Front page of the April 2026 issue of Brum Group News
Three and a half years ago, I wrote a piece likening the rapid climate change on Earth to the fairly well-established science fiction concept of terraforming, but in reverse. So what has happened since? Well last summer, according to researchers at Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, two thirds of the 24,400 heat deaths from June to August across Europe were due to human-made global heating. And a study published last month has suggested that the pace of global warming has nearly doubled since 2015.
It this point I would like to suggest rehabilitating an old word to describe this process, in the opposite direction to terraforming (which is action designed to make a planet more habitable). Barrenize means to make barren or sterile and was used between the mid 1600s and the early 1700s according to the Oxford English Dictionary, originally in the context of animal husbandry. I think it’s time to bring this word back.
In a week when a US President has threatened, variously, “blowing everything up and taking over the oil” and that Iranians would be “living in Hell”, to last night saying that “a whole civilisation will die tonight”, unless they opened the Strait of Hormuz, it certainly sounds like a commitment to barrenization to me, only at a faster pace than the global warming he is already doing everything possible to accelerate further.
On Friday this week, the Birmingham Science Fiction Group will have Oliver Bettis as its guest speaker. Oliver has been a leading actuary in the field of sustainability for many years. He is one of the authors of a series of publications by the actuarial profession in collaboration with the University of Exeter in recent years.
Climate Scorpion shows how we need to develop a best guess about the worst-case scenarios and make policy on that basis, given our lack of knowledge about extreme climate risk and tipping points.
Planetary Solvency – finding our balance with nature sets out an approach to civilisational risk management which attempts to address the fact that the severity and frequency of extreme events are unprecedented and beyond current model projections.
Parasol Lost, which we will be discussing in particular this Friday, focuses on the cooling effect of aerosols: a side-effect of pollution from fossil fuel burning. Without aerosol cooling the global temperature would be around 0.5°C higher than the 1.4°C increase above pre-industrial temperature that we have today. It is critically important to recognise that, as air pollution is cleaned up, this may ironically lead to a short-term increase in warming through the loss of aerosol cooling. The question must be asked, can we afford to lose this cooling and if not, should this be replaced by working with nature, using technology or both?
This will allow us to tap into the rich history of science fiction literature on terraforming (and dealing with the threat of barrenization) and whether this can allow us to look at this question in a new way. It should be a lively discussion.
This event will be held in-person at the Friends of the Earth Warehouse, 54-57 Allison Street, Birmingham B5 5TH and simultaneously on Zoom, with online access opening from around 7.45 for an 8 pm start.
Ticket prices for non-members are £8 for in-person attendance and £6 for Zoom attendance. For members it’s £4 in-person attendance and free Zoom attendance.
Tickets can be purchased on the door or via the Eventbrite link below:
And if this whets your appetite for more science fiction and you think you might like to join the group, just email us at contact@brumsfgroup.org.uk. Hope to see you there!
OK I don’t know if this is a remotely helpful post, but it really feels to me like one of those months we will look back on, like March 2020, and wonder what we were thinking. To recap: on 4 March 2020, while Italy were shutting all their schools and a month after the WHO had declared a global health emergency, we were noting that the number of cases in the UK had jumped from 53 to 87 in one day.
Jump forward to now and the number of tankers with oil on board is in freefall:
Trump is talking about invading Kharg Island and “obliterating” Iran’s energy facilities, and we are sitting in the time lags of international fossil fuel freight waiting to see what will happen. But we already know what is going to happen. Just like the pandemic, we will be taking similar measures to the countries already more affected very soon. The order looks like Asia, followed by Africa, then Europe and only then, ironically, the United States.
So what is going on in Asia right now? Well the Philippines announced a national energy emergency six days ago, setting up an authority to oversee the orderly distribution of fuel, food, medicines, and other essential goods. Sri Lanka has announced a four-day week for all government employees. Egypt is ordering restaurants, cafés and shops to close at 9pm to safeguard dwindling energy reserves. Slovenia has brought in fuel rationing. Moldova’s Parliament has also voted to impose a state of emergency in the country’s energy sector. Australia is offering free public transport. Measures are also being taken in Thailand, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Bangladesh and South Sudan.
On 3 March 2020, the UK Government unveiled their Coronavirus Action Plan, which outlined what the UK had done and what it planned to do next. Paul Cosford, a medical director at Public Health England, said widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom was “highly likely”.
On 4 March 2020, the Daily Express were telling us:
Which we clearly weren’t. Meanwhile the Daily Mail was anticipating future lockdowns and 6 million people being off sick:
The next day we had the first Covid death in the UK. And life was on hold for the next two years.
Our response to the energy crisis seems to be almost entirely focused on
1. The cost-of-living crisis; and
2. The financial markets.
The Education Secretary has said that motorists should fill up as normal as the government is “well prepared” for disruption. The trouble is, many of us still remember September 2000:
So that would be enough to make us all feel nervous about shortages and queues for everything, having our lives disrupted and out of our control. But the real potential issue is not even being talked about, certainly not by the government. It is a shortage of food. Steve Keen sets out the economics of global food production here. This does not tend to feature prominently in mainstream economic analyses which are energy and food blind for the most part, although the FT did have this graph a couple of weeks ago:
As Steve Keen says:
Survival will depend on grain reserves. China has of the order of 18 months in reserve, which will insulate it from the disruptions of 2026. The USA and India have substantial reserves as well, but some countries—including the UK—have virtually none.
…Famines will ensue, and even countries that have never experienced such events could be forced into food rationing. This includes the UK and Australia, and a patchwork of countries across Europe.
This is what people are nervous about: not being able to get enough food, either because it isn’t available at all or not at a price they can afford. Calling that a cost-of-living crisis is a bit like calling the Black Death a labour market crisis. And it doesn’t stop there. As Steve Keen continues:
Other critical products that normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz include Helium, which is critical to the production of semiconductors, and sulphuric acid, which is critical to numerous production processes. The closure of the Strait cuts off one third of global helium output and about half of global sulphuric acid output.
With critical industrial inputs cut as well, the problems will cascade well past food alone—though that is clearly the most damaging impact. With LNG, petroleum, helium and sulphuric acid production cut, the capacity to undertake repairs to damaged facilities will also be hindered.
The TED War is rather like smashing a spider’s web—and then killing the spider.
The spider certainly looks in a poor state of health at the moment, and parts of the web will take years to fix. This is the crisis we are all inevitably going to be entering in the next few weeks. For who knows how long.
A risk management approach to this crisis would involve communicating a plan to the country that minimised the impulse to hoard resources and protected the most vulnerable from extreme prices, rather than bland reassurances from government ministers. We need this to be in place very quickly now.
A week or so ago I referred to a “Thought Exercise” set in June 2028 “detailing the progression and fallout of the Global Intelligence Crisis” (ie science fiction), published on 23 February, which may have tanked the share price of IBM later that day. As I said then, the fall definitely happened, with IBM’s share price falling 13%, its biggest fall since 2000. I said then that the likelihood of the scenario portrayed was difficult to assess, but the speed with which the total economic collapse was described felt unlikely if not impossible. I would like to expand on that.
