[WHOOSH]
[CLICK]
[CLICK]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: What will the
future of work look like?
This seemingly
age-old question has
taken on increasing importance
as many leading experts think
that most of our jobs will
soon be done by machines.
That if this is the case,
then what would that
mean for how humans
make their living,
and how people spend their time?
Many future-thinking
people have been
asking these exact
questions for years.
MAN: Ah, my office,
the perfect office--
perspex desk, no in-tray,
no out-tray, no phone,
no filing cabinets, no clutter.
Quiet.
Cool, very efficient.
I need never get
out of this chair.
Hm.
That'll be nice.
No distractions.
Just me and the work,
alone and efficient.
Certainly free to get
a lot of work done
with no human distractions.
Much better than a human
being, tireless and efficient.
Anything I want, it
brings, even company.
[BUZZ]
ROBOT: [INAUDIBLE] I'm
just off to New York.
Before I go, don't get charming.
[CLICK]
PETER BLOOM: Although it
looks funny to us now,
they did get a few things right.
That video screen
looks a bit like Skype,
and scanning and setting
documents and images
is something we do with our
printers and smartphones
all the time.
What I think they got
wrong in this clip
is that there are no people.
I believe that the
features people led
and people empowered
by a new kind of work.
The Open University
is an institution
that's been breaking the mould
for years by allowing people
to learn new skills in their
own time, anywhere in the world.
So we've put together
a team of experts
to try and do a better job
of predicting the future.
We've done this by talking
to people already working
in new and creative ways
to see if we can pinpoint
what the future of work and
society may actually look like.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Someone who's been at the
cutting edge of thinking
about the future of
humanity and the world
is author James Hughes.
In his seminal text,
Citizen Cyborg,
he predicts an exciting
future of transhumanism.
But what precisely
is transhumanism?
Well, in the simplest
terms, transhumanism
is the belief the present
and future technology
can transform human existence.
It looks at the ways
in which technology,
for both good and bad, can
make a real difference in how
we live, act, and even conceive
ourselves as human beings.
How did you begin thinking
about the question of technology
and politics and its
relationship to the future?
JAMES HUGHES: In
the early 2000s,
the politics of human
enhancement technologies
really began to take off.
So that was the context in
which I wrote Citizen Cyborg.
And I was really exploring these
questions of what a citizenship
identity could be in a world
that was rapidly becoming more
diverse in the forms of
intelligent, sentient beings
that inhabit it.
And then we began to see
in the last 18 months,
the growth of Trumpism,
Putinism, Duterte, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera.
And things were happening in
the futurist and transhumanist
space where people
were getting very
interested in
electoral politics.
And I think we're beginning to
see not transhumanism per se,
but we're beginning to see the
left begin to grapple with some
of the issues of the future.
You know, here in Boston,
and the socialist youth,
the Millennials who have all
begun to flood into the left
organisations, it
ripples off their tongue,
fully automated
luxury communism.
It's just assumed
that there's going
to be this new paradigm
of post work luxury.
So at least in some of those
basic political economy issues,
I think we're beginning
to see the emergence
of a new future-informed
politics.
PETER BLOOM: I would say that
there's a much stronger--
particularly within the left,
and particularly within young
people--
a kind of discussion about,
are we going to have jobs?
And do we even want jobs?
And I think that
is a big movement
from a post-employment
fear to a post-work hope.
And that's beginning to happen.
But I think, going back,
one of the kind of questions
that I have is
that, how do you see
helping people
move from this kind
of ideological abstract
debate to actually begin
thinking about it in
their own lives what
this could concretely mean?
JAMES HUGHES: If you talk to
people now and you tell them,
well, you know, it's possible
that we could have technologies
in 10, 15 years that
stop the ageing process,
and eventually they
might even reverse it,
and that death might become
more or less optional
at some point in the future.
Most people say, oh, that sounds
terrible, and what about this?
And what about that?
And most of that's
sour grapes thinking.
You know, very few people
who are 90 years old
commit suicide.
Most people, if they're offered
an extra couple years of life,
will take it.
So I think when we get
there, they will take it.
But the sour grapes
is, I don't really
believe yet that that is
going to be on the table.
So I have to reject
that and still
buy into and affirm a paradigm
in which death is good.
And the same thing with
a post-work society,
that as long as
people don't believe
post-work affluence
is possible, then
they have to just reject
the whole paradigm
and say, well, a
society of moochers
that all just sit in
front of their TV,
wouldn't that be terrible?
So, at some point, with
all of these issues,
there's going to be a tipping
point, where so many people are
unemployed or
dramatically suddenly
in one year lose
their jobs because
of automation that people
begin to say, wait a minute,
is there another way to do this?
Where some new
breakthrough changes
the paradigm around
ageing, and people
say oh, maybe there
is a possibility of us
all living a long time.
Let's start thinking about
how that's going to work.
And we need to prepare,
those of us who
have a kind of
techno-progressive vision
for this, we need to
prepare to make sure it
goes one way and not another.
