The Evolution of Abundance: An Interview with Steven Kotler

An exclusive interview for Evolution: This View of Life

Guru Madhaven: I am delighted to introduce this special interview. Our guest today is Steven Kotler. Director of Research for the Flow Genome Project, he is a best selling author and award-winning journalist. A self described “adventure junkie. Steven's articles have appeared in over 60 publications including the NY Times, Wired, GQ, and National Geographic. His recent non-fiction book – the topic for today, is Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think, which he co-authored with X-Prize founder, Peter Diamandis. He also writes The Playing Field, a blog about the science of sport forPsychologyToday.com

Our guest interviewer today is Dustin Eirdosh, a graduate student at the University of Kassel in Witzenhausen, Germany. Dustin is examining the interconnections of emergent technology and animal agriculture from an evolutionary perspective. He is the author of the blog MythicMeats.com, and is currently working with team of volunteers to build the Abundance Hub; an on-line community based on the book by Peter Diamandis and our guest, Steven Kotler.
Dustin, the floor is yours.
...Read the full interview at Evolution: This View of Life

Cosmic Connectivity in the Quest for a Tender Steak

Two month's ago I posted about an emerging trend called the “Internet of Cows”; the convergence of digital sensors, networks, and advanced analytics intending to improve the way meat gets from farm-to-fork.

In that post I describe that clearly; not everyone who is excited about beef is excited about such an Internet of Cows. I implored then – as now – to put emotion on the particulars aside – and instead ask:

How do we understand the real-world, non-digital - interconnected network between human, cow, and earth?

But... What the hell does that even mean?!? Isn't that just hippie hogwash; a cosmidelic vision based on little more than wishful thinking about a highly interconnected world? Not at all!

I've been a casual, if mildly eccentric student of chaos & complexity theories for about a decade now; and I gotta say – it's kind of been a lot work with seemingly little in the way of tangible gains - till  recently.  Somehow, up until now, I'd missed the explosion in Network Sciences that are finally allowing us a glimpse into the ineffably complex, fractaline universe of meats - and so much more.

Pictured above is an adapted image from Lim et.al (2011); graphing the specific individual protein to protein interactions within beef cells that, along with good forages and low stress, lead to the tenderness of a steak. This isn't an amalgamation of human knowledge over the centuries; this isn't biochemistry. It's the cutting edge in molecular biology, and essentially the real-time quantification of a non-stop intra-cellular fiesta-del-mundo; the end result of which (in this case); is simply amazing beef.

Now, my friends and readers in the world of small-scale and grass-based beef might argue: so what! Many farmers produce outstanding beef products without ever having the aid of such technological frizz-a-frazz. They might even argue that such a techy approach diminishes from the 'real' research we need into agro-ecological production methods. Indeed – here in Madagascar the meat of the Zebu cattle is most generally, and perhaps surprisingly - superb. We can be quite sure these farmers have never seen, and feel no need, to contend with such Proteomic Network Graphs;  and surely they would benefit far greater in the short-term from an agro-ecological research agenda.

So what indeed! It's a good question. To say such data-intensive maps are the “future of beef”, as it may appear I am arguing here, is to miss a critical lesson regarding the evolutionary nature of technology and change in food and farming.

The proteomic graph above was created through the very cutting edge in technology – millions upon millions of research dollars; thousands upon thousands of human hours; even centuries upon centuries of knowledge building up to this current crescendo of progress......a barely intelligible, if cool-looking, network of cellular activity that no farmer can directly put to use. Shit!

But all this – the money, the time, the centuries of toil – all of this was done with little or no interest in creating a melt-in-your-mouth tenderloin.  Rather - it's a result of what can be called Information Technology (IT) spillover.

IT is truly an evolutionary force to be reckoned with. Genes, neurons, and yes – computer chips flicker on and off;  yes or no, 1 or 0 – in direct relationship to their environment in the unending, unfurling binary dance from the ultimacy of the micro to the complexity of the macro. From genes emerged neurons; from neurons emerged computer chips; and today – from computer chips emerge better computer chips.

