The movie confronts the reality of human condition to its modern idealization, culminating in a final scene where jazz and spiritedness defeat the order so preciously orchestrated, at least for the time of a dance. Play Time is a post-modernist masterpiece because it plays with the paradoxes of human existence; humour and derision being the only possible postures.

A series of conferences about climate change were organized few weeks ago by the Perelman centre from the Université Libre de Bruxelles. Here are two observations from François Gemenne:

• Climate refugees are most often treated as if they were victims unable to adapt to the climate changes occurring in their region. They play the role of “canaries in a coal mine”, signalling the rest of the World what is to come. We should instead recognize that emigrating is a legitimate adapting strategy to climate change, and that climate refugees are far from being victims without any capacity to act. Displaced populations are only one aspect of the problem. We need to better understand the conditions that lead to the decision to either stay or leave an affected region.
• More a country is polluting, more it has weight in climate negotiations. Model pupils are not the ones who need to change their behaviour, polluting countries impose their conditions for change.

ECCS'10 was held in Lisbon, I saw this huge graffiti by the artists Os Gemeos one evening when I went back to my hotel, also about ethics...

Let me conclude my series of posts on the ECCS 2010 with few notes on power and ethics. You will be convinced by reading my previous posts that complex systems theory has many applications. The discipline is relatively new and we are only at the beginning of discovering the impact it will have on our daily life. As for any science, it can lead either to a better world or a nightmarish society, depending on how we use it. I could feel it throughout the week of the conference. Most scientists advocate the positive impacts of their research, but do see the possible misappropriations. Complex systems theory is central in the development of a more sustainable society, as illustrated in innovations such as smart grids and intelligent transport infrastructure, which happen to be decentralized systems. Complex systems theory provide us with a better understanding of our cultures and the way we operate together, which could help us address societal challenges. It could help us better classify knowledge, plan our cities, simplify our laws, reach altogether informed decisions and preserve cultural diversity. But it could also lead to control over public’s opinion, to a wider social gap between influencers and their followers, to a resilience of monopolistic systems, and to partitioned societies. The choice is ultimately to citizens, and it worries me to see that the vast majority doesn’t care much about recent advances in complex systems theory, as in any science, too busy to cope with what has been already decided for them long time ago in other fields. What is necessary to make that change? In the meantime, it seems to me that scientists are left on their own, their only interlocutors being large corporations and short-sighted politics (who cannot carry any public will on the subject because the public doesn’t care). Scientists improvise the best they can social and philosophical criticism of their own research, but it would much more beneficial to have other disciplines involved.

After the inspiring presentation  by Jeffrey Johnson, “Policy and Design of Complex Systems”, I wondered if a form of ethics in social systems analysis might prescribe the modelling of every person involved , including the creators of the model and their commissioners. Self-interest and personal motivations could then become much more apparent than in current researches.

“There is a power struggle for ‘the Truth’ [...] Scientists must model themselves and the politicians, both are inside the system being studied. Modelling the system can change the system!”

http://vimeo.com/15899828

Applications of complex systems theory in policy making

“Intervention and Policy Making in Complex Socio-Economic and Technical Systems”

by Peter Allen

Smart grids

“Modelling the growth of distributed energy generation for a low carbon economy: Part I the approach”
by Liz Varga

The greatest challenge for the UK government is to ensure that energy demand is met and sustainable over the long-term. This assurance is currently achieved through centralized control over various gas and electricity licensees, including generators, inter-connectors, distributers, etc. The future however is dependent in a significant way upon households and organizations, taking responsibility for their use and, where possible, their generation of energy. This new decentralized model which has the opportunity for self-organization and growth, in the same way as the internet had with the deregulation of telecommunications, is known as the ‘smart grid’ in the USA. The purpose of modelling the power industry is three-fold. First, the power industry cannot be experimented upon because of its scale and the reliance placed upon it by the economy. Second, effects of potential governmental interventions will depend upon the evolving environment and other dynamics existing within the system and so are difficult to predict because of the dependence upon the context of the interventions. Third, is to demonstrate with reasonable probability given the assumptions made and given the effects of noise in the system that desired outcomes relating to low carbon, security and sustainability are achievable. Human or social agents and artificial or smart agents will be modelled at similar levels of abstraction and simulated together, allowing an understanding of the interactions between technology, information, individuals, communities and organizations, building on the use of interpretive agents who learn.

