Future Shlock

From so many posts about the future, here’s one about the past…

I’ve been watching and listening a lot to material regarding the American civil war lately. It is a part of history which perhaps does not receive that much attention outside the States, but is absolutely fascinating from a historical perspective: militarily, politically, concerning human rights and the very nature of America, which indeed went on to determine the course of the 20th century.

The magnitude of this war; the staggering losses inflicted on both sides; the clear direction and standing with which the US came out of it, propelled forward towards the coming 20th century as a world power; the fate of Lincoln and many other factors make it a highly interesting subject, with many lessons which are still relevant in our times.

A few interesting points to mention:

• It is a testament to the period that many men on both sides found little trouble with the common military attack tactics – walking line abreast towards the enemy lines while being shot at by artillery and muskets (the most extreme and well know example of which is of course Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, but there having been too many examples of senseless frontal assaults by both sides). Flanking movements aside (and there were plenty of those), it’s just baffling how people did not flinch at certain death.
• Even more astounding are the numerous  instances of blatant indifferent and incompetent field command by officers, which sent thousands and thousands to their death and serve as an eerie prelude to the horrors of the catastrophic World War I no-mans’-land frontal assaults.

• As in any war, the “what ifs” are easy to fall into.
  • How many lives would have been saved if George Mclellan had been as good a field commander as he was an organizer and/or possessed some more will to actually put his army to use? It is quite ironic that he was hesitant in being more aggressive with his forces “out of concern for their well-being”, in that if perhaps he had used his overwhelming numerical superiority the war may have been shortened saving many lives, notably from the Army of the Potomac.

   

  • There seem to have been so many pivotal points in the war, in which had a certain battle not gone one way the war would have ended otherwise, that it makes you wonder how things did come out as they did. A few notable examples are the near breakthrough which the Confederate army neared on the second day at Gettyburg; how Lincoln’s re-election looked exceedingly unlikely until Mobile, and then Atlanta fell several weeks before the election; how close were the European powers to recognizing the Confederacy; and so on and so forth. History.
• It is really striking to me how long the Confederacy managed to last in the face of overwhelming hardships and an inherent inferiority in industrial production and manpower. While Union military command ineptitude coupled with Confederate military brilliance in the East seems to have contributed to this prolonged time span, the part which staunch resistance to the threat of a dramatic imposed change to a society and way of life (as misguided and abusive as it was) is clearly major and impressively so at that, especially when contrasted with the large mood swings and wavering in the North.

However, in the end history went the way it did: the South surrendered, reconstruction begun with all its problems, and of course Lincoln was assasinated. A dark and terrible portion of American history was done, one that can teach a lesson or two to any country in which the values and ideals of a minority become so detached from the majority to lead to talk of separation (…).

And to wrap up, a great on-topic song from the Band:

If you’ve read my previous posts and the two singularity articles I’ve added to the site, you will know that in my opinion (and many others) there are two main avenues through which the singularity will emerge, when it does.

The first, and most widely considered (both scientifically and in the public/media view), will follow the development of what is known as “Strong AI” or “artificial general intelligence”. That is, the generation of an artificial intelligence which exceeds human intelligence,  coupled with this entity acquiring the ability to improve itself or develop an improved iteration of strong AI.

The route generally postulated in this case is that this AI and the ones it begets recursively improve themselves, rapidly reaching levels of intelligence ungraspable by us one-human-brain-power beings. Following this Singularity event, they either vanish into another dimension, build killer robots and destroy humanity, harvest humans as batteries and employ multiple copies of Hugo Weaving as unsuccessful agents or perhaps other realistic scenarios.

The slightly less well-covered route, though, is that prior to machines achieving supra-human intelligence, a way is found to link the human brain to machine components, followed by integrating the two – machines in the human body and multitudes of bodies and minds in a global cyborg consciousness. Thus, effectively rendering “us” and “them” inseparable. As a result, when strong AI does emerge, any advance made in intelligence levels will directly affect humans too. In effect, we will become part of the machine, able ultimately to transfer our consciousness to digital form and achieve the same leaps in intelligence levels as they emerge from the self-improving machines, or indeed be part of these improvements.