The main reason that the scenario was hard to assess was that it was not based on data or evidence at all. That is unavoidable for speculative fiction talking about things that are not currently happening, but when describing an economy only two years away where most of the processes described should be discernible to some extent already, it is totally avoidable.
Ed Zitron has done an excellent line by line take down of the Citrini piece here. Here is one page of that to give you a flavour:
However this lack of a link with anything tangible did not stop the financial markets panicking, which should cause us pause when relying on the financial markets’ valuation of projects, industries, government policies, etc.
Ed Zitron describes this kind of piece as analyslop: “when somebody writes a long, specious piece of writing with few facts or actual statements with the intention of it being read as thorough analysis”. It can then get picked up by other commentators which take it as their starting point for further analysis, often making it hard to see that the starting point had few if any data points. Here is an example, from Carlo Iacono, looking at what if just some of the Citrini pronouncements were true, with appendices detailing possible branching paths of outcomes, all generated by a large language model (LLM). And then people start studying the meta analysis, and it starts getting taken even more seriously, and put into models and pretty soon most of the analysis is being done on imagined risks rather than on ones which are already staring us in the face.
We have always had a problem keeping our society grounded in reality, think the 2003 Iraq War, where we went to war on a false assessment about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, the 2008 financial crisis, where banks misunderstood the risks they were exposed to, and the last two and a half years, where we, for the most part, seem to have convinced ourselves we have not been facilitating a genocide in Gaza when we clearly have been. But this is only going to get worse with the AI systems which are being developed.
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has served to dramatically increase the speed of information production while also eroding accuracy, making it difficult to differentiate between content that simply sounds confident and content that’s actually grounded in reality.
So where is AI currently? Well PwC’s global CEO survey from January this year had the following statement as the first bullet amongst its key findings:
Most CEOs say their companies aren’t yet seeing a financial return from investments in AI. Although close to a third (30%) report increased revenue from AI in the last 12 months and a quarter (26%) are seeing lower costs, more than half (56%) say they’ve realised neither revenue nor cost benefits.
That’s the reality. But the hype is much much more entertaining. My favourite spoof video of the AI future currently is this one, about the time where all most of us are good for is riding bicycles to supply the ever increasing energy needs of AI systems (click view in browser if you can’t see it):
And what about the financial journalists? The pieces describing our reaction to whatever is about to unfold economically have already been written. There are investor websites asking if the 2026 crash has already begun, while another recent article argues that “America has quietly become one of the world’s most shock‑resistant economies” (which seems unlikely to age well). What most financial journalists are more comfortable with are articles about how the warnings were ignored after the fact.
And the professions? Well the current overview of my own profession is probably reasonably represented by this piece from the Society of Actuaries in the United States. Unfortunately for them, Daniel Susskind, who is mentioned in the article, is currently suggesting, as part of his Future of Work lecture series for Gresham College, how the key to the sudden development in AI, after the “AI Winter” when progress seemed slow, was that we abandoned trying to make machines which thought and acted like humans in favour of focusing on completing tasks in any way possible. Increasingly we are now automating tasks where we can’t (or won’t) articulate how we do them. From Deep Blue‘s victory over Kasparov in 1997 to Watson winning jeopardy in 2011 to ImageNet beating humans at image recognition (although that is disputed), Susskind refers to this progress as the displacement of purists in favour of what he calls “The Pragmatic Revolution”. Pragmatism in this sense appears to be that we humans should just accept the consequences the people running these systems want. So, as his latest lecture “Work, out of reach” claims, people moving into cities to find work is a strategy which is no longer going to work for low skilled people:
He then shows this graphic demonstrating the lack of recovery of big coal mining areas in the UK:
Source: Left – Sheffield Hallam University map of coal mining areas; Right – % employment from Overman and Xu (2022)
And finally he cites the notorious Policy Exchange piece from 2007, Cities Unlimited, whose thesis was that there is apparently no realistic prospect of regenerating towns and cities outside London and the South East.
Susskind talks about three forms of technological unemployment:
skills-mismatch, where your skills are mismatched to the work available. Education and training has always been the answer to this in the past.
place-mismatch, where the jobs are not where you have built your life. Some believe the answer should always be the one proposed by Norman Tebbit, who memorably told everyone in 1981, “I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He did not riot. He got on his bike and looked for work.”
identity-mismatch, where according to Susskind, people are prepared to stay out of work to protect their identity, citing US men who won’t take “pink collar” work, China “rotten tail” kids, Japanese seishain-or-nothing and Indian Sarkari Naukri queues in India. Or perhaps they are just looking for work which is consistent with the idea of human dignity.
Susskind claims to have no answer to any of these as far as AI is concerned. They are, in his view, just the inevitable outcomes of his “Pragmatic Revolution”. It is the unthinking pursuit of more and more growth funded by capital less and less tethered to any territory, principle or purpose, where any grit in the machinery, be it unions or protestors or, increasingly, the wrong sort of government must be trampled underfoot. Anything which impedes the helter-skelter rush to more and more at greater and greater speed. It’s like our whole economy is run by this guy (press the view in browser link if you can’t see him) shouting “Ready, Aim, Fire!”:
But unskilled people will not be the only collateral damage of these unguided weapons. Take markets for instance. These are where people are exposed to risks and rewards based on underlying conditions they only partially understand. Greed and fear may be their main motivations, but gossip and group think are their main communication channels. They don’t need facts, particularly when so many of the facts are proprietary information not in the public domain. A plausible narrative will do. And plausible narratives are what LLMs will do for you in abundance.
And the more we reward people who can move fast, eg to spot an arbitrage opportunity, even at the risk of breaking things, rather than people who can make decisions which still look good decades from now, the more we are setting up the conditions for AI systems to be the go-to tool.
And put that together with an AI industry which desperately needs funding capital to keep arriving, ie one which is unbelievably highly motivated to push plausible narratives even when they know they are not grounded in reality, and you have a recipe for market-generated chaos.
And then we have Trump’s new war. Beware the people who are war gaming the Middle East at the moment on a range of LLMs (just stop and think for a moment about the bloodless inhuman impulse behind carrying out such an exercise rather than, I don’t know, talking to some actual people who live or have lived recently in and around the region). One of the worst offenders is Heavy Lifting banging on about what the three scenarios are for Operation Epic Fury. This is as bad as it sounds:
I tasked her [he is talking about Gemini Pro here] with doing a literature review on regime change (a term often used by the President but not a well-defined one), creating three scenarios of possible outcomes for which each was give a percentage probability, and a list of 20 items to examine for each scenario that covered political, economic, and cultural issues with a special focus on the political consequences in the U.S. and what this means for China, our biggest geopolitical rival.