PETER BLOOM: What do you
see as, like you said,
tipping point questions around
empowerment and technology
that are really going
to help define a debate
and really kind of shape some
of the ways in which we're
thinking about the
future and seeking
to transform the future?
JAMES HUGHES: I've tried
to back out of prediction
because as long as
I've been-- my dad
got me a subscription
to the Futurist magazine
when I was like 12.
And he took me
into his workplace
and taught me to learn BASIC
when I was 13 with punch cards
because he said, son,
computers are the future.
You have to know BASIC.
He was right about
the computers.
He was wrong about the BASIC.
And throughout, you know,
25 years ago, I was sure
that we were on the cusp of
having anti-ageing therapies,
pills for obesity,
artificial intelligence
is around the
corner, and so forth.
And all these things
take a lot more time
than the futurists
tend to estimate.
I wouldn't try to
predict what's going
to happen the next five years.
But it's clear that things are
changing very rapidly, very
chaotically, very unexpectedly
in the geopolitical domain,
that new technologies
continue to emerge
at an unpredictable rate.
We have to sketch them out
in the broadest possible way,
and sketch out
the future that we
want to create beyond
those possibilities
because we just don't know
when they're going to come.
It might come next week.
It might come in 15 years.
Whenever it comes, we
have to be prepared
to ensure that we get to
an egalitarian, liberal,
and prosperous future.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: The idea of cyborgs
may seem utterly futuristic,
or even completely fantastical.
However, the use of human
enhancements is nothing new.
It's in fact quite ordinary.
Think only of our
use of eyeglasses,
or a prosthetic arm.
However, how does this
relate to the future of work?
The Machines Room
is a makerspace
in East London where young,
creative entrepreneurs are
trying to build the
future of work today.
I went along with Cinzia
Priola to speak to some
of the people working there.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
CINZIA PRIOLA: Can
you tell me a bit more
about what does Disrupt
Disability does?
MOLLY GAVRIEL: Disrupt
Disability started really
as a community of
wheelchair users
who were really interested
in finding out more
about wheelchair design and
wheelchair manufacturing,
and wanted to be connected
to designers and makers.
So we are currently
in a makerspace.
And there are all sorts of
digital fabrication tools
and machines around us.
We have 3D printers,
laser cutters, CNC mills.
So it's very, very user-led.
And our main focus is
really on facilitating
that so that people
can have wheelchairs
that are designed for them.
We were inspired--
or Rachael Wallach,
who's the founder of Disrupt
Disability was inspired
by an organisation called Enable
that she came across when she
was on a trip to I think Jordan.
RACHAEL WALLACH: They
were using 3D printing
to support refugees
of the Syrian crisis.
They showed me a 3D
printed prosthetic hand
that they'd made for
a boy who had lost
his fingers in the conflict.
They fully customised
it to his body.
And they'd even made it
look like Ben 10 hand.
So it was customised
to his preferences.
But the total cost
was only $39 to make.
MOLLY GAVRIEL: Rachael
did some research
and found out that the reason
that they were able to do this
was because they were
working with a community,
an online community of
designers, who were voluntarily
designing and contributing
their designs for prosthetics,
and that each of these designs
could then be 3D printed.
We think the people
who are best placed
to understand what they
want from a wheelchair,
and to articulate that, are
people who use wheelchairs
themselves.
RACHAEL WALLACH:
So imagine you're
trying to climb a
mountain, but you're
wearing a pair of stilettos and
they're three sizes too small.
It would be pretty
difficult. And that's
exactly what it's like
to use a wheelchair that
hasn't been customised to
your body, your lifestyle,
and your environment.
The problem is, with
traditional manufacture,
customization is
really expensive.
So, currently, a
customised wheelchair
cost about 2,000 pounds.
MOLLY GAVRIEL: At the
moment, the wheelchair market
is very different to, say,
the market for glasses.
I wear glasses
because I can't really
see very well without them.
I go to opticians, and I receive
a prescription for my glasses.
But from that point
onwards, the experience
of buying a pair of glasses is
very much like the experience
of buying a pair of shoes.
It's down to my tastes.
It's down to what I
want to look like.
But wheelchairs, that
process is quite medicalized.
Somebody is immediately
treated in the process
of choosing that wheelchair
as a disabled person
whereas, in my experience
of buying glasses,
I have never once been
treated as a disabled person.
And partly that's
because there is not
much customization in
terms of wheelchairs.
Wheelchair design has
been quite static.
RACHAEL WALLACH:
Previously, the only people
involved in wheelchair design
were medical professionals,
engineers, designers, and
perhaps a wheelchair user
at some point in that process.
But the range of people
we've been able to involve
was much broader.
So we've got artists.
We've had a locksmith.
We've had people from an
incredibly broad range
of different disciplines.
And I think this
kind of creativity
is something that we'll
start to see more of.
Because distributive manufacture
and digital fabrication
really enable these
kinds of collaborations.
CINZIA PRIOLA: Can
you tell us a bit more
what is digital fabrication?
