Podcast #45: The Post Covid-19 Future, Part 2, Economics and Investing with Jim Lee

“The main purpose of the stock market is to make fools of as many men as possible.”–Bernard Baruch

 

For all the pain, suffering, sickness in death, all we have to look forward to if we survive the pandemic, is the worst global economy since the 1930’s.  Does one need a financial analyst or a psychoanalyst?  Many of us may need both.

I can’t recommend a psychoanalyst, but I can recommend an investment analyst.  Jim Lee stands out from the myriad of talking heads on cable business news channels, because he is also a professional futurist.  He’s a fellow member of the Association of Professional Futurists, and he joins me for episode #45 to take the long and short view of the post-COVID economic future, from next several months through the next several decades.

A reminder that Seeking Delphi is available on iTunes and PlayerFM,  and has a channel on YouTube.  You can also follow us on twitter @Seeking_Delphi and Facebook 

 

Image: shutterstock Click for Worldometer coronavirus stats.

 

Click image for bio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode #45: The Post-Covid Future, Economics and Investing, with Jim Lee

YouTube slideshow for Episode #45.

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on PlayerFM

Subscribe on YouTube

Follow Seeking Delphi™ on Facebook @SeekingDelphi

Follow me on twitter @Seeking_Delphi

Podcast #44: The Post Covid-19 Future, Part 1, Urban and Social Issues with Cindy Frewen

“If a severe pandemic materializes, all of society could pay a heavy price for decades of failing to create a rational system of health care that works for all of us.”–Irwin Redlener

 

Image: shutterstock

There is no doubt about it.  The after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us for many years into the future.  Healthcare. Economics. Social Interaction. Sports. Politics. Education.  Just about everything will feel the effects for the rest of most of our natural lives.

In this, the first of a series looking at various scenarios for a post-pandemic world, we look at urban and social issues.  Dr. Cindy Frewen is well qualified to discuss both of these areas. She is a fellow member of the Association of Professional Futurists–she served as its board chair for many years.  She is an architect, has a Ph. D. in communication, and teaches social change in the University of Houston’s graduate foresight program.  She also was a columnist for the Kansas City Star for many years.

A reminder that Seeking Delphi is available on iTunes and PlayerFM,  and has a channel on YouTube.  You can also follow us on Facebook.

 

Cindy Frewen , Phd
Image credit: Kansas City Star

Image: shutterstock Click for Worldometer coronavirus stats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode #44:  Post-Covid19 Urban and Social Issues, with Cindy Frewen

Full unedited Zoom video of episode #44

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on PlayerFM

Subscribe on YouTube

Follow Seeking Delphi™ on Facebook @SeekingDelphi

Follow me on twitter @Seeking_Delphi

Podcast #43: The Future of Work 2050, with Jerome Glenn

“Automation is going to cause unemployment, and we need to prepare for it.”–Mark cuban

 

Unfortunately, mass unemployment has apparently hit us without any help from automation.  But if there is a silver lining in the COVID-19 pandemic–and it’s awfully hard to imagine one–it might be that this may prepare us for dealing with mass job losses from causes other than social distancing.

In this discussion of the Millennium Project’s Work/Tech 2050 study, Jerome Glenn joins me to describe three possible long-term scenarios, along with many of the sub-issues to be dealt with.

By the way, here is a link with background on Delphi studies, which were used extensively to create the report.  The Delphi study gets its name from the same place Seeking Delphi™ does–the ancient oracle of Delphi.

A reminder that Seeking Delphi is available on iTunes and PlayerFM,  and has a channel on YouTube.  You can also follow us on Facebook.

 

Jerome Glenn

Work/Tech 2050 Report. Click image for download link.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode #43: The Future of Work, 2050, with Jerome Glenn

 

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on PlayerFM

Subscribe on YouTube

Follow Seeking Delphi™ on Facebook @SeekingDelphi

Follow me on twitter @Seeking_Delphi

Podcast #42: Going to Mars, featuring Moriba Jah

“I want to die on Mars–just not on impact.”–Elon Musk

“I am convinced that humans need to leave earth.”–Stephen Hawking

Mars One–not as good an idea as some thought.

Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking are not alone in their calls for humanity to become a multi-planetary species.  But they certainly are the most  visible advocates for space colonization.  And while the moon might be the most obvious jumping off point to the solar system and beyond, nothing stands out as a potential site for long term settlement more than Mars.

