Rise of the Machines

Monday, September 04, 2017

18:00 - 21:00

A recent report from PwC found that automation, robotics and artificial intelligence stand to make 30% of all UK jobs redundant in just 15 years’ time – with losses as high as 50% in some sectors. Couple this trend with the looming emergence of 3D printing, distributed manufacturing, self-driving cars and the Internet of Things, and the numbers could be even higher.

But it’s not just manually intensive, blue-collar jobs on the line.

It’s now 20 years since IBM’s Deep Blue beat chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov, and the new generation of AIs can already outperform accountants, lawyers, doctors, telemarketers and even the world’s best GO master. In some sectors, it is already more cost-effective to completely automate the entire value chain from extraction, through production, distribution and delivery to the customer – with almost no human involvement whatsoever – than it is to maintain a human-operated supply chain.

The age of intelligent machines has well and truly arrived.

Should we be worried? Professor Stephen Hawking has stated that AI could be the greatest thing ever for humanity…or it could kill us all. While Elon Musk and Bill Gates have also expressed concerns about the existential risks posed by smarter than human artificial intelligence.

But it’s not all “Skynet”, Terminator and dystopia on the horizon. AI, robotics and automation are also helping transform healthcare, environmental management and sustainability, cutting carbon emissions, delivering greater efficiencies, minimising health and safety risks, speeding innovation, saving lives and freeing workers from mindless drudgery so they can work on more fulfilling and satisfying tasks.

How should we prepare for - and respond to - the radical transformations being unleashed by this Fourth Industrial Revolution?

Can we make the machines work for the greater good to help build a better world for all? Or are we unleashing the forces of our own destruction, servitude and obsolescence?

Will the rise of the machines, require fundamental changes to our economic system, the adoption of universal incomes, and the creation of entirely new industries to keep people occupied and employed?

Or will it be the death of work as we know it, leaving us to while away our days, sipping piña coladas in a beachside hammock? Or bloodied, hungry and desperate, rising up like John Connor or the Paris mob in a new post-apocalyptic hell?

These were the ideas we explored in our September Crowd Forum on “The Rise of the Machines”. 160 attendees joined us as we delved into both the positive and negative implications of this fascinating and radical transformation, whose impacts are already being felt.

Avida Hancock Satalia

See bio

Chris Middleton

See bio

Kerstin Dautenhahn University of Hertfordshire

See bio

Kriti Sharma Sage Group

See bio

Sean Culey Manucore

See bio
Round Tables

Adapting Business Processes for the New Machine Age

Many of the early phase benefits of automation, AI and robotics revolve around radical improvements to business processes. There is little doubt that these technologies can be applied effectively to streamline processes, improve efficiencies, reduce costs and free workers from dirty, dangerous or dispiriting drudgery. But what are the best strategies for companies looking to take advantage of these technologies? Which strategic approaches have been shown already to work? How can companies get strategically smart about smart machines and automation?

Write UP

Examples & Learnings of applying disruptive technologies (AI, automation, robotics) on business processes
• Example in facilities management sector: cognitive acoustics, where a machine listens to noises to identify when a piece of equipment may fail. Partnering with technology companies.
• Information/Knowledge sharing across the business is key to learn quickly.
• Housebuilding sector: very un-innovative industry – innovation almost only driven by regulation. Currently up for disruption. UK is much less advanced compared to other countries like Japan. Zero people in R&D working on innovation in these areas. As opposed to other industries, housebuilding is not looking at the introduction of AI for cost cutting purposes.
• Looking to use technology to improve the transfer of data between systems, very slow. There is an inherent dysfunctionality with regards to data analysis.
• Future of Work: how to upskill the next generation, as the skillset that young people will have will be very different to what people currently have in their CVs.
o Need to build entrepreneurial mindset and diversify young people’s skillsets.
o But, what do you do with the people that studied a while ago? Businesses need to think about how they change their staff roles and business models (e.g. Unilever changed their business model to focus on sustainability).
o Requires strong leadership and that is willing to take risks.

Obstacles to applying disruptive technologies (AI, automation, robotics) on business processes
• Steep learning curve:
1. identify customers that are prepared for new technologies
2. find the team with the capability to engage with the technology
3. understand how it can be scaled across the organisation. Currently, being piloted in a few areas.
• How do you ground these concepts into reality? General interest on practical application of these technologies.
• Social dimension (e.g. truck drivers): we are diving into the technology without the social question.
o People are also consumers as well as employees
o Is universal basic income the solution? It’s only been tested in small places, localised. Sceptical about its implementation in larger scale.
• Regulation: how do regulate a technology that moves so fast? Rules of engagement changing quickly.
• Worrying about the potential obsolescence of the working class at the same time as the people in power use AI to help them stay in power, so they are less and less concerned about public opinion. It perpetuates the situation.
• Need to be subversive when proposing/applying these types of changes in organisations.

Opportunities to applying disruptive technologies (AI, automation, robotics) on business processes
• Application of technology on the workforce processes (e.g. scheduling, workforce planning).
• How can disruptive technology enable companies being more sustainable? E.g. Traceability through Blockchain from a sustainability point of view, to control the supply chain.
• Data analysis, using it in an organizational setting (e.g. Satalia). For example, to improve information transfer between systems.
• Localisation: produce less, produce what people want.
• Robots still don’t have the capacity of having emotions, but they are getting closer to emulating human brain. Still, machines will prefer to talk to machines.
• Human creativity can differentiate us from machines.
• Housebuilding sector, possibility to look at technical processes, e.g. large data about land to be embedded into systems. Simple step with a large impact.

AI & Automation for Science-based Targets

SBTs are the foremost way for companies to manage their carbon emission reductions in a way that is consistent with the 2-degree pathway. But SBT implementation can be technically challenging. In essence, SBTs enable the equitable sharing out amongst businesses of the carbon emissions reductions needed to limit global warming to no more than 2°C. It is a discipline that is both data and process dependent – making it ripe for AI enhanced innovation. As Nick Hay from Edelman recently said, “If AI governed the business world, it would likely use SBTs”. This roundtable will delve into science-based targets, what they are, how they work and touch on the possible role of AI in helping companies achieve them.

Write UP

What do you think about science based targets in the UK?

There are various methods for setting SBTs. This seems counter intuitive when compared with other targets in the sustainability arena, where a single, consistent method of target setting is preferred. Challenge: how can we ensure that there is consistency in setting SBTs when there are various methods out there?

How does automation fit with helping companies achieve SBTs?

• If a sector or a country could be completely segregated there would be the perfect opportunity for information gathering and using AI to manage the decarbonisation of that sector/country. However, leakage means that it is very hard to control the levels. Even if 90% of the world signs up to the carbon market, the remaining 10% could disrupt the whole system due to leakage.
• Carbon rules are still being defined. We need to provide these rules to AI but as humans we are still creating them. Could we use AI to guide the rule defining process?
• AI can be used to analyse the carbon footprint of a company and identify the required stages in reducing carbon emissions. The output is more important than understanding the complexities of the method that the AI uses.
• The longer term objective would be to produce a database that collects data annually, informs emission reduction stages and helps build business strategy in this area.

What are some of the current issues with using AI?

Currently machines are not talking to each other and collaborating in the same way that humans would do. There are issues with data gaps and sensors not giving us the right data. But sensors are only half of the problem. For the most part the technology has already been developed but it is the security issues, admin, legal aspects and regulation that is lacking.
There are also unintended consequences of automation. Is the technology actually being used to help society or are businesses using it as means to increase corporate profit and reduce headcount?

What is the place for AI in business decision making?

AI could support in creating logical, reliable, business cases and championing the leaders of the business to take action more quickly, thus making AI an accreditation for investment opportunities. But will AI influence mean that CEOs speed up decision making or could there be a lack of trust of the data?
What if AI just told us what we had to do? Would this then render governments superfluous? AI demonstrates how things can be achieved without needing a specific governmental lead.

What are the broader considerations that link AI with sustainability?

Automation can be used to reduce carbon emissions during the manufacture process through 3D printing. In theory, automation could support a circular economy with products being created on demand and therefore less waste. However with so much choice and personalisation available, will people get bored more quickly and keep buying new items?

AI & Automation for the SDGs

Artificial intelligence (AI) is empowering the fourth industrial revolution, with intelligent machines tackling new cognitive tasks at scale, leading to enormous economic efficiency gains and disruption across the labour market. But what will be the net impact of AI on society and the environment? Can AI be harnessed to help deliver the SDGs? Which SDGs are ripe for AI and automation-empowered disruptive innovation?