And what is distributive
manufacturing?
MOLLY GAVRIEL: Sure, so
digital fabrication is kind
of what it says on the tin.
It's using digital
means, using something
like CAD, computer-aided design,
to design and then manufacture.
And distributive
manufacturing means that you
can manufacture anywhere.
You don't have to manufacture
in a central location.
So as opposed to where
traditionally you
might have a
workshop where you're
making all your wheelchairs,
and then you ship
wheelchairs to the
customer, we're
looking at actually how can we
take that manufacturing process
much closer to the customer.
So how could somebody go
to their local makerspace
or their local manufacturer and
have something made for them.
CINZIA PRIOLA: Where is
Disrupt Disability now?
MOLLY GAVRIEL: The
point we've come to
is we've started to look at
creating a modular wheelchair
system.
We've realised it's quite
difficult for somebody
who's never made a wheelchair
before to make a whole
wheelchair.
And also that,
for the user, they
might have an element
of that chair,
for example, the cast of
fork, so the front wheels,
that they might say
they need to change it.
So for their
day-to-day life, when
they're working in
an office in London,
they want something quite
small, and neat, and discreet.
But at the weekends, they
like going for long walks
in the Lake District.
And, therefore, they
need something that
can handle the rougher terrain.
CINZIA PRIOLA: As you
would do with a bike?
MOLLY GAVRIEL: Yeah, as
you would do with a bike.
So having something that's
able to be interchanged
is we see as something
that could really
benefit both the user, and
the designer, and the maker.
CINZIA PRIOLA: Could
you see this model,
this organisational model,
working for other organisations
in the present
and in the future?
MOLLY GAVRIEL: Yeah, I think
actually it's a really good way
to start a business.
If you start with your
users, your customers,
the problem that
you're trying to solve,
and really make that very
human, and then try and build
your solutions out of that.
PETER BLOOM: Working
with Disrupt Disability
in the same space
is Julien Vaissieres
from Batch Works,
another company working
to produce personalised products
using digital technology.
So it's interesting
with Batch Works
though because when people
think of production,
they either sometimes
think of craftwork, which
is someone making one thing, or
they think a mass production,
which it's using-- but
when I think of batch,
I think of it's almost
something that I'm cooking.
So I'm making a
batch of something.
[LAUGHTER]
So what is batch production?
JULIEN VAISSIERES: Batch
manufacturing has kind of
bridged the gap in between.
So its production that fits
the needs of the local.
And, so, yeah, it's a low
volume production, basically.
PETER BLOOM: Maybe
you could share
a little bit about
your background,
your inspiration for this,
and then how you made
that inspiration a reality.
JULIEN VAISSIERES: I was working
full-time as an architect.
And I kind of quickly realised
that I wanted to make things,
not spending my full
time behind a computer.
So I started using my skills in
3D modelling, and CAD drawing,
and put these kind of
skills in the 3D printing.
You can have an
idea in the morning,
prototype it, make it,
and see if it's viable.
So this is really powerful
because the design process
is, you know, from three months
or six months to one day.
PETER BLOOM: Are
you actually seeing
the fact that more types of
people can get into this?
JULIEN VAISSIERES:
So I think this
is where makerspace and fab
labs are, have been created
as to kind of do these kind
of bridge between people
kind of geeky and know about
3D printing, and woodworking.
And some people just
pop in and say, I just
want to make a boat.
Or, you know, it's pretty open.
But I think the space
make the key of that.
PETER BLOOM: People
talk quite a bit
about sustainability
and these aspects.
But if we can even look
at this lamp project.
So this was made from
completely recycled material.
JULIEN VAISSIERES: Yeah, yeah.
PETER BLOOM: Maybe you
could talk a little bit
about the process
of making that,
and how this represents a more
sustainable form of production.
JULIEN VAISSIERES:
Yeah, so the idea
was we wanted to make
a product, right?
We're like, which
product to make.
And the first thing,
let's make a lampshade.
And, from there, we
were like, how can we
3D print and locally make
that so it's a viable product
to sell on markets?
Because there is no 3D printed
products in the market.
If you go to [INAUDIBLE],,
there is no 3D printed product.
So we started looking
for different material,
different type of design,
and best way to print it
so it's quick and
it's efficient.
In terms of material,
we were looking
for something that is
interesting for the light,
as well.
So it's not just a
spotlight and something
that is kind of a bit useless.
So we wanted to use the
actual layers of the printers
to be interesting for the light.
Then we looked for
transparent filaments.
So we found this
company, Dutch company,
that's the only company who
recycle things and turn them
into filament.
So you can use it
on 3D printers.
So they send us some samples.
And, basically, they shred the
bottles, melt it into filament,
and we basically use
it to print objects.
PETER BLOOM: With
production, sometimes people
feel very outside of it.
JULIEN VAISSIERES: Yeah.
PETER BLOOM: Either
they have no idea
how their things are produced
and they just buy them,
or they feel very much as if,
when they are making them,
that they don't have a lot
of control of the process.