But Gemini Pro wasn’t the only one involved in this. Two other humans were, Tim Parker and Ron Portante, trainers at the gym I go to. (Just as a personal aside, Tim was my coach in hitting six plates [345 pounds] on the sled last Friday and I have a video to prove it!) I was talking about the piece and Ron raised the issue of linguistic and cultural diversity in Iran. Tim did some real time research for me on his phone while I was burning real calories under his strict tutelage. This made me think I needed a background section on Iran. When I got him Gemini and I added it.
What you mean you belatedly realised you might need to have done some actual research into Iran rather than just generic research on regime change? I stopped reading at that point.
Meanwhile King’s College London have been carrying out war games more systematically using AI. Professor Kenneth Payne from the Department of Defence Studies led the study, which looked at how LLMs would perform in simulated nuclear crises. As Professor Payne said:
Nuclear escalation was near-universal: 95% of games saw tactical nuclear use and 76% reached strategic nuclear threats. Claude and Gemini especially treated nuclear weapons as legitimate strategic options, not moral thresholds, typically discussing nuclear use in purely instrumental terms. GPT-5.2 was a partial exception, limiting strikes to military targets, avoiding population centers, or framing escalation as “controlled” and “one-time.” This suggests some internalised norm against unrestricted nuclear war, even if not the visceral taboo that has held among human decision-makers since 1945.
This is not a Pragmatic Revolution. These AI systems cannot replace humans thinking about the future we want for humans in any way which is worth having. What they can do, if we let them, is accelerate our worst impulses and move us further away from considered reflective decision making.
But we will continue to use AI systems in the military because, as it turns out, it is very useful for low stakes admin. So although Lavender, the system used by the Israeli military to select targets in Gaza, made errors in 10% of cases and was therefore totally inappropriate to the task, there are lots of organisational logistical tasks where it is much quicker than the alternative and 10% error rates do not matter so much.
There is clearly an issue with what we decide to use these systems for. We need to be able to regulate the decisions which are particularly consequential. However the only way we seem to be considering for this at the moment is the human-in-the-loop model, like the humans spending around 20 seconds considering each target recommended by Lavender before authorizing a bombing. I have written about these before in the context of early career professionals in the finance industry, where the prospect seemed miserable enough:
They will be paid a lot more. However, as Cory Doctorow describes here, the misery of being the human in the loop for an AI system designed to produce output where errors are hard to spot and therefore to stop (Doctorow calls them, “reverse centaurs”, ie humans have become the horse part) includes being the ready made scapegoat (or “moral crumple zone” or “accountability sink“) for when they are inevitably used to overreach what they are programmed for and produce something terrible.
However it seems obvious to me that, in the context of dropping actual bombs on actual people, there is an even more serious problem with this model. As Simon Pearson (anti-capitalist musings) puts it:
The “human in the loop” requirement exists in military doctrine because international humanitarian law demands an accountable human decision-maker for lethal force. The laws of armed conflict require proportionality assessments, precautionary measures, distinction between combatants and civilians. All of these obligations attach to a human commander. The system cannot fulfil them. So a human must be present, and their presence must constitute a decision, regardless of whether any genuine decision was made.
What the institution needs from the analyst is not judgment. It is a signature. The signature converts a machine output into a human act. And a human act is what the law recognises, whether or not any judgment occurred. When the strike kills children, the chain of accountability runs to the analyst who approved the target: not to the system that identified it, not to the company that built the system, not to the doctrine that compressed the review window to ten seconds.
But whether we want to make money from exploiting a short term anomaly in a market, make our fellow humans redundant, prosecute a war on another group of fellow humans or “win” a war of mutual nuclear destruction, we need to retain the capacity for real human reflection within the decision-making processes we use. Not just a human-in-the-loop nor just the elites of tech companies deciding how the systems will be configured behind commercially confidential walls. These processes need democratic accountability every bit as much as our parliaments, councils, institutions and voting systems do.
Something infuriatingly slow, inclusive and deliberative giving recommendations which are then stress-tested for how they would perform on contact with reality, involving yet more people being serious and deliberative and taking their responsibilties more seriously than being a human-in-the-loop would ever allow. Our decision-making systems need more grit and less oil. AI is all oil.
The Actuary magazine recently had a debate about whether the underlying data or the story you wove around it was more important. I’m not sure there is always a clear distinction between the two, as Dan Davies rather neatly illustrates here, but my view is that, if a binary choice has to be made, it is always going to be the story. And there was a great example of this which popped up recently in the FT.
The FT article was ‘Is university still worth it?’ is the wrong question, by John Burn-Murdoch, with great graphs as usual by John. However, as is sometimes the case, I feel that a very different and more convincing story could be wrapped around the same datasets he is showing us.
The article’s thesis is as follows:
The graduate earnings premium, ie how much more on average graduates earn than non-graduates, has only fallen in the UK as the proportion going to university has risen. It has risen in other countries:
In the UK, we have had much weaker productivity growth than the other comparator countries, and also “the steady ramping up of the minimum wage has squeezed the earnings premium from the lower end too”:
We have also had a much smaller increase in the percentage of managerial and professional jobs than a different group of comparator countries (they haven’t mentioned Germany before), meaning graduates are forced to take lower salaried jobs elsewhere:
So the answer according to the FT? We should focus on economic growth rather than “tweaking” higher education intake and funding. Then graduate earnings would be higher, student loans could be more generous(!) and students would have more chance of getting a good job.
Well perhaps. But here’s a different framing of the same data that I find more persuasive.
Let’s start by addressing that point about the minimum wage. According to the House of Commons Library report on this, the UK’s minimum wage is broadly comparable to that of France and the Netherlands, although higher than Canada’s and much higher than that of the United States. The employers who are the FT’s constituency would obviously like us lower down this particular chart:
The main economic framing here is the progress myth of the UK’s business community: economic growth. All problems can be solved if we can just get more economic growth. Apparently we need more inequality in pay between graduates and non-graduates which we can get by generating more economic growth. This is honest of them at least, although I don’t see much evidence that the economic growth they crave will go into skilled job creation rather than stock buy backs (according to Motley Fool, “Companies spent $249 billion on stock buybacks in Q3 2025, and $777 billion over the first three quarters of 2025.”).
There are a lot of problems with framing every economic question with respect to economic growth, memorably illustrated by Zack Polanski of the Green Party in this less than 3 minute video recently (I strongly recommend you watch it before you read on – click on the read in browser link if you can’t see it):
Economic growth is increasingly without purpose, wasteful of energy and poorly distributed. It is chasing outputs, literally any outputs, whatever the cost to the environment, our health system, our education system, our social support systems and our communities. Looking at the framing above, you can see that economic growth as currently pursued will always see anything which stops the concentration of wealth amongst the already wealthy, like a higher national minimum wage or a totally made-up concept like a lower graduate earnings premium (which in itself is a framing trying to make reducing inequality seem undesirable) as a problem. Lack of productivity growth, itself a proxy for this kind of economic growth (because if you ask why we need more productivity the answer is always to get more economic growth), is usually directed as a criticism at “lazy” UK workers, rather than under-investing and over-extracting UK business owners.
