6 ms·

And this future would be even less evenly distributed than the one which exists now, which would lead to even more unrest which the state might try to quell wit

And this future would be even less evenly distributed than the one which exists now, which would lead to even more unrest which the state might try to quell with even more violence. So let's spend a quarter of the money spent on state-violence on future tech, and another quarter on health, education, liberty and peace in the developing world. I think on some level the Bill Gates philanthropist types are doing their charity because they realize that if the future moves too far and too fast then the bottom half just might rise up and destroy it.

cm3 10y ago
I mostly agree, though I'm not sure if Gates and friends are scared of an uprising. With better and fact-based education we can solve a lot. I don't mean training for jobs, I mean education as a means to, say, reduce killing each other or making more efficient use of earth's resources. For instance, the best way to fix the problem of people flocking to extremist leaders is more education on all sides. The unknown is scary enough for many people that it's used for them to be led to believe simplified but factually wrong explanations for issues they face.
- phd514 10y ago
  The sentiment that education can solve a lot of societal problems is a popular one, especially on HN, but it presumes that people's outlook and worldview are primarily or at least substantially influenced by "facts" and introduction to a sufficient number of such facts will result in the adoption of a better worldview for whatever definition of "better" you prefer. In reality, people are much more influenced by those with whom they associate whether those links be tribal, familial, political, etc. Each of those groups has a narrative for how the world works and facts that challenge that narrative are downplayed or ignored while facts that support that narrative are promoted. There are those whose associations change dramatically as a result of confronting facts that challenged the narrative of their group, often combined with some sort of personal crisis, but they are among the minority. Most of us go through our lives without seriously challenging the basic narrative of our associates and increasing our exposure to facts isn't going to change that.
  - cm3 10y ago
    You're have a point, though if we can reduce the amount of people that are clueless about important facts, that will also reduce the pool of new recruits into their ideologies. This is not a cure for vocal minorities spreading dangerous lies, but the more people know and understand the truth, the less there will be who are, for lack of a better word, gullible in certain topics.
    - visarga 10y ago
      I think societal unrest doesn't necessarily come from lack of education, but from the perceived feeling that parts of society are disenfranchised, a feeling of powerlessness, of being against a "corrupt system" that does not have their best interest at heart. It's the lack of social mobility, or perceived lack of social mobility that causes unrest.
      - cm3 10y ago
        I was talking about extremist leaders recruiting people, and your point is true. With better education those who are oppressed are actually more likely to take notice and "rebel". I wrote in a sibling comment that everyone should be better educated, including oppressors, thereby ideally making them realize that it's a short-term game they're playing, for example.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    That's because part of education is learning to think critically, which specifically means learning to overcome those biases you mention. You say "in reality" as if those supporting education are't aware of human nature, but it's precisely because they are aware that they want people to be better educated, it helps overcome the petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated. You're incorrect about what it presumes; valuing facts is something most people need to be taught. That's why there's always a push for education, otherwise you end up with Trumpism.
    - nikcheerla 10y ago