Write UP

Pessimist/optimist/pragmatist and why?
- Consumers feel uncomfortable and don’t trust things they do not understand, particularly when they are new.
- Privacy is of great concern and a lot of consumers don’t feel comfortable with the way companies are using their data, for example, with digital marketing and using data to target the selling of products.
- Fear of business models being replaced and jobs becoming redundant even at the top e.g. managers, academics. In retail, for example, they are using social media and online footprints and AI to anticipate trends and
fashions and then automate production. This mean the jobs of designers, merchandisers, production etc. threatened. Industry needs a framework to ensure people can still get jobs and society is secure – ‘lose your job
but not your living’. Interesting research by World Economic Forum in this space.
- There is an urgent need for legislation on the use of AI.
- The cost cutting mindset of companies is worrying and may drive negative disruption.
- The human ego might get in the way of things that can be transformative right now, for example, about using AI to better manage organisations and in strategic decision making.
- Current business culture needs to evolve and more collaboration and sharing information/data is needed to gain maximum value/insights. Currently, companies are too concerned about losing competitive advantage.
- Companies have a lot of data and don’t know what to do with it so are not realising the value. There needs to be better communication about the value in this data and how it can be utilised.
- News/media is negative (particularly in UK) and the media needs to embrace this digital change, help inspire/educate consumers and help manage the transition.
- AI needs to be used to enhance and improve lives rather than replace jobs and cause disruption in a negative sense. It is important that this is the purpose of AI and it is not lost sight of.
- AI can help companies communicate their contributions to the SDGs more clearly and with more transparency.

CSR and AI:
- CSR teams must encourage thought processes around digitalisation and sustainability that may not come naturally to others in the business.
- People in businesses need to realise the broader implications of social impact in terms of business risks, beyond financial risks. Often must talk in ‘financial/business language’ to get companies to act/commit.
- Sustainability / innovation can often get ‘cordoned off’ within an organisation and seen as a separate set of expertise. This skills/knowledge however, should be owned throughout the organisation and integrated in all
decisions/processes. Then transformation can be achieved.
- Business activities often are working to improving sustainability, but often don’t get labelled as this or it is not the primary purpose of the activity. Business are sometimes ‘doing it without realising’.

Which SDGs are ripe for AI innovation?
- Diversity and inclusion. Companies can look to automation on this, but have to be careful that robots are not trained to be discriminatory (however unintentional), but instead help us to remove prejudice in organisations.
- Companies are already doing a lot around safety, one of the most (if not the top) material issues for most companies. At Rio Tinto, for example, there is a lot of automation already around safety and it is being used to
achieve the goal of ‘zero fatalities/injuries’ This is helping to give AI and automation a positive association, where it is positively and effectively helping to deliver on important goals.
- Local communities. Digitally tracking health scares, mortality rates and medical records, particularly in the developing world can help us to prioritise resource and anticipate/act to prevent future health epidemics. Also
example of Partnerships for Good and digitising land rights in Africa has transformed lives.
- Zero huger. Technology has historically been revolutionary particularly in agriculture, food production and distribution which is already largely automated. Companies are already collecting data from farms n a shared
platform and creating algorithms to ensure best use of water/ fertilisers/ information on seasons etc.
Take away:
- AI = largely technical and can feel elitist. There is a duty of care that sits with the, experts to communicate and educate the population to build trust and have a positive outlook.
- Humans needs robots and AI to help meet future challenges as our population is increasing exponentially.
- Need to ensure that as jobs become redundant, people still have a purpose and can continue to gain an income.
- Table landed on optimism!

Empowering Renewables

As we transition from centralised fossil-fuel powered energy generation and storage, towards ever greater use of renewables and hyper-distributed generation and storage, AI can undoubtedly play a major part in empowering, optimising and managing demand, supply and generation. How can businesses get ahead of the trend, and start using AI to better manage and optimise their own energy use? What role can AI play in helping companies achieve 100% renewable energy objectives?

Write UP

1. Obstacles
• Seasonal problem. No plans for utility scale seasonal storage, such as taking the excess solar generation to the winter.
• World needs to be more interconnected – to solve the grid balance as the footprint and consumption is on global scale (energy and supply management).
• Forecasting problem for 2050 impacting investment cycles – what will the infrastructure be and what will the way of using energy look like? Work space changes, flex working, all impacting shifts.
• Get funders to back technology for 30 years is a large obstacle.
• Increasing demand of energy.
• Data protection laws to interfere.
• More renewables in intermittence – cost of energy will stabilise, but weaving more renewable energy in will increase.
• No price transparency
• Curve of instalment for solar panels is flat. Now working on efficiency. Could AI increase solar instalment?
• Using AI in design techniques
• Need to charge electric cars
• Too much thinking of revolutionising a sector
• Too many targets set: Problem is the mix between autonomous and normal vehicles. Mix between fossil powered and renewables.

2. Red Flags (warnings)
 Grid needs to be redesigned for the power sector transition
 Need to account for the systemic change in ownership of cars
 Still need the social collaboration and implementation managed

3. Solutions
• The ability to automate and balance demand better towards our weather systems will help reduce the impact of non-commodity charges long term but unfortunately not by significant amounts
• Fix cost element is an opportunity for AI to kick in. Localised energy use: industries formalise around the
• Battery mobility – and forecasting of power prices. Becomes as the FX market: more Grid+ and Block Chain use.
• Large-scale machines are already GPS guided and drones are finding hot spots – this could be more efficiently.

• More to do in the link up between design and what happens on the ground. Elecrical cables still being hit. Risks to be taken out. Still too much replication. And option for knowledge sharing across the globe.
• Introduce more driving vehicles without batteries, and having plates in the road, with a Bluetooth system with induction charging.
• Need to use parts of a system, not revolutionise a system, using technology in a way to use a system in a different way.
• Go 100% renewable as set by signatories to the RE100. IKEA going 100% renewable making a rapid transition.

Societal Impacts

Much has been made of the looming impact of automation, AI and robotics on employment, and the projected number of job losses clearly pose a major challenge for the economy. If half the population can't find jobs, what impact will this have on society? Will it give us more free time for leisure, creativity and helping others? Or will it be a recipe for massive social upheaval and unrest? Will it drive unprecedented levels of inequality and obscene wealth disparity between the owners of the machines and everyone else? Or can smart machines actually support and enhance job satisfaction creating a better work/life balance and ensuring a fairer society?

Write UP

Changing Businesses
One of the main themes discussed at the table was how businesses would need to adapt amidst the rapid and radical changes that technologies are bringing about at an ever more rapid pace.

Most members of the discussion agreed that both the structure and the traditional motivating factors of a business will need to adapt and change. In particular, there was widespread acknowledgement that a business working on an entirely profit-seeking strategy was not desirable, and that there should be a greater responsibility on businesses to promote training and education in order to have a healthier workforce and larger society.

There was also some discussion along the idea of a more ‘jack of all trades’ workforce, that are able to pick up multiple roles and skillsets without being locked into a single career, which the moderator Chris Middleton described as ‘portfolio people.’ This was generally seen as a positive thing, although the one member of the ‘gig economy’ (the note-taker) expressed anxiety at the perpetual precarity of such a model.

ATTENDEE COMMENT:“The biggest questions we need to be asking ourselves are about preparation: How do you anticipate the jobs of the future, and how do you train the workers who will occupy those jobs, and how do you educate the generation to come?

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “We’re touching on the existential questions of business: What is the purpose of business? What is the purpose of a job? Around 2010 it started to emerge that actually, 'heads down' capitalism doesn't seem to be delivering as we all expected. Businesses need to start contributing more social benefits, and has more responsibilities than just generating profit.”

ATTENDEE COMMENT:“I am really intrigued by the idea of a non-hierarchical business model. I think a more decentralized approach could actually work for my business [Construction], and get a project going more efficiently”

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “I imagine that the younger generations are going to look at the salaried positions like my own and say to themselves ‘I couldn’t do that for 30 years’.”

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “One potential pitfall is the idea of this two-tiered society. That you might have an upper tier for specialized roles, and a lower one for all general labour and ‘gig’ economy members - it could become more difficult for people to specialize high enough to get into roles above that lower tier. On the other hand, in the brave new world where most of that can be gotten from a computer [or AI], you don’t need someone with that specialized knowledge, you need human, interpersonal skills.”

Replaced by Robots, Societal Models and Government

Of course one of the main themes discussed relating to the workforce was the alarming number of jobs threatened by AI and automation. In this topic, the discussion veered toward the need for better education and more exploration, especially towards more ‘creative’ endeavours, as it was generally assumed that when menial tasks are fully automated, it will leave more opportunity for distinctly human work (although some at the table did push back with the open question ‘what makes people think that robots can’t be better at creativity, too?).

