7 ms·

I am unclear as to the author's intent. I expect most people here would find such ideas offensive. And yet so many things seem on the right track. It's the pol

I am unclear as to the author's intent. I expect most people here would find such ideas offensive. And yet so many things seem on the right track. It's the polar opposite of the outrageously inefficient model where everything you use, you own, and for 99.9% of the time, the thing just sits there depreciating or taking up space. Regarding cars, as a city liver who needs a car (but has no driveway or garage), I certainly yearn for a better way. Obviously some things are going to be bothersome, such as the idea of people holding business meetings in your living room when you are away. But I do like the idea of more sharing, and letting go -- at least a bit -- of the urge to own so much stuff.

xwdv 6y ago
The author’s intent is to stimulate rage.
- multjoy 6y ago
  Why would someone’s prediction cause anger? They’re not demanding it or proselytising it as The One True Vision.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jpttsn 6y ago
The very cynical counter argument is rarely spoken: Owning my things provides value even when I’m not using them, because I benefit from excluding other people (my competition) from using them. Example: The sports car locked in my garage helps keep sports cars away from other people, which maintains their benefit of conferring status. It provides utility even if I basically never drive it. This side of human nature is forgotten at our peril.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  It’s not even just exclusion. Can you imagine the scheduling nightmare this would induce? Your personal life would be run minute to minute by your calendar. Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. This article seems to be written from the perspective of someone who likes spending their time in coffee shops and riding their bike around in circles. Might as well be a hamster in a cage. It’s like the millennial version of brave new world, no sex, boring drugs, and the pervasive feeling that no one knows what they’re doing.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    >Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. oh my special personality defects will probably mean I won't ever be able to go anywhere, do anything, and will eventually starve to death under this system.
  - TT3351 6y ago
    I believe the implication is that AI handles this complicated work
  - ohthehugemanate 6y ago
    I do not like the future described in the article... but the scheduling nightmare is not currently the reality with by-the-minute cars, bikes, scooters, meals, groceries, apartments, personal tech, server infra, or home services. What makes you think it would be for other classes of product? If anything it's done away with some of my previous scheduling constraints. No more oil changes or tire rotations! No more grocery trips! Etc etc. Personally I don't like it because in a renter world, the owners have an extraordinary amount of power.
    - throwaway316943 6y ago
      I can’t imagine being able to schedule whether I want to play guitar, exercise, read, or start on a new woodworking project. I pick up my guitar few times a day to practice, not at set times. I exercise either in the morning or the evening depending on my mood and my plans. I’m usually working my way through a few books at a time so I may choose any of them to read. I work on projects when I can squeeze an hour or two in or when I wind up with a free afternoon. None of that would ever happen if I had to block out time for it or wait for the necessities to be delivered. Hell, half the time I don’t even know what I want to build until I rummage through the various fasteners and bits of scrap wood laying around and something strikes my fancy. The same goes for cooking, some of the best meals I’ve made were whipped up from the ingredients I had on hand. A perfectly planned life would be devoid of happy accidents.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  This is critical. As long as we operate in a highly competitive climate, private ownership and rights associated with it become a necessity. Ownership not only legally guarantees your rights but denies others rights (your competition). Even with a well optimized sharing economy inside a highly competitive environment, you'll look for ways to break the optimization process favorable to yourself. If everything schedules at my whim I'll be sure and use the most scarce and difficult to obtain resources to lock them down and trade that time to others for something else I want. Short of living in a post scarcity economy, it would never be feasible.
  - collyw 6y ago
    I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some buddhist monks who give up everything are closer to achieving than anyone in the west.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.
      - collyw 6y ago
        In Europe, particularly in the richer countries such as Scandanavia those are generally not a problem. A few years ago a friend from Denmark said that the whole country had 16 homeless people. Obviously there are people who have problems but I think those run deeper than just not being able to afford the basics.
      - jpttsn 6y ago
stilley2 6y ago
The author states their intent at the bottom > Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.
- mindslight 6y ago
