human nature, technology and evolution

Schadenfreude, why isn't there an English word for it, when it is so clearly part of all of us? Are we Brits just too pretentious to admit it could be? Anyway...

The New Scientist article on spite argues that "niceness needs nastiness". Excellent deduction. I wish I'd thought of it. But I'm happy to run with it. I wonder if all the seven deadly sins are there to ensure the survival and prominence in character of the other more positive attributes. I can't believe it is just spite that is there for a good reason. (Is spite one of the seven, can't remember?)

Envy, spitefulness and schadenfeude seem closely linked and motivations blurred across the boundary. Then another blurred boundary leads into sadism. I don't think most of us go that far though, implying that for each of us, the balance is different, explaining why some people find it harder to accept justification for warfare than others, for example. But it is also fascinating to explore, because it seems that many instances of UK government policy are driven by these same forces. In a party whose supporters start off generally as highly idealistic. Is it perhaps that focusing on positivity until you convince yourself that you are 'good' makes you less guarded against negativity later encroaching into your judgment and character? I think so.

All of this matters, because until now, human nature has been the one fixed reference point in a rapidly evolving technologically driven future. But technology will catch up with human nature in the next few decades, and we will be able to re-design it. We will analyse the brain, the mind, genetics and protemoics, we will develop artificial intelligence, strong AI, cybernetic implants, thought recognition and so on, until we are in a position around 2045 to start messing about with the fundamantal human nature of future generations. If we get it wrong, it might not be recoverable, we can't ensure there is a route to undo the damage. So we need to think a lot more about these issue so that we can make wiser decisions when the time comes. And to make sure future generations of policy-makers don't think it is as simple as erasing negative emotions. It plainly isn't. We need them as much as positive ones, or we won't work properly.

spite as key to future wars

Nice article in New Scientist 16 May about spitefulness, which is deeply ingrained in human nature. It seems to have evolved as a way of ensuring cooperation by punishing those that abuse trust and cooperation. Looking at wider human problems, I wonder if it isn't the underlying cause of wars, along with selfishness. People want peace, but those that are peaceful are often taken advantage of by those who are selfish and want to further their own interests at others' expense. If you don't defend yourself, you will eventually get attacked and your stuff taken from you. So we are forced to invest valuable resources in defence to make sure others leave us alone, which leaves everyone worse off.

Spite goes much further than mere self defense though, and amplifies the response into punishment. We are prepared to suffer in order to cause more suffering to the party that abused the system. Although this makes it worthwhile to stick to the common rules, when combined with powerful defence systems, it makes a dangerous trait. We don't just prevent attacks from succeeding with minimum force, we try to do much greater damage to the other party. Then spite forces further amplificied retailiation and so on until both parties are fully at war, whihc often ends only when one side is vanquished.

But of course, if we simply avoid spitefulness ourselves, we are then at the mercy of others who are willing to take full advantage of lack of punishment. If they would only be met with the minimum force required to restrain them, they would proceed.

So we're stuck. We want to be civilised, but human nature says that unless we can eradicate selfishness and spitefulness in every human being, the whole world is forced to endure repetition of conflicts. And as technology amplifies the potential damage that can be inflicted, and especially as it amplifies assymetry between risk and the ability to inflict damage on the other side, wars will get more and more damaging. We fool ourselves frequently that we have risen above warfare in Europe, but we have only done so because no-one has yet caused sufficient offence. Give it time.

Teenage culture reset

Excellent piece in yesreday's Times by Sue Palmer, from her book 21st Century boys. She argues that the natural behaviour of teenage boys is being blocked, with no acceptable outlet thanks to impacts of feminism and marketing. I would add liberalism to her list. Western society is now one where only feminine behaviour is accepted without question, and almost every aspect of masculinity is condemned. Teenage boys are essentially blocked by social attitudes from contact with adult men and have no means of learning by example from good male role models.

It is hard to disagree with her argument, whihc seems true in my experience. However, going further, teenagers are suffering as a whole, and I wonder if current teen culture is imploding. Teens seem much more unhappy than previously, and are more at odds with adults than previously. Vaccuums are hard to maintain, and at some point this one will collapse with a re-discovery by a new generation of teens of a lost land where they could be both happy and part of society. I am not brave enough to speculate what this reinvented teen culture will look like, but I am certain that the time is right, and a phase change in teen culture will happen soon.

TV Future

Lots of stuff recently about the demise of TV, with half the commentary saying TV will suffer because of new sets with internet access, thereby offering global channel choice with no subscription, and the other half saying how Murdoch and co will start to charge for news sites, and make it much harder to get content for free.

I think Murdoch overestimates his influence on today's market. He certainly knows how to earn money from traditional markets, and is no dinosaur, but was very slow indeed to capitalise on the net, and I really don't think he understands it. His venture into social networking was poorly implemented for example. His papers offer free sites, and the loss of sales of his papers cause him to think he should now charge for his sites. He can try, but people will not pay. I won't pay. I buy some of his papers most days, but I will not pay for his web content. If I stop reading his papers and get everything on-line, I still won't pay for it. There is simply far too much competition online, far too many of us willing to give stuff for free, and much of the free stuff compares well with professional stuff. The analysts have blogs, and I'll go direct.

However, many news-pros are very good, and they will stay good. The business model might have to change, but I won't pay directly for on-line content. Advertising revenue is supposedly limited, but there are lots of ways to skin a cat, and empires can crumble as fast as they can be built, so I expect some re-organisation and re-distribution of net-based wealth. Re-invention of business models will happen, and there will be winners and losers. I think Murdoch and the rest of the current content industry moguls will lose out, and new players will take a lot of the money available.

But it is not as simple as some analysts seem to think. Youtube and other amateur content sites can't offer the same quality as professionally manufactured material. No-one wants to watch or listen only to amateur content. We need professional content manufacture, both for music and video, much more so for video I think. There are loads of good bands out there that can produce music in styles I want, and will be content to do so for free as a loss leader, expecting ticket and merchandise sales at their concerts to provide income. So maybe the music industry can go largely in that direction. For video, even though cameras are cheap and powerful, and editing software is getting better every month, there is far more to making a compelling programme than owning a camera. Professional quality material is hard to make, and I think it will stay professional. I don't know what the business models will be, but at least most of us will still pay for video, even if lots of people get it for free. Video distribution can be controlled, and there is less potential for substitution than with other media. 

I suspect that advertising will pay a lot of the costs. Product placement, interactivity, embedded marketing, convergence with games and shopping, virtuality and overlaying, all these can be used to extract full potential. As to how much of each and the details, I'll leave that to entrepreneurs to find out, not my field.

I also think there is still a healthy market for braodcast TV. At the end of a busy day, many of us just want to veg out on the sofa with a beer and relax. I don't want to spend all evening thinking about what I want to watch, I am happy to pay to outsource that to a bunch of broadcast channel editors. This is further evidence that Murdoch doesn't really get it. I pay for Sky, but I value it far less overall than the four original channels, because they do the channel editing well, and Sky doesn't. Simple as that. All the hundreds of satellite channels provide less than half my viewing time. So I don't mind paying a license fee and fast forwarding over the ITV ads, it is still better and cheaper than Sky.

So, winners and losers? Broadcast TV will survive, but I think Sky will be affected much more by global choice via the internet, because it doesn't have the quality anchorage of the original four UK channels. I think the big music companies will suffer because bands can go to customer direct, but the bands will still stay in business. The music industry will thrive, but many of the existing big players will die.