But this seems a much more
personalised and inclusive form
of production.
JULIEN VAISSIERES:
It's basically
where you use a 3D printer,
there is almost no waste.
Right?
Which mean you print
one part at the time,
so each part can
be personalised.
So we did this project of
50 lampshades in Paris.
It was the client saying,
we want 25 different designs
of this 50 lampshades.
And, for us, the printing
time was exactly the same.
Because it is doing
one at a time.
So while it is doing
one, the other one
is prepared to be printed, and
then print the other design.
So you can change the design.
We were the only one able
to do that because they
wanted to do it in metal and
in specific type of production.
They were was just
like six months lead
time or three months,
depending on the technology.
PETER BLOOM: So kind of
looking forward to this,
I mean, would you say that
this is, in many ways,
the future of manufacturing?
JULIEN VAISSIERES: I think
we don't have to get rid
of the mass production.
Because we are all buying
everyday mass produced stuff.
So it's more about looking
at the local needs,
and see how we could
combine all of these.
I think the only limit
right now is the technology.
So every week there
is a new printer.
Every month there is a new
3D printing technology.
And that's just going to--
you know, in five, 10
years time, then we'll see.
But I think we can see
the potential right now.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: Spaces is like
the Machines Room are powering
contemporary workplaces
to allow people
to work according to their
own needs and their own set
of values.
However, is that
what the future's
going to look like as well?
Or will it look like a
traditional corporation
that prioritises
productivity and profit
over the needs and desires of
individuals and communities?
Constance Laisné from Alt-Gen
has a more optimistic vision
of the future.
She and other young people
have started a cooperative
that's actually built to
help young people build
their own cooperatives
using digital technology.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I think just the first
question we had is,
what inspired you to help
start this organisation?
CONSTANCE LAISNÉ: I was working
for a very low wage because I
was a junior designer.
And I couldn't find any
democracy at the workplace.
Yeah, feeling no sense of
agency, no power, no sense
of ownership whatsoever.
PETER BLOOM: When you
mentioned cooperatives
to people who perhaps
hadn't heard of them before,
I mean, what were some of
the things in which you were
able to tell them about
what a cooperative is,
and what makes a
cooperative different?
CONSTANCE LAISNÉ: In
the workers cooperative,
all the workers are
members, owners,
and directors of the workplace.
So, in terms of your
sense of agency,
you do feel that you have a
say over the big decisions that
matter to you and
to your colleagues,
and you don't feel that you're
submitting some kind of orders
and arbitrary decisions from
some shareholders that you've
never met.
So we start from the people
in order to organise.
And in opposition
to a workplace where
you go and you apply
for a job, you come
and you have to fit in a box.
And you have your CV that
tries to fit in this box.
[LAUGHS] Here we
go the opposite.
We go the other way around,
where we look at who you are,
and what you can do,
what you want to do.
PETER BLOOM: So in what ways
have you been able to use
technology--
I would guess smart technology,
contemporary technology,
21st century technology
in order to help
spread the cooperatives,
particularly with young people?
CONSTANCE LAISNÉ: The basis of
cooperative is communication,
and good communication,
between people.
And technology, obviously,
helps a lot with communication.
It accelerates.
It facilitates.
It brings transparency.
It's very agile.
And I think it allows us to
move as quickly as we would
in terms of our
thinking processes.
Like, yeah, thanks
to technology,
we can do things as quickly
as we think about them.
PETER BLOOM: Your cooperative is
helping other people establish
a cooperative.
So are there things in
the practises of yourself
of learning as a
cooperative that you're then
able to share with
the cooperatives
some of your own challenges, or
some of the own possibilities
that you discovered?
And can you maybe give some
examples of that for people?
CONSTANCE LAISNÉ: Yeah,
basically what we did was
peer-to-peer learning.
And from what we did, we kind of
drew up some kind of templates,
and also shared our mistakes.
And I think we have
to learn hierarchy.
And we have to learn how to
be running an organisation
and project together
in the more equal way.
And these means loads of
work on communication.
And thought about
relationships really.
PETER BLOOM: The point you
were bringing about having
to de-learn a lot of our
values, de-learn hierarchy,
de-learn kind of authority, that
cooperatives actually offer us
a space in which to have on
an everyday level kind of more
empowering relationships
with each other,
and ones that I think are
not just a kind of part
of the economy, but could be a
dominant form of organisation
the economy.
CONSTANCE LAISNÉ: We are
not consumers anymore,
but we are active participants,
and we all political human
beings.
And I think this is very
exciting to see it happening.
So there's a real
debate going on
at the moment with my
cooperators and colleagues
around the question of, for
example, and owning Twitter
altogether.
If we own Twitter, the
question of ownership
and the ownership of
technology, thinking
about the future of the economy
is a very, very important
question.
And the cooperatives look
at this very question
of ownership.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: Milton Keynes
is new town and, of course,
home to The Open University.
It's also a place
where the future
is being trialled and
created in real time,
right before our very eyes.
