Many more people and far fewer jobs. What does that add up to?
“…there’s little doubt that the main thrust of the research is accurate: lots of non-routine, cognitive, white-collar as well as blue-collar jobs are going to be eliminated in the next two decades and we need to be planning for that contingency now.”
“Combinatorial innovation is a different kettle of fish, because it feeds on itself and grows exponentially. Given that we’re bound to lose this race against the machine, isn’t it time we began thinking of how we might harness it to improve the quality of our lives, rather than merely enrich the corporations that own it?”
“For centuries, science has led our progress; spirituality, as indicated through participation in orthodox religion has been in steady decline. But the unorganized, personal aspect of spirituality is the subjective pursuit of value, reality, and understanding through individual experience or consciousness. This aspect of spirituality has not declined. Instead, the drive to find external solutions to global problems that have value to our interior world is more powerful than ever. The scale of our planet’s problems is too great to be solved without an integrated approach of science and spirituality.” Deepak Chopra
“chains of parallel and successive operations that build complexity” will eventually explain the diversity of forms (Carroll, S.B. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Quercus Books, London, p. 105)
Just what are chains of operations that build complexity? I can detect the vague promise and recognise the materiality context; the kind of materiality that describes what happens with the presumed hope that this mysteriously satisfies our desire to “know” something substantial about the phenomenon. I am not kind and considerate like Rupert. This is just the same old blabber materialists have been dishing out since they began pulling stuff to pieces in order to gain useful knowledge.
For years, I taught field engineers how to isolate problems with first main frames, then minicomputers and finally micros. I assure you that the only useful knowledge that pulling any of the above to pieces in order to find out how it works will give you is just the number of pieces on the bench. You will never, ever find out “how it works” this way.
A Fascinating Story
“The semantic and sociological issues in this discussion remind me of the frailties of peer review and what is considered to be a “mainstream” idea. A classic study on peer review, published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 1982, did the following. The authors took “12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices. With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as ‘serious methodological flaws.'”
This simultaneously sad and funny outcome has not improved much three decades later, as this 2006 article indicates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. It concludes that “Peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.”
Or, perhaps it’s not so odd after all, given that everything we know is ultimately rooted in one belief or another.”
Institute of Noetic Science