Mapping the incomprehensible network of protein to protein interactions became possible because of evolutionary exponential growth in IT. It became desirable because it fuels a revolution in health care (Loscalzo & Barbasi 2011); but it only became applied to the luxurious domain of beef tenderness because it became practical. An emergent property of a constellation of convergence among sensing and thinking cybernetics; it strikes me as unreasonable to assume that IT spillover will stop any time soon.

Network science plays the role of both beneficiary and master to this endless spilling over of information into the world. Transforming medicine, ecology, economics, transportation, and now – food and farming. While the proteomic graph may seem – no matter how much you enjoy tender beef - like a banal example of this technological trend. And while farmers may not make direct use of this data – network analysts can; and the results will undoubtedly guide the evolution of healthier, more delicious cows. This story isn't about proteins and tenderness however, it's about new approaches to complexity.....and complexity is what abounds and confounds as we try to feed the growing population without harming the earth, our animals, or our selves.

The global (and local) systems that put beef on your table are no less complex, adaptive, or seemingly incomprehensible than the proteomic graph above. As the Internet of Cows, or so-called Smart Agri-Food systems, begin to apply these very same networked sensors and analytics to the “network of networks” we call meat; Farmers and Consumers should expect anything but a lack of change. Information Technology is spilling over into food and farming at astonishing rates. We  can either prepare for this and guide the turbulent flows of data to our collective wishes; or ignore these trends - and be washed away in a flood of dynamic change.  The farming, slaughter, processing, and distribution of meats are all currently on the plate for  network analysts. What this will mean - no one can say. The technology of illuminating network complexity is a technology cleaner than tractors and with perhaps greater promise for yielding a new agricultural revolution!


Loscalzo & Barbasi; (2011) Systems Biology and the Future of Medicine. http://www.barabasilab.com/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/201111-00_WIREs-SysBiology/201111-00_WIREs-SysBiology.pdf


Lim et.al ; (2011) Identification of Candidate Genes Related to Bovine Marbling Using Protein-Protein Interaction Networks; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3164149/

Lemur Steaks & Pigeon Pickings - The Malagasy Bushmeat Conundrum

While casually devouring a roasted pigeon,
Golden gave me his uniquely informed take on the many
challenges facing this rising nation of Madagascar.

Last night I had the fortune of sitting down with the leading researcher in Madagascar focused on the intersection of wildlife conservation and human health, Dr. Chris Golden from the Harvard School of Public Health.

I'd been reading up on Golden's work - 13 years of research, deep in the northern Malagasy jungles; producing an impressive body of research that is leading to real change in how the conservation community looks at it's challenges. That he's just my age truly gives pause for thought on what a determined individual can achieve!

As he ordered a whole-roasted pigeon for the table, I wanted to talk with him about his research connecting the issue of bush meat harvesting to the issue of human health. Bush meat (any non-domestic meat, usually illegally harvested from conservation lands) occurs on such a scale across the country, that it threatens multiple species survival, and ultimately the sustainability of the human food supply as well. Perhaps paradoxically, this very action that threatens the survival of future generations - is supporting the health of the current generation. In a land where starchy cassava and rice reign supreme; the meats of the iconic lemurs, and up to 23 other forest dwelling mammalia, offer critical nutrition to the growing rural youth. What's to be done? Is it a classic "man vs. nature" situation?

Far from it - Golden's connected vision of society and nature have yielded critical insights and are leading to genuine long-term solutions. Meat is of critical importance for childhood nutrition here, of this there is little doubt; but it need not be the flesh of the island's precious endemic species. In seeking solutions, Golden used his academic entrepreneurialism to bring a cavalcade of veterinary experts across the ocean; discovering that the manageable Newcastle's disease was a leading and devastating killer of rural poultry flocks. Rather than the "hands-off" descriptive sciences so often the rule of thumb here, this researcher is rolling up his sleeves and conducting an empowering action-research project to help small-scale poultry farmers improve flock health and productivity. This work seeks to simultaneously raise nutritional standards while reducing the need and desire to harvest the rainbow of illegal meat diversity that fuels the majestic aura of this rising island nation.

Dr. Golden's research is far more complex and interesting than I can report here - the full story can be found at http://www.chrisgoldenresearch.com/ - but the take home message is clear; meat plays a complex and dynamic role in the balance of humans and nature; the prevailing dichotomies in discourse on the subject are rarely if ever helpful; what we need are integrated, pragmatic solutions to build resilience across and between society and nature.