It's a smart city that soon
may be home to driverless cars,
and a place where citizens
are being empowered
to use data to transform their
lives and their communities.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Enrico Motto is a Project
Director of MK:Smart.
So I asked him what he
thinks our future cities will
look like.
ENRICO MOTTO: I've
actually always
been very, very interested in
the intersection of technology
and people.
So pretty much all
my career, even when
I was doing my PhD for
supposed interested
in understanding how you
could build computers that
were able to solve
problems like people do,
as opposed to just
having algorithms
that are machine-like
but are not human-like.
So this intersection between
people and technologies
is really what
drives my research.
And, of course, in
the modern world
where technology is now
much more ubiquitous
than it was when I
started my career,
I will say working in
[INAUDIBLE] technology
and cities as communities is a
natural step for my research.
And that's what I
really like doing.
PETER BLOOM: So how did this
become the MK-Smart project?
And how did this form?
And what were some of the
driving ideas behind it?
ENRICO MOTTO: Well, we are very
lucky at The Open University
to be actually physically
based in Milton Keynes.
And I think we are very lucky.
We have a very
progressive council
that looks at these
objective of being
at the forefront of technology
to improve quality of life
in the city is one of
the key priorities.
PETER BLOOM: As
a technologist, I
know putting together
a kind of team to help
do this from a
technology side might
be relatively straightforward.
But what kinds of
other types of skills
did you need, and
people did you need,
and how did you kind of come
up with creating a team that
wasn't just about
technology, but also
had people from the public
and kind of the ability
to have a more
inclusive team that
dealt with the people side as
well as the technology side?
ENRICO MOTTO: Yeah, absolutely.
The history of not
just mass cities,
but the technology
is full of failures.
And due to the
fact that you only
had technologies
in the picture, you
didn't have the other
profiles, including
crucial in the
[INAUDIBLE] mass city,
you need to have citizens.
So I think this is really one of
the big strengths of MK-Smart.
It's always not just a
technology-led project
but also is a project
where the requirements come
from the council.
And there is a strong input
from a variety of stakeholders--
industry, council, academia,
but also the community.
But also, in addition
to that, we didn't just
do [INAUDIBLE] engagement.
We didn't just run road show and
told people what we were doing.
We say, hey, come
and contribute.
Come and work with us.
And if you have really
cool ideas, let us know.
And we might actually help
you with you realise it.
And, indeed, I was very
happy that we helped a number
of ideas to implementation.
PETER BLOOM: That sounds very
inspiring and optimistic.
But I would also be interested
in some of the challenges.
I know, for
instance, when people
think of smart
technology, they sometimes
think of the really exciting
possibilities of it.
But then when the
nitty-gritty comes about it,
for instance around
data sharing,
it becomes a little
more complicated.
So I'd be interested in some
of the concrete challenges
you faced in moving
forward this kind
of smart, empowering agenda,
and also some of the ways
in which you think there has to
be some shifting of how people
think, or some myths that
might emerge that really have
hindered the ability to kind
of put this forward in the most
empowering way possible?
ENRICO MOTTO: A key
challenge is really
to do with the
data availability,
and the nature of data.
When you talk about smart
solutions in cities,
a lot of the time
it is basically
about generating and making
available the data that
can improve decision-making.
But then, of course, when
you look at the practical
[INAUDIBLE],, all these data
you're talking about typically
belong to many, many
different organisations.
Very often, you have
ideas where if we
can get all this data, for
example, about energy use, then
we can do these clever things,
that then means everybody wins.
We can optimise use of energy.
OK, but the data
about energy use
belong to individual customers.
There is a privacy
element there.
And, again, these tension
has not been solved optimally
at the moment.
Of course, you don't
necessarily want--
I certainly don't want
all my energy data
to be released to the public so
anybody can use them and know
that those are my energy data
because they're private data.
And second, you can infer
a lot about my lifestyle
and the lifestyle
of my family simply
from looking at the energy
data, even when we are at home,
or we are not at home.
PETER BLOOM: What role do you
see in projects like MK-Smart
and for technologists to do
a similar process with data
empowerment, and allowing
people understand
the possibilities of data?
ENRICO MOTTO: There is a big
challenge for us in being able
to develop, for example, data
portals, city data portals,
which are really accessible,
which make information
interesting enough, and easy to
discover enough that people may
say, yeah, actually, I would
like to know what the council
is doing my neighbourhood,
for example,
with respect to road building,
or energy, or whatever,
and other any initiative.
And beyond that, I think that
the key approach is really then
to come up with dedicated
solutions for specific things.
So, for example,
like our MK portal
is a very successful
portal because it
doesn't try to do everything.
It doesn't try to be a portal
where you go and find anything
that is up in the council.
It's simply a portal to
encourage crowdsourcing ideas,
debate about this mass
city, and allow people
to propose ideas, vote
on other people's ideas,
and eventually to have a debate,
and to come to some agreement
about priorities.
So, essentially
there is, I will say,
this kind of high
road or low road.