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “I don’t think governments around the world are being honest with people about the impacts that these technologies are going to have on their livelihoods. We've got to embrace this technology, and engage with people in a more creative way, and we have to especially engage those who will have their jobs taken, and get them ready for the coming change”

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “We’re actually starting to see some companies that were previously manufacturing in China move back to the US, because of the efficiency gains in automation as well as the increased cost of labour in China.”

One idea that was touched upon was the idea of Universal Basic Income, and the potentially positive role it could play in developing a better educated society. One attendee described an experimental school in which students were not required to attend lessons: After a brief period of exploration, boredom and natural curiosity actually resulted in the lessons having the same level of attendance as a normal school, but with much better performance. Generally AI and automation have the potential to free the ‘robotic’ elements of today’s economy, which might leave humans more free do do human things.

ATTENDEE COMMENT:“Actually, this could be a good thing. More menial tasks get replaced and automated, and that leaves people with more opportunity to follow their natural curiosity. Universal Basic Income combined with lower requirements of labour can be an opportunity for innovation and better education.”

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “Our biggest challenge is finding a way to create a system that works both for automation and for humans. We do have an opportunity for AI and automation to help people harness their human creativity.”

The role of the media and public perceptions

At the end of the discussion, the role of the media was briefly discussed. Misgivings and fears were aired about the present trend towards political populism, and the effects of a more fragmented media industry.

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “Traditional models of media have been breaking, and as they try to chase diminishing profits, that’s where we’re getting all this outlandish coverage and #fakenews.”

ATTENDEE COMMENT: “Especially with journalists, there is a level of trust that just can’t be achieved with the new style of social media coverage [disintermediated news].”

Supply Chain Automation & Optimisation

Supply chain management has traditionally been a fundamentally human discipline, but that is rapidly changing. The use of automation, robotics, AI, IoT and distributed manufacturing are radically disrupting traditional supply chain practices. This session will consider how companies can optimise their supply chains with these technologies. How do you determine costs vs benefits? What is the business case for supply chain automation? What are the implications for sustainable supply chain management?

Write UP

Obstacles to Supply Chain Optimization

Scaling and synthesizing data remain major challenges. From supply chain perspective, new technology capabilities are producing positive results as is the case with Tesco’s initiatives to reduce waste and improve forecasting. Scaling is particularly difficult for low margin businesses. From financial services perspective, a vast amount of data sits there, but is not fully useful yet. Other industries can relate to this data problem, pointing out that ways of collecting data need to be improved in the first place. Relatively cheap IT devices can be installed to ameliorate the data collection issues.

Losing and re-training staff whose roles have become obsolete is another challenge. Staff members whose jobs are getting replaced are not often suited to the tasks performed by machine learning, in which case the firm has to make the hard choice of letting these employees go.

Businesses also face shortened asset life cycles with the onset of new technological capabilities. What depreciation rate will you put on an asset? The firm that is going to win is one without a legacy asset.

One common worry is the rate of change, which will not give enough time and maturity for institutions, businesses and people to absorb the new ways of doing things. One discussion participant argues that we cannot equate new technological capabilities to the Industrial Revolution since the amount of disruption will not be comparable, while another argues that Industrial Revolution and ensuing urbanization caused a similar degree of fundamental changes.

Effects on Consumption

AI will bring down unit cost of production but will its net effect drive up the overall consumption? When we discuss AI and productivity efficiencies, we often neglect the conversation on its impact on overall consumption and limited natural resources. We are making things available en masse at a lower cost, and yet the idea of exponential consumption is scary.

However, will this exponential efficiency in production capabilities be countered by the fact that consumers will finally be getting what they really want – with the production batch size of 1 – instead of having to buy a mass produced good? People already do not want to buy staff the same way today, with the sharing economy. People do not want a car; they want access to a car. Consumption and ownership are different things. Furthermore, many forms of consumption – even when it leaves a footprint – will be digital.

With or without AI technology, natural resources are limited. With cobalt mines, many firms are securing assets in advance. You can then argue equally that the opportunity is around using AI to realize these production efficiencies in advance, with the same limited resources.

One way the AI technology or blockchain can impact consumption behavior positively is the ability to trace supply chain. Making every component traceable will discipline supply chain management and drive ethical behavior.

However, will knowing change consumption pattern fundamentally? We find out about disposable fashion and the human cost behind fast fashion retailers, and yet even after this knowledge, people continue to shop at these retailers.

Adaptive Behavior

The challenge of re-skilling people will be crucial. People have learned new skills – the Baby Boomer generation was born before Internet, and yet people have picked it up quite quickly.

The Ethics of Automation

The rise of the machines raises a great number of tricky ethical questions - most of which we are woefully unprepared for. Is it ethical to replace your workforce entirely with machines? What happens after the end of jobs? How do we fairly distribute the wealth created by the rise of the machines? Should we tax the robots? Do intelligent machines have rights? Should they be treated humanely? Can smart machines be held responsible for their actions? How can we stop AI from doing harm?

Write UP

It was felt that a fundamental issue is we are trying to progress based on the functions of capitalism, and capitalism is imperfect and those imperfections will only be magnified. We are trying to industrialize systems already in function. The risk is robotics will simply amplify the issues that are already in existence

What are the barriers we are facing?
- We can be prosumers of some household goods, but not all things can be replicated
EX: boots printing cosmetics and toiletries, but things like an iPhone cannot be immediately replicated.
- Another barrier at consumer level is the trust of the companies and the sharing of our data, at the moment business has not proved itself to be trustworthy and this whole world is predicated on open sourcing and
sharing data, but there is still the fundamental issue we must get over to be successful
o So much of business is not looking at the forward progression of the business but rather the risk and compliance

The table discussed the idea of data sharing of personal information and trust
- The consumer will not have a choice, the consumer will have to work with robots whether they like it or not. Because they are being forced to share data.
- How much of data do you actually want to share?
- Most users don’t even realize the level they are sharing?
- What happens when there is a break in the process and as a consumer you don’t fit into the typical mould or ebb and flow of the flowchart? Does A.I. replicate the human error, or will the machine learning adapt to help
you fit better into the model.
- In banking, do you want to trust a robot who has no emotion, or greed, or do you go with the physical person who you have the human connection with. *compliance, ethical, human error

Where does the accountability start and end?
- Banking example, if they make the wrong decision and invest in the wrong thing, who is to blame? The bank? Programmer? Yourself for putting trust in the system?

Should companies let the consumer know the extent to which AI is used in their day to day business?

When it comes to the real ethical decision of what is right or wrong, the decisions that the board is there to decide in those competing interests, who will then make those decision/ Being honest, decide on putting up price or bringing price down.

What is the legal framework for these new technologies? Warfare, airspace with drones, roadways?
Is there a way to create a universal code in AI to follow a code of conduct?

If AI is genuinely good at thought processes, it ought to start to understand more human thought processes?
-the machine will reach a human thought level, then goes beyond them, what will it them evolve to after that point?
-the danger with AI/Robotics is not malevolence with AI but indifference to humans

Are we creating this for the purpose of serving humans, or to be human? …. Or to make money?

How to join it in an ethical way so that it is both profitable and serving the greater societal good?

Should things be allowed to be created before the regulation exists?
- Doesn’t matter, people will always try and get around it

Are we going to follow the moral compass or have utter divergence?

Universal Income for a Work-Free Age

With up to 40% of UK jobs expected to be lost within 20 years, many have touted a universal wage as a possible solution to looming mass unemployment - and trials of the concept are already taking place or being considered in Finland, Scotland, NZ and Canada. But is this the answer? Are there better options, for instance, with civic work, nature renewal projects or mass retraining, upskilling and mobilisation for social or environmental causes? This roundtable will discuss the implications for work in the machine age.

Write UP

The discussion started off by questioning the ethical aspects of applying Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a social security tool. Would it be fair to receive a regular compensation without actively having to contribute to society? In a work-free society, would people be able to find their purpose or would there be the need to create new values? Other key issues that were underlined were the potential environmental impacts of an automated world. For instance, could the increased power demand be met by renewables? And, if so, would this have positive impacts on fuel poverty reduction, due to decreasing cost of low-carbon energy production?

Red Flags (warnings)

A potential drawback of the UBI mechanism that was interestingly underlined is the danger of it becoming not only a disincentive for people to participate in society, but a baseline that would have to be periodically risen to meet the higher needs of the population. Moreover, an effective mechanism for taxing AI would have to be designed and implemented to ensure sufficient government revenues to sustain UBI. Another important issue that was mentioned was the role of society in taking part in the innovation process and, more specifically, in participating to the decisions that determine the pathways that will be followed. For instance, who should be in charge of determining the threshold beyond which AI and automation cease to create added value for society?