But what if, instead of economic growth, your progress myth was reducing inequality? Or growing equality within the economy?
Source: World Inequality Database wid.world
If you focused on inequality rather than economic growth, then you would find it correlates with everything we say we don’t want. Unlike economic growth, having equality as an aim actually has the advantage of having an evidence base for the claim that it improves society:
If you focused on inequality, then you would be pleased that we have had an increase in our minimum wage. You would think that the same FT article’s admission that UK graduates’ skills levels are higher than those in the United States was more important than something called a graduate earnings premium.
Burn-Murdoch is right to say asking whether university is worth it is the wrong question.
However economic growth is the wrong answer.
And I thought I would probably be stopping there for this week. But then something odd happened. A “Thought Exercise” set in June 2028 “detailing the progression and fallout of the Global Intelligence Crisis” (ie science fiction), published on 23 February, may have tanked the share price of IBM later that day. The fall definitely happened, with IBM’s share price falling 13%, its biggest fall since 2000, alongside smaller falls in other tech stocks.
Investors have recently seized on social media rumours and incremental developments by small AI companies to justify further selling, with a widely circulated blog post by Citrini Research over the weekend describing how AI could hypothetically push the US unemployment rate above 10 per cent by 2028, proving the latest catalyst.
The likelihood of the scenario portrayed is difficult to assess, but the speed with which the total economic collapse happens subsequently as described feels unlikely if not impossible. However the fact that the markets are this jittery tells us something I think. As Carlo Iacono puts it:
We are living through a period in which the gap between “plausible narrative” and “tradeable signal” has collapsed to nearly nothing. When a scenario feels real enough to model, and the underlying anxiety is already there waiting to be organised, fiction and forecast become functionally indistinguishable.
The data underlying the markets hasn’t changed, but the story has. I rest my case.
The book I finished this weekend had a passage about a first experiment with a new substance which could shield against gravity. Mr Cavor, the rather unworldly scientist, is explaining to Mr Bedford, a man with no obvious talents other than to look for a quick buck where he can find one, what would have happened if his substance, Cavorite, had not got dislodged fairly quickly from where they had positioned it:
“You perceive,” he said, “it formed a sort of atmospheric fountain, a kind of chimney in the atmosphere. And if the Cavorite itself hadn’t been loose and so got sucked up the chimney, does it occur to you what would have happened?”
I thought. “I suppose,” I said, “the air would be rushing up and up over that infernal piece of stuff now.”
“Precisely,” he said. “A huge fountain—”
“Spouting into space! Good heavens! Why, it would have squirted all the atmosphere of the earth away! It would have robbed the world of air! It would have been the death of all mankind! That little lump of stuff!”
“Not exactly into space,” said Cavor, “but as bad—practically. It would have whipped the air off the world as one peels a banana, and flung it thousands of miles. It would have dropped back again, of course—but on an asphyxiated world! From our point of view very little better than if it never came back!”
I stared. As yet I was too amazed to realise how all my expectations had been upset. “What do you mean to do now?” I asked.
“In the first place if I may borrow a garden trowel I will remove some of this earth with which I am encased, and then if I may avail myself of your domestic conveniences I will have a bath. This done, we will converse more at leisure. It will be wise, I think”—he laid a muddy hand on my arm—“if nothing were said of this affair beyond ourselves. I know I have caused great damage—probably even dwelling-houses may be ruined here and there upon the country-side. But on the other hand, I cannot possibly pay for the damage I have done, and if the real cause of this is published, it will lead only to heartburning and the obstruction of my work. One cannot foresee everything, you know, and I cannot consent for one moment to add the burden of practical considerations to my theorising…”
In case you are in any doubt, Dario Amodei is our Mr Cavor here. I can just imagine his response to the first disaster attributed to AI research being prefaced by “one cannot foresee everything, you know…”. And there are too many Mr Bedfords out there to shake a stick at, trying to sell you anything they can possibly attribute to AI just to keep the whole thing rolling along.
I am with the fog people. The FT seem to be too, with this pair of diagrams attached to this article.
First the US, where there are tentative signs of something they can possibly use as a proxy for productivity growth as a result of using AI:
And so it was this foggy sensibility about AI which I took with me to the Bletchley Park Museum last weekend, site of the AI Safety Summit in November 2023 which drew in the US Vice President, Kamala Harris, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Elon Musk, then UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Open AI’s Sam Altman, Meta’s Nick Clegg and Prof Yann LeCun, Meta’s chief AI scientist, amongst around 100 guests invited to suck their teeth about AI.
The thing that particularly struck me at Bletchley Park is that it demystified the emergence of the computer for me. The forerunner, which was the mechanisation using punch cards of the process of sorting the massive amounts of data the centre was receiving in war time, smacks of a group of people who had just run out of wall to spread their webs of cards and strings across. It was a crime investigation which had got out of hand.
A highlight for me was Alan Turing’s very prescient little note about AI, written in 1940 but anticipating the arguments which would be raging by 2026 (and how poignant that the man who probably did more than anyone to transform what we are able to do by punching a keyboard was chained to one that could only press hunks of metal against a strip of carbon onto a piece of paper):
There is also a hilarious secrecy pledge from the ancestors of the safety summit people, telling you all the ways in which you just need to shut up:
“There is an English proverb none the worse for being seven centuries old:” it thunders.
Wicked tongue breaketh bone,
Though the tongue itself hath none.
Words to live by, I’m sure we’d all agree.
What Bletchley Park was less good at was explaining how the Enigma code was cracked, despite an excellent collection of the hardware involved. For that, I recommend Simon Singh’s The Code Book.
Here was the world’s first “intelligence factory”, scaling up intelligence gathering and analysis as never before and by so doing also changing the way governments would interact with their populations, with just as many implications for our current times as the development of AI. This cluster of huts around a country house rebranded as GCHQ and moved to Cheltenham a few years after World War 2.
Path dependence is a term which describes a situation where past events or decisions constrain later events or decisions. Bletchley Park feels like the Museum of Path Dependence to me.
And the legacy of the safety summit? Well my “hot take” would be: when you are a little lost in the fog, it is generally advisable to slow down a bit and take steps to reduce your risk of breaking things. I wonder if I can get that on a bumper sticker.
In ordering #5, self-driving cars will happily drive you around, but if you tell them to drive to a car dealership, they just lock the doors and politely ask how long humans take to starve to death.Source: https://m.xkcd.com/1613/
My attention was drawn this week to an article by Dario Amodei, co-founder of Anthropic (a spin off from OpenAI, which was co-founded by Elon Musk and heavily invested in by Microsoft so very much part of the Magnificent 7 architecture), the creator of the large language model Claude, called The Adolescence of Technology. It is hard to overemphasise how much I disagree with everything Dario has written here, but also useful in that it is a long article, which covers a lot of ground, and allows me to define my views in opposition to it.