http://vimeo.com/15623991

UK Transport Emission Reduction

Most often in environmental issues, not one but several policy measures need to be implemented in order to get positive effects, and the interaction between these measures becomes key in their success. Finding the set of measures that will lead to the best synergies is a very complex problem indeed. Araz Taeihagh argues that policy makers should let science help them, and use policy models in their design process. His model is based on five types of relation between policy measures: a measure can be required for the application of another (precondition); a measure can facilitate the application of another (facilitation); two measures can work well together (synergy): two measures can produce conflicting outcomes under certain conditions (potential contradiction), two measures definitely produce conflicting outcomes (contradiction).

“A Case Study in the Application of an Agent-Based Approach in the Formulation of Policies for UK Transport Emission Reduction”
by Araz Taeihagh and René Bañares-Alcántara

http://vimeo.com/15624248

Hospital refurbishment

By The Open University

Hospitals are complex: they involve strict codes of operations, nurses, doctors, specialized equipment, operating rooms, and patients of course. They are optimized for maximum effectiveness in healing patients. A single change in their settings can lead to chain reactions and unpredictable consequences in daily operations. How to integrate then planned refurbishments and new requirements such as reduction of energy consumption? The new study of the Open University will attempt to model hospitals using complex systems theory in order to address the challenge.

Complex systems theory applied to hospitals

This is what Alexy Khrabrov and George Cybenko attempted to answer at the ECCS 2010 conference in Lisbon. Here is an introduction that I have slightly edited to make it more accessible.

“Mind Economy: Modeling Influence in Communication Networks with Social Capital.”

by Alexy Khrabrov and George Cybenko

Social scientists, businesses, and governments are interested in summarizing the ongoing social network activity to identify the most influential players capable of creating and maintaining high-impact group behaviours. We would like to have metrics of influence in dynamic systems, and generative models which can explain how this influence is accumulated and maintained. Having identified the “stars” or high-influence individuals, we look at the ways they achieve and maintain their influence, comparing their tweeting behaviour to social capital exchange in proportion to the fans ‘contributions. We propose a family of generative models where social capital is exchanged and generated during interactions, reflecting the players‘utilities – such as self-centred or maximizing group benefit. Using our social capital model, we let a system evolve to accumulate most of the capital in those nodes which can be considered influential. We compare those capital-rich nodes with other metrics of influence and show that our model confirms and explains influence of many important types of players, and reveals the behaviours leading to sustained influence. We model recently uncovered Twitter phenomena such as Justin Bieber‘s ecosystem and other high-intensity processes, showing how efficient star behaviour and group preferences lead to various mind economies in social networks.

http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs315/Papers/khrabrov-twitter-dynamics.pdf

So, even the seemingly chaotic activities of a teenager can be modelled using economic models in which influence and social capital is the currency. Trends on social networks such as twitter and facebook still seem rather unpredictable. But the interests at play in a mind economy are too big to let it go that way. Complex systems theory will undoubtedly be used in an attempt to better target influencers, and shift our attention to a particular subject. The same theory might on the other hand help us making sure that social networks maintain a certain level of social fairness in the mind economy, and diversity in mindshare.

Simulating opinion dynamics in heterogeneous communication systems

By Walter Quattrociocchi, Rosaria Conte, and Elena Lodi

In this video, Rosaria Conte describes opinion dynamics by means of multi-agent based simulations. Agents (i.e. people) are exposed to different sources of information varying both the contents and the perceived reliability of the messages spread. Agents’ internal opinion is updated either by accessing one of the information sources, namely media and experts, or by exchanging information with one another. They are also endowed with cognitive mechanisms to accept, reject or partially consider the acquired information. The study evaluates the impact that reliable sources and peer-to-peer communication can have on the quality of information.

Simulating Opinion Dynamics in Heterogeneous Communication Systems from Assystcomplexity on Vimeo.

At the third minute of the video, Rosaria Conte starts attacking the Italian media manipulated by Berlusconi. Behind the rather tedious title, this presentation is a fantastic example of political engagement through science, which doesn’t undermine at all the scientific value of the research.