Acknowledging the power that the business sector has gained in the AI industry, economic disincentives could be introduced to prevent automation from going too far. As for preventing the rate of unemployment to increase excessively, UBI could be seen as a transition period during which people who have lost their jobs can be retrained to occupy different positions within or outside their sector. Moreover, the UBI should be made conditional to concrete contributions to society, such as environmental management, to ensure that people are incentivised to actively participate to the welfare of their community.

Several examples have been brought up to back up the aforementioned arguments. For instance, from current trials it has emerged that UBI is not enough, but it is a test of conditionality. On the notes of the need for retraining programs and explicitly revaluing roles that are not highly valued today, Finland’s program to promote the role of teaching to make it more appealing and attract more qualified candidates was cited. Lastly, regulating robot’s features to ensure that they are prevented from becoming “too human” could limit job losses, especially in sectors where customers demand human services.

Utopia or Dystopia?

For many, the rise of the machines conjures images of post-apocalyptic dystopias, with smarter than human AI and robots replacing us at the top of the intellectual apex of the world. A number of great minds have warned of the potential risks, yet others point to possible utopian outcomes. How can we ensure that automation, AI and robotics create positive outcomes for society? How can we avoid dystopia? What can we all do in our working lives, to ensure we benefit from this transition?

Write UP

• How do we create the capabilities we need to create the futures we want to live in?
• How can you use technology to create more of a circular economy rather than a linear one?
o Environmental challenges are non-linear so you can’t use existing data to create the technology to solve it like we have been in other areas.
• If the future is going to be much more transparent, will people be more accountable?
o Works more on an institutional level than an individual level
o Example of transparent compensation and that it brought down disparity between the bottom and top
• Everything that can be automated will  will we have to become more human?

Red Flags (warnings)

• The biggest disruptions will be in professional services, rather than industrial services  are we ready for this?
• Humans are notoriously bad at understanding exponential growth (which is what we are seeing/will continue to see in technology)  look at how we have responded to climate change
o How can we keep up?
• The problem now, is people are setting up businesses just to disrupt – all this does is put people out of jobs
o The challenge is getting organizations to move from their linear models into something a little bit different
o But you must get them to let go of other parts of their business model (just like Kodak and digital photography)

• Should we tax robots (or the companies that are using them) if they are replacing so many human jobs?
• Change the way that extra financial performance of companies is measured - Future Fit Foundation
• How do companies learn to disrupt their own business models to become fit for the future?
• Political, economic, and social systems was created in a very different world than we live in today
o Need governments to come together as they did for the SDGs – ethics should be hardwired into these systems
• Why does everyone have to have a job? Just to keep them busy?
o Does this open up the possibility of a universal wage?

• Google translate and AI and how exponentially it has gotten better
o Google completely rebuilt Google translate using AI and it has gotten exponentially better and done it exponentially faster than when humans were behind the technology

If you had to choose, Utopia, Dystopia, or Pragmatist?

• Optimist: If you look thru a sustainability lens, then the answer must be through technology; Some of the best things happen when humans behave like natural systems  how can we create machines in the same manner? We will solve some really bug fundamental issues that we need to solve, but what will those implications be? Which ones aren’t we thinking about?
• Pessimist: If we create a law enforcement and army with machines, without limits, that feels very scary and we are pessimistic; The tech is developing too fast for us to conceptualize; The human motivation behind it is likely to be selfish; We need to be able to spot the biases and patterns, which is really hard to do – the people who are running with the development of the technology are not worried about the ethical and humanistic aspects and results; Would I have children in this kind of atmosphere?

Venue Detail

Chartered Insurance Institute

Chartered Insurance Institute, 20 Aldermanbury, London EC2V 7HY.

Who's Attending


Brian Jonestown Massacre 2016The Brian Jonestown Massacre is an American psychedelic rock band formed in San Francisco in 1990 and led by frontman Anton Newcombe.

The Brian Jonestown Massacre began as a shoegaze group in San Francisco in 1990. After their debut and sophomore albums, the group quickly turned to a broader style of psychedelic rock, incorporating folk rock and, later, electronica influences. The name “Brian Jonestown Massacre” is a portmanteau of The Rolling Stones’ founder and guitarist Brian Jones and the infamous mass cult suicide in Jonestown, Guyana.

Brian Jonestown MassacreTickets 2016 & Dates


Museum and Memorial Complex of History of the Russian Navy

Marina Lystseva/TASS
This museum on the bank of the Khimki Reservoir is pretty small, consisting of a B-396 Project 641B diesel-powered submarine, a Skat amphibious landing vessel, an Orlyonok ram-wing assault craft, and a plaza with naval equipment and paraphernalia, e.g. an emergency buoy, a torpedo replica, and Hall's anchor with movable arms. All exhibits can be inspected in detail. Visitors are allowed inside the submarine.


What a delight to have Catherine Kullmann stop by and bring us the flavors of Regency England. Settle in with a proper cup of tea and enjoy!

A Brief Overview of the Regency, by Catherine Kullmann

Hyde ParkA series of enclosure acts reduced the rights of the peasants and reinforced the dominance of the land-owners. The Corn Laws, by imposing restrictions and tariffs on imported grain, also benefited the landowners but kept the price of bread artificially high. Poor harvests and a downturn in the economy after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, together with increasing resentment at the lack of parliamentary representation led to unrest and public protest, culminating in 1819 in what when cavalry charged a demonstration at St Peter’s Field, Manchester, killing fifteen and injuring four hundred to seven hundred people. This became known as Peterloo in an ironic reference to the Battle of Waterloo.

There was constant unrest in Ireland where the Catholic majority were barred from sitting in either house of Parliament and forced to pay tithes to an alien church. Progress was slow. In 1829, parliament finally passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act, enabling Catholics to take seats in both houses of parliament and a reluctant George IV signed it. He died in 1830 and the resulting general election was fought on the need for parliamentary reform. In 1832, the Great Reform Act was passed, which redrew constituency boundaries to take account of population shifts, abolished rotten boroughs (constituencies where a handful of votes sufficed to return a member to parliament and which were generally controlled by a powerful patron, usually—you guessed it—a land-owner) and increased the electorate from about 500,000 to 813,00. The franchise was tied to property ownership and this meant that about 20% of the adult male population now had the right to vote.

By now the Regency and King George IV were dead. George IV’s successor, his brother William IV, died in 1837 and the Victorian age dawned with the ascension of their eighteen-year-old niece Princess Alexandrina Victoria to the throne.

Catherine KullmanCatherine Kullmann was born and educated in Dublin. Following a three-year courtship conducted mostly by letter, she moved to Germany where she lived for twenty-six years before returning to Ireland. She has worked in the Irish and New Zealand public services and in the private sector. After taking early retirement Catherine was finally able to fulfil her life-long ambition to write. Her novels are set in England during the extended Regency— that fascinating period between the demise of hoops and the invention of crinolines- the end of the Georgian era but before the stultifying age of Victoria. Her debut novel, The Murmur of Masks, published in 2016, is a warm and engaging story of a young woman’s struggle to survive and find love in an era of violence and uncertainty. It takes us from the ballrooms of the Regency to the battlefield of Waterloo. In November 2016, it was honoured with a Chill with a Book Readers Award.

I loved your protagonists and the depth you gave to their emotional journeys and to the rest of the characters and story. Bravo! It was a lovely read, deliciously romantic with wonderful characters, elegant writing and perfect period detail. Hugely enjoyable! Nicola Cornick

Visit her website HERE.

%d bloggers like this:


Tyler and Korey rowing a boat to the Pit Stop
Tyler and Korey rowing a boat to the Pit StopCBS / The Amazing Race

In the upcoming episode, titled "Salt That Sand!," of CBS' "The Amazing Race" Season 28, the remaining teams will go through several tasks and assignments to make it through to the next leg of the race in Bali.

CLICK HERE to watch how the teams will get through the upcoming tasks and which of them will be eliminated at the end of the episode.

According to the synopsis by TV Maze, "A tight race to the Mat in Bali has teams rowing and swimming to a boat for the pit stop, where losers are eliminated by walking the plank."

Carter Matt has reported that the teams will face a roadblock in Indonesia that is going to be "exhausting." The teams will have to go through a task known as "salting the sand."According to the website, the top contenders in this particular task will be two of the strongest teams in the current season's race â€“ Burnie & Ashley and Tyler & Korey.

