Unlearning 101

Big Problems Don't Always Require Big Fixes

Big problems such as health care, feeding the world and addressing climate change don't necessarily require big solutions. In the 19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands of women by getting doctors to wash their hands prior to assisting in the delivery of a new-born child. (Unfortunately, however, it still required the medical community nearly two decades to unlearn their stubborn and unhealthy habits.)   

Alas, in the 21st century, the number of infections in hospitals remains unacceptably high. Why? Many healthcare professionals still aren't employing good hygiene. If they were better at the simple act of washing their hands, the results would be impressive -- on the order of saving thousands of lives annually and preventing billions of dollars in unnecessary costs.

In the field of agriculture, it was the addition of ammonium nitrate -- a cheap but effective crop fertilizer -- which allowed the world's farmers to feed billions more people with the same land.

Continued advances in the field of genomics may also continue to increase the yield of corn, wheat and rice by making these crops more efficient in terms of how they utilize water and fertilizer. The result: More people can be fed using the same amount of land but with less impact on the environment. 

In the automotive industry, it was the installation of the seat belt that saved the lives of thousands of motorists -- even though the device was at first ridiculed as "inconvenient, costly, and just a bunch of damn nonsense" by auto executives. The next life-saving advance could be the introduction of super-strong, super-light nanomaterials.

As strange as it may sound, the problem of hurricanes may also just need a simple fix. As Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner outline in their delightful new book, Super Freakonomics, in may be possible to prevent costly hurricanes (which, since 2005, have inflicted an estimated $153 billion in damage to the United States alone) by deploying a few thousand "hydraulic heads" in those areas where hurricanes start. The devices work by bringing cooler water from the bottom of the ocean to the top thus cooling the surface temperature of the ocean water and preventing hurricanes from forming in the first place. The estimated cost: $1 billion. 

On the bigger problem of climate change, Levitt and Dubner also outline the logic behind "Budyko's Blanket" -- a super high hose which would spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere -- which could theoretically cool the planet for a mere $250 million.

Now, to be fair, both the "hydraulic heads" and "Budyko Blanket" may not work and serious questions remain on both ideas. But the broader point is that when faced with big problems there is absolutely no reason why we must first look to "big answers" as the solution. Often, big problems can be solved with small solutions. After all, as a child, how many of your cuts and bruises were solved with a tender kiss from your mother?

Unlearning & the Rise of the Supercomputer

Marshall McCluhan once famously said, “First, we shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” As a professional futurist, I have been trying to explain how some of our tools are getting exponentially more powerful. In turn, these tools are accelerating the advances that will soon shape our future and, by virtue of their findings, necessitate unlearning. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of supercomputers. 

According to this ComputerWorld article, supercomputers with 100 million cores and capable of one quintillion calculations per second—or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 for those of you counting at home—will arrive around 2018. This growing processing power is important because it will help innovative researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs design next-generation materials, drugs, bio-fuels, batteries and much, much more. 

 One area merits special attention and that is in the area of how supercomputers are yielding new insights about the brain. As scientists learn more about how the brain really operates, I am convinced that we will need to unlearn much of what we now think we "know" about the brain. 

To better understand supercomputers amazing power, I invite you to watch this two-minute video I put together last year. Although be forewarned, one quadrillion is already rather quaint:

To Unlearn: Try Reading the Newspaper Backwards

In my 2008 book, Jump the Curve: 50 Essential Strategies to Help Your Company Stay Ahead of Emerging Technologies, one strategy I encourage people to employ from time to time is that of reading the newspaper backwards. Why? Because it can help you more clearly see where the future is headed. This, in turn, will reinforce why unlearning is so important to your survival.

Yesterday, for example, as I was returning from Dallas where I delivered a keynote presentation on the future of travel and tourism to the Texas Travel Industry Association, I began by reading the marketing section of the Wall Street Journal from back-to-front. Here’s what I noticed. On Page 8, it was revealed that Sarah Palin’s new book won’t be released in an E-book until after Christmas. This is noteworthy for the simple fact that it wouldn’t have been noteworthy as recently as last year. In other words, E-books have now become so popular that when a new book isn’t released in electronic format at the same time as the print version it qualifies as news. It’s clear from this development that e-book sales will only continue to rise at the expense of traditional hardcover books and that the publishing industry must unlearn some of its current assumptions.

On Page B7 there was a similar story, only this one related to the advertising industry: Web Ad Sales in Britain Overtake TV. On Page B6, it was announced that Lemmis Lighting is releasing a 20-year lightbulb. (Imagine this: In the future your kid or grandchild might not be able to change a lightbulb because it is something they only have to do once every two decades!) The broader implication is that both marketers and professionals in the lighting business will soon need to unlearn how they do business.

And then on Page B5 there were two articles of note. First, there was a small article announcing that Princeton University was testing Amazon Kindle’s DX e-book as part of a national pilot program; and, second, there was a larger article explaining that the airline industry is finally getting serious about employing RFID tags to track baggage. Both news stories reinforce the growing prevalence of e-books and RFID technology.

My friends, the future is here. To learn more about it all you need to do is read the back of the newspaper! If you do, I think you'll better understand why we must all continue to unlearn.

