Bassetti Foundation - Tag Archive

Some thoughts on the Film Oppenheimer

Leave a reply Jonny Hankins

The Bomb as a Game Changer

As regular readers will know, the Technology Bloggers platform has a partnership with the Bassetti Foundation. As part of my own collaboration with the Foundation I edited the International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, and in this book Foundation President Piero Bassetti explains that innovation requires a surplus of knowledge alongside a surplus of power.

This argument was not new for him though, being addressed in his book Le Redini del Potere (the reins of power) written with Giacomo Corna Pellegrini back in 1959.

In this book (from a time of rapid change when Fidel Castro became President of Cuba, the first two primates survived space flight, and nylon tights (pantyhose) were released to the public), the authors discuss the decision taken by then President Franklin Roosevelt to pursue research into a weapon that for the first time could bring humanity itself to an end.

This decision is seen as a development point in the relationship between science and politics and the notion of collective responsibility that underpin the Bassetti Foundation’s mission to promote responsibility in innovation.

This surplus of knowledge and power is something that can be clearly seen in the latest Oppenheimer film, as the knowledge surplus is created by gathering the world’s greatest scientific minds together, all carried out under the drive and with the funding of the US government (the surplus of power). The US army offers the infrastructure to put the whole plan together.

Without the political will and capability to carry out the project, the surplus of knowledge remains just that, knowledge. For it to become (an) innovation, it has to change something, to be implemented, which brings in the influence of power, money, and in the old days at least, government.

This brings the type of questions about responsibility that we have been asking in the Bassetti Foundation for the last thirty years, and which are related to its approach and interests. If we follow Bassetti’s line of thinking as outlined in the Handbook, knowledge remains knowledge in the absence of political will and capacity, so responsibility must lie with the political decision-makers, or in other words, with power.

A single line expresses this idea in the new Oppenheimer film, uttered by Donald Truman, the US President who took the decision to drop the bombs over Japan: ‘those people is Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren’t interested in who built the bomb, they are interested in who dropped it’.  

Who is Responsible, The Individual or the Position?

In the case in question the US President is claiming the responsibility for the dropping of the bomb, but if we follow Bassetti, as President he also in some way ‘represents’ responsibility for the discovery of the bomb itself, even though the process was started by his predecessor. From some perspectives (those that see a ‘many hands’ problem), the discovery and production process brings joint responsibility; it requires military personnel and logistic capacities, scientists as well as finance, good will from family members, collaboration and political support. But we could also say that the process is fundamentally political and facilitated by power, the same power decides to facilitate, design and implement the process, and then decides what to do with the results.

This point of who controls the process (and therefore is responsible for it) comes up once more in the film, as Oppenheimer (having delivered a bomb to the military for use) starts to tell a soldier the effects of exploding the bomb at different altitudes. The soldier responds by making it clear that the military would be taking all of the decisions from then on, and they would decide on the logistics. Once the bomb was ready, it was made clear to the scientists that they did not have any say in how it might be used. It was never their bomb and their role had been completed.

Another interesting element of the film develops as Oppenheimer moves to limit the effects of the invention. He proposes the need to share knowledge of the discovery with the allies (Russians), to propose a moratorium and international governance of the new weapon, and to halt further developments that would lead to an arms race. If we want to bring this into the present there has recently been lots of debate about the how to govern developments in AI, including about a possible moratorium.

Rather than just seeing this as a problem of care, it can also be seen from the point of view of how perceptions of responsibility change over time. During a war (although there is some discussion about the bomb being unnecessary as the German government surrenders) the development of such a weapon is justified, even seen as necessary. But once the war is won, or almost won, its existence should be problematized.

Starlink

Returning to present day developments, the press that Elon Musk received back in September and revelations made in a recent book about his Starlink project brings up several similar questions. Whatever the truth is about denied requests to Starlink to facilitate an attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet, Musk finds himself and his company participating in warfare. Echoing the position that Oppenheimer finds himself in (as portrayed in the film), he remarks that the purpose of Starlink was not to facilitate war but to facilitate gaming and internet access for all. But once the technology is available, its use may be difficult to determine by those who enabled it.

The problem of many hands is not as evident to see in this situation however. Starlink resembles a family business, the surplus of knowledge and the surplus of power, will and capability all lie within the hands of one person. I have not heard any talk of a moratorium, or international governance for that matter, which raises several fundamental questions: What is the role for governance in this situation? Or the role of political will or finance? What are the implications for thinking about democracy? Where should Responsible Innovation practices be focused if there is a lack of external governance mechanisms? What are the implications of the fact that both sides in this war rely on Starlink to facilitate their actions?

Could we see Elon musk as playing a multifaceted role, of innovator and politician, mediator and strategist?

Fair Energy Transition for All: FETA Project

Leave a reply Jonny Hankins
Image from the FETA website

In this post I would like to take a quick look at the project FETA, Fair Energy Transition for All.

Energy Transition

Energy transition refers to the move towards carbon neutral energy production, and the concept under discussion is how this transition process can be made as fair as possible for the largest number of people.