The low road is to have many
more portals like our MK which
just do the one thing,
but it really nicely,
and they engage the community.
The high road is also to find
better interfaces and better
mechanism to allow people
to make sense of data.
And that's really, of
course, really important
not just in [INAUDIBLE],,
but for a healthy democracy
in today's world.
As you know, in
the past few years,
there's been a little bit of
a shift towards irrationality
and a sort of--
you know, essentially diminish
the value or evidence.
And I think it's really
important to actually
to try and address
that by having
better solutions to allow
people to really see
the data about an issue and
then make up their mind.
That's not an easy challenge.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: It's clear that
we need radical new ideas
about how and why we work.
To do so, we need to
adopt a wider perspective
about what the future of
society will look like,
and how we can get there.
We had Paul Walley go
talk to Duncan Green
at Oxfam about how
systems thinking can
allow us to do just this.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PAUL WALLEY: Can I just start
by asking you to tell me what
you see systems thinking as?
So
DUNCAN GREEN: In Oxfam,
I think systems thinking
is about pulling back
the lens on the camera
and looking at the
whole of the context.
So you're saying, OK,
the classic metaphor is,
we look at teaching
the fisherman to fish.
And then we now look
at what's the state
of the water in the river?
Is it the fisherman
or the fisherwomen?
What's the state
of the care economy
in which they are living?
Who's governing the
rules on the catches?
Are they going to have to pay
a bribe when they catch a fish
and try and sell it?
Can they even get it to market?
So you zoom out,
and suddenly you
see it's a much
more complex system
in which your
intervention, your project,
is supposed to achieve impact.
And unless you think
about the whole system,
it's quite likely your project
will achieve very little.
PAUL WALLEY: OK, so what
kinds of examples can
you give me of Oxfam applying
systems thinking to projects?
DUNCAN GREEN:
Well, often I think
Oxfam staff don't consciously
apply systems thinking.
It's just that the good
staff do it naturally.
I mean, that's one
thing I've noticed.
So, for example, in Tanzania,
DFID came to us and said,
we want you to try something
different on governance
and accountability,
getting local government
to listen to local villagers.
And we had this genius kind
of local programme person who
said, OK, well, we
don't know what to do.
So what we'll do is we'll try
eight different approaches,
everything from street
musicians, to a radio show,
to school management committees.
And then after
nine months, we'll
sit down with the local
communities and local partners
and say, which ones
would work best?
And we'll scale
those up, and we'll
close down the ones that
are not working so well.
So actually she'd kind
of reinvented evolution
because she was doing variation,
selection, amplification,
which is the kind of core
process of evolution.
And she just worked it
out from those principles,
which always just amazes
me when people come up
with this kind of thing.
PAUL WALLEY: I think
stakeholder management
quite an important aspect
of systems work, isn't it?
DUNCAN GREEN: Absolutely, so
we get people to stand back.
And, you know, typically
in the Aid-NGO sector,
people start off with a very
limited sense of stakeholders.
You know, the state
and the people.
And then when you
start talking to them,
they obviously have a much
more nuanced understanding.
And you start unpacking the
ecosystem, and start thinking,
OK, so there at
least 20 stakeholders
who'll affect whether that
fishing community can fish.
PAUL WALLEY: Yeah,
one of the things
that struck me with a
lot of the systems work
in this kind of area is
how the beneficiaries
of some of the aid are treated
as an equal stakeholder
in many instances.
DUNCAN GREEN: On a good day, OK?
I don't want to over-sell
what Oxfam does,
or what other NGOs do.
There's always a problem.
You know, in many cases, we have
a clash of accountabilities.
So we are accountable upwards
to the people who give us
the money, and we're accountable
downwards to the people
we're trying to help.
And if those two come to
tension, often money talks.
So there is always
a real tension
to try and be accountable
to the communities,
to have proper consultation.
Just as in the research
world, you know,
it's very easy to say, I'm
going to have participation
of local communities.
But there's no budget to
go back and then present
the findings of the
research, and you end up
just being quite extractive.
So there are always
these clashes
of incentives, which stop you
doing what you want to do.
PAUL WALLEY: Yeah,
I do think sometimes
that there's a temptation
to impose a Western solution
on a non-Western situation.
DUNCAN GREEN: There are
temptations in all directions.
So the one temptation is,
I've got this great idea.
I'm going to impose it.
Another one is, oh, everybody
knows their own answers.
We're just going to
uncover the richness, which
is partly there.
But, actually, people want new
ideas, and new technologies,
and new things.
So there's a danger of being
over-romantic and being
very arrogant.
They're not equal, but
they're both risks, I think.
PAUL WALLEY: OK, and what about
the challenges of implementing
this kind of systems work?
Do you see many?
DUNCAN GREEN: Oh, lots.
[LAUGHS] So, I mean,
there's external challenges.
So we're in a world now
where the funders will
say, what are you going to do?
And they want to
know pretty much
in advance what you want to do.
They want to know what
results you're going to get.