The irritations start pretty much straight away. So Dario quotes from a science fiction classic (Carl Sagan’s First Contact), but then follows this up under the heading of “Avoid doomerism” with this:
…but it’s my impression that during the peak of worries about AI risk in 2023–2024, some of the least sensible voices rose to the top, often through sensationalistic social media accounts. These voices used off-putting language reminiscent of religion or science fiction, and called for extreme actions without having the evidence that would justify them.
Notice the word “sensible” doing the heavy lifting there. Only science fiction endorsed by Dario will be considered. Dario wants us to consider the risks of AI in “a careful and well-considered manner”, which sounds reasonable, but then his 3rd and final bullet under this (after “avoid doomerism” and “acknowledge uncertainty”) goes as follows:
Intervene as surgically as possible. Addressing the risks of AI will require a mix of voluntary actions taken by companies (and private third-party actors) and actions taken by governments that bind everyone. The voluntary actions—both taking them and encouraging other companies to follow suit—are a no-brainer for me. I firmly believe that government actions will also be required to some extent, but these interventions are different in character because they can potentially destroy economic value or coerce unwilling actors who are skeptical of these risks (and there is some chance they are right!).
So reflexively anti regulation of his own industry, of course. And voluntary actions by corporations, an approach to solving problems which has been demonstrated not to work repeatedly, is apparently “a no-brainer”. Also it is automatically assumed that government actions will destroy value. Only market solutions will be endorsed by Dario, pretty much until they have messed up so badly you are forced to bring governments in:
To be clear, I think there’s a decent chance we eventually reach a point where much more significant action is warranted, but that will depend on stronger evidence of imminent, concrete danger than we have today, as well as enough specificity about the danger to formulate rules that have a chance of addressing it. The most constructive thing we can do today is advocate for limited rules while we learn whether or not there is evidence to support stronger ones.
There is then the expected sales pitch about what he has seen within Anthropic about the relentless “increase in AI’s cognitive capabilities”. And then the man who warned about sensationalist science fiction is off:
I think the best way to get a handle on the risks of AI is to ask the following question: suppose a literal “country of geniuses” were to materialize somewhere in the world in ~2027. Imagine, say, 50 million people, all of whom are much more capable than any Nobel Prize winner, statesman, or technologist.
And the rest of the article is then off solving this imaginary problem in all its facets, rather than the wealth and power concentration problem that we actually have. The only legislation he seems to be in favour of seems to be something called “transparency legislation”, legislation which of course Anthropic would help to write.
However, after suggesting everything from isolating China and using “AI to empower democracies to resist autocracies” to private philanthropy as the solutions to his imagined problems, Dario finally and reluctantly concludes government intervention might after all be necessary as follows:
…ultimately a macroeconomic problem this large will require government intervention. The natural policy response to an enormous economic pie coupled with high inequality (due to a lack of jobs, or poorly paid jobs, for many) is progressive taxation. The tax could be general or could be targeted against AI companies in particular. Obviously tax design is complicated, and there are many ways for it to go wrong. I don’t support poorly designed tax policies. I think the extreme levels of inequality predicted in this essay justify a more robust tax policy on basic moral grounds, but I can also make a pragmatic argument to the world’s billionaires that it’s in their interest to support a good version of it: if they don’t support a good version, they’ll inevitably get a bad version designed by a mob.
That, by the way, is what Dario thinks of democracy: “a bad version designed by a mob” rather than the “good version” that he and his fellow billionaires could come up with in their own self interest. The mask has really slipped by this point. And the following section, on “Economic concentration of power”, just demonstrates that he has no effective answers at all that he deems acceptable on this. It’s just an inevitability for him.
This is what Luke Kemp’s excellent Goliath’s Curse refers to as a “Silicon Goliath”. Goliaths are dominance hierarchies which spread by dominating the areas around them. They need three conditions (which Luke calls “Goliath fuel”): lootable resources (ie resources which can be easily stolen off someone else), caged land (ie land difficult to escape from) and monopolizable weapons (ie ones which require processes which can be developed to give one society an edge over another). We are all Goliath-dwellers in “The West” now, looting resources from other countries in unequal exchanges which impoverish the Global South, with weapons (eg nuclear weapons) available only to the elite few countries and operating within the cages of heavily-policed national boundaries. The Silicon Goliath which is developing will have data as its lootable resource, mass surveillance systems providing its cages and monopolizable weapons such as killer drones. The resultant killbot hellscapes which people like Dario Amodei laughably imagine they have defences against through things like their Claude’s Constitution are almost pitiful in their inadequacy.
Nate Hagens takes Dario’s claims for AI’s cognitive capabilities much more seriously than me, and then considers the risks in a less adolescent way here. As he says:
And here’s what his essay has almost nothing about. Energy, water, materials, or ecological limits.
And also nowhere does Dario talk about the 99% of people who are just spectators in his world, other than to describe them as “the mob”. This is quite a blind spot, as Luke Kemp points out in his exhaustive study of the collapses of “Goliaths” over the last 5,000 years. “The extreme levels of inequality” predicted by Amodei in his essay are not just things we have to put up with, but the reasons the world he predicts is likely to be hugely unstable. Not created by AI, but accelerated by it. Kemp describes it as “diminishing returns on extraction”:
We see a pattern re-emerging across case studies. Societies grow more fragile over time and more prone to collapse. Threats that they had always faced such as invaders, disease and drought seem to take a heavier toll.
As societies grew bigger:
They still faced the underlying (and ongoing) problem of rising inequality creating societies where and institutions more extractive power was more concentrated.
And eventually:
The result is more extractive institutions creating growing instability, internal conflict, a drain of resources away from government, state capture by private elites, and worse decision-making. Society – especially the state – becomes more fragile. Private elites tend to take a larger share of extractive benefits. The state, and many of the power structures it helps prop up, then usually falls apart once a shock hits: for Rome it was climate change, disease, and rebelling Germanic mercenaries; for China it was often floods, droughts, disease and horseback raiders; for the west African kingdoms it was invaders and a loss of trade; for the Maya it was drought and a loss of trade; and for the Bronze Age it was drought, a disruption of trade and an earthquake storm.
The only real answer to combatting existential risks in the hands of adolescents like the Tech Bros is more democracy: over control of decision-making, over control of resources, over control of the threat of violence and over control of information. We are a long way from achieving these within our own particular Goliath at the moment, and indeed there is no sign at all that our elites are interested in achieving them. The Magnificent 7 are propping up the US stock exchange. The promise of perpetual economic growth is the progress myth of our time and leaders who do not provide it will lose the “Mandate of Heaven” in just the same way as Chinese rulers did when they were unable to prevent floods and droughts. Adam Tooze sees the signs of the inner demons of our elites starting to detach them from reality in the latest disclosures from the Epstein files:
Are we, like [Larry] Summers, fantasizing about stabilizing our desires and needs in an inherently dangerous and uncertain world? Are we kidding ourselves?