How could it not be fair? We might ask this question, but we might come up with some simple suggestions: the transition is going to cost money, tax money and consumer money, and this added expense is not going to be felt equally across the population (we are talking about Europe here). If a government adds a cost (to use a current example) to the price of electricity in order to fund wind generation, this extra cost represents a different percentage of disposable income for different groups. If you spend 2% of your income on electricity it might not be noticeable, but if you spend 20% then it certainly will.

The current crisis with energy costs has already demonstrated the fragility of a population that relies on power for heat and electricity in any form, and any transition tax applied a year ago will today both raise more money and put more strain on poorer households. And subsidies for insulating houses, buying new white goods or towards the cost of an electric car require outlay on the part of the consumer, which means that it excludes those without access to such funds. And that says nothing about the skills needed to navigate the bureaucracy

Adding charges to bills and subsidising energy efficient purchases is a top down approach though, decisions taken by governments and energy company bosses (my rather cynical interpretation coming out here), but this is a a problem that FETA aims to address.

Some thoughts from the website:

For the energy transition to take place, policy measures need to be put in place that will have an impact on housing, energy, transport and other aspects of our everyday lives. However, the impacts of climate policies, such as rising fuel taxes or the closure of coal mines, affect socially and economically disadvantaged groups the most. This leads to economic and social conflicts: many people feel alienated by climate change policies, which they perceive as elitist issues, and they feel that the elites are out of touch with their lives and are not aware of their interests.

For climate action to be successful, widespread public acceptance is needed. European and national policy-makers need to develop climate change policies that everyone can relate to and benefit from! Policy-makers should listen to those whose voices are being left out of the current debate and include them in the policy and communication process. That is the only way in which a fair energy transition can be achieved – for all!

All of which boils down into three main questions:

  • How can the EU and its member states prevent climate policies from hitting the pockets of poorer households the hardest?
  • How can policies be designed so that everyone has an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the energy transition?
  • How can the energy transition be combined with social justice?

To find answers, the project is conducting public participation events that involve 1000 participants in 90 focus groups spread across Europe, while the Bassetti Foundation (our funding partner) is working on policy proposals by running some expert workshops in Italy. The aim is to better understand the emotions, fears, views and needs of vulnerable people with regards to the energy transition and its current and potential impact on their living conditions, in order to provide input to national and European policy-makers, researchers and stakeholders to help them develop fair energy transition policies and enhance the communication with the target group.

The website offers more information and is well designed and really easy to follow.

Just down our street at Technology Bloggers we might say.

A Joint Statement from the Editors, Christopher Roberts and Jonathan Hankins

1 Reply Jonny Hankins

After a long and fruitful informal collaboration, the Bassetti Foundation and Technology Bloggers have decided to formalize their relationship with a funding agreement.

From 1 November 2020 the Bassetti Foundation will cover the blog’s domain name and hosting costs. This is a fantastic agreement for all parties involved, as it guarantees funding for the continuation of the site while still leaving options open for other partnerships in-line with our values.

As regular readers will know, co-editor Jonny has been working with the Bassetti Foundation for many years, supporting their aim to promote responsibility in innovation. The blog and the Foundation released a joint pamphlet in 2012 based upon a series on the blog called Can We Improve The Health Of The Planet?, an early sign of what was to become an enduring relationship. As editors, we understand and share the goals and aims as well as the values that the Foundation stands for, and the mutual respect and trust offered in return is appreciated and valued.

As editors and authors, we try to highlight underappreciated positive projects/organizations in the world, and promote what we see as technological developments that aim to improve the lives of everybody across the planet.

Jonny started writing for the blog in July of 2011, 3 months after Christopher founded it, and while there has never been a policy on topic areas, the site has developed a view on technology and science and the environment thanks to our shared interests and similarity in positions.

Jonny was new to blogging and Christopher offered him the necessary experience, technological skills and platform to engage with a new audience on matters of ethics and some of the broader implications of technological development.  In return Jonny offered expertise in the rapidly developing field of Responsible Innovation.

Education and critical thinking are fundamental goals for both of us, we share a passion for communication, for enthusing people with the possibilities that the future holds while highlighting the social and ethical aspects of what this might all mean.

We have both learned a lot working together and editing the website over the last (almost) ten years. We benefit from the fact that we both have different expertise, both technical and philosophical. We have influenced each other’s thinking and paths, opened new opportunities and developmental possibilities.

The blog was originally conceived the as a community technology blog, and in its early years a range of posts from other writers were published, but recently the posts have all come from the editors ourselves. This reflects our coming to a shared position on technology and science, the blog follows a shared line and has its own identity, which seems to pay off. Readers seem to share our passions, and having had consistently healthy traffic figures since the blog started, we are sure we are having the desired impact.

We try to put all of this into practice, as we both believe that “we must be the change we wish to see in the world”.

We would like to thank the Bassetti Foundation, all of our readers and contributors and look forward to continuing our fruitful (and enjoyable) relationships with you all.

Editors Christopher Roberts and Jonathan Hankins.