impact our lives. Although politics is the primary way this is reflected, the book has a much wider remit - and these technologies are, without doubt, producing sweeping changes that will increasingly have a disruptive impact.

 Jamie Susskind starts with a rather breathless (and sometimes over-the-top) vision of the future of these technologies - he admits, like all futurology, what he says will almost certainly be wrong, but argues that just because this is the case doesn't mean we shouldn't examine potential consequences. He then goes on to examine how lives transformed by the internet, AI and mobile technology will have different opportunities and threats in the areas of power (human power, not rate of energy consumption), liberty, impact on democracy and justice.

 There is some really interesting material in here - particularly about the power that is increasingly in the hands of tech companies and the ways that democracy could change. Unfortunately, though, this is done in overly-wordy fashion - in this, the book's more like a business book than a science book: it could be a third the length and still contain all the significant material. It's interesting that at one point, Susskind refers to the book The Future of the Professions by his father and brother. That too suffers from excessive repetition, and the business/textbook tendency to have to dream up unnecessary names for things. (At one point in Future Politics, for example, Susskind pointlessly defines 'Deliberative Democracy, Direct Democracy, Wiki Democracy, Data Democracy and AI Democracy.') But the good news is that this Susskind is a significantly better writer than his father and brother - mostly this book is written in English rather than academic-speak.

 Perhaps the weakest part here was the future gazing at the beginning, where Susskind tends to wildly underestimate timescales for, for instance, the immersive adoption of self-driving cars or smart home technology (yes, for example, there are the robotic vacuum cleaners he mentions - but they cost six times as much as an ordinary cleaner and don't do the job as well). What he doesn't seem to get is that just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it will be widely bought into outside early-adopting tech lovers for a considerable time.

 Taking an example from a parallel situation: it's perfectly possible to build a zero carbon house - one that has no net carbon emissions in its day-to-day operations. And a few people have. But it will be decades or even centuries before they are dominant, because it would mean replacing most of the existing housing stock, and because even now most new builds aren't zero carbon, because it's too expensive to build them that way.

 So, bringing this back to Susskind's examples, I don't think people will be rushing into, say, self-restocking fridges, because again they're far more expensive than the ordinary variety, and most of us like to buy things when we want rather than when a fridge wants. Similarly, I think he vastly underestimates how long it will take self-driving cars to become common. Initially they will be very expensive, and it will take a long time for the majority to trust them. Also Susskind doesn't at all address the psychological problem of adopting them. Fans argue they will reduce deaths on the road. Great. Let's say they reduced the worldwide figure from 1 million to 250,000. That seems wonderful - 750,000 lives saved. But it would be a political minefield. Because those are 750,000 hypothetical lives. But 250,000 actual people will have been killed by self-driving cars - and their families will blame the technology.

 It seems, then, that some of the issues Susskind discusses are perhaps a lot farther ahead than he thinks. But we can't dispute, for example, the power already in the hands of social networks, search engines and the like, or the impact that technology is having with democracy. And because those issues are already with us, despite its faults, this is an important book and well worth reading.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Wish They'd Taught Me That - Robin Pemantle and Julian Gould ***

Subtitled 'overlooked and omitted topics in mathematics', the obvious concern is that there is a good reason these topics are overlooked and omitted. Thankfully, this is not the case, but it's fair to say that despite attempts to dress it up that way, this isn't a recreational maths book. There's a fair description in the blurb: 'the topics which every undergraduate mathematics student "should" know, but has probably never encountered... magnificent secrets that are beautiful, useful and accessible.' As someone who many years ago did a degree with a fair amount of mathematics in it, I think it probably would have appealed back then - though to be honest a lot of it has disappeared from my memory, strongly reducing the entertainment value. Here's an example. The first real page contains the sentence:  'If you are handed a real number 𝓍 ∈  ⁠ ⁠,  one way to tell if 𝓍 is rational or irrational is to look at sequences of rational numbers q n ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more