But, without those controls in place, we would need a lot more than Dario’s Anthropic playing nicely to allow this particular adolescent to grow up. And this is where I am forced to take Nate Hagens’ assessment more seriously. Because if our rulers’ Mandates of Heaven are dependent on eternal economic growth on their watch and they, rightly, think that this is not possible in our current non-AI-enhanced world but, wrongly, think it is possible in a future AI-enhanced world, then that is the way they are going to demand we go. And, if the Larry Summers fantasists really are kidding themselves, it may be very hard to talk them out of it.
I have spent many days in rooms with groups of men (always men) anxious about their future income, where I advised them on how much to ask their companies for. Most of my clients as a scheme actuary were trustees of pension schemes of companies which had seen better days, and who were struggling to make the necessary payments to secure the benefits already promised, let alone those to come. One by one, those schemes stopped offering those future benefits and just concentrated on meeting the bill for benefits already promised. If an opportunity came to buy those benefits out with an insurance company (which normally cost quite a bit more than the kind of “technical provisions” target the Pensions Regulator would accept), I lobbied hard to get it to happen. In many cases we were too late though, the company went bust and we moved it into the Pension Protection Fund instead. That was the life of a pensions actuary in the West Midlands in the noughties. I was often “Mr Good News” in those meetings, the ironic reference to the man constantly moving the goalposts for how much money the scheme needed to meet those benefits bills. I saw my role as pushing the companies to buy out funding if at all possible. None of the schemes I advised had a company behind them which could sustain ongoing pension costs long term. I would listen to the wishful thinking and the corporate optimism, smile and push for the “realistic” option of working towards buy out.
Then I went to work at a university, and found myself, for the first time since 2003, a member of an open defined benefit pension scheme. It was (and still is) a generous scheme, but was constantly complained about by the university lecturers who comprised most of its membership. I didn’t see any way that it was affordable for employers which seemed to struggle to employ enough lecturers, were very reluctant to award anything other than fixed term contracts, and had an almost feudal relationship with their PhD students and post docs. Staff went on strike about plans to close the scheme to future accrual and replace it with the most generous money purchase scheme I had ever seen. I demurred and wrote an article called Why I Won’t Strike. I watched in wonder when even actuarial lecturers at other universities enthusiastically supported the strike. However, over 10 years later, that scheme – the UK’s biggest – is still open. And I gained personally from continued active membership until 2024.
Now don’t get me wrong, I still think the UK university sector is wrong to maintain, unique amongst its peers, a defined benefit scheme. The funding requirement for it has been inflated by continued accrual over the last 8 years and therefore so has the risk it will spike at just the time when it is least affordable, a time which may soon be approaching with 45% of universities already reporting deficits. However the strike demonstrated how important the pension scheme was to staff, something the constant grumbling before the strike had led university managers to doubt. And, once the decision had been made to keep the scheme open to future accrual, I had no more to add as an actuary. Other actuaries had the responsibility for advising on funding, in fact quite a lot of others as the UCU was getting its own actuarial advice alongside that the USS was getting, but my involvement was now just that of a member, just one with a heightened awareness of the risks the employers were taking.
The reason I bring this up is because I detected something of the same position as my lonely one from the noughties amongst the group of actuaries involved in the latest joint report from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the University of Exeter about the fight to maintain planetary climate solvency.
It very neatly sets out the problem, that the whole system of climate modelling and policy recommendations to date has been almost certainly underestimating how much warming is likely to result from a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore all the “carbon budgets” (amount we can emit before we hit particular temperature levels) have been assumed to be higher than they actually are and estimates for when we exhaust them have given us longer than we actually have. This is due to the masking effects of particulate pollution in the air, which has resulted in around 0.5C less warming than we would otherwise have had by now. However, efforts to remove sulphur from oil and coal fuels (themselves important for human health) have acted to reduce this aerosol cooling effect. The goalposts have moved.
An additional reference I would add to the excellent references in the report is Hansen’s Seeing the Forest for the Trees, which concisely summarises all the evidence to suggest the generally accepted range for climate sensitivity is too low.
So far, so “Mr Good News”. And for those who say this is not something actuaries should be doing because they are not climate experts, this is exactly what actuaries have always done. We started the profession by advising on the intersection between money and mortality, despite not being experts in any of the conditions which affected either the buying power of money or the conditions which affected people’s mortality. We could however use statistics to indicate how things were likely to go in general, and early instances of governments wasting quite a lot of money without a steer from people who understood statistics got us that gig, and a succession of other related gigs over the years ahead.
The difficult bit is always deciding what course of action you want to encourage once you have done the analysis. This was much easier in pensions, as there was a regulatory framework to work to. It is much harder when, as in this case, it involves proposing changes in behaviour which are ingrained into our societies. If university lecturers can oppose something that is clearly not in the long term financial interests of their employers and push for something which makes their individual employers less secure, then how much more will the general public resist change when they can see no good reason for it.
And in this regard this feels like a report mostly focused on the finance industry. The analogies it makes with the 2008 financial crash, constant comparisons with the solvency regulatory regimes of insurers in particular and even the framing of the need to mitigate climate change in order to support economic growth are all couched in terms familiar to people working in the finance sector. This has, perhaps predictably, meant that the press coverage to date has mostly been concentrated in the pension, insurance and investment areas:
However in the case of the 2008 crash, the causes were able to be addressed by restricting practices amongst the financial institutions which had just been bailed out and were therefore in no position to argue. Many of those restrictions have been loosened since, and I think many amongst the general public would question whether the decision to bail out the banks and impose austerity on everyone else is really a model to follow for other crises.
The next stage will therefore need to involve breaking out of the finance sector to communicate the message more widely, perhaps focusing on the first point in the proposed Recovery Plan: developing a different mindset. As the report says:
This challenge demands a shift in perspective, recognising that humanity is not separate from nature but embedded in it, reliant on it and, furthermore, now required to actively steward the Earth system. To maintain Planetary Solvency, we need to put in place mechanisms to ensure our social, economic, and political systems respect the planet’s biophysical limits, thus preserving or restoring sufficient natural capital for future generations to continue receiving ecosystem services…
…The prevailing economic system is a risk driver and requires reform, as economic dependency on nature is unrecognised in dominant economic theory which incorrectly assumes that natural capital is substitutable by manufactured capital. A particular barrier to climate action has been lobbying from incumbents and misinformation which has contributed to slower than required policy implementation.
By which I assume they mean this type of lobbying:
And this is where it gets very difficult, because actuaries really do not have anything to add at this point. We are just citizens with no particular expertise about how to proceed, just a heightened awareness of the dangers we are facing if we don’t act.
But we can also, as the report does, point out that we still have agency:
Although this is daunting, it means we have agency – we can choose to manage human activity to minimise the risk of societal disruption from the loss of critical support services from nature.