And then they want you
to measure those results,
and to be able to attribute any
improvement to what you did.
Now a lot of that is actually
anathema to systems thinking.
So if there are
multiple feedback loops,
numerous stakeholders, everybody
interacting with everybody
else, A, it's very hard
to predict the change,
and B, it's very hard
to attribute any change
to one particular intervention.
So you're in a
situation where people
are asking for the
impossible, in some cases.
And that can distort
what you do in two ways.
One, it means you actually
look for the places, which
is simple, where you can
get in, vaccinate some kids,
get out again, before the
system sort of collapses on you.
Or you actually just--
well, lie, to be honest.
You do complex interventions.
You improvise.
You surf the tide of events.
And then when you report
back to head office,
you say, no, the
project went great.
The project went to plan.
And there's been some
really interesting
anthropological work looking
at how aid workers live
this double life of facing
out in complex systems
and facing back in
simple linear systems,
and doing both at the same time.
I think it's a monumental
waste of effort.
And that's part of the
reason I'm publishing,
and writing, and
thinking about this
is to get people moving
to a more engaged approach
with systems.
PAUL WALLEY: Yeah, it
changes the style of working
and, in particular, the way
that things are managed.
DUNCAN GREEN: Yeah,
I mean, there's
a wonderful book by a woman
called Donella Meadows called
Thinking in Systems, who
says we have to learn
to dance with the system.
So I always tell
our staff, you need
to be fundamentally
curious about how
the system is changing
before you think
about what you're going to do.
You have to want to
dance with the system.
And then you can think
of your own moves a bit.
But it's that
curiosity of wanting
to find the answers
that are popping up
any way in the system,
and build on those,
rather than think, I am
coming in from the outside
with these great ideas,
and lucky old people,
they're going to
just absorb them.
And that's the
worst way to do it.
PAUL WALLEY: Yeah,
what do you think
are the main benefits that
you get out of this approach?
DUNCAN GREEN: The
main benefits is
if you caricature the
old way of doing aid,
it was, I'm going to do
all my thinking upfront,
and then I'm going to spend
three years implementing
the plan I came up
with all that thinking.
And then at the end of three
years, I'm going to evaluate,
right?
And then, typically, when
you do the evaluation,
you find that either all
or some of it didn't work.
So one major benefit is that you
realise what's not working much
earlier.
And you think as you go.
And you learn as you go.
If I ride my bicycle
across London,
and I set out in advance
the direction of travel,
and the velocity at all
points for the way I
get across London, I'm
going to die before I
get to the end of the road.
You've got to respond to
the traffic, the situation,
and you adjust.
So we're trying to make
projects and interventions
by organisations like Oxfam
smart, like riding a bike,
rather than trying to
drive a tank across London.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
PETER BLOOM: For young,
hungry entrepreneurs,
the future of work
seems bright indeed.
The Internet of things
is going to allow
us to do things faster,
smarter, and more efficiently.
But for the rest of us, the
idea of not having a job
can seem absolutely terrifying.
It raises serious questions
about, how will I pay my rent?
How will I pay my mortgage?
How will I even pay
for my next meal?
Malcolm Torry seems
to think he has
the answer to these questions.
We asked Charles Barthold to go
talk to him about his promotion
of a citizen's basic income.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
CHARLES BARTHOLD:
What is basic income?
MALCOLM TORRY: Basic income
is a very simple idea.
It's sometimes called by other
names-- citizen's income,
universal basic
income, now sometimes
citizen's basic income.
They all mean the same thing.
They mean an unconditional
income for every individual.
And unconditional means
that the amount you get
wouldn't depend on your
income, or your wealth,
or your employment status, or
your relationships with anybody
else.
It would be exactly the
same amount of money
for everyone of the same age.
It could vary with
somebody's age.
So somebody who's
older might get more.
Somebody who's younger
might get less.
A child will get less.
But, otherwise, it remains
entirely unconditional.
CHARLES BARTHOLD:
How much are we
talking about in this
country, in the UK?
MALCOLM TORRY: That's a
very interesting question
because all kinds of
different suggestions
have, of course, been made.
The research that we've
done suggests this--
if you had a large
citizen's basic income,
the tax rates required to pay
for it would be quite high.
That might not be
politically feasible.
What we have proved is that
a citizen's basic income
of 61 pounds a week can
be paid for by reducing
to zero your income
tax personal allowance,
and the lower earnings
threshold for national insurance
contributions, and raising
all national insurance
contributions to 12%.
And income tax rates would
only need to rise by 3%.
By doing that, we could provide
every single working age adult
with a citizen's basic
income of 61 pounds a week.
CHARLES BARTHOLD: And why
is this important for you?
And why is it
important in general?
MALCOLM TORRY: After
I left university,
I worked for two years
on the public counter
in the means-tested
benefits office.
It was called the Supplementary
Benefit Office then,
and it was part of what was
then called the Department
for Health and Social Security.
So for two years, I was facing
some quite often angry members
of the public, and some quite
stressed members of staff
behind me trying to
manage a really difficult
means-tested benefit system.