The Internet of Cows: an Island Expedition

I gave a talk in April at an international conference on food systems held by the College of the Atlantic on Mt. Desert Island off the coast of Maine; the topic was a heady blend of evolutionary psychology, agroecology, and the future of meat itself. In brief, I argued that the "lightning rod issue" of meat is, in reality, too complex for meaningful human comprehension. That how a cow grows and burps in Maine today, could impact economies in the mid-west, and even the very future of island communities around the world, bespeaks of the complex web of interconnections we must examine to even begin to understand meat systems. In other words - no cow is an island!

I concluded the talk by offering up the idea of "The Internet of Cows". By 2009, there were more "things" connected to the Internet than there are people in the world. If you have a smartphone, a home computer, and work computer, there are 3 things for your one person right there. This transition has come to be known as the "Internet of Things", or IoT for short. That the developed world is awash in connective technology is not particularly heartening or interesting news in and of itself....but the IoT vision extends far beyond phones and computers. As Cisco's Chief Futurist, Dave Evans points out, some of the "things" being connected to the net include cows - from farm to fork. Exponential advances in technology are creating economically sensible opportunities for farmers to implant high-tech, low-cost sensors into their cows, pastures, and even beef product packages. Why would anyone want to do this? Common examples of beneficial applications include improving animal welfare through the early detection of disease, greatly improving the traceability of meats in the event of food safety problems, and improving environmental performance across the food supply chain. These all seem like  worthwhile goals, yet many in my audience, and even fellow farmers and panel members, were not so enthused about the prospects of such an "Internet of Cows".

To be sure, I have many serious reservations about the emergence of the IoT. If big brother is to truly manifest, no doubt the IoT is his most fertile of wombs. Despite my fears of how the IoT may pan out in our personal lives, food systems - I feel - are public domains; transparency is always a good thing. Likewise, easy access to more, and more accurate information about our food systems can't seem to hurt. Yet in this audience of largely "local" and "organic" advocates, this appeared to be a tough sell.

Critiques and questions varied quite a bit. One horse-powered farmer offered a concern that it would distance the farmer from direct observation on the farm, and perhaps more generally, that it replaces a human element of farming. An aspiring young vegetable producer pulled out the "appropriate technology" card, fearing that this kind of thinking will turn the noble profession of farming into a domain for computer geeks. All potentially valid concerns, and I'll discuss them further in future posts.

I was quite happy to see my talk result in such lively and thoughtful conversation, but I was somewhat saddened that the prevailing techno-skepticism of the room seemed to overshadow my much broader point. I hadn't traversed the Atlantic ocean to sell anyone on the hard-wired version of the Internet of Cows. Rather, my hope was to use the globally networked, democratic structure of the Internet as a metaphor for how we need to be thinking about food systems the meats they produce.

No cow is an island - how we raise meat, whether in Maine, Germany, or here in Madagascar,  the deliverable qualities, the holistic meat quality we are able to achieve, is most often not the sole of province of one innovative farmer or processor. These complex traits, especially social and ecological traits, are relative to complex contexts occurring simultaneously across multiple scales - from the global to the local.

The IoT, and it's child - the Internet of Cows, will, without question, become a major and potentially divisive issue in the years to come. Whether you find yourself in support or opposition to this hard-wired version, I hope you will join me in opening your mind to understanding the true nature of the Interconnected Network of Cows and Humans that was made manifest some tens of thousands of years ago.

Be Here Now - The Evolutionary Ethics of Slaughter

The ethics of eating meat are so unfathomably complex, so fraught with unknowable parameters - that the majority among us have retreated into a comfortable haze of collective ignorance on the matter. This need not be the case.

Fully admitting the complexity of the beast at hand, let us inspect just the fillet d’ ethique; the litmus test beyond which all other moral concerns of dietary selection are irrelevant; the issue of slaughter.