Opinion dynamics

By Anthony Woolcock

Many societies exhibit cultural fragmentation. This is despite individuals trying to reach agreement with those they meet. In the model of Axelrod, individuals that are more similar are more likely to interact (homophily). The mechanism where people become more similar after interaction is termed social influence. Axelrod’s model is interesting because for different parameter choices the opinions of all the individuals will either become all the same (consensus), or frozen fragmented state. A phase transition is observed between these two types of frozen state.

Complex systems theory: opinion dynamics

Bounded confidence model: addressed information maintain diversity of opinion

By Krzysztof Malarz and Krzysztof Kulakowski

Models have already been developed to optimize the frequency of let’s say political advertising on tv in order to get the maximum effect on a public’s opinion (see the Zaller mass opinion model). But they didn’t take into account interpersonal communication, which becomes more and more decisive with the advance of online social media. Krzysztof Malarz and Krzysztof Kulakowski developed a model taking this into account. Their model suggests that individually addressed messages maintain diversity of opinion. See the full paper here.

Model for diversity of opinion

The presentation of Professor Uri Hasson was fascinating (see this article from the New Scientist). By using fMRI and observing brain’s activity, it is now possible to tell if two spectators go through similar mental states when watching a movie: do they pay attention to the same things (e.g. a face or a decor); do they experience the same picks?

Uri Hasson was careful to not suggest that movies controlling more effectively brain’s activity are necessary better (ambivalence can also be a virtue). He also emphasized how his researches could be used for other purposes than studying films. Films could be used to simulate the effect of real-life situations on the brain for example.

However, it is very easy to predict what Hollywood studios will make of these researches, whatever their initial purpose was. They will use them to optimize trailers and films so that they can generate the ‘optimum’ effect on the brains of the audience. They already do so, but through approximate methods, such as asking a test audience to explain what they experienced when watching a movie (technique used for Harry Potter films). Hollywood studios have always been obsessed in controlling their audience, for economic reasons, or American propaganda. It is very frightening to think of what they will do with this new technique.

The film director Amos Gitai didn’t let it pass. He overreacted to the research, accused Uri Hasson of having a hidden agenda, and clearly wished that the research never existed. He felt that his artistic practice of filmmaking was threatened. The debate became very passionate and confrontational between the two orators and the audience, in a typical German fashion.

I think for my part that we cannot ignore the evolution of science. It is counterproductive to simply wish that it didn’t exist, especially when the research could also have positive applications. Hollywood studios will use any trick at their disposal to ‘control’ their audience. The audience should be aware of these techniques; this is why this talk is so valuable. The audience has also the capacity to choose other options, and to support instead independent filmmakers and alternative movie theatres, which are becoming increasingly popular.  Even when they watch a Hollywood blockbuster, and I do sometimes, they can let their mental states being controlled for a while, and still remain critical. The problem lies more in education and the audience’s capacity to remain critical, which is sadly appalling in many socio-cultural groups.

The “Better city, better life” official theme of the Shanghai World Fair was an excellent choice. It encapsulated all that needs to be addressed nowadays: sustainability, globalisation, urbanisation, fairness between the poor and the rich. The right questions were asked. However, the states and corporations present at the expo showed how unconvincing their answers were. Their self-interest and reliance on established industries lead them to the most desperate and risible rhetoric, see my previous posts for some examples.

The solution to all our problems is technology according to the participants of the Expo. Yet, and as far as I know, none of the big pavilions had an absolute zero impact on the environment. Instead, a splash of energetically very demanding presentations explained to the audience that some symbolic features of the buildings were sustainable, a non-sense.

Throughout my visit, oil companies, car manufacturers, heavy industries told me that their technology will bring soon a solution to the challenges that the world is facing. And the only role of the national pavilions was to repeat the absurd solutions that their biggest industries had to sell. How lower a national self-esteem could be?

The best place to experience these contradictions was in the area of the Expo devoted to industries. There, I was being told that I will have a better life thanks to bigger boats, more oil and concept GM cars; Answers that were totally inadequate and only increased my feeling of insecurity. To be fair, there were some good intentions and ideas at the Expo, and technology is surely part of the solution. But they were squeezed in an absurd vision serving national and supranational short-term interests.