Another promising team that might advance in the leader-board is Kelsey & Joey. Though they haven't been among the winning ones in this season, they have almost finished near the top in several legs of the race. If they continue making the efforts, there is a significant possibility of them making a way to the top contenders' slot.

Meanwhile, though Tyler and Korey have been doing their best, they are a little bit inconsistent as their physical strength is not as enhanced as Kurt & Brodie's. However, they are fit and smart enough to do well at almost any of the tasks. If they maintain their consistency, they might win the race this season.

In the previous episode, titled "I Have a Wedgie and a Half," the teams travelled to Dubai where they raced camels and swam with the sharks as part of the assignments.


Article | Open

Future climate stimulates population out-breaks by relaxing constraints on reproduction

  • Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 33383 (2016)
  • doi:10.1038/srep33383
  • Download Citation
Published online:

When conditions are stressful, reproduction and population growth are reduced, but when favourable, reproduction and population size can boom. Theory suggests climate change is an increasingly stressful environment, predicting extinctions or decreased abundances. However, if favourable conditions align, such as an increase in resources or release from competition and predation, future climate can fuel population growth. Tests of such population growth models and the mechanisms by which they are enabled are rare. We tested whether intergenerational increases in population size might be facilitated by adjustments in reproductive success to favourable environmental conditions in a large-scale mesocosm experiment. Herbivorous amphipod populations responded to future climate by increasing 20 fold, suggesting that future climate might relax environmental constraints on fecundity. We then assessed whether future climate reduces variation in mating success, boosting population fecundity and size. The proportion of gravid females doubled, and variance in phenotypic variation of male secondary sexual characters (i.e. gnathopods) was significantly reduced. While future climate can enhance individual growth and survival, it may also reduce constraints on mechanisms of reproduction such that enhanced intra-generational productivity and reproductive success transfers to subsequent generations. Where both intra and intergenerational production is enhanced, population sizes might boom.

When environmental conditions are stressful, reproduction and population growth are delayed1, but when favourable, reproduction and population size can boom2. The effects of future climate on animal populations are often considered within the context of strong negative effects while strong positive effects are less considered. Ocean warming and acidification are considered stressors3,4 through increasing metabolic costs of individuals5,6,7. Nonetheless, elevated temperature can have positive effects through an increase in metabolism8 enabling population growth9 when elevated resources brought by carbon enrichment10 meet metabolic demands. It is possible that future climate may not only relax constraints on population growth, but also enable some populations to boom.

Herbivore populations appear particularly sensitive to future climate as meta-analyses suggest a general decrease in population size11,12. Yet, while unusual, there is evidence for population growth in herbivores12, which could be through the relaxation of abiotic and biotic constraints on reproductive output. Indeed, elevated CO2 and temperature can enhance food intake as a function of increasing per capita herbivory13,14. Such conditions may not only enhance reproductive success, but over successive generations they may also yield substantive increases in population sizes. While future conditions enhance foraging resources13 and survival amongst predators15, little is known about the contribution of reproductive success to population growth. Where reproductive success adjusts to favourable environmental conditions, the relaxation of competitive restriction to mates becomes a critical mechanism16,17,18.

Intensifying intraspecific interactions buffer runaway reproductive success as populations become increasingly dense19. Increasing competition for mates reduces male access to mates, and less competitive males are unable to reproduce20. Females play a particularly strong role in determining male mating success across a broad spectrum of taxa (e.g. territorial birds21, fish22, and crustaceans23). Females can increase reproductive output when mating with high quality males24 or reduce the intensity of male-male competition to increase overall reproductive success16.

As a test of this enhanced reproduction mechanism, we propose that the relaxation of abiotic constraints imposes strong directional selection on male ornaments which increase access to mates as male sexually selected traits become more exaggerated and homogenized25,26. Access to mates is gained when individuals deploy an array of successful mating strategies arising from sexual selection often producing dissimilar phenotypes18,27,28. Phenotypic traits are costly to maintain in stressful environments29,30,31, and males with the most appealing traits will monopolize females18,28. We consider, therefore, that as environmental constraints are relaxed, a higher proportion of males can maintain costly traits, predicting reduced variation in sexually selected characters32 and an increase reproductive success33 that together results in population growth18,34.

The development of theory on future climate as a facilitator of population growth lags behind that of climate as a stressor causing population decline. While the idea that future climate need not constrain population size is well known12, there are few tests of hypotheses that predict population growth, particularly the mechanisms enabling growth via enhanced reproductive potential. We tested whether elevated temperature and carbon dioxide could increase population growth of a herbivorous amphipod (Cymadusa pemptos), and to account for this population increase we observed reproductive potential by testing the prediction that phenotypic variation in male secondary sexual characters is reduced while females fecundity is enhanced.

Populations exhibited changes after 3 months with increases in size occurring under the combination of elevated temperature and CO2 (i.e. future climate). Population sizes under future climate increased by at least 2500% relative to contemporary climate (Fig. 1a; Table S1; Χ23,7 = 8.22, P = 0.042). The proportion of fecund females increased under future climate (Fig. 1b; Table S1, F3,7 = 4.63, P = 0.044), and there were fewer fecund females per male under future climate (Fig. 1c). However, the OSR did not differ between current and future climate (Table S1; F3,6 = 1.48, P = 0.31). Size frequency distributions in current and future climate had unimodal distributions at the end of the experiment (Fig. S1), reflecting overlapping generations driving population growth35.

Figure 1: Effect of elevated temperature, elevated CO2, and the combination of elevated temperature and CO2 on population size and reproduction.
Figure 1

Ambient and elevated temperature is on the x-axis with white bars representing ambient CO2 and black bars representing elevated CO2. (a) Average population size (±SEM; n = 12). (b) Average proportion of fecund females (±SEM; n = 12). Females with offspring within the brood pouch were considered fecund. (c) Average operational sex ratio (OSR, the ratio of fecund females to males) (±SEM; n = 12). Different letters represent statistically different (P < 0.05) means.

Males and females responded differently to elevated temperature and CO2 (Fig. 2). Male amphipods were larger under future climate relative to current conditions (Fig. 2a), driven by the effect of elevated temperature (Fig. S2, Table S2; F3,643 = 23.24, P < 0.0001). In contrast, female body size did not differ among treatments (Fig. 2a; Fig. S2; Table S2; F3,411 = 1.22, P = 0.30). Male gnathopods dramatically increased in size under future climate compared to female gnathopods (Fig. 2b). Increases in male gnathopod size (Fig. S2; Table S3; F7,639 = 180.60, P < 0.0001) was driven by a synergistic effect of temperature and CO2 (Table S3; Current temperature: F3,204 = 119.99, P < 0.0001 and Elevated temperature: F3,435 = 241.52, P < 0.0001). Female gnathopod size decreased under elevated temperatures (Fig. S2; Table S3; F7,407 = 25.29, P < 0.0001). At a population level, male gnathopod variance was reduced (Fig. 2c) primarily due to elevated CO2 (Table S4; F3,643 = 3.08, P = 0.03) while variance in female gnathopod size (Fig. 2c) did not differ among treatments (Table S3; F3,408 = 0.41, P = 0.74).

Figure 2: Selection on male and female traits under elevated temperature (T), carbon dioxide (CO2), and a combination of elevated temperature and carbon dioxide (T × CO2).
Figure 2

Percent deviation from current conditions (control treatment) of (a) body size, (b) gnathopod size, and (c) variation in gnathopod size for males (black bars; n = 647) and females (white bars; n = 415). Deviation represents the treatment effect size (T, CO2 and T × CO2) relative to ambient; positive values represent an increase and negative values represent a decrease in average traits. Variation in gnathopod size is obtained by averaging the absolute value of studentized residuals from the gnathopod to body size regression.

The number of eggs produced (Table S5) did not differ among the treatments in our study. Egg number was a function of female body size (Table S5; F7,232 = 8.72, P < 0.0001), but female size did not consistently predict egg number across treatments (Table 1). In ambient conditions, egg number was independent of female size (Table 1), while temperature caused a disproportionate effect of female size on egg number. In contrast, elevated CO2 caused a linear increase in egg number with female size. When both elevated temperature and CO2 were present, female size had a significant non-linear effect on eggs produced (Table 1). Females experiencing elevated temperatures exponentially increased egg production, optimizing reproductive output (Table 1; Fig. S3) rather than increasing body size (Fig. 2a).

Table 1: Polynomial regressions of the number of eggs produced per female against female body size for each of the four treatment conditions.