This point chimes with something else I have been reading recently (and which I will be writing more about in the coming weeks): Samuel Miller McDonald’s Progress. As he says “never before have so many lives, human and otherwise, depended on the decisions of human beings in this moment of history”. You may argue the toss on that with me, which is fine, but, in view of the other things you may be scrolling through either side of reading this, how about this for a paragraph putting the whole question of when to change how we do things in context:
We are caught in a difficult trap. If everything that is familiar is torn down and all the structures that govern our day-to-day disintegrated, we risk terrible disorder. We court famines and wars. We invite power vacuums to be filled by even more brutal psychopaths than those who haunt the halls of power now. But if we don’t, if we continue on the current path and simply follow inertia, there is a good chance that the outcome will be far worse than the disruption of upending everything today. Maintaining status-quo trajectories in carbon emissions, habitat destruction and pollution, there is a high likelihood of collapse in the existing structure anyway. It will just occur under far worse ecological conditions than if it were to happen sooner, in a more controlled way. At least, that is what all the best science suggests. To believe otherwise requires rejecting science and knowledge itself, which some find to be a worthwhile trade-off. But reality can only be denied for so long. Dream at night we may, the day will ensnare us anyway.
One thing I never did in one of those rooms full of anxious men was to stand up and loudly denounce the pensions system we were all working within. Actuaries do not behave like that generally. However we have a senior group of actuaries, with the endorsement of their profession, publishing a report that says things like this (bold emphasis added by me):
Planetary Solvency is threatened and a recovery plan is needed: a fundamental, policy-led change of direction, informed by realistic risk assessments that recognise our current market-led approach is failing, accompanied by an action plan that considers broad, radical and effective options.
This is not a normal situation. We should act accordingly.
The War Room with the Big Board from Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, ”Dr. Strangelove” Source=”Dr. Strangelove” trailer from 40th Anniversary Special Edition DVD, 2004
This is a piece about risk management. To be read to the soundtrack of The Beatles singing Revolution (the slow version from The White Album).
Dr Strangelove is a movie which can be described in many ways, but one way to think of it is as a movie where governance arrangements made in a different time are no longer adequate to the task at hand. General Ripper can only order a nuclear strike as a retaliatory nuclear attack on the Soviets if all of his superior officers have been killed in a first strike on the United States. However the aircraft crew’s knowledge of whether there has been a first strike is dependent upon a communication system which has been set to only accept messages preceded by a secret three-letter code known only to the same General Ripper. The Soviet Union has a Doomsday Machine of cobalt bombs, which would be automatically triggered as a nuclear deterrent if attacked, which would make the Earth uninhabitable for 93 years and only had a point if the United States were aware that it existed. However the Soviet leadership had delayed the announcement of its existence so that it could be a surprise for the following week’s Party Congress.
Our first past the post voting system can be described in many ways, but one way to think of it is as a set of governance arrangements made in a different time which are no longer adequate to the task at hand.
Labour won 63% of the seats with 34% of the vote. The Government have therefore been reluctant to change the voting system. Despite a conference vote demanding it, it didn’t make it into their election manifesto. However fast forward 17 months and the polls look like this:
With one conversion into projected seats (by Electoral Calculus) looking like this:
So this time, Reform are predicted to have 48% of the seats based on 29% of the vote. This is no way to run a railroad. We need proportional representation now. Join the campaign here.
We have an example playing out across the Atlantic of a government taking on powers they don’t have to enact policies that noone voted for. And that is when they do have a constitution which they could use if they had the will, whereas, as David Allen Green said in October:
Our current constitutional arrangements are our Doomsday Machine. As The Institute for Government have found in their Review of the UK Constitution:
Weaknesses in the system of checks and balances have been exposed – the UK system is in theory self-regulating. It relies on those within it being willing to exercise restraint, adhering to largely unwritten rules of behaviour, and, when they fail to do so, facing political consequences. In recent years, various political actors have shown an increased willingness to test constitutional boundaries – seen most brazenly in proposals to break international law and by the executive repeatedly passing legislation on devolved matters without consent from their respective legislatures – with such political checks providing little impediment to them doing so. Debates over constitutional principle have increasingly been considered secondary to other political goals, and MPs, the media and the public have lacked sufficient understanding of the constitution to hold decision makers to account.
The problem with The Institute for Government in my view is their earnestness. It is the reason we can all remember Dr Strangelove from over 60 years ago when we have forgotten the almost identical subject matter of the far more po-faced Fail Safe (that, and the fact that Kubrick had their release date postponed by launching a lawsuit) and long after I expect us to have forgotten Bigelow’s recent A House of Dynamite. The thing is that, for me, the characters in Dr Strangelove remind me of the general ridiculousness of humanity and I don’t want them to die, even the mad ones. Whereas I find myself fairly indifferent to the fate of the relatively very serious cast of Dynamite. The Institute for Government‘s problem is that I feel the same way about some of their characters. Like Citizen Assembly for instance. Whenever this character is mentioned I find myself thinking of the Lennon line from The Beatles‘ Revolution:
“If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
We badly need a campaign capable of energising people about how we are governed. Something that, in my view, The Institute for Government are not currently providing.
And then there is the money. As Democracy for Sale have revealed, 75% of donations, totalling £23 million, to the likely ruling party at our next election have come from just three people. If you think there should be a cap on political donations you can sign the petition here. Think of the country owned by three people (and all for £23 million) and it starts to make Blackadder‘s Dunny-on-the-Wold, with its constituency of “three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named `Colin’, and a small hen in its late forties”, look positively democratic. You might as well put General Ripper in charge.
Our governance arrangements are satirising themselves at the moment. Let’s do something about it this year.
In the year when I was born, Malvina Reynolds recorded a song called Little Boxes when she was a year younger than I am now. If you haven’t heard it before, you can listen to it here. You might want to listen to it while you read the rest of this.
I remember the first time I felt panic during the pandemic. It was a couple of months in, we had been working very hard: to put our teaching processes online, consulting widely about appropriate remote assessments and getting agreement from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) for our suggested approach at Leicester, checking in with our students, some of who had become very isolated as a result of lockdowns, and a million other things. I was just sitting at my kitchen table and suddenly I felt tears welling up and I was unable to speak without my voice breaking down. It happened at intervals after that, usually during a quiet moment when I, consciously or unconsciously, had a moment to reflect on the enormity of what was going on. I could never point to anything specific that triggered it, but I do know that it has been a permanent change about me, and that my emotions have been very much closer to the surface ever since. I felt something similar again this morning.
What is going on? Well I haven’t been able to answer that satisfactorily until now, but recently I read an article by David Runciman in the LRB from nine years ago when Donald Trump got elected POTUS the first time. I am not sure that everything in the article has withstood the test of time, but in it Runciman makes the case for Trump being the result of the people wanting “Trump to shake up a system that they also expected to shield them from the recklessness of a man like Trump.”. And this part looks prophetic:
[Trump is]…the bluntest of instruments, indiscriminately shaking the foundations with nothing to offer by way of support. Under these conditions, the likeliest response is for the grown-ups in the room to hunker down, waiting for the storm to pass. While they do, politics atrophies and necessary change is put off by the overriding imperative of avoiding systemic collapse. The understandable desire to keep the tanks off the streets and the cashpoints open gets in the way of tackling the long-term threats we face. Fake disruption followed by institutional paralysis, and all the while the real dangers continue to mount. Ultimately, that is how democracy ends.