And the system was
clearly bad for everybody.
It was bad for the
claimants in front of me.
It was bad for the
people behind me.
And, at the same time, I
realised just how useful child
benefit was.
Because the child benefit
is an unconditional income
for every child.
It goes to the child's carer.
And it just kept on
coming for everyone
who was in front of me
complaining about mistakes
in their means-tested benefits.
And so, back then, I'd begun
to think, well, why can't we
do things generally
rather differently so
that it all looks a bit
more like child benefit.
CHARLES BARTHOLD: You mentioned
basically a number of problems
connected to
administering benefits,
and that this basic
income would sort out.
But there are probably as
well benefits for people,
and not only from the
perspective of the government.
Perhaps you could--
MALCOLM TORRY: Oh, absolutely.
CHARLES BARTHOLD: --could
mention a few things about--
MALCOLM TORRY: Well, the
administrative problems
affect the claimants of
benefits, just as much
as they affect the government.
And the administrative
simplicity
of a citizen's
basic income was one
of the most important
things about it.
Because of its simplicity,
you could completely
computerise it.
So it would start at your birth.
And it would end at your death.
And nothing would need to be
done to it between those two
points in time.
It would just keep
on coming, very
unlike our present
means-tested benefits
system, which is complex.
It requires constant
administration.
It requires vast amounts
of time and effort
being put in by claimants, and
by the staff administering it.
And it's full of errors.
Your error rates are
huge, and fraud as well.
And because fraud can
happen within such
a means-tested benefit system.
And sometimes the difference
with error and fraud
is quite a difficult
line to find
because what is simply an
error can, in fact, legally
be a fraud.
And so both the staff
and public suffer
a great deal from
the administration
means-tested benefits.
And none of that would apply
to a citizen's basic income.
For 400 years, we've been
means-testing benefits.
And, therefore, we
intuitively believe
that if the poor need
money, you should give money
to the poor, which means that
you then take it away from them
if they become less
poor, which means
it's quite difficult for them to
earn their way out of poverty.
So that's something that's
deeply embedded in our minds.
And it means that an
unconditional income sometimes
finds it quite difficult
to launch in our minds
as a sensible idea because it's
not something we're used to.
It's counter-intuitive,
giving money to everybody.
Because people say,
the rich don't need it.
Why give it to the rich?
The poor need the money.
But, unfortunately, if you
give money just to the poor,
it becomes an inefficient
means-tested benefit.
It is far more sensible
to give money to everybody
and they're not
taxing the rich more
than they're receiving in their
citizen's basic income anyway.
So what's the problem?
Especially if it's
very efficient
to give everyone the money.
But there is still a problem
with psychological feasibility.
CHARLES BARTHOLD: It seems
to me that this is connected,
this psychological feasibility
is related to the fact
that we tend to associate
income with work,
and then this basic income would
be a huge cultural and perhaps
even anthropological change.
Because then people would have
to start realising that income
is not necessarily
connected to work.
MALCOLM TORRY: One of the
reasons why opinion may now be
shifting-- and it
does seem to be--
is that the employment
market is becoming much more
problematic for more people.
And so it's beginning
to be understood.
CHARLES BARTHOLD: How could
basic income empower people?
How could it be an
opportunity for people?
MALCOLM TORRY: One of
the important effects
of citizen's basic
income would be
to increase people's choices.
And that is an empowering
thing, of course.
So if you've got more choices
in the employment market,
you might besides that,
if you're in a couple,
one of you who's currently
working full-time
may well work part-time.
Or you may both get
part-time jobs instead of one
of you getting a full-time
job, for instance.
You would have choices to make.
And it's when
people have choices
that they start to look at what
they're doing with their lives.
And so, yes, you may
well find that people
with caring responsibilities
can put more time into them.
You might also find that,
because your marginal deduction
rates have reduced,
some people might
seek more paid employment.
So it could go either way.
And the way it went would be
actually largely up to you.
And so what I'm saying is that
the choices will be there.
And we may see an increase
in voluntary activity
in the community.
I hope we would.
And there would be the option,
the opportunity for that.
We may see more people
putting more effort and time
into caring
responsibilities in relation
to children, older
parents, and so on.
And there be people more
able to make those choices.
But how they make choices,
of course, we don't know.
It's up to them.
That's the whole point to
a citizen's basic income.
It gives people choices.
PETER BLOOM: Technology will
play a big part in our future.
But I believe that we
now have the chance
to shape that future by thinking
about how we want to work,
and making sure that is one
where we take the power,
and challenge the established
way companies want us to work.
It is up to all of us
to help build and design
a future that is as open
as it is technological,
that is as empowered
as it is smart.
If we don't, we might
just find ourselves
living in a world tomorrow that
is not of our own choosing,
and one that has moved
us rapidly forward
technologically, but
dramatically backwards
as a society.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[WHOOSH]
ANNOUNCER: Get more from
The Open University.
Check out the links
on the screen now.