Treatments that created future climate conditions (i.e. the combination of elevated temperature and CO2) not only enhanced fecundity, but the apparent increase in reproductive success translated into greater population size over successive generations (Fig. S4). Increases in male body and gnathopod size were associated with an increase in the proportion of fecund females. As predicted from our model of sexual selection acting to buffer population growth, we observed wide variance in male gnathopod size in contemporary conditions, suggesting intense competition among individuals19,36, and a narrowing of this variance by future climate. Such reductions in variance of sexually selected traits reduce the intensity of male-male competition that is associated with decreased mate guarding and increased mating opportunities18,36. In addition, females shifted resource investment to egg production under elevated temperatures rather than enhancing size; life-history strategies were altered to optimize the number of eggs brooded under future climate, increasing population size. The relaxation of constraints on reproductive output was associated with enhanced food productivity in the same experiment (i.e. filamentous turfs37) and the associated reduction in predation15 could only have assisted in translating reproductive success into population growth over successive generations.

To assess whether future climate may boost intergenerational population growth, we need to understand how reproductive potential translates enhanced productivity to the next generation. Energy flows from producer to consumer will depend on both metabolic effects on the consumer38,39 and effects on the abundance and food quality of the producer recognizing variation among producer species40,41. For populations to grow, reproductive success needs to contribute and build upon both enhanced survivorship (i.e. reduced predation15) and individual growth; of which the latter is underpinned by greater metabolic demand6,42,43 and met by greater foraging activity13 of elevated primary productivity39. Population explosion under future climate is likely to be underpinned by the positive influence of elevated temperature on metabolic rate7, where requirements for greater food are met by the effect of carbon enrichment on algal resources43. Algal productivity can be supercharged by elevated temperature and carbon dioxide, particularly on fine, filamentous algae that herbivorous amphipods consume, but under current climate are normally ephemeral and sparse10. While there is recognition that temperature and carbon dioxide can ramp up primary productivity44, there has been less recognition of how this primary productivity may translate into an increase in secondary productivity. The lack of research that makes these connections between trophic levels has left some serious gaps in understanding for the stability of future food webs12. Here, we consider a critical mechanism that would allow for flexibility in mating strategy so individuals can adjust their reproductive investment32 when the concomitant increase in metabolic demand and population size is not constrained by resources or predators.

Future climate provides conditions that relax the drivers of variance in male traits. Strong selection on male sexually selected traits such as the amphipod’s gnathopod is affected by per capita resource availability45, such that reduced availability causes stress that widens variance in gnathopod size32. Widened variation among male gnathopod size within a population leads to disproportional mate guarding and competition, which has been shown to affect reproductive success in related species36. Female choice often selects for male sexually-selected traits46, and when females are less choosy, male trait variance decreases47. When females are less choosy, a higher proportion of females could become gravid48. Females are also likely to reach maturation more quickly under future climate, further boosting the effect of reduced choosiness on reproductive output. These results provide insight into short-term studies that demonstrate the ability of amphipods to quickly adapt to elevated CO249 and temperature50, and naturally occur in greater abundance at CO2 seeps12. However, future studies should tease apart the effect of variation in male secondary characters driving fecundity under future climate conditions.

In conclusion, we suggest that intergenerational increases in population size might be facilitated by adjustments in reproductive success to favourable environmental conditions. For some consumers, therefore, future climate may not only increase individual growth and survival, but this added production ought to carry over to subsequent generations through increased reproductive success. Such population growth is normally buffered by mechanisms that govern reproductive success and its translation through survival to successive generations, but for many species we argue that the indirect effects of climate via resource provisioning and trophic control may reduce this buffering capacity. While the effects of future climate as a stressor has dominated research effort to date, we are only beginning to realise that it may also favour reproduction and population growth of some species which can also boom under these same conditions.

Cymadusa pemptos is a common Ampithoid herbivore in temperate kelp forests of South Australia with preferred feeding on benthic turfs (Heldt unpub.). Males have larger gnathopods than females and both sexes build and inhabit nests among subtidal algae, such as seagrass (0.6–0.8 m depth51) and kelp beds (3–5 m depth). Cymadusa pemptos reaches maturity in an estimated 4–6 weeks, and females produce between 10 and 19 eggs (Heldt unpub.), similar to other Cymadusa species where females can live for up to 4 weeks after releasing brood52,53,54. To test responses of herbivorous C. pemptos populations to future climate, we designed an experiment using mesocosms with a crossed design of elevated temperature and CO2. We refer to future climate conditions as the combined effects of elevated temperature and elevated CO2.

Flow-through mesocosm tanks (2,000 L, n = 12) were established at the South Australian Research and Development Institute, in West Beach, South Australia (34.9453 °S, 138.5038 °E) in September 2013. An incoming flow rate (4 L min−1) of filtered natural seawater (salinity ~40 ppt) was used to maintain water quality, and all mesocosms experienced natural spring and summer daylight cycles for South Australia. Temperature and CO2 were manipulated to reflect ambient conditions of the sites in which organisms were sourced (i.e., current temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations44), and treatments of future climate were set using predictions in the 2007 IPCC report55. Each mesocosm was maintained as an independent replicate. Within each replicate mesocosm, individual heater/chiller units and independent adjustments to CO2 input maintained target temperature and CO2 conditions. Heater/chiller units (TC-60 Aquarium Chillers, TECO Refrigeration Technologies, Ravenna, Italy), CO2 generated by gas mixers (Pegas 4000 MF, Columbus Instruments, Columbus Ohio USA), and water flow were independently manipulated for each mesocosm56.

Each mesocosm was stocked with a local community of primary producers (five kelp holdfasts and fronds at 1.2 kg [Ecklonia radiata] and five seeded fibre-board tiles (10 cm × 10 cm) containing a mixed assemblage of filamentous algae37), herbivores (five sea urchins [Heliocidaris erythrogramma], fifteen marine gastropods [Turbo undulatus], and Cymadusa pemptos amphipods). Predators were also present, one crab (Ozius truncatus), three sharks (Heterodontus portusjacksoni15, and one spiny lobster (Jasus edwardsii). To ensure that experimental densities reflected natural densities, we seeded mesocosms with kelp habitat harboring natural C. pemptos populations. To collect amphipods with kelp, each kelp was entirely enclosed with a plastic bag in the field with the holdfast removed intact, thus sealing in natural amphipod densities57,58,59. Amphipod abundances were homogenized across tanks as all kelp fronds were kept in holding tanks prior to placement in each of the mesocosms with an estimated 100 amphipods and OSR of 6:1. The multi-trophic level mesocosms lasted multiple generations of amphipods. Use of vertebrates in these experiments, described in previously published work15, were approved by the University of Adelaide animal ethics committee (permit: S-2013-095) and in accordance to the University’s animal ethics guidelines. Shark collections were carried out with permission of the South Australian Government Department of Primary Industry and Regions SA (permit: 990295).

Temperature and pH were measured at different times of the day every day for each tank56; this sampling revealed that noon measurements were representative of the environmental conditions of the tank for that day. Total alkalinity (TA) was measured weekly for each tank and used for pCO2 calculations. Temperature and pH differed between ambient and elevated conditions and followed natural daily fluctuations throughout the entire experiment56. The average temperature and pH for current conditions (C; ambient temperature and CO2) were 15.4 °C ± 0.1 SE and 8.16 ± 0.01 SE respectively. In contrast, future conditions (T × CO2; elevated temperature and CO2) had a temperature of 17.9 °C ± 0.3 SE and pH 7.99 ± <0.01 SE. The elevated temperature treatment (T, elevated temperature and ambient CO2), had a temperature of 18.1 °C ± 0.2 SE and pH 8.15 ± 0.01 SE. Finally, in the elevated CO2 treatment (CO2; ambient temperature and elevated CO2) the average temperature was 15.4 °C ± 0.1 SE and the average pH was 8.01 ± 0.01 SE. For all treatments, pH was calculated from back-transformed hydrogen ion concentrations. Total alkalinity was measured using a potentiometric titrator (888 Titrando, Metrohom, USA) and pCO2 was determined using CO2SYS program for Excel56,60. Average alkalinity and pCO2 measures differed among C (TA = 2563 μmol kg−1 ± 3, pCO2 = 381 μatm ± 38), T (TA = 2562 μmol kg−1 ± 10, pCO2 = 427 μatm ± 42), CO2 (TA = 2555 μmol kg−1 ± 5, pCO2 = 607 μatm ± 52) and T × CO2 (TA = 2547 μmol kg−1 ± 2, pCO2 = 663 μatm ± 80) treatments.