So which of these two possibilities (which are by no means categorically the only way things are set to pan out – there could be many variations in between, or completely different outcomes – remember, this is conjecture!)  is more likely? Which is better for humanity’s future?

Unfortunately, the advance rate in the bio and medical sciences naturally lags that in AI and related fields, due to the inherent restrictions on research in humans. Thus, one is forced to take a pessimistic outlook with regard to the likely sequence of events.  Ultimately an effective permanent link between man and machine will be made, but the question is whether it will still be relevant by the time it is established.

It must be remembered, though, that technological breakthroughs do happen. Should the field of brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and the multitude of technologies which comprise and surround it receive sufficient attention and funding, the chances of a beneficial sequence can increase profoundly, increasing the chance of the survival of humanity…or should I say, post-humanity.

It is clear, though, that making the connection to machine intelligences will radically change humanity. Thus, the question of which route is more preferable depends on your outlook: do you want to see humanity evolve, or are you content with us staying just the way we are, even if this renders us evolutionarily irrelevant? Are bacteria disappointed not to have evolved?

So, if you are of the belief that we must and will evolve – make a contribution: donate, write to your congressman, or just become a researcher! The future is almost here…

One of the major disconnects in the pharma industry, for a variety of reasons (historical, regulatory, organizational) is  the one between product development and the marketing which follows. Products have always been developed mostly tailored to functional specs, with the needs and convenience of patients who end up taking the medicines a secondary, or marginal, factor (beyond a basic, obvious level). Indeed, such product-related elements such as formulation, vessel and packaging design are purely functional – syringe, self-inject pen, pill, gel-cap etc. etc. Marketing these products has mostly been conducted post-hoc, based on a finalized set of characteristics, which the market itself had little effect on, aside from the initial basic medical need.

Or, should I say, that was the way things have always been.

A widely used phrase in healthcare is the “consumerization of patients”. Indeed, they/we are seen as becoming much a more prominent factor in recent years, expecting more of our doctors but also more from the medical products that we (and our health insurance) are paying for.

Thus, the evolution of medicines from the conventional products we’ve always known into more sophisticated consumer products is set to change the way pharma companies develop and market their products and, of course, the way patients consume them . In order to meet the increasing expectations patients have of their drugs, based on patients’ increasing power and voice, medicines will be designed to be more friendly to patients, more useful, more comfortable, even more interactive where possible. All this, despite restrictive regulations and the very slow pace at which the legal framework surrounding the industry moves. With R&D naturally not dealing closely with non-medical patient needs, the natural move will be to interface marketing and product development.

Adding user-friendliness and the will to meet expanding patient needs will touch a variety of fields which are central to the industry’s business, including packaging, formulation, medical monitoring, patient adherence to name but a few. For patients, the solutions offered should touch upon all phases of the treatment journey, from the product received at the pharmacy, to routine usage, to re-ordering and result monitoring.

Some examples for possible different capabilities are:

• More convenient packaging for patients with motor issues; waste disposal and collection services for used syringes.
• Extended use of environmentally-friendly materials.
• Integrating medical follow up and result assessment with medicine taking: pills and/or syringes which measure and indicate the patients’ condition (e.g. blood or other internal parameters) upon injecting /digesting.
• Pillboxes which calculate the number of pills taken out and automatically remind the patient of the dosing regime, or syringes which include RFID broadcasters to indicate via computer-linked receivers to the doctor when patients have self-injected.

Manufacturing these medicines, making them more appealing to consumers not only for their health benefit proposition, but also on associated extra added-value as part of the empowered patient’s self-disease management, will require not only new skills and innovative ideas from product development people, but, equally as important, a linking of market knowledge prevalent in marketing & sales departments with the product development and design capabilities which exist in R&D departments.

This, of course, will require much closer work between these two important segments of pharma companies – the relationship between which has historically been non-existent, weak, or even one of mutual suspicion. Different staff profiles, a different work cultures and routine, a completely different “language” have all contributed to this internal gap. However, if companies want to really meet their customers needs, if they want to innovate, grow and succeed, making these two meet will be crucial.