The essential and inescapable wrongness of taking an animal’s life for it’s flesh, especially in the profane name of base culinary desire, is a keystone argument against our dietary staple of interest. Animal protein proponents are quick to address the myriad web of ecological, nutritional, and even social concerns relentlessly dogging ‘the industry’. The rapid rise in the heroification of ‘happy meat’ farmers by alternative agriculture advocates, is evidence many consumers are literally hungry for ethical eats. Yet how can we possibly get passed this sin qua non moral stumbling block that meat really is murder?

Now, there are two approaches here. One can argue that it simply is wrong to take the life of another animal no matter what - that life has an inherent value regardless of what matters to “it”. Perhaps I am more farmer than philosopher, but this reeks of a little too much wavy-gravy grooviness for my liking. I am more inclined to agree with vegan animal liberationist, Peter Singer, that a utilitarian approach is in order. That, for an ethical quandary to arise, what happens to an organism must matter to that organism. It is here that Singer’s and my ethics align, and it is also here where they diverge. That we do agree on this significant point, however, would indicate that we are perhaps looking at different science to rightly determine what truly ‘matters’ to our domesticated dinners.

For it to matter to an animal that it will be slaughtered is to make the case, as a great many authors do, that the livestock “wants to live”. Singer himself, is an artful scholar of the evolutionary sciences, and it seems straightforward that in a very darwinian sense, survival for reproduction is the goaliest of goals. I submit, however, that to claim an animal “wants to live” is to make a claim of cognitive science that the data simply does not support.

Perhaps surprisingly, we can turn to a linguist for some novel insights. In Adam’s Tongue, Derek Bickerton makes a compelling argument connecting the origins of language to the hominin shift towards meat consumption. Not via the traditional reasoning that meat gave us bigger brains - but rather - that this dietary shift thrust our ancestors into a unique ecological niche - presenting novel challenges that only language could solve. We had a need - a need to recruit our clan mates across time and space to help butcher and transport the scavenged meat of paleolithic megafauna. We had to free ourselves from the here and nowness that, until this rise of language, had imprisoned all animals of even the highest cognitive ability.

What matters to animals is fear and pain; death is truly a concept beyond their temporal scope of interest. Only from this common understanding can we begin to discuss how animals are raised, and even how they are killed. We must first accept and understand that the slaughter itself, is not as innately wrong as it may emotively appear; and then work together to ensure that all creatures achieve the most fantastic of lives, and the most peaceful of deaths.

Repackaging Cultured Beef: Contextual Quality & Collective Action

Dr. Mark Post at the University of Maasstricht, inspecting
a proto-type culture of beef.

By the end of this year - Dr. Mark Post, and his team of researchers at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands claim they will offer a celebrity-chef taste testing of the world's first lab-grown beef - also known as cultured beef. Now, at a price tag of some $200,000 - the technology is not quite economical to assuage our global hunger for hamburger. Rest assured - the price will go the down, the quality will go up - and in spite of the obvious 'yuk factor' - a huge majority of the world will accept cultured meat as a tasty and nutritious status quo (for more on how and why that is possible - see this article I wrote back in 2010).

If you happen to be a beef farmer today - whether conventional, organic, or grass-fed - you might be thinking '"Not me - I'll stick with real meat, I'm simply not interested" - well, I've got news for you - get interested, because this game-changing technology will literally affect the actual quantifiable quality of YOUR product.

This might seem counter-intuitive. We might be tempted to think that meat quality is absolute and that we are capable of engineering desired qualities into the processes of the supply chain. Indeed - some elements of quality are this way - farmers can control what feeds, supplements and health care treatments are offered to their cattle. Processors can control the humanity of their slaughter methods, and the post-slaughter processing practices.  Indeed, even consumers can and do select the quality of their meats based on any number of 'absolute' criteria - organic or conventional, more processed or less. This absoluteness, however, when it comes to ecological and social dimensions of quality - is largely a mirage.

A rigorously holistic understanding of meat quality in today's globally connected economy reveals a vastly different picture. Far from being absolute, holistic meat quality is highly relative and contextual.

Consider this - if you are an advocate of grass-fed beef being slaughtered on-grass and on a small-scale, as indeed I am - perhaps you would like to see a law passed within the US banning feed lots and industrial slaughter houses? Sounds like a good idea -  right? Wrong! The results would be globally negligible if not disastrous. Overnight, producers around the world would jump on this sudden and overtly significant market opportunity, and like it or not, America's industrialised beef production really is vastly superior to industrialised beef anywhere else in the world. The Brazilian rainforest would be pillaged at unprecedented rates, and less feed-efficient cows in Australia, Europe and Asia would overcrowd feed lots to pick up the slack.