In December 2013, 13 weeks after stocking mesocosms, kelp fronds from each mesocosm were removed, dipped into freshwater, and gently wiped; this allowed us to collect amphipods that had undergone 2–3 generations in experimental conditions. The freshwater containing amphipods was filtered through a 0.5 mm mesh and amphipods were preserved in 100% ethanol. All adults were accounted for and photographed; juveniles were subsampled by stirring and removing 10% of the solution and collected individuals were separated for photographic analysis. Photographs were taken using a Canon G10 camera fitted with a high definition 10x macro lens, and body size (mm length) for all individuals and gnathopod size (i.e. the second appendage, mm length from the tip of the dactyl to the base of the propod when the chelae were closed) for adults were measured using ImageJ61.

We first analysed population-level responses to elevated temperature and elevated CO2 treatments. Amphipod population size was compared among treatments using a generalized linear model with a normal error distribution and two levels of CO2 and temperature treatments (i.e. ambient and elevated). The proportion of fecund females and operational sex ratio (OSR) were compared among treatments using two-way ANOVAs. The proportion of fecund females was arcsin transformed, and OSR was calculated as the number of fecund females relative to the number of males in a given population and log transformed.

Next, we analysed individual-level responses to the experimental treatments. Body size, gnathopod size, and the number of eggs per female were log transformed. Changes in body size between treatments were tested for each sex using a two-way ANOVA. Differences in gnathopod size were compared using a two-way ANOVA with body size as a covariate. Significant 3-way interactions between the two treatments and the covariate were further analysed for each level of temperature treatment (i.e. current and elevated) using an ANCOVA with CO2 as a fixed effect and body size as a covariate. To explore population-level variation in gnathopod size between treatments, we obtained studentized residuals from a gnathopod to body size regression of each treatment and sex and used the absolute value of studentized residuals to calculate mean residual variation (i.e., reflecting variation in gnathopod size independent of body size). Variation in gnathopod size was square root transformed, and a two-way ANOVA tested for treatment effects. To represent changes under future climate relative to current conditions, we calculated the difference between future and current condition means (e.g., either body size, gnathopod size and gnathopod variation) standardized by the current mean. Finally, the number of eggs produced by females was compared across treatments with a two-way ANOVA using female body size as a covariate. Relationships between body size and egg production were non-linear, and to further analyse relationships, we regressed the number of eggs per female against female body size for each of the treatment using second-order polynomial regressions with log-transformed data. We ensured data met parametric assumptions and set alpha = 0.05; analyses were carried out in JMP (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Heldt, K. A. et al. Future climate stimulates population out-breaks by relaxing constraints on reproduction. Sci. Rep. 6, 33383; doi: 10.1038/srep33383 (2016).

  1. 1.

    , , , & Population growth in a wild bird is buffered against phenological mismatch. Science 340, 488–491, doi: 10.1126/science.1232870 (2013).

  2. 2.

    , & Population dynamics new approaches and synthesis. (Academic Press, 1995).

  3. 3.

    & The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328, 1523–1528, doi: 10.1126/science.1189930 (2010).

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

    & Living in the now: physiological mechanisms to tolerate a rapidly changing environment. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 72, 127–145, doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135900 (2010).

  6. 6.

    & Effects of pH variability on the intertidal isopod, Paradella dianae. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 45, 245–259, doi: 10.1080/10236244.2012.727235 (2012).

  7. 7.

    , & Escaping herbivory: ocean warming as a refuge for primary producers where consumer metabolism and consumption cannot pursue. Oecologia 179, 1223–1229, doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3438-8 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Warming strengthens an herbivore–plant interaction. Ecology 90, 388–398, doi: 10.1890/08-0034.1 (2009).

  9. 9.

    , , , & Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163, 429–441, doi: 10.1086/381872 (2004).

  10. 10.

    , , , & The other ocean acidification problem: CO2 as a resource among competitors for ecosystem dominance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 368, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0442 (2013).

  11. 11.

    & How does elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) affect plant-herbivore interactions? A field experiment and meta-analysis of CO2-mediated changes on plant chemistry and herbivore performance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1823–1842, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01392.x (2007).

  12. 12.

    & Global alteration of ocean ecosystem functioning due to increasing human CO2 emissions. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13272–13277, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510856112 (2015).

  13. 13.

    , & Trophic compensation reinforces resistance: herbivory absorbs the increasing effects of multiple disturbances. Ecol. Lett. 18, 182–187, doi: 10.1111/ele.12405 (2015).

  14. 14.

    & Organismal homeostasis buffers the effects of abiotic change on community dynamics. Ecology, doi: 10.1002/ecy.1488 (in press).

  15. 15.

    , , , & Ocean acidification and global warming impair shark hunting behaviour and growth. Sci. Rep. 5, doi: 10.1038/srep16293 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Sexual Selection. (Princeton University Press, 1994).

  17. 17.

    & Is sexual selection beneficial during adaptation to environmental change? Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 23, 446–452, doi: (2008).

  18. 18.

    & Mating Systems and Strategies. (Princeton University Press, 2003).

  19. 19.

    & Putting sexual traits into the context of an organism: a life-history perspective in studies of sexual selection. Auk 119, 301–310, doi: 10.2307/4089879 (2002).

  20. 20.

    The reproductive behaviour of α-, β-, and γ-male morphs in Paracerceis sculpta, a marine isopod crustacean. Behaviour 121, 231–258, doi: 10.2307/4535029 (1992).

  21. 21.

    Male quality and female choice of mate in the Red-Winged Blackbird (Agelaius Phoeniceus). Ecology 62, 922–929, doi: 10.2307/1936990 (1981).

  22. 22.

    & Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc. R. Soc. B 250, 229–233, doi: 10.2307/49545 (1992).

  23. 23.

    & A conspicuous courtship signal in the fiddler crab Uca perplexa: female choice based on display structure. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 736–741, doi: 10.1007/s00265-006-0217-x (2006).

  24. 24.

    , , & Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: A quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am. Nat. 161, 852–859, doi: 10.1086/375173 (2003).

  25. 25.

    & Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110, 275–297, (1984).

  26. 26.

    & Roaming Romeos: male crickets evolving in silence show increased locomotor behaviours. Anim. Behav. 101, 213–219, (2015).

  27. 27.

    & Geographic variation in the sexual behaviour of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Peters). Behaviour 95, 164–179, doi: 10.2307/4534480 (1985).

  28. 28.

    Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 11, 92–98 (1996).

  29. 29.

    Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214, (1975).

  30. 30.

    Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 10, 22–29, (1995).

  31. 31.

    & Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim. Behav. 51, 117–130, (1996).

  32. 32.

    & Condition dependence of a sexually selected trait in a crustacean species complex: importance of the ecological context. Evolution 64, 2535–2546, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00998.x (2010).

  33. 33.

    Male trait distribution determined alternative mating tactics in guppies. J. Fish Biol. 56, 1427–1434, doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02154.x (2000).

  34. 34.

    , , & Eutrophication and predation risk interact to affect sexual trait expression and mating sucess. Evolution 66, 708–719, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01475.x (2011).

  35. 35.

    & Size bimodality in monospecific populations: a critical review of potential mechanisms. Am. Nat. 129, 678–707 (1987).

  36. 36.

    , & Precopulatory guarding-time of the male amphipod Eogammarus oclairi: effect of population structure. Mar. Biol. 124, 219–223, doi: 10.1007/BF00347126 (1995).

  37. 37.

    , , , & Species interactions can maintain resistance of subtidal algal habitats to an increasingly modified world. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 4, 549–558, (2015).

  38. 38.

    et al. Thermodynamic and metabolic effects on the scaling of production and population energy use. Ecol. Lett. 6, 990–995, doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00526.x (2003).

  39. 39.

    , & Theoretical predictions for how temperature affects the dynamics of interacting herbivores and plants. Am. Nat. 178, 626–638, doi: 10.1086/662171 (2011).

  40. 40.

    et al. Effects of macroalgal species identity and richness on primary production in benthic marine communities. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1165–1174, doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00823.x (2005).

  41. 41.

    et al. Global patterns in the impact of marine herbivores on benthic primary producers. Ecol. Lett. 15, 912–922, doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01804.x (2012).

  42. 42.

    & The role of preconditioning in ocean acidification experiments: a test with the intertidal isopod Paradella dianae. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 46, 33–44, doi: 10.1080/10236244.2013.788287 (2013).

  43. 43.

    , , & A test of metabolic and consumptive responses to local and global perturbations: enhanced resources stimulate herbivores to counter expansion of weedy species. Mar. Freshwater Res. 67, 96–102, (2015).

  44. 44.

    & The direct effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms: increasing the potential for phase shifts in kelp forests. Proc. R. Soc. B, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2069 (2010).