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Remember, Gates' and Zuckerberg's wealth is the product of society itself -- the reason they are so "wealthy" is because we believe in and partake in a system that reinforces their wealth and high value. The biggest threat to their wealth would be a collapse of the current society -- the status quo -- and so, although they may have SOME material goods (okay, more than most others), the vast majority of the value of what that they have is merely on paper or "stock," whose value is determined entirely socially. Of course, their value could vanish in an instant if society no longer believes in their wealth or the system that proliferated it. Granted, it would take a "total collapse" (and resultant lack of faith in our economic system) for this to happen, but historically, societies don't fail gradually or softly, they implode. A real life example of such a loss of "faith" in a massive quantity of wealth that isn't civilization-scale such as the fall of the Roman Empire (as recent in history as it is) on an individual-scale would be Theranos and the instantaneous deflation of Holmes' net worth from a socially propped-up "cool billion" to zilch. People en masse generally don't take too well to mass corruption. Over history, the average lifespan of a social empire has been 300 years, and the western-dominated global sociopolitical landscape est. 1776 (largely a product of American military superiority and foreign interventionalism) is now getting a little long in the tooth. It's in their best interest to keep giving the masses their opiate.
yomly 10y ago
Can't upvote this enough. I was recently at a talk by Kenneth Cukier from the Economist and he discussed how our economic climate is similar to the early days of the industrial revolution - inequality is increasing as jobs are being eroded by technology. In the short term, this actually causes problems as a whole generation are essentially displaced by technology and are not able to reskill, but in the long term the next generation inherit the right skill base to benefit from the new trajectory of civilization and mass prosperity is achieved. The problem is that individuals often cannot see the bigger picture. It also does not necessarily follow that individuals benefit from aggregate wealth creation. If you are unemployed (by technology) and can no longer feed yourself or your dependents why do you really care that goods are now available cheaper and can be delivered 247: you still can't afford them. If in your lifetime technology only brought starvation upon you, why should you care that future generations will benefit. Last I checked, we are not indoctrinated from young to be altruistic martyrs for humanity nor do I recall that being a basic human instinct either. So displacement is a somewhat inevitable outcome from mass technological disruption. It's very easy to champion progress when you're on the winning side, and ultimately progress is important. It falls to the powerful (the wealthy like Gates and Zuckerberg) and nation States to protect the interest of all citizens to make sure everyone's basic rights are still preserved. Especially over trasitory eras such as the current one.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >but in the long term the next generation inherit the right skill base to benefit from the new trajectory of civilization and mass prosperity is achieved. I don't think we have enough examples from history to make this in some kind of universal law. Mass prosperity might just as well NOT be achieved.
- incongruity 10y ago
  Is there any chance you have a link to the talk or related content? That sounds worth watching...
  - yomly 10y ago
    This is the talk [0]. It was interesting, although in the talk he only addressed the issue of erosion of jobs quite briefly. He spent more time how AI was augmenting/disrupting a variety of industries. It was more of a penny drop moment for me than an in-depth discussion on that particular topic. The talks were filmed so they may be accessible somewhere, though I know the speaker writes on the subject so his writing may be more readily accessible. As a free tip/shameless preach a book which has impacted me greatly recently is Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt[1]. The more people that read this book, the better. [0] http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-eu/public/schedule/detail/53261 http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-eu/pub... [1]https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143118765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471382879&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=ill+fares+the+land https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143118765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=...