"Well - people just need to eat less meat" - the organic farmer is quick to reply....perhaps true - but what are we to do? Globally regulate and dictate the diets of every man, woman, and child? Personally, I would never ever want to have the government involved in regulating anyone's diet. To be sure, cultural changes will be important, but in an increasingly interconnected and free world - we have to realise that the ecological and social "qualities" embedded in meat (and non-meat) foods co-exist simultaneously in both a local and global context.

Cultured meat is about to change this context in ways we can only begin to imagine. In a world of abundant cultured meat - the moral high ground that high-production agriculture currently stands on will vanish. Laws to stop behaviour limiting farm practices such as gestation crates and overly maligned feed lot will suddenly seems much more justifiable and achievable.

What about alternative agriculture? Small-scale, organic, and grass-fed producers - won't they go out of business also? Well, many undoubtedly will, but those that do not will truly be a testament to the emerging ethical imperative of our evolving partnership with non-human animals. Grass won't stop growing on otherwise un-farmable land, and our ruminant friends - under our guiding hand - truly are the best in the world at managing this critical global resource. As well, we can, when we chose, offer animals the most peaceful of possible death options: on-grass (not just "on-farm") slaughter.

Here-in lies the challenge to all farmers everywhere, and one they must begin preparing for now. In an age of abundant cultured meat of almost limitless holistic quality enhancements - attention to the qualities of 'real meat' will reach levels of introspection we can only anticipate.

There will always be a critical role for traditional animal agriculture - this is, I believe, ethically inescapable, but how farmers evolve sustainability in this brave new context will be the challenge of the century - and it starts NOW!

----------------------------------------

For more info on Cultured Meat - check out the Ted Talk in the Emergent Technology playlist on the Mythic Meats YouTube Channel

Welcome to the Meat Tribes!

How do I possibly feel okay taking the
 life of  an animal? It's a good question, and
it has real answers!

"Nobody wants to have their science called bad, but of course, there is such a thing as bad science"

"The science is not always a good narrative, and a narrative is not always good science"

-David Sloan Wilson

I recently entered an essay contest, held by the New York Times - the challenge: to defend the ethics of meat eating in 600 words or less. The winners will be printed in an April edition of the Times.


Since the day the contest was announced - the tribalistic flags from all sides of the meat wars have been waving on high. Vegans, conventional, and alternative agriculturists have all been mightily quick to point out that they are, by point of fact, obviously correct in their respective ethical point of view. "Science", they each claim, "clearly supports OUR view".


Likewise, the vegan and conventional ag tribes - have apparently converged on an unheard of point of agreement regarding this contest - It's Stupid!


Michelle Simon, a public health attorney and contributor to the Huffington Post, derides the contest as "silly" - going on to claim:

"It saddens me that given all the pressing problems of our day, many of which caused by excessive meat eating (global warming, contaminated air and water, chronic disease, worker injury, and yes, animal suffering, just to name a few) the Times is promoting such a self-indulgent contest.

I am sure the meat industry is jumping for joy."

If Simon truly believes that meat is causing the atrocities she lists....why she would argue that proponents of carnivory shouldn't absolutely have to justify their actions,  is beyond any litmus test of reason or coherence. I do tend to find that vegans, of all the diversity amongst the meat tribes, are most often guilty of employing bad science to prove a point - and here again, Simon adds to my mountain of supporting evidence for such a claim. The meat industry is not only NOT 'jumping for joy' - I find most of them indignant if not outraged.

Enter the 'unconventional cattle woman',  Jesse Bussard. Yesterday she chose to stake her ground on the issue in ways I can't imagine anyone would want to stand behind. Bussard claims "why should I, or anyone else who chooses to consume meat for that matter, have to explain our ethics for doing so?". Well, okay, we live in a free country, and you shouldn't have to justify your actions to anybody - but - you should be able to. 