And it suddenly hit me that this was something I had indeed taken for granted my whole life until the pandemic came along. The only thing that had ever looked like toppling society itself was the prospect of a nuclear war. Otherwise it seemed that our political system was hard to change and impossible to kill.
And then the pandemic came along and we saw government national and local digging mass graves and then filling them in again and setting aside vast arenas for people to die in before quietly closing them again. Rationing of food and other essentials was left to the supermarkets to administer, as were the massive snaking socially-distanced queues around their car parks. Seemingly arbitrary sets of rules suddenly started appearing at intervals about how and when we were allowed to leave the house and what we were allowed to do when out, and also how many people we could have in our houses and where they were allowed to come from. Most businesses were shut and their employees put on the government’s payroll. We learned which of us were key workers and spent a lot of time worrying about how we could protect the NHS, who we clapped every Thursday. It was hard to maintain the illusion that society still provided solid ground under our feet, particularly if we didn’t have jobs which could be moved online. Whoever you were you had to look down at some point, and I think now that I was having my Wile E. Coyote moment.
The trouble is, once you have looked down, it is hard to put that back in a box. At least I thought so, although there seems to have been a lot of putting things in boxes going on over the last few years. The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has made itself available online via a YouTube channel, but you might have thought that a Today at the Inquiry slot on terrestrial TV would have been more appropriate, not just covering it when famous people are attending. What we do know is that Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Advisor throughout the pandemic, has said that another pandemic is “absolutely inevitable” and that “we are not ready yet” for such an eventuality. Instead we have been busily shutting that particular box.
The biggest box of course is climate change. We have created a really big box for that called the IPCC. As the climate conferences migrate to ever more unapologetic petro-states, protestors are criminalised and imprisoned and emissions continue to rise, the box for this is doing a lot of work.
If inquiries worked, we’d have the safest healthcare system in the world. Instead, we have a system addicted to investigating itself and forgetting the answers.
But perhaps the days of the box are numbered. The box Keir Starmer constructed to contain the anger about grooming gangs which the previous 7 year long box had been unable to completely envelop also now appears to be on the edge of collapse. And the Prime Minister himself was the one expressing outrage when a perfectly normal British box, versions of which had been giving authority to policing decisions since at least the Local Government (Review of Decisions) Act 2015 (although the original push to develop such systems stemmed from the Hillsborough and Heysel disasters in 1989 and 1985 respectively) suddenly didn’t make the decision he was obviously expecting. That box now appears to be heading for recycling if Reform UK come to power, which is, of course, rather difficult to do in Birmingham at the moment.
But what is the alternative to the boxes? At the moment it does not look like it involves confronting our problems any more directly. As Runciman reflected on the second Trump inauguration:
Poor Obama had to sit there on Monday and witness the mistaking of absolutism for principle and spectacle for politics. I don’t think Trump mistakes them – he doesn’t care enough to mind what passes for what. But the people in the audience who got up and applauded throughout his speech – as Biden and Harris and the Clintons and the Bushes remained glumly in their seats – have mistaken them. They think they will reap the rewards of what follows. But they will also pay the price.
David Allen Green’s recent post on BlueSky appears to summarise our position relative to that of the United States very well:
I watched The War Game this week, as it had suddenly turned up on iPlayer and I had not seen it before. It was the infamous film from 1966 on the horrors of a nuclear war in the UK that was not televised until 1985. It has been much lauded as both necessarily horrifying and important over the years, but what struck me watching it was how much it looked back to the period of rationing (which had only ended in the UK 12 years earlier) and general war-time organisation from the Second World War. It would be a very different film if made now, probably drawing on our recent experiences of the pandemic (when of course we did dig huge pits for mass burials of the dead and set up vast Nightingale hospitals as potential field hospitals, before the vaccines emerged earlier than expected).
But what about the threat of nuclear war which still preoccupied us so much in the 1980s but which seems to have become much less of a focus more recently? With the New START treaty, which limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia can deploy, and the deployment of land and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them, due to expire on 5 February 5, negotiations between Russia and the United States finally appear to be inprogress. However China has today confirmed that it does not want to participate in these.
In Mark Lynas’ recent book Six Minutes to Winter, he points to the Barret, Baum and Hostetler paper from 2013 which estimated the probability of inadvertent nuclear war in any year to be around 1%. This is twice the probability of insolvency we think acceptable for our insurance companies under Solvency II and would mean, if accurate, that the probability of avoiding nuclear war by 2100 was 0.99 raised to the power of 75 (the number of years until 2100), or 47%, ie less than a fifty-fifty chance.
That doesn’t seem like good enough odds to me. As Lynas says:
We cannot continue to run the daily risk of nuclear war, because sooner or later one will happen. We expend enormous quantities of effort on climate change, a threat that can endanger human civilisation in decades, but ignore one that can already destroy the world in minutes. Either by accident or by intent, the day of Armageddon will surely dawn. It’s either us or them: our civilisation or the nukes. We cannot both survive indefinitely.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted at the UN in 2017 and came into force in 2021. In Article 1 of the Treaty, each state party to it undertakes never to develop, test, produce, possess, transfer, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. 94 countries have signed the TPNW to date, with 73 full parties to it.
The House of Commons library entry on TPNW poses a challenge:
It is the first multilateral, legally binding, instrument for nuclear disarmament to have been negotiated in 20 years. However, the nuclear weapon states have not signed and ratified the new treaty, and as such, are not legally bound by its provisions. The lack of engagement by the nuclear weapon states subsequently raises the question of what this treaty can realistically achieve.
It then goes on to state the position of the UK Government:
The British Government did not participate in the UN talks and will not sign and ratify the new treaty. It believes that the best way to achieve the goal of global nuclear disarmament is through gradual multilateral disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach and within existing international frameworks, specifically the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Government has also made clear that it will not accept any argument that this treaty constitutes a development of customary international law binding on the UK or other non-parties.
There are 9 nuclear states in the world: China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Israel, the UK and the United States. Israel recently conducted a 12 day war with Iran to stop it becoming the 10th. Many argue that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had it kept its nuclear weapons (although it seems unlikely that they would have ever been able to use them as a deterrent for a number of reasons). So the claims of these nuclear states that they are essential to their security are real.
But is the risk that continued maintenance of a nuclear arsenal poses worth it for this additional security? For the security only operates at the deterrence level. Once the first bomb lands we are no more secure than anyone else.
Which makes it all the more concerning when Donald Trump starts saying things like this (in response to a veiled threat by the Russian Foreign Minister about their nuclear arsenal):
“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.”
But with a probability of avoiding “unintended consequences” less than fifty-fifty by 2100? That really doesn’t feel like good enough odds to me.