kelvin0 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. Are you saying if there are too many technological advances, the 'bottom' population will uprise? And you mention industrial revolution as a case in point? Please clatify if I'm mistaken... The industrial revolution did not seek the advancement of mankind, but mostly the financial advancement of a few fortunate wealthy 'barons'. I think the your comment`s Parent is meant to signify that if we stop focusing on fear and the spread of violence and instead focus on solutions which are all inclusive, we would be better off (this I agree with).
- visarga 10y ago
  Yep, it's not about technology, more about concentration of power and its effects on society. Technological advancements are massive opportunities for power grabs.
- idrios 10y ago
  He's not saying if there are too many, he's saying if it happens too fast. If all of our cars became self-driving tomorrow, and the American Trucker Association's estimates are correct [1], then 3 million truck drivers will suddenly be out of of jobs. We live in the real world so change doesn't happen overnight, but if truck driving becomes out-moded significantly faster than a truck driver could learn a new skill, then the displaced population will riot because they worked hard and did nothing wrong their whole lives and machines replaced them anyway. And this is true for nearly all blue-collar and some white-collar workers, whose jobs would be threatened by advancements and automation made in their sector [1] http://www.trucking.org/News_and_Information_Reports_Industry_Data.aspx http://www.trucking.org/News_and_Information_Reports_Industr... (2010)
noobermin 10y ago
>another quarter on health, education, liberty and peace in the developing world. At least for part of it, in the US, almost half of spending is spent on welfare: social security and healthcare[0]. The problem is more nuanced than just "cutting defense" to make it 29% instead of 25%. I'm a pretty liberal guy, and I think a public option would eventually be cheaper in the long run than obamacare or what we had before, but I am under no delusion that simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. Academia requires more money, I agree. But what accounts for a quarter of spending already requires new ideas, not more money. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...
- MaysonL 10y ago
  Social Security and healthcare payments from the federal government are mainly insurance programs.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Social Security is paid for as an insurance program, however, an overwhelming majority collect. Medicare is somewhat more direct afaik...
visarga 10y ago
> this future would be even less evenly distributed than the one which exists now I see a pattern: - Windows desktop monopoly -> MS makes billions while other software companies get crumbs - FB social networking monopoly -> ad money collects to FB while regular businesses struggle to make advertising pay - Apple store -> millions of app devs lose money while Apple becomes the most valuable company on back of their apps - Recording labels have huge market share -> artists are poor and lose the rights to their own creations by signing unfair contracts - Middle east oil money in the hands of a few arabs -> massive unrest in the region, state sponsored religion indoctrination, culminating in wars and terrorism It so happens that accumulating massive wealth and power in the hands of a few leaves the rest of the population high an dry, frustrated and with lots of issues.
- ams6110 10y ago
  - Microsoft employs thousands and thousands of people. - Facebook employs thousands and thousands of people. - Apple employs thousands and thousands of people. - Record labels employ thousands and thousands of people. - One of these things is not like the others.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Don't forget Apple's app stores giving billions to devs, the billions made by software vendors making windows software, Facebook's platforms generated lots of revenue for other businesses, etc, etc.
rando444 10y ago
Why not try and solve the distribution problem? Obviously those that do have do not want to distribute what they feel belongs to them, but this has been the case for forever. It's just a question of 'how much is too much'. IMHO, Einstein had a great idea. While he's not known for his political beliefs, he did have them, and theorized a societal structure where the richest person could be up to, but not more than 10 times richer than the poorest person. While it's obviously difficult to impossible to easily implement, I do believe that having a more evenly distributed society would solve most of humanity's violence problems, and maintaining some level of hierarchy based on merit/effort allows for healthy growth and positive incentives.