Conventional agriculture too often takes a stance akin to saying 'We're feeding the world so get out of our way' - and certainly it is far too easy for an overtly emotional public to cause real harm by over simplifying what are incredibly complex issues. Regardless of this fact - everyone should be reflective enough about their own actions so as to be able articulate why what they are doing is the right thing to do.

To be fair, Bussard does point out a concern I shared for a brief moment, that is, the heavy bias of the panel of judges:

"What [the NY Times] call 'a veritable murderer’s row of judges' is no less than just that.

The line-up features the father of animal rights himself, Peter Singer, along with Michael Pollan, Johnathan Safran Foer, Mark Bittman, and Andrew Light."

Which brings me to my point about the nature of science and the alarming levels of tribalism espoused by almost everyone passionate about the meat issue. 

The ethics of eating meat, or not eating meat for that matter, are unfathomably complex and touch upon almost all of humanities grand challenges. To capture this complexity in a 600 word essay is a truly torturous request for anyone who has done any quality thinking on the matter. Realising this, I crafted my entry around what I've called the fillet d' ethique, the sin non qua moral issue beyond which concerns of ecological, nutritional, or social impacts are null and void; 

Is it okay to KILL a sentient domesticated creature for food?

Now, I'm not going to answer that question here - it's my entry in the contest for crying out loud ;) Needless to say, I did answer it, I answered it affirmatively, and I answered it with quality science (I'll post the full essay here, after the contest ends). 

Briefly, I employed a blend of evolutionary psychology and animal cognition sciences to illuminate how this seemingly intransigent moral dilemma can be acceptably navigated. In doing so - I believe I've poked a hole of some significance into the utilitarian arguments that codify 'the father of the animal rights movement', Peter Singers' grounds for the moral rightitude of the vegan lifestyle. 

I won't lie - I entered this contest to win it - so was it a wise move to explicitly attack the extensive and impressive body of work of the most eminent and scholarly judge on the panel? 

Whether or not I win this contest - I actually have very strong faith that it was a wise move - and I have YouTube to thank for this. I'd never read Singer, and from what I'd heard, I imagined he was living in a tree somewhere plotting which 'factory farm' to blow up next, as indeed, the fringes of his readership occasionally do. As you can see for yourself on the Ethics & Carnivory playlist in the Mythic Meats YouTube Channel - Singer is, in fact, a world renowned Bioethicist at Princeton, and far more importantly - he's a pretty reasonable guy, and clearly someone who respects the scientific process. 

Yes, Jesse Bussard is correct in pointing out that the NY Times has selected quite a biased panel for this issue. If this panel was to solely decide what constitutes the ethics of eating meat - I would agree, we need far more balance. Instead - this 'veritable murderers row' is charged with a quite different task: they have to pick at least one winning essay, regardless of how essentially wrong they may feel meat, of any sort, may be.


In this context, I would argue that the Times' judgement is a remarkable exercise in trans-tribal diplomacy. Instead of the tired routine of staking our ground and waving our flags - these unlikely set of minds have to deeply explore what, for some of them, is the null hypothesis of their life. This is the scientific ideal.


The reason that carnivory and veganism have reached unheard of levels of ideology in recent times is not just fuelled by the general rising interest in food - it is representative of the most serious of scientific literacy issues  facing the world at large. Science is not a citation or an authority - it's a community process. Civil discourse - talking about the issues without throwing cheap shots, without hiding behind rights to freedom, without attachment to even your deepest held beliefs - this is the only route to progress.


The discourse around meat consumption is in perilous danger of becoming a drain on our cultural capital, unless we can collectively bring real science, and thus real discourse back to the table.


___________
UPDATE: 
Within an hour of posting this, Jesse Bussard got in touch with me, with a wonderful note, respectfully pointing to things I'd helped her think about, as well as pointing out that I was incorrect in characterising her as not being able to defend her ethical stance... 
"I am fully capable of defending my ethical choice to consume meat, but felt that the NYT contest given their panel of judges it was not worth my time or effort. I do not ask vegans or organic proponents, for example, to explain to me why they feel that their food choices are more ethical than mine, and therefore don't feel it's a publication or an individual's place to question mine. However, if the need did arise I would fully be able to state them."


I applaud Jesse for her reply - and hope all discussions around the complexity of meat ethics can be this civil and productive!