On one of the recent 4-hour-trips I make weekly from Strasbourg to Brussels and back I thought to myself: “wouldn’t it be great if I could use these 4 hours constructively, and not just have to drive all the time?”

Now, this led me to think that:

A. I’m sure many others like me who have long commutes would be happier spending this time working, reading, eating, sleeping, watching TV, or any other activity you can think of.

B. The technology to allow automatic control of cars – i.e. ultimately allow them to drive themselves (with manual override, of course) has existed for decades (cruise control), and more advanced generations (based on radar/IR/GPS etc.) are already beginning to enter the market, admittedly in simple form. In a few years these will naturally come into their own, starting with safety aspects of driving but then moving on to allowing drivers to more and more let the car handle the driving and free up more time for other stuff.

Sound something like the Jetsons, or some sci-fi? Well, despite the fact that rigorous safety testing will have to be performed and manual control will always remain an option, the lure of freeing several more hours a week for work or leisure activities will be so great as to compel auto makers to include these features in their top models first, and then filter them in to the massive selling models as well. The economic benefit of freeing millions of commuting hours to work (if one so chooses to do so) will also drive this. Not having to contend with stop-start traffic jams and just relaxing will lure people to use this, and the ability to feed advertising to people during these hours (and not just via radio) can further increase it’s appeal. And if one wants to enjoy driving, one can always take control and drive the old-fashioned way.

Now, the Top-Gear brigade will of course complain that cars were meant to be driven by us humans, that it’s fun and that by taking control from the person and giving it to some sensor-laden computer you’re ripping the heart and soul from these automobiles, to which I’d say: true, you’re right. However, giving the option to drivers to switch to auto-pilot and do something much more (or much less) productive is one of the main points of technology. Auto-pilot itself is used frequently to allow airline pilots to sleep/booze up/ take a vacation in Wisconsin, all the while people can still enjoy piloting. If you’re a petrolhead, go ahead and switch it off.

It seems that most concepts and discussions regarding cars in the future focus either on cool radical designs or on the energy source. The question is, will the actual role which the car plays in our life not change? What will cars turn into, once they are fully capable of driving themselves? If you could do anything in your car while on the road, what would you do?  Eating, sleeping, watching TV, Internet, talking to people (fully concentrated), and many other activities are the potential beneficiaries of this suddenly free time. In effect, the car will become an extension of the home. This will radically change the interior design of cars, with space utilization for  activities other than driving becoming a prominent factor, replacing the current guiding principle of a well-designed driver’s environment and comfortable sitting positions for him/her and several passengers.

Entertainment units (large screen TVs, onboard PCs (or macs), games console etc.), minibar, seats which collapse into beds, perhaps even basic cooking facilities seem reasonable, bringing what is available in chauffeur-driven cars and mobile homes into your everyday car. Or is there anything else you would think could be done in a car instead of driving?

EDIT: an interesting story regarding this topic can be read here, claiming that the first models of self-driving cars could be on the road within a decade!

It’s been a year since Romi was born. Amazing how quickly, and at the same time how slowly, this year went by…

So what have we had over the last 12 months?

A very steep learning curve.

Months of sleep deprivation and chronic tiredness.

Diapers, poo and all that.

Much less free time. So much added responsibility.

…and on the other hand…

Watching her grow from a 3 kilo, totally helpless baby into a toddler who can almost walk on her own.

Real enjoyment of seeing a personality form: great curiosity, humor, sadness, joy and grumpiness.

The wonderful, unfiltered and completely honest smile that greets you when she sees you first in the morning or after picking her up from the nanny.

The wonderful laugh. Sometimes spontaneous, even better when you bring it about.

Peaceful, beautiful moments of closeness when she rests her head on your chest and gently falls asleep.

Watching her charm the pants off people with a single smile.

The great interaction with family, friends and even strangers….

…what’s the balance?

In the early months it was pretty torturous, and I have many friends who are now becoming parents for the first time from whom I hear the same sounds of suffering we made when suddenly arriving in baby-land. However, the emergence of a wonderful, adventurous little person from the cocoon of the baby (and, of course, a steadily improving sleep cycle) has turned it to a great experience. Not an easy one, not a comfortable one, but still one that I wouldn’t miss if I went back 21 months ago.