cm3 10y ago

I mostly agree, though I'm not sure if Gates and friends are scared of an uprising. With better and fact-based education we can solve a lot. I don't mean training for jobs, I mean education as a means to, say, reduce killing each other or making more efficient use of earth's resources. For instance, the best way to fix the problem of people flocking to extremist leaders is more education on all sides. The unknown is scary enough for many people that it's used for them to be led to believe simplified but factually wrong explanations for issues they face.

phd514 10y ago
The sentiment that education can solve a lot of societal problems is a popular one, especially on HN, but it presumes that people's outlook and worldview are primarily or at least substantially influenced by "facts" and introduction to a sufficient number of such facts will result in the adoption of a better worldview for whatever definition of "better" you prefer. In reality, people are much more influenced by those with whom they associate whether those links be tribal, familial, political, etc. Each of those groups has a narrative for how the world works and facts that challenge that narrative are downplayed or ignored while facts that support that narrative are promoted. There are those whose associations change dramatically as a result of confronting facts that challenged the narrative of their group, often combined with some sort of personal crisis, but they are among the minority. Most of us go through our lives without seriously challenging the basic narrative of our associates and increasing our exposure to facts isn't going to change that.
- cm3 10y ago
  You're have a point, though if we can reduce the amount of people that are clueless about important facts, that will also reduce the pool of new recruits into their ideologies. This is not a cure for vocal minorities spreading dangerous lies, but the more people know and understand the truth, the less there will be who are, for lack of a better word, gullible in certain topics.
  - visarga 10y ago
    I think societal unrest doesn't necessarily come from lack of education, but from the perceived feeling that parts of society are disenfranchised, a feeling of powerlessness, of being against a "corrupt system" that does not have their best interest at heart. It's the lack of social mobility, or perceived lack of social mobility that causes unrest.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I was talking about extremist leaders recruiting people, and your point is true. With better education those who are oppressed are actually more likely to take notice and "rebel". I wrote in a sibling comment that everyone should be better educated, including oppressors, thereby ideally making them realize that it's a short-term game they're playing, for example.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  That's because part of education is learning to think critically, which specifically means learning to overcome those biases you mention. You say "in reality" as if those supporting education are't aware of human nature, but it's precisely because they are aware that they want people to be better educated, it helps overcome the petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated. You're incorrect about what it presumes; valuing facts is something most people need to be taught. That's why there's always a push for education, otherwise you end up with Trumpism.
  - nikcheerla 10y ago
Hydraulix989 10y ago
Remember, Gates' and Zuckerberg's wealth is the product of society itself -- the reason they are so "wealthy" is because we believe in and partake in a system that reinforces their wealth and high value. The biggest threat to their wealth would be a collapse of the current society -- the status quo -- and so, although they may have SOME material goods (okay, more than most others), the vast majority of the value of what that they have is merely on paper or "stock," whose value is determined entirely socially. Of course, their value could vanish in an instant if society no longer believes in their wealth or the system that proliferated it. Granted, it would take a "total collapse" (and resultant lack of faith in our economic system) for this to happen, but historically, societies don't fail gradually or softly, they implode. A real life example of such a loss of "faith" in a massive quantity of wealth that isn't civilization-scale such as the fall of the Roman Empire (as recent in history as it is) on an individual-scale would be Theranos and the instantaneous deflation of Holmes' net worth from a socially propped-up "cool billion" to zilch. People en masse generally don't take too well to mass corruption. Over history, the average lifespan of a social empire has been 300 years, and the western-dominated global sociopolitical landscape est. 1776 (largely a product of American military superiority and foreign interventionalism) is now getting a little long in the tooth. It's in their best interest to keep giving the masses their opiate.

yomly 10y ago

Can't upvote this enough. I was recently at a talk by Kenneth Cukier from the Economist and he discussed how our economic climate is similar to the early days of the industrial revolution - inequality is increasing as jobs are being eroded by technology. In the short term, this actually causes problems as a whole generation are essentially displaced by technology and are not able to reskill, but in the long term the next generation inherit the right skill base to benefit from the new trajectory of civilization and mass prosperity is achieved. The problem is that individuals often cannot see the bigger picture. It also does not necessarily follow that individuals benefit from aggregate wealth creation. If you are unemployed (by technology) and can no longer feed yourself or your dependents why do you really care that goods are now available cheaper and can be delivered 247: you still can't afford them. If in your lifetime technology only brought starvation upon you, why should you care that future generations will benefit. Last I checked, we are not indoctrinated from young to be altruistic martyrs for humanity nor do I recall that being a basic human instinct either. So displacement is a somewhat inevitable outcome from mass technological disruption. It's very easy to champion progress when you're on the winning side, and ultimately progress is important. It falls to the powerful (the wealthy like Gates and Zuckerberg) and nation States to protect the interest of all citizens to make sure everyone's basic rights are still preserved. Especially over trasitory eras such as the current one.

coldtea 10y ago
>but in the long term the next generation inherit the right skill base to benefit from the new trajectory of civilization and mass prosperity is achieved. I don't think we have enough examples from history to make this in some kind of universal law. Mass prosperity might just as well NOT be achieved.
incongruity 10y ago
Is there any chance you have a link to the talk or related content? That sounds worth watching...
- yomly 10y ago
  This is the talk [0]. It was interesting, although in the talk he only addressed the issue of erosion of jobs quite briefly. He spent more time how AI was augmenting/disrupting a variety of industries. It was more of a penny drop moment for me than an in-depth discussion on that particular topic. The talks were filmed so they may be accessible somewhere, though I know the speaker writes on the subject so his writing may be more readily accessible. As a free tip/shameless preach a book which has impacted me greatly recently is Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt[1]. The more people that read this book, the better. [0] http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-eu/public/schedule/detail/53261 http://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/hadoop-big-data-eu/pub... [1]https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143118765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471382879&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=ill+fares+the+land https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143118765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=...