  45. 45.

    , & Leaves and litterbugs: how litter quality affects amphipod life-history and sexually selected traits. Freshw. Sci. 33, 812–819, doi: 10.1086/677214 (2014).

  46. 46.

    Direct and indirect fitness consequences of female choice in a crustacean. Evolution 62, 1666–1675, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00403.x (2008).

  47. 47.

    Theoretical aspects of sexual selection: A generalized model of mating behaviour. Theor. Popul. Biol. 13, 226–243, (1978).

  48. 48.

    & The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends in Ecol. & Evol. 11, 404–408, (1996).

  49. 49.

    , & The subtle effects of sea water acidification on the amphipod Gammarus locusta. Biogeosciences 6, 1479–1489, doi: 10.5194/bg-6-1479-2009 (2009).

  50. 50.

    , & Active brood care in an amphipod: influences of embryonic development, temperature and oxygen. Anim. Behav. 56, 663–672, (1998).

  51. 51.

    A review of Australian Cymadusa (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae) with descritions of eight new species. Zootaxa 1540, 1–53, (2007).

  52. 52.

    & The effects of diet mixing on consumer fitness: macroalgae, ephiphytes, and animal matter as food for marine amphipds. Oecologia 123, 252–264, doi: 10.1007/s004420051012 (2000).

  53. 53.

    & Observations on the tube-building behaviour of the marine amphipod Cymadusa filosa Savigny (Crustacea: Ampithoidae). J Nat Hist 37, 2151–2164, doi: 10.1080/00222930210147368 (2003).

  54. 54.

    A review of the reproductive bionomics of aquatic gammaridean amphipods: variation of life history traits with latitude, depth, salinity and superfamily. Hydrobiologia 223, 189–227, doi: 10.1007/BF00047641 (1991).

  55. 55.

    IPCC. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (eds. S. Solomon et al.) (2007).

  56. 56.

    , & Design and performance evaluation of a mesocosm facility and techniques to simulate ocean acidification and warming. Limnol. Oceanogr.-Meth. 14, 278–291, doi: 10.1002/lom3.10088 (2016).

  57. 57.

    & Habitat destruction and metacommunity size in pen shell communities. J Anim. Ecol. 77, 1175–1182, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01444.x (2008).

  58. 58.

    Life history affects how species experience succession in pen shell communities. Oecologia 174, 1335–1344, doi: 10.1007/s00442-013-2849-7 (2014).

  59. 59.

    Role of sources and temporal sinks in a marine amphipod. Biol. Lett. 11, 20140864, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0864 (2015).

  60. 60.

    , & (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee).

  61. 61.

Download references

We thank the Marine Experiments for a Sustainable Outcome (MESO) team for assistance in monitoring and maintaining mesocosms, and the Munguia lab volunteers for their assistance with sorting specimen samples. The Australian Research Council funded MESO through a grant to SDC (grant no. FT0991953).

Author information

  1. Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005 SA, Australia

    • Katherine A. Heldt
    • , Sean D. Connell
    • , Bayden D. Russell
    •  & Pablo Munguia
  2. Department of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4 BC, Canada

    • Kathryn Anderson
  3. The Swire Institute of Marine Science and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    • Bayden D. Russell

  1. Search for Katherine A. Heldt in:

  2. Search for Sean D. Connell in:

  3. Search for Kathryn Anderson in:

  4. Search for Bayden D. Russell in:

  5. Search for Pablo Munguia in:

P.M. conceived the project. S.D.C. and B.D.R. coordinated and conceived the mesocosm program. K.A. and K.A.H. collected data. K.A.H. and P.M. analyzed the data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Munguia.

Supplementary information


This month the scientific community celebrated the 155th birthday of the late Nettie Stevens.

 Nettie Maria Stevens, born July 7 1861, discovered that male sperm are the key to determining the gender of offspring.

In a time when career choices for women were limited to teaching, nursing or secretarial work, Nettie strove to defy the norm and realise her passion: scientific research. A passion which made her one of the most prolific researchers of the late 19th century, she published around 40 papers in her field in 11 years.

Nettie was a biologist, with a particular interest in gender determination. She studied mealworms, examining their sperm and ova (egg cells) under a microscope. She discovered that where the female’s eggs only carry X chromosomes, the male’s sperm carry both X and Y. Nettie was the first to realise the significance of this, that the gender of offspring is determined by fertilisation of the egg by the sperm.

Nettie worked as a teacher to earn the money she needed to pay for her further education – her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees at Stanford University, and her PhD at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania.

It was widely believed that the gender of offspring was either determined by the mother, or by other environmental factors. This meant that Nettie’s theory was not accepted by her peers in education or science at first, but she wasn’t the only one who made the discovery.

Edmund Wilson, a zoology professor at Columbia University, made the same discovery as Nettie in his research. Though Nettie is credited with making the theoretical leap, which has since been proven true. Both developed theories on sex determination by chromosomes at the same time, and so both are credited with this ground-breaking discovery.

Nettie’s prolific research career was over too soon. She died of breast cancer on May 4 1912, at the age of 50.
Her substantial contribution to embryology and genetics will never be forgotten.


According to a top aide, John McCain recently endorsed George W. Bush’s right to wiretap American citizens without court approval, despite the clear requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Clearly, McCain has learned nothing from the past seven-plus years of Bush/Cheney assaults on the Constitution.

More troubling is that he doesn’t seem very worried that his position will generate serious criticism. And apparently it has not. The lack of public outcry points to the likelihood that too many Americans are either confused about a President’s prerogatives or have been persuaded by the years of Bush’s constitutional abuses that a chief executive has the right to violate the law or subvert the Constitution in other ways.

McCain’s position and the response to it demonstrate how much the Bush Administration has damaged public understanding of the system of checks and balances that lies at the heart of our democracy. The framers believed that unchecked power, including unchecked executive power, was the greatest threat to our liberties, but too many citizens today perceive that danger as unreal.

That is why Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings now.

Impeachment is one of the few ways Congress can draw limits around presidential power and educate the country about those limits. And without the people’s support for those limits, they will be breached again and again by future Presidents.

The proposed revisions of FISA that recently passed the House give added urgency to the impeachment argument. Some Democrats have announced support for the bill because they believe it will restrain this and future Presidents. The bill provides that FISA is the exclusive means by which a President may authorize wiretapping. But the original FISA bill had a similar provision, and it did not stop Bush from repeatedly claiming that as commander in chief he has the authority to ignore FISA.

Impeachment is the only way to force a President who steadfastly refuses to obey the law to do so. And it sends an indelible message to future Presidents as well.

We know that the impeachment process, done properly, without partisan rancor and with fairness to the President, can have a hugely positive effect on public understanding of the Constitution and strengthen the democratic underpinnings of the society. This is what happened during the impeachment process against Richard Nixon. We learned that impeachment is not just a grand inquest or inquisitorial process; it is also a great teach-in–a unique opportunity for an extended and serious national discussion of checks and balances, the limits on presidential power and how to preserve our liberties.

Take illegal wiretapping by a President. One of the grounds for impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee’s resolution was Nixon’s illegal wiretapping of journalists and White House staffers. After that resolution passed with bipartisan support, and after Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment and removal from office by the whole Congress, an understanding that national security wiretaps had to be carried out in accordance with the law and the Constitution continued for a quarter-century, until Bush’s sledgehammer shattered it. In theory, a Supreme Court case might re-establish checks on the presidency, as the cases regarding the Guantánamo detainees have begun to do. But challenges to some of the most serious abuses of presidential power–wiretapping in violation of FISA, the mistreatment or torture of detainees, signing statements, by which the President claimed he was not bound to obey the bills he signed into law–might never be heard by the Court. An impeachment inquiry would resolve those challenges.

It would also permit Congress to delve into other matters, including the President’s role in outing Valerie Plame and the US Attorneys scandal, that involve possible serious abuses of power that may not otherwise be fully investigated. Bush stalls Congressional inquiries with extreme claims of executive privilege, but there is no executive privilege in an impeachment inquiry, a precedent created during the Nixon impeachment process. And without impeachment, it is hard to envision any other way of holding President Bush accountable for the deceptions, exaggerations and misstatements that drove the United States into the tragic war on Iraq.

Finally, it is not essential to finish the entire process of impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate in the few remaining months of this Congress. In the words of the Talmud: you are not required to finish the task, but neither are you free to desist from it. There will not be another opportunity to hold this President accountable in this way; and if we do not act, the signal to future generations is that impeachment, a weapon intended to defend the rule of law, has grown rusty and unusable on our watch.