Consequence

The elephant in the room where we keep all our technology

Technology is showing us consequence as nothing before it has.

August 6, 1945. Having received no reply to the Potsdam Declaration demanding an immediate and unconditional Japanese surrender, the American bomber Enola Gay left Tinian Island en route to Japan. At 8:15 am Hiroshima time, the US dropped an atomic bomb, “Little Boy,” on Japan. The result was approximately 80,000 deaths in just the first few minutes. Thousands died later from radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945, a US bomber headed for Nagasaki with “Fat Man,” yet another atomic bomb. After the first minute of dropping “Fat Man,” 39,000 men, women and children were killed. 25,000 more were injured. Both cities were leveled from the bombs and forced Japan to surrender to the United States.

Physicist, polymath, American Prometheus, J. Robert Oppenheimer headed up the secret atomic bomb program known as The Manhattan Project. With a team of leading male physicists (Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Nils Bohr, et al.) and unheralded women scientists (Leona Woods, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Chien-Shiung Wu) Oppenheimer was widely regarded as one of the most intelligent and capable men who ever lived. He was intellectually curious well beyond most and believed in deterrence as a brake on the actual use of the bomb. He believed, as did others, that advanced physics could be used for peace and the bomb was a cautionary tribute. Then, after Hiroshima, he became the poster child of human annihilation.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of The Manhattan Project, thought he could see the consequence of his work. He would come to believe otherwise: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Image: Philippe Halsman, Magnum Photos.

Oppenheimer would come to believe: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Why didn’t Oppenheimer see the direct consequence of building a bomb would be to use it? Or that Lewis Strauss and President Harry S. Truman would use him and his communist acquaintances to pry control of the bomb from the physicists and move control to the machinations of politicians who were bent upon making a statement. They wanted to win the war and especially they wanted to send Japan a message. Political scientist and international relations theorist John Mearsheimer would say that Oppenheimer wasn’t a realist; he didn’t understand power. Or, rather, he understood the power of physics, but he didn’t understand political power and the hegemonic desires of nations. I would argue Oppenheimer embraced the wrong consequence. His intellect wouldn’t allow for the likelihood of another path. He didn’t analyze and account for probabilities.

Technology is forcing us to consider and evaluate consequences. This is just the beginning.

Thinking about consequence

Historically we have been Oppenheimer; we have clung to our beliefs. We haven’t obsessed over consequence probability, which appeared as vague to us as cloud vapor. Not quite non-existent, but about as significant as lakes on the moon. Yet that is changing. With technology as a wayshower, we are becoming consequence aware. We are seeing consequences of seemingly benign technology behaviors like giving cell phones to children; and then there are the quandaries of teens on social media, or melting polar ice caps from too much CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. We have been told to think of consequence as revenge—and that is not untrue. But consequence is more than a negative, unexpected outcome. Consequence is a natural force like gravity. Why don’t we know this, teach this? When you cross a busy street against the light, you may get to the other side; or you may make oncoming drivers angry with you for not waiting for the walk signal; or you may get hit by a car. For most of human history, less obvious consequence was unknowable. The best humans had was a small amount of knowledge—weather, tides, animal and plant behaviors—and a hope for the best outcome. But we have greater awareness of a host of pressing issues, as well as a new tool with protean powers: AI. We can use AI to monitor consequences and develop strategies for coping with them.

We are trying to discover the consequences of our decisions.

In recent generations humanity has experienced the greatest increase ever in both the speed and amount of our information production. Every smartphone contains more information than the ancient library of Alexandria, and enables its owner to instantaneously connect to billions of other people throughout the world. Yet with all this information circulating at breathtaking speeds, humanity is closer than ever to annihilating itself. How come? - Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus

The compression of consequence

It used to take some time for effects to show up; now consequences happen almost overnight. As I have written elsewhere:

With acceleration of both technologies and so-called wicked problems comes a compression of time (lack of time to consider) and a compression of consequence (things are moving so quickly — the consequences of problems and decisions also called the revenge of unintended consequence — that you don’t see what’s happening until it’s too late). Many issues now, for example climate change, have no waiting period; they allow no delay. There’s no trial period where you get your feet wet — and then decide. The compression of consequence is linked with the compression of now. Time is not on the side of this generation if society chooses inaction.

Compression is a byproduct of acceleration. In many areas of human life, we have gone from concern (over advancing developments), to worry, to existential threat bordering on panic. Humanity’s wiggle room is shrinking. So this phenomenon is not singular to teens and the trick mirror of social media; it is a preview of coming attractions.

The compression of consequence is part of a growing awareness of the exhaust of technology and climate accelerations. As time and issues compress, the issues grow. Many issues can be seen through this lens.