But just how realistic is sending astronauts to the Red Planet anytime soon–let alone colonizing it permanently?  The obstacles are many, and aerospace engineering may well be the least of them.  The human biological, psychological tolls and survival strategies–radiation, low gravity, isolation and the marshalling air, water, and food resources–all stand in the way.   And then there is the economic cost and the political and public will.  In this edition of Seeking Delphi,™ I talk to former NASA Mars mission navigator, Moriba Jah, about the many challenges of leaving of our home planet.

 

A reminder that Seeking Delphi is available on iTunes and PlayerFM,  and has a channel on YouTube.  You can also follow us on Facebook.

 

Click image for bio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode #42:  Going to Mars, with Moriba Jah

  YouTube  slideshow for episode #42

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on PlayerFM

Subscribe on YouTube

Follow Seeking Delphi™ on Facebook @SeekingDelphi

Follow me on twitter @Seeking_Delphi

Automation vs. Jobs: The Long and the Short of It.

This chapter appears concurrently in Age of Robots and includes content and quotes garnered from interviews with James J. Hughes, Jerome Glenn, Ian Pearson, Richard Yonck, John C. Havens and Alexandra Whittington on the Seeking Delphi™ podcast between April of 2017 and November of 2018. **

 “There are no right answers to wrong questions.”—Ursula K. LeGuin

Will automation kill jobs?  That’s not exactly the wrong question, but it is an incomplete one.  Which automation—robots, computers, A.I.?  Which industries?  And most important, in what time frame? The next five years are particularly fuzzy; things are simply changing too fast to tell.

Some History

On the eve of the iconic year of 1984, Isaac Asimov published an article envisioning the society of 2019.1 He foresaw a world where computerization and robots would change the world of work, and computer literacy would be vital for the jobs of the future.  He was right.

On the other hand, he conjectured that the transition to a more automated workplace would be largely complete by 2019.  He was clearly wrong.  The extent of the uncertainty and the varied nature of the many feasible scenarios indicate that the transition, if anything, is far from over.  We still don’t know the outcome;  but the next five years may bring us closer to knowing some answers.  Even then, though, we still might find much uncertainty.  Rapid change and disruption could become a permanent state.

Technological change has become so rapid—and to some extent chaotic–that even futurists feel challenged in ways they never have before.  Consider these words from James J. Hughes, executive director and co-founder of The Institute for Ethics in Emerging Technology:

“We’ve had the general experience over the past ten years that It’s hard to be a futurist nowadays.  You think up something that you think is going to be, for five or ten years, an issue that you’ll be able to be the only person talking about it.  Two weeks later it’s in the White House or in the European parliament being debated.” **

If futurists can’t keep up with it, how can the rest of us?

The Hype

The popular media, in its never-ending quest for click bait, greatly oversimplifies the questions.  This is particularly true of artificial intelligence and job loss.

“What we hear about [it] is mainly hype,” says Alexandra Whittington, Foresight Director of Fast Future Publishing. **

Jerome Glenn, chair of The Millennium Project and lead author on their State of The Future publications, points out that it is important to distinguish between types of A.I.  The narrow A.I. we currently have generally is focused on a single task, like playing chess or arranging airline schedules.  Human-like artificial general intelligence could be a much broader threat, but we have no idea when, or even if it will ever be achieved.  So, near term, he sees the less disruptive narrow A.I. as all that is on the table. **

The current flap over automation job reduction probably started with a 2013 report by the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University, entitled The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerization.2 Supported by mountains of statistics and advanced mathematical formulas, they came up with the assertion that 47% of all U.S. jobs are highly susceptible to being automated, and therefore eliminated.  That was only the beginning.

Following a 2017 report by McKinsey that 800 million jobs globally could be affected by automation by 2030, a torrent of gloom and doom articles appeared in the mass media.  Just consider some of these:

  • Automation could destroy millions of jobsThe Guardian, August 2018
  • America is unprepared for the job apocalypse automation will bringCBS News, June 2018
  • Will robots take your job? Humans ignore the coming A.I. revolution at their peril—NBC News, February 2018
  • One million jobs will disappear by 2026. How to prepare for an automation future—CNBC, February 2018.

Emotional, knee-jerk reaction to the headlines has led to what could be characterized as a kind of neo-Luddism.