P.S. If you keep reading the 9/30/09 edition of the WSJ, on Page 3, there is article explaining why biobutanol might soon replace ethanol as America’s biofuel of choice. (It'd be wonderful if Congress could unlearn its infatuation with ethanol.)

Related Posts by America’s Chief Unlearning Officer, Jack Uldrich

A Future of Black Swans
The Future Requires Unlearning
Sur-Prize: The Future Can Be 10% Better

Unlearning Statistics

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." Mark Twain

This past Friday Bjorn Lomborg had a thoughtful editorial entitled Technology Can Fight Global Warming. As a professional technologist and futurist, I couldn’t agree more and I have written about this idea frequently. Nevertheless, I find Lomborg’s use of statistics highly unprofessional. To wit, as the basis for his argument, he claims that a high CO2 tax “will reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100--the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.”

It is amazing to me that the editors of the Wall Street Journal allow such drivel to be published. No one—and I mean no one—can predict what the future will be like in 91 years. (To understand why see my recent article The Future is Unpredictable). It is even more ridiculous that Lomborg pinpoints the figure at 12.9%. I mean, really, if you are going to guess what impact a future tax is going to have on the economy why not have a little intellectual humility and give yourself some leeway by suggesting the economy will drop by a more rounded figure such as 13%.

There is a famous quote by Andrew Lang that bears repeating here: "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination.”

Related Posts

A Future of Black Swans

Big Oil Unlearns

As a professional futurist, I spend a great deal of time reading the back sections of newspapers looking for small trends which could grow larger in the future. Yesterday, I happened across two articles suggesting that algae—for the production of both oil and ethanol—may have a promising future.

First, in an item that should have attracted more attention, Exxon announced that it would be partnering with Craig Venter and his new company Synthetic Genomics in a $600 million R&D effort to develop genetically modified strains of algae that can not only suck up excess carbon dioxide but secrete oil.

If the two companies can pull off this feat—and I’ll be the first to admit that significant technological challenges remain—they can make money two ways. First, they could sell the oil to refineries. Second, in the likely event the federal government imposes some sort of regulation on CO2, they can benefit by pulling the greenhouse gas out of the environment.

The second item was equally intriguing. Dow announced its was partnering with Algenol Biofuels on the creation of a new demonstration plant to efficiently produce ethanol from algae. If successful, the ethanol will be used by Dow to make plastics.

As I am fond of saying, the future is already here ... it just isn’t evenly distributed. In perhaps five to ten years time, Algae’s potential to produce oil and ethanol could explode as fast as scum can sprout on a pond during a hot summer day.

From an unlearning perspective, the news is important because it suggests that Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerson may be slowly unlearning that oil can only be pumped from the ground. You may recall that a few years back, Tillerson dismissed the future of biofuels by quipping that he expected to be driven to his funeral in a hearse using gasoline or diesel. It would, indeed, be ironic if Mr. Tillerson -- when he passes from this earth -- is driven to his final resting spot in an algae-powered hearse.

Unlearning "Land Bridges": A Lesson for Scientists

In relative terms, the field of plate tectonics is still fairly new -- becoming widely accepted only in the mid-1960’s. The idea that massive continents could have drifted apart over millions of years was, however, first expounded on by an amateur American geologist, Frank Bursley, in 1908. Bursley was struck by how the shape between the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America looked as though they could fit together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and suggested the movement of the continents might also explain the formation of mountain ranges. Bursley provided little evidence and his idea was soon – and easily – dismissed by the scientific establishment who had little time for the “strange” theories from amateurs.

 

A few years later Bursley’s idea was picked up by a German meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who was disturbed by the many animal and fossil anomalies which didn’t fit conveniently into the day’s existing theory of how the earth was formed. Again, it was dismissed. This time because the idea came from an outsider – a meteorologist.

 

And what precisely was the leading theory used by geologists to explain how the exact same fossils of animals and plants could have existed on the opposite sides of different oceans? The answer was “land bridges” -- mysterious strips of land, for which no evidence existed, but miraculously allowed animals to peacefully and successfully meander thousands of miles across vast expanses of the world’s oceans. For example, when an ancient horse named Hipparion was found to have lived in both Florida and France, geologists drew a land bridge across the Atlantic Ocean to explain away this disturbing discrepancy. Soon, a variety of other land bridges begun to spring up and populate the world of geological science in order to explain everything from how tapirs existed in both Southeast Asia and South America at the same time to how snails could turn up in both Scandinavia and New England.

 

Surprisingly, and in the face of a complete and utter lack of evidence, land bridges remained the geological orthodoxy for the next 50 years. In 1944, a British geologist, Arthur Holmes, wrote a book entitled Principles of Physical Geology elaborating on Wegner's theory but it was dismissed by one reviewer who even had the temerity to warn that Holmes presented his arguments so coherently that they might actually be believed by students! In 1955, no less a figure than the esteemed Albert Einstein wrote a ringing endorsement for a book which all but ridiculed the ideas of Wegener and Holmes.