kelvin0 10y ago

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. Are you saying if there are too many technological advances, the 'bottom' population will uprise? And you mention industrial revolution as a case in point? Please clatify if I'm mistaken... The industrial revolution did not seek the advancement of mankind, but mostly the financial advancement of a few fortunate wealthy 'barons'. I think the your comment`s Parent is meant to signify that if we stop focusing on fear and the spread of violence and instead focus on solutions which are all inclusive, we would be better off (this I agree with).

visarga 10y ago
Yep, it's not about technology, more about concentration of power and its effects on society. Technological advancements are massive opportunities for power grabs.
idrios 10y ago
He's not saying if there are too many, he's saying if it happens too fast. If all of our cars became self-driving tomorrow, and the American Trucker Association's estimates are correct [1], then 3 million truck drivers will suddenly be out of of jobs. We live in the real world so change doesn't happen overnight, but if truck driving becomes out-moded significantly faster than a truck driver could learn a new skill, then the displaced population will riot because they worked hard and did nothing wrong their whole lives and machines replaced them anyway. And this is true for nearly all blue-collar and some white-collar workers, whose jobs would be threatened by advancements and automation made in their sector [1] http://www.trucking.org/News_and_Information_Reports_Industry_Data.aspx http://www.trucking.org/News_and_Information_Reports_Industr... (2010)

noobermin 10y ago

>another quarter on health, education, liberty and peace in the developing world. At least for part of it, in the US, almost half of spending is spent on welfare: social security and healthcare[0]. The problem is more nuanced than just "cutting defense" to make it 29% instead of 25%. I'm a pretty liberal guy, and I think a public option would eventually be cheaper in the long run than obamacare or what we had before, but I am under no delusion that simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. Academia requires more money, I agree. But what accounts for a quarter of spending already requires new ideas, not more money. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...

MaysonL 10y ago
Social Security and healthcare payments from the federal government are mainly insurance programs.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Social Security is paid for as an insurance program, however, an overwhelming majority collect. Medicare is somewhat more direct afaik...

visarga 10y ago

> this future would be even less evenly distributed than the one which exists now I see a pattern: - Windows desktop monopoly -> MS makes billions while other software companies get crumbs - FB social networking monopoly -> ad money collects to FB while regular businesses struggle to make advertising pay - Apple store -> millions of app devs lose money while Apple becomes the most valuable company on back of their apps - Recording labels have huge market share -> artists are poor and lose the rights to their own creations by signing unfair contracts - Middle east oil money in the hands of a few arabs -> massive unrest in the region, state sponsored religion indoctrination, culminating in wars and terrorism It so happens that accumulating massive wealth and power in the hands of a few leaves the rest of the population high an dry, frustrated and with lots of issues.

ams6110 10y ago
- Microsoft employs thousands and thousands of people. - Facebook employs thousands and thousands of people. - Apple employs thousands and thousands of people. - Record labels employ thousands and thousands of people. - One of these things is not like the others.
- dmix 10y ago
  Don't forget Apple's app stores giving billions to devs, the billions made by software vendors making windows software, Facebook's platforms generated lots of revenue for other businesses, etc, etc.

rando444 10y ago

Why not try and solve the distribution problem? Obviously those that do have do not want to distribute what they feel belongs to them, but this has been the case for forever. It's just a question of 'how much is too much'. IMHO, Einstein had a great idea. While he's not known for his political beliefs, he did have them, and theorized a societal structure where the richest person could be up to, but not more than 10 times richer than the poorest person. While it's obviously difficult to impossible to easily implement, I do believe that having a more evenly distributed society would solve most of humanity's violence problems, and maintaining some level of hierarchy based on merit/effort allows for healthy growth and positive incentives.