Like the early 18th century efforts to by weavers destroy automated weaving looms and by horse breeders to block the proliferation of steam powered “horseless carriages,” there have sprung up various efforts to block technology today.  Consider, then, these headlines:

  • Professional Taxi Drivers In New York Want Self-Driving Cars Banned for 50 Years—com, January 2017
  • The Beef Industry is Desperately Fighting Lab-Grown Meats Over Labeling—Uproxx.com, February 2018

But there have also appeared many rebuttals to the doom and gloom scenarios, and one does have to drill down in these reports to fully in understand what might be going on.   The devil is most certainly in the details.

So, what exactly did McKinsey say?  It’s less stark than immediately meets the eye.  While over half of all existing workers could have up to a third of their functions automated, they also said only 5% of current jobs are fully replaceable by automation.  At least for now.  They further made projections of millions of jobs created by A.I. and robotics and suggested that only between 3 and 14% of all workers will need to find new occupations by 2030.3

Clearly, it is only certain jobs in certain industries that are likely to disappear in the near term.  And while cattle breeder and taxi driver are two occupations eventually in peril, it may already be too late to save the latter.  Uber and Lyft are seeing to that.

Historically, the ultimate technological demise of many industries has simply resulted in job creation in new industries; often many more jobs then were lost.  The loss of most jobs for horse breeding in the early 20th century led to creation of many more in automotive manufacturing, maintenance,  professional driving, and the petroleum industry.

But people have short memeories, and the speed and pervasiveness threatened currently by multiple disruptive technologies will likely dwarf anything seen in the past.

Hughes sees the push back against technology in these terms:

“Trump says he is going to bring back all these jobs, but he has never dealt with the impact of automation in the erosion of industrial jobs.  Luddism makes sense if there is no vision of how everyone gets fed and how we can have a good society without traditional jobs”. **

 

The Optimist

One optimist is noted British futurist and author Ian Pearson.  Writing in his Futurizen blog in March of 2017, Pearson states:

AI has been getting a lot of bad press the last few months from doom-mongers predicting mass unemployment. Together with robotics, AI will certainly help automate a lot of jobs, but it will also create many more and will greatly increase quality of life for most people.4

How can he be so sanguine in opposition to the torrent of doom and gloom saying in the popular press?  He asserts that there is a lot of counterbalance that is being ignored in the press and sees three main areas of robotic and A.I. job creation. **

These include, first, the need to program and maintain robots and A.I “Even with industrial robots you need a skilled workman on the factory floor showing them what to do,” he says.  But industrial robots are a lot easier to program than more general-purpose artificial intelligence, which he compares to the complexities of teaching children.  He believes that, though this won’t last forever, it will get us quite a few decades of extra jobs.

A second area is in jobs where what he terms “emotional repertoire” is required.  In things like interacting with patients and maintaining customer relationships, A.I. can only do so much.  “It can’t pick up body language or facial expressions and can’t tell whether you’re lying or exaggerating. Having a nurse or a technician between you and the AI can allow you to give far more detail to that program.”  He also suggests that people won’t open up to a computer program or robot in the same manner that they might to another human being. “The human forces you to be more open and honest about whatever it is you are doing.”

Third, he believes A.I. and other forms of automation will aide entrepreneurship.

“I think a lot of us would be an entrepreneur if it wasn’t so difficult,” he says.  He sees setting up a small company as a daunting task with tons of red tape, which can easily be farmed out to A.I., as long with handling logistics of manufacturing and shipping.  Adding artificial intelligence to a green employee, and you “upskill” them as he says, and makes them a more useful employee.

The fly in all this ointment is the emergence of emotional A.I., or affective computing.  Richard Yonck is a futurist author who has written on the subject, and to some extent warns that A.I. that can read, and react appropriately, to human emotion, might threaten even the jobs that Pearson described.

Pearson does not entirely disagree with him. He thinks that Yonck is talking about a different time horizen than he is.   He sees A.I. able to do just about everything humans can do, and then some, by around 2050.  But in the near term of just a few years, he still sees it as a more stimulative technology.

The Skeptic—

Richard Yonck (author, Heart of the Machine)  puts himself somewhere in between Pearson and the more pessimistic doomsayers in the foresight and economics communities.

In a 2017 interview he stated:

I think it will have a strong impact but probably not as severe as some of the prognostications. Automation, computerization A.I. and so forth.  But we saw from the great recession we don’t need to have 46 per cent of jobs to go away to have an enormous impact.  It’s true there are going to be new jobs and new value, and additional value placed on human emotional capabilities.  I half agree there will be a number of new jobs that arise out of qualities that are distinctly human in whatever role. Nursing, teaching, psychotherapy, roles where we have a level of emotional connection that machines simply cannot or will not have for a good few decades.  But I question whether that could offset all of the losses. **

Conclusions

So where do we go from here? It’s complicated.