Many issues can be seen through the lens of consequence. What will happen that we don’t yet anticipate?

Information levels anticipate consequence

A barrage of data so often fails to tell us what we need to know. Knowledge, in turn, does not guarantee enlightenment or wisdom. (Eliot said that, too: “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?/ Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”) It is an ancient observation, but one that seems to bear restating when information became plentiful—particularly in a world where all bits are created equal and information is divorced from meaning. - James Gleick, The Information

Information provides access to consequence. Only by utilizing what we know and applying it can we begin to anticipate and thereby ameliorate effects. While consequences show up in harsh realities—a terrorist attack, a hurricane—anticipating consequence can feel somewhere between squishy and impossible. So how do we anticipate the consequences of technologies and other phenomena that are emerging, evolving, even transforming—both themselves and us as we engage with them? Consequences such as climate change, war, hunger, poverty, nuclear proliferation?

There are now many more levels to information than ever before.

We don’t typically think of information and consequence as natural companions. Information based on verifiable fact provides the tools by which we anticipate and assess consequences. I submit that the way to address the hidden effects of emerging, evolving, even transforming phenomena is to see information in levels. By seeing information in levels we see facts differently; we see reality differently.

We know that our information diet has exploded, that we are generating and using more data in more ways than ever before. Seeing information in levels allows us to manipulate the data digitally and thereby move from reaction to anticipation. This is not dissimilar to military scenario planning (game theory) or The Sims video game.

The levels I see at present are:

• Content

• Form

• Verification

• Context

• The Information Balcony

• AI

Leveling all the information humans generate is a large task for one individual, or even a team of individuals. But it is a manageable task for AI—and a crucial one. As we begin to engage with the various information levels, eventually every notice, every story, every update can be presented in information levels. Thereby we begin to think about information not only as content but as effects:

Is this information verified? By whom? Is the form of the information affecting my perception of facts? How? Does the information as presented provide enough context or do I need more? How does the tool logic inherent in the means of presenting the information affect the information itself?

Image: Information Levels graphic created by author.

Seeing information in this way provides a head’s up in the race to understand consequence(s). These may not be the final word, but they are useful in setting the stage for understanding and then acting on the best obtainable version of the truth. Finally, we need to make information levels easy for users. That can be done with evolved ways of looking at information.

Types of consequence

Consequences do not stay put. Unlike our simpler myths and stories, reality is messy, complicated. We have arrived at the end of easy. Consequence has caught up to us. These types of consequence overlap.

• Tool logic consequence: the inherent tool logic of alphabets, cinema, TV, computers, or cell phones change us as we entrain with tools’ logic

• Decision consequence: Oppenheimer builds an atomic bomb, US bombs Japan; even brilliant minds fail to see the consequences of their decisions

• Technology adoption consequence: as we adopt new technologies—alphabets, cameras, cinema, TV, computers, cell phones—we adapt and are blind to the consequences of our adaptation

• Fateful consequence: as The Doomsday Clock and Our World in Data outline, there is no shortage of consequential issues: polar ice caps melting, CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere, hunger, poverty, wildfires, nuclear proliferation

• Negative consequence: Due to humans’ long history of assertion as fact, we are subject to lies that hide exploitation, propaganda, falsehood repetition, specious assertion

Consequence is a devil that can blindside us.

Consequence is a devil. Often hidden from scrutiny and understanding (i.e., the consequence of inventing and seeing our world through the tool logic of alphabets); consequence can also appear suddenly with unexpected ferocity (today’s quandaries of climate change or the effects of cell phones in the hands of children). The central question of consequence is how to anticipate it, prepare for it, so consequence does not blindside us.

So what, now what?

1. Reality is the new afterlife; our tools can now present the truth of a present moment—while providing a clear view of the future. Reality focus is key to understanding consequence.

2. Measuring, calculating, quantifying, focusing on reality is the work of all thinking, caring persons.

3. We must see information relationally in levels, with different formats and dynamics than we presently use, in order to focus squarely on reality and see consequences.

4. Consequence, like other dynamics attendant to modern technologies, is truth-dependent. We must now be wedded to truth as humans were once wedded to tribe, caste, religion, and church. Our survival as a species depends on it.

5. The elephant in the room where we keep our technologies: we have to get a handle on consequence before consequence gets a handle on us. Our tools and technologies have short and long-term consequences: we have no choice, if we are to use these tools and technologies, we must use wisdom and foresight that comes from seeing information (data) in different levels. So when we build an atomic bomb, we are not blindsided by the consequences when it is dropped.

[All images, except the Oppenheimer image, created with Microsoft Copilot DALL E-3 using author prompts.]