When Niels Bohr made the quip I use in the title, it’s unclear if he was intentionally or accidentally witty, or simply making an assertion about the weirdness of the quantum World.

Regardless, the Turing Lecture - an annual lecture given in London and Manchester - last night concerned itself with the future. Specifically, “The Meaning of the 21st Century”, as interpreted by Dr James Martin, a man of some considerable repute.

I absolutely hate being critical and scathing of anybody, but on this occasion I find I have no choice. If Dr Martin should find himself reading this one day, I’d ask that he note that I am not attacking him as a person, but purely his ideas and his execution of those ideas.

I attended the showing of his film before the talk, and discussions afterwards confirmed I was not the only person who considered walking out. In fact, my companion during the film decided he had better places to be rather than hang around for the talk.

The reasons for finding it so annoying are many. I actually stopped counting mistakes I found in the film after about half an hour (never mind the sound mixing being bodged and the long pauses at points), but it could be summarised as saying the tone was patronising and arrogant.

The thesis was heavily planted in the realms of Liberal Conservatism - two of the more prominent politicians interviewed were Chris Patten and John McCain with no counter-argument offered from anybody involved in “Leftist” politics. His answer to solving the problems of the World could effectively be described as US foreign policy for the last 60 years: export democracy and literacy and make foreigners realise they’re a bit thick - a policy which so far has led to where we are today.

Rather more disturbing for me was his attitude towards religion. Once in the film and once in the talk he talked about the “problems of Islam and religious fundamentalism”. He seems to think that the problems in the Middle East are purely rooted in Islamic fundamentalism and no blame can be apportioned to Christian fundamentalism driving a neo-Conservative agenda in the US, or that Israel has ever lifted a finger in anger or in error. He generalises a point about “all religions needing to learn the true values of their founders” but does not offer a method by which that can happen.

At one point in the film he makes a point after an Indian farmer has stated “God will help us” that “poor people need to be taught rational thought”. Sorry Jimmy, that’s just fundamentalism in another flavour.

I use this word carefully, but politically his arguments stray into what can only be described as a fascism, albeit a fascism he would want conducted by what Marx would have called “the proletariat”.

There is also something absurdly hypocritical about a film discussing the obscenity of the Californian lifestyle narrated by Michael Douglas, or the dangers of global warming being described by Martin appearing in a different city in a different country every 30 seconds. I stopped counting at 15 countries I think he visited to make the film, and in his talk he made a reference to “a few days ago I was in Cape Town” - it’s good to know he’s doing his bit for sorting out CO2 emissions!

So, onto the talk proper and I think the best way to rip this one to shreds is to go through the predictions he made. Many of you know that I think futurology is about as accurate as long-term weather forecasting, but with a difference: futurologists are exhibiting their hopes and fears. It’s hard to say whether he just collected predictions he considered credible for scientific reasons, or whether these form a good poll on his inner hopes and fears, but I’ll let you make your own mind up.

• Near-infinite bandwidth: in the future we will have bandwidth - “many thousands of a terabytes a second” - so fast that it may as well be considered infinite. Never mind history has always shown that we find a way to use nearly all of it almost immediately, there will be plenty to go around.
• Nanotechnology widespread: virtually everything manufactured in the 21st century will have nanotech in it somewhere. Some aspects of this I can see, but the extent he has predicted would be like suggesting in 1875 that every home in the World would have a steam engine in it by 1975.
• Ultra-intelligent computing but not human-like intelligence: this one confused me. He’s giving the Turing lecture. Turing described a successful AI as being one that passed “The Turing Test” - it would be indistinguishable from humans. He asserts that this is wrong, that intelligence will be “more alien”. Humans define intelligence, and therefore the only AI we will recognise as intelligent is one that which mimics our own. Even weirder though is how he thought this would combine with nanotech and by the end of the 21st century some humans would have millions of nanobots in their brain fluid using a “Brain Computer Interface” enhancing our mental function to “do the equivalent work of a PhD in 3 minutes” all communicating with each other via “wireless networks”.
• Automated evolution and genetic engineering: yes, I know evolution is already automated. What he means is that we will be able to kick-start it again for certain functions in plant, animal and human life. One prediction in the film is that 20 years from now people will be able to buy DIY gene modification kits for plants and they will design new forms of plant life.
• Use of quantum entanglement: cryptography moving to quantum? Well, yes. He doesn’t seem to have considered the true consequences of quantum computing though, specifically in the realms of breaking cryptography, or it’s use in science in a broader sense. His thoughts on “a friend who is a physicist” using quantum entanglement for more accurate brain scans were interesting though.
• Transhumanism: in effect, using technology to improve humanity in any way possible. Think rejuvenation technology currently being researched, the brain/computer interface, evolving ourselves, using stem cell research to “reset” our immune systems, and so on.
• Pebble bed nuclear reactors: I think he got confused at one point here because he suggested such a reactor could produce 180W of energy - enough to power three lightbulbs. I think he meant MW. Anyway, the idea is that this uses 10%-enriched uranium (which can’t be used for weapons) in a form that is impossible to extract, and using a design that makes it impossible to meltdown. The science looks interesting, and I’m prepared to go and research it but when he talks about pebble bed, it sounds like he might have shares in a company developing the technology. Apparently “there are Indians very interested in Thorium pebbles” - lovely.