Almost to a person, the pundits quoted above look at Universal Basic Income as a solution to mass technological unemployment.

Hughes puts it this way:

“We have been advocating for the importance of grappling with technological unemployment and advocating for universal basic income guarantee.  That’s now become mainstream. We need to be able to make that deal with the public. Yes, lots of people are going to lose their jobs, but we’re going to get all this cool stuff and we’re going to make sure that everyone gets fed and everyone’s going to have an income. Folks don’t really believe it yet, they don’t see the politics. “**

Another possible solution—attitudinal, rather than socialistic—comes from Heartificial Intelligence author John C. Havens.  He sees that the currently dominant economic model in the West as a roadblock to preventing automation job. He thinks that it makes no sense to have all these fantastic, disruptive technologies but still be living in an economic system based on GDP developed in 1944.

”It’s absurd not to bring societal infrastructure up to the level of technology.” He says and cites a possible solution in adopting what is called the triple bottom line, emphasizing not only growth and profitability, but also human and environmental well being. **

But again, one must ask oneself, is there any likelihood of the politics and economics being there for either of these solutions—at least in the short term?

The silver lining in the cloud, at least for the next few years, is that only a few select professions in a few industries are in danger of disappearing entirely.  While taxi drivers are under assault from ride sharing, the autonomous-driving demise of all professional taxi and truck drivers appears much farther out.

The stark fact, as of this writing, is that much of the West is experiencing labor shortages.  Even China is facing a shortfall of over 20 million skilled tech workers in the next few years.5    In the near term, labor shortages, rather than profits, may drive the proliferation of automation.

The verdict, then, is that we have not achieved the new equilibrium that Asimov envisioned by now.  Change has accelerated but is nowhere near complete.  We don’t now know for sure where it all will lead; we might have a better idea in five years.

Questions:

Which jobs in which industries and in what timeframe are most likely to be transformed or completely displaced by technology?

Will automation deployment be accelerated as a short-term solution to skilled labor shortages?

How should society deal with job loss due to automation?

**Sackler, M. (2017-2018). Seeking Delphi™.  from https://seekingdelphi.com/podcasts/

  1. Asimov, I. (2019). 35 years ago, Isaac Asimov was asked by the Star to predict the world of 2019 Here is what he wrote.   https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/27/35-years-ago-isaac-asimov-was-asked-by-the-star-to-predict-the-world-of-2019-here-is-what-he-wrote.html
  2. (2019). Oxacuk.   https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf
  3. Mckinsey, . (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages.  https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages
  4. Pearson, I.D. (2017). The more accurate guide to the future.   https://timeguide.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/ai-is-mainly-a-stimulative-technology-that-will-create-jobs/
  5. People’s daily. (2019). China to see shortage of 22 million high-end technical workers by 2020.  http://en.people.cn/n3/2019/0115/c90000-9537759.html

 

You can subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts, PlayerFM, MyTuner,  Listen Notes, and YouTube You can also follow us on Facebook and on twitter @Seeking_Delphi

 

Podcast #41: After Shock and the Legacy of Alvin Toffler, with Jerome Glenn and Andrew Curry

“Future shock is a sickness that comes from too much change in too short a time.”–Alvin Toffler

 

The newly released volume, After Shock, features 50 of the world’s most renowned futurists reflecting on the 50-year legacy of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, and looking ahead to the next 50 years.  In this episode recorded just a few days after the book’s release, two of the contributing essayists, Jerome Glenn and Andrew Curry, discuss with me their views on the legacy of Toffler and Future Shock.   Below are links to the audio podcast as well as to the unedited YouTube video of the original webinar.

The day I read Future Shock, just a couple of years after it came out, was the day that started me on the course to becoming a futurist.  Here’s what I wrote on this blog when Toffler died in July of 2016.

Links to relevant stories appear after the audio file and embedded YouTube video below.  A reminder that Seeking Delphi is available on iTunes and PlayerFM,  and has a channel on YouTube.  You can also follow us on Facebook.

 

  

Jerome Glenn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

episode #41,  After Shock and the Legacy of Alvin Toffler

 

YouTube vidoe of original, unedited webinar

 

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on Apple Podcasts

Subscribe to Seeking Delphi™ on PlayerFM

Subscribe on YouTube

Follow Seeking Delphi™ on Facebook @SeekingDelphi

Follow me on twitter @Seeking_Delphi