The Bewilderness

Religion, Demographics and the Singularity

Ray Kurzweil was in town this week to attend the premiere of a biographic documentary: "Transcendant Man". I attended the showing at the IMAX cinema in the Science Museum, graciously financed by Google UK. Barry Ptolemy's film was insightful, presenting a more complex overlay of Kurzweil's drives with an ambiguous tension between spiritual motivations and rational explanations. The film revealed this ambiguity but did not pierce the veil.

To follow up, Humanity + organised a talk at Birkbeck yesterday. A panel of five speakers spoke on the film, their views of Kurzweil, whether inspirational or sceptical, and wider issues of transhumanism. It was revealing how some moved from support for Kurzweil's certainty to doubts when asked to pin down their own predictions. Subscribers to the meme, sceptical as individuals.

One question did come to mind for me. How did this cornucopia of change interact with the existing demographic forecasts of population growth in the developing world and population decline in the advanced industrial countries. For such an interaction leads to a question of religious growth.....

The countries that are in decline mostly subscribe to a secular civilisation, becoming more vigorous as its population dies back. The more populous a country is in the twenty-first century; the more probable that the vast majority of its population will be people of faith.

With this trend, we see scenarios of transhumanist technology interacting with people of faith. A story of 'religion versus science' is not a suitable model. Competition within and between nations will drive this landscape: look for some odd spirituality ahead. And if health extension does come into play:

If our early steps in understanding longevity, lifespan, and aging develop and proliferate in a way analogous to the advances we have seen in biotechnology, aeronautics, DNA, computers, and communications, precipitous declines in mortality could be on the horizon. If so, then today's demographic projections may constitute serious underestimates of earth's future populations and may lull us into an exceedingly dangerous state of complacency and inaction. We should appreciate, therefore, that dramatic or unexpected declines in mortality may be capable of cancelling-out anticipated gains that we otherwise expect based on declining fertility.

Further examination and speculation on these questions is worthwhile. Perhaps Kurzweil's spiritual discourse will prove more advantageous in the battle of ideas than all of our debates.

Another top-down revolution in the NHS falters....

Smoke and mirrors have attended the latest differences in opinion over the NHS. Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary, has taken some flak for being too radical in public sector reform. Wasn't that the distinct flavour of the coalition? Yet, after a torrid spring conference for the Liberal Democrats with howls of "save the NHS" from the remnants of producer interest still within their ranks, Cameron and Clegg have bowed to concerns and the bill is stayed at committee stage.

The raft of reforms appear quite radical on the surface: a regulated market in healthcare, an independent commissioning board and concentrating procurement power in the hands of the GPs. Yet, the right of centre think-tank, Policy Exchange, have cast doubt on the efficacy of the reforms:

The statement by Lansley follows the Policy Exchange warning that the health and social care bill's proposals to abolish every primary care trust (PCT) by 2013 "could lead to the new structure simply replicating the existing system in all but name".

Without support from GP consortia and ensuring the necessary skills to exploit the new structure, an NHS 'big bang' could result in much heat and eventual status quo. So, the 'Lansley problem' is one of two left feet: annoying the GPs without Bevan's pot of gold, whilst the set of reforms suffers from a skills gap. Surely the answer is to seek out those who have the skills and allow them to partner with GP consortia to allow the reforms to move forward (perhaps they could, whisper it, make a profit too!).

Lansley's reforms, a rehash of earlier organisations, are failing because they do not allow enough diversity in provider or provision. Typical top-down revolution without considering that local structures must mutate to meet local needs. Wasn't devolution a principle once upon a time?

The UK five year plans

Despite the complex dance between the three major political parties in England, their narratives for this parliament have coalesced.

The Coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats is committed to the programme of public-sector cuts and shift to surplus financing as demanded by the structural deficit. This is wrapped within a dash for public sector reform: seasoning the main reduction in government expenditure with radical changes that are hoped to bring long-term savings.

Labour has shifted little in its orbit around the public sector. Defending the client state and opposing cuts with a fantasy of deficit financing has proved a short-term temptation. Edward Miliband does not anticipate an early election and has instituted a policy review: one that may even bring him closer to the Coalition programme. By 2015, the economic emergency will have receded and Labour will hope to have recaptured the centre ground on eceonomic competency.

Yet, these strategies are ready-made for upset. We have seen one upset with the hung parliament in 2010. Is this supposed to herald a one-off upset or will the volatility of the political system lead to greater shifts in party power. One example could be the replacement of the Liberal Democrats as the third party by others, such as the Greens or UKIP. In predictable periods, the barriers to entry for new parties are almost insurmountable. In unpredictable periods, new parties may arise, as electorates shift in response to rapid economic and social change. This time qualifies.

As for external black swans that could submerge the current political strategies, the list of potentials is lenghthening. Socialist parties A and B will find their five year plans off-target.