Now, let’s talk about “Lovelock city”, his predicted “city of the future”. If the temperature rises by 4C we will need to build new cities somewhere cooler in which to live. This is reasonable according to Martin because we have seen the building work in Dubai over the last seven years prove that such cities are possible. It’s left as an exercise to the reader to work out the CO2 impact of building a new city the size of Dubai in the Arctic circle.

• Hydroponics: given the predictions he’s made about the lack of water available to us in the future, he thought hydroponics was the answer. Most students will be familiar with hydroponics thanks to their use for growing crops with which they’re more familiar.
• Magnetic Levitation Trains: which will run at “440km/h” back to our normal cities. You can always spot a crackpot futurologist when they get excited by Maglev trains. They’re horrendously expensive, stupidly noisy, hard to maintain, potentially quite dangerous, difficult to build and there is only one commercial maglev train running anywhere in the World. Still, the World will be full of them soon enough.
• Grand Masked Balls: I’m not making this up. Apparently the winters will be so dark in Lovelock city we will all attend masked balls. No, I don’t know why either.

One of my biggest concerns was that Martin had ideas, but no sense of execution. Ideas are worthless without some plan to bring them about. A political idea without a policy to drive it is effectively useless. At the end of his talk, he suggested 12 “policies” that would fix the World. The issue here is how you would bring about these “policies”.

• Manage the ecology of the planet: given we don’t really understand the climate models, ecological models and water cycle properly I don’t see how he can develop policies around this. Just because this is “the age of management” it doesn’t mean we can manage unknowns. Even when they’re known, the one group of people who know how to screw things up are managers.
• Decline in population to 4 billion: the World has too many people, apparently. Specifically too many Chinese and Indian people. But no matter, Martin has found an answer: women who are taught to read have fewer children. I figured his slogan for this could be “Women who read don’t breed!” - what did I tell you about straying into fascism? Anyway, a falling population is a good thing according to Martin, but I wonder who is going to tell the World population that this would mean all in this generation have to work until we were in our 80s in order to produce enough food for everybody and it would be the end of the state pension until the population had normalised down to his “ideal” 4 billion?
• Save water and improve soil: do you know how you save water and improve soil? You don’t eat meat. You don’t, I don’t, nobody does. It’s sensible, sane advice at an ecological level, but how are you going to convert a global population they can’t eat meat any more?
• Ocean management: we also need to reduce the amount of fish we eat in order to get fish stocks back up. If you avoid fishing certain parts of the ocean for a decade or more, we can fix the current depletion levels. Seems reasonable, but again how do you bring this about? It requires international consensus which can’t even be achieved at the moment around whaling!
• Millennium goals refined annually: do you have any idea how long it took to get the original goals agreed? Evaluation of progress against an objective is one thing, but annual debate is just going to lead to a quagmire of international politics
• Build up food reserves: politicians call those “food mountains”. They’re not very popular.
• Closing down of shanty towns: and move the people where? Let’s take a “shanty town” in a modern Western country: England. In Salford, “experts” decided that back-to-back terrace housing was inappropriate. So families who have paid off their mortgages are finding themselves in a position of compulsory purchase orders for their £60,000 houses and are being told they need to move. Don’t worry though - the new houses will be much nicer, albeit at a cost of £120,000. For a retired couple, this is just untenable. They’re happy where they are. They like their house. They want more neighbours. They want their community. If it’s happening in Salford, I’ll guarantee it’ll happen in developing nations.
• Religious tolerance: see above. Good luck, but Martin’s current theological ideas seem to favour neo-Conservative Christian fundamentalism.
• Tight non-proliferation controls: what more can be done? We’ve seen the NPT abandoned because any game theorist will tell you that Prisoner’s dilemma applies.
• Control of enriched uranium: that’s working wonderfully right now isn’t it? Look how friendly relations are between the US and Iran. How about this instead: develop foreign policies that don’t provoke other nations into wanting to attack you. Ron Paul in the US has a cracking little foreign policy that would stop all threats against the US - get the US army bases around the globe shut down, and if Iran wants nukes well, that’s its right. It sounds dangerous, but why exactly would anybody attack the US if they no longer looked like imperial conquering aggressors? This is obviously too insane for Dr Martin, who prefers an option that hasn’t worked so far and never will.
• Elimination of nukes: again, prisoner’s dilemma applies.
• “Understanding of dangers”: in other words, listen to Dr Martin some more

The truly sad part of all this is that in 2005 he gave $100 million to Oxford University to create The James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford. How many schools could he have built in Africa with that money? How many pebble bed reactors could he have built? How many alternative energy sources could he have invested in?

Yet he spent the money establishing a school named after himself, so that he could talk about his flawed ideas with some sense of credibility. His ideas aren’t just silly: they’re dangerous.

I expect Manchester University will ask him to invest in a center here, and given their uncritical view of his ideas he might accept.

If he turns up in Manchester again, I’m now prepared for an argument.