In his book, Jay Winter explained how the Paris World Fair of 1937 was a desperate invocation of the illuminations of technology to prevent another war. Reality was not long to impose itself. Let’s hope that history will give us more time to resolve our incapacity to face limited resources on earth.

The Tour Eiffel from the World's Fair of 1900

I’ve read recently the excellent book from Jay Winter “Dreams of Peace and Freedom – Utopian Moments in the 20^th Century“. It is part of my curatorial homework for the exhibition “Living the Dream of Modernity” that I’m preparing to launch very soon. Here is a summary.

Mr. Winter understands utopia as a discourse in two contradictory parts. An utopia is an ideal in complete discontinuity with the reality. But the ideal can only be expressed with what is known. Thus, the utopia necessary tells about the historical context of its authors. “Utopia is a fantasy about the limits of the possible, a staging of what we take for granted, what is left unsaid about our current social conventions and political cultures. Those who expose these silences, often playfully, begin to disturb the contradictions in the way we live.” [Louis Marin, Utopiques]

The book focuses on the loosely defined ‘minor utopias’, the utopias that have not been the cause of major wars and cruelty, e.g. 20^th century totalitarian regimes.

Jay Winter identifies  the following utopias:

-          Visions of Peace in 1900. Throughout the world, many groups declared their commitment to the idea that war could be eradicated. 3 examples:

o   Albert Kahn created the “Archives of the Planet”, films and photographs from many parts of the world, to help people “see that their interests should be directed towards the benefit of humanity as a whole. For this they need more than abstract knowledge, but contact with the world. This contact will show the variety of experience and contradict simple formula about the world”

o   The world’s fair of 1900 in Paris, based on the idea that war would be unnecessary in a world based on international commerce.

o   Jean Jaurès and socialist pacifism took the opposite direction, peace was impossible under a system defending property and privilege. A system of states resting on class inequalities would necessary clash.

All those visions were unlikely to materialize, “because the men and women who framed them could not evade who they were: European citizens of an imperial system controlling the globe, a system about to detonate the most devastating war in history”.

-          Perpetual Peace in 1919. After the first World War, long-lasting peace was still the primordial goal. The conviction was that self-determination would put this time a definitive end to war. Self-determination is the capability for “people to determine their political future in their own territory. Take away the imperial element in international affairs, and armed conflict would simply be unnecessary”. It was in the agenda of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 but was still the prerogative of the imperial countries. You cannot be imperial and democratic at the same time.

-          The illuminations of 1937. The hope of the Paris world’s fair of 1937 was that science and technology would make humanity progress cooperatively. Democratizing light and electricity was the perfect symbolic: a materialization of the 18^th century enlightenment. Meanwhile, science was playing a central role in the military preparation of the second World War.  The fair was in fact a desperate invocation, signs of its fate are greatly detailed in the book.

-          The work of René Cassin on the Declaration of Human Rights, in the middle of the second World War, seems like a paradox. “But utopias have the tendency to appear at the worst times, when they are the least likely to be realized”. The declaration was motivated by the believe that peace could be secured only if it was based on a set of international commitments on human rights. States respecting the rights of their citizen would not be willing to go to war so easily.

-          Liberation of the 1968. Jay Winter describes a shift in this period during which the ideal of individual freedom takes over the one of collective independence (e.g. states, trade unions). He describes the liberation theology school funded by Gustavo Gutiérrez as well as the student revolts in Paris and Berlin. Came from those movements the notion of ‘autogestion’, people can solve their problems without national governments (e.g. life in small communities, humanitarian organizations such as Medecins sans frontieres). A chapter is also dedicated to the Prague Spring and the theatre of Vaclav Havel.

-          Global citizenship in 1992. “Global citizens are emerging out of an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and a vision of human community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence.” [Richard Falk] Even though the importance of this movement is undeniable, most of international institutions are still the result of cooperation between nations, far from being bypassed.

The book was very useful to read. It helps having a minimum of historical context on utopias and to understand how come such obvious things such as international corporations, Human rights, the European Union and Greenpeace exist.

Jay Winter manages to stay very detailed and neutral when describing the utopias and why they were biased, while still being an advocate of them. All the utopias described above played an important role in history and how we perceive the world today. They are the result of individuals still being able to envision a world beyond the injustices and atrocities of their times. Without them, no progress would have been possible.