 

And in 1964, in the face of mounting evidence, a Canadian geologist by the name of Lawrence Morley wrote a paper explaining how magnetic studies of the floor of the Atlantic Ocean were spreading in the exact motion prescribed by the theory of “continental drift.” Morley’s paper was abruptly and rudely dismissed by the editor of the prestigious Journal of Geophysical Research with this now infamous note: “Such speculations make interesting talk at cocktail, but it is not the sort of thing that ought to be published under serious scientific aegis.”

 

Later that year at a conference of the Royal Society the tide finally began to turn but it wasn’t until 1968 when the same publication, which had rejected Morley’s paper only four years earlier, published the article which gave the science of plate tectonics its name.

 

The story serves as a wonderful reminder to those scientists who are quick to dismiss ideas from amateurs, outsiders, and unconventional thinkers. To this end, I invite you to watch this 60 Minutes segment on “Cold Fusion” and pay special attention to the outright dismissal of the idea by some of today’s leading experts. Could they be wrong? I don’t purport to know the answer but history suggests that these scientific experts should at least entertain the notion that they might be wrong.

 

The same is true of the theories of Aubrey de Grey, an outsider from the field of computer science, who is strongly challenging today’s conventional wisdom on the “science of aging.”

Unlearning Stabilization

John Seely Brown, John Hagel and Lang Davidson recently wrote an article entitled ”The New Reality: Constant Disruption.” The basic premise isn’t new to anyone who has read my book Jump the Curve or The Singularity is Near, and that is that society is now headed into a new era whereby change is a constant and accelerating reality. This is replacing an era where disruption was followed by periods of stabilization. In other words, in the past, people, businesses and society often had an opportunity to catch their breath and develop and orchestrate plans before the next new paradigm-shifting technological change arrived.

If you doubt this radical transformation is real, lets just use yesterday, March 31, 2009, as an example. To begin, Intel released its next generation computer chip, the Nehalem. According to this article it is a “major game changer” because of its powerful new capabilities and the fact that it uses significantly less energy than previous chips.

This announcement was followed by news that a new company, Tendril, is now using existing off-the-shelf technology to make “dumb” electrical meters “smart.” The new “smart meter” industry, which is itself only a few years old, thus finds its once promising business model already under attack.

There was then this article suggesting that Skype is about to enter the mobile cellular market. As it does, wireless carriers, which should have seen the writing on the wall for years, are about to come face-to-face with a technology that views phone calls as nothing but data and should therefore be priced no different than the information flowing over the Internet—which is to say nothing!

Elsewhere, in the field of farming and agriculture, there was this announcement that a researcher has figured out how to grow a number of different crops using only one-fifth the water and no soil. (If not using soil to grow crops isn’t disruptive, I don’t know what is.) And, in the field of robotics, there was this report announcing that Honda is now using human thoughts (via brain-computer interfaces) to control the action of robots.

Each of the aforementioned technologies is only going to get significantly better, they are going to require a great deal of unlearning. As they do, old ways of doing business will fall by the way-side and new business opportunities will emerge. This scenario is both frightening and exhilarating.

The first step is to act. As one of my favorite leaders of all-time, General George C. Marshall, once told his subordinates “get action where action is needed.” In other words, the primary responsibly of any leader is to act. In this era of accelerating change, it is easy to postpone action for want of perfect information or because “tomorrow things will be different.” It is true, things will be different tomorrow, but people will still need products and services and problems must still need to be addressed today. The bottom-line is that a less-than-perfect solution now is often better than a perfect solution later.

Secondly, leaders need to learn to embrace ambiguity, and perhaps the greatest such ambiguity is that failure can be a positive characteristic. To succeed in this new era, organizations must be willing to not only risk failure but actually reward it.

There is no possible way every organization is going to do everything right. To succeed boldly, organizations must be willing to fail boldly; and when those risks don’t work it is important to learn from the mistakes and not punish them.

The edge is a dangerous place and few people like to venture out there but that is where the future will take place. In order to encourage and cultivate employees who will venture out to the edge, leaders must encourage action and recognize that “failure is an option.” Why? Because if you don’t act and instead attempt to avoid failure, you are likely to fail anyways because the future is here—now! That’s the new reality and we must unlearn the old reality.

Unlearning Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide, commonly known as CO2, is the devil molecule of our time. What would happen, however, if we could convert this greenhouse gas into a renewable energy as this article suggests?At a minimum, it would require a great many people to rethink their views on the "sustainability" of fossil fuels and they may have to engage in some unlearning.

Unlearning Visibility

Researchers at Duke University continue to make improvements to their "invisibility cloak." If this sounds like something straight out of Harry Potter, well, it kind of is. Nevertheless, the technology could have some real world applications in the field of solar energy and biological imaging.

A Watched Kettle Never Boils -- or Does It?

EcoGeek has an interesting article explaining how advances in nanotechnology can lead to the creation of a kettle that boils faster. The advance is significant not just because it could help consumers and businesses save money and time by bringing water to a boil faster, but because it suggests that a variety of other products—such as solar cells and catalysts—might also become radically more effective.

Of course, before many of these advances can be adopted people will need to unlearn the idea that a “watched pot never boils.”