  That disclaimer is completely disingenuous though. The piece is written in language that implies positivity and acceptance. You could take the same objective conditions and write a doomsday narrative - 'I am unable to ever truly relax, because at a moment's notice my living room might be commandeered for a business meeting. Technically I could take it off the market, but then I would have no way to make up for prime time real estate usage and would have to leave the city'. > My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology This is straight out of every sci fi dystopia where those at the privileged productive core are taught to fear and pity the outsiders. Complete with the straw men that the others chose to reject technology, rather than merely rejecting the invisible authoritarianism they're swimming in. Though usually the story is about waking up, rather than how good the dream is. I don't think this piece helps the discussion at all, but is rather just more fuel for the populist-neoreactionary backlash. If this is the future "the elites" are grooming us to accept, then I can understand the desire to burn it all down. The sustainable path forward involves making technology work for us as individuals, rather than abdicating our individual autonomy to opaque systems that are undoubtedly controlled by powerful overlords.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>It's the polar opposite of the outrageously inefficient model where everything you use, you own, and for 99.9% of the time, the thing just sits there depreciating or taking up space. Truly amazing how it's apparently inefficient for ordinary working people to own things that we actually use and enjoy sometimes, but it's perfectly efficient for the investor class to own the fruit of our labors. Honestly, a complete reversal of any real notion of efficiency.
ragnese 6y ago
The only reason I'm not hopping on board the don't-own-stuff train is because the cynic in me believes this is all a ruse by the elite class to further own all productive capital and to render the lower classes even more subservient and dependent on their good graces. If the "1%", so to speak, gave up all their yachts and patents, and ownership of ride-hailing services and farming were fully socialized, then maybe I'd get on board. Until then, I'll believe that this is the wealthy trying to milk even more freedom from us.
globular-toast 6y ago
What's wrong with something sitting there and not being used? It's not causing any extra consumption. It's using space, but I don't wish for a future where I don't even have enough space to keep a personal car. As for sharing everything, it's a good theory but would never work in practice. Have you ever lived with people outside of your family or bubble? Some people are filthy and don't even take care of things they own, let alone things they don't. Are you expecting to be able to select who you are happy to share with?
- lmm 6y ago
  > It's using space, but I don't wish for a future where I don't even have enough space to keep a personal car. I'm already living that present. It's really nice. Walkable neighbourhoods full of interesting things to see and do, because that space isn't being wasted on car storage. > As for sharing everything, it's a good theory but would never work in practice. Have you ever lived with people outside of your family or bubble? Some people are filthy and don't even take care of things they own, let alone things they don't. That seems like a problem that can be solved technologically. Certainly e.g. Zipcars have always been clean when I got in them, somehow.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    I definitely agree with getting cars out of neighbourhoods. I would happily park my car out of town and use my bicycle to go and get it. However, it would only work if everyone was bound by the same rules and I was treated like a first-class road user on my bike. Maybe only affluent people currently use Zipcars. I really don't want to share a car with certain people and neither do you. The more I think about it seems like it would do more to divide people than anything.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Opportunity cost is still a cost and many still decay even unused - it does cause extra consumption by proxy. A renting/sharing everything model would have issues and it is better to have a choice in the matter essentially. Imagine the outrage if some snobby place decided to ban cars with leases or rentals on them from their parking lots or from any renting in a city.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>Obviously some things are going to be bothersome, such as the idea of people holding business meetings in your living room when you are away. and also stupid, since the needs of a business meeting are rather different than the needs of a living room, and living rooms must service all sorts of people and families. And finally families own stuff because kids need and want stuff, you're not going to have your kids favorite doll delivered when they want to play with it.
awb 6y ago
> Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

xwdv 6y ago

The author’s intent is to stimulate rage.

multjoy 6y ago
Why would someone’s prediction cause anger? They’re not demanding it or proselytising it as The One True Vision.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jpttsn 6y ago

The very cynical counter argument is rarely spoken: Owning my things provides value even when I’m not using them, because I benefit from excluding other people (my competition) from using them. Example: The sports car locked in my garage helps keep sports cars away from other people, which maintains their benefit of conferring status. It provides utility even if I basically never drive it. This side of human nature is forgotten at our peril.

throwaway316943 6y ago
It’s not even just exclusion. Can you imagine the scheduling nightmare this would induce? Your personal life would be run minute to minute by your calendar. Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. This article seems to be written from the perspective of someone who likes spending their time in coffee shops and riding their bike around in circles. Might as well be a hamster in a cage. It’s like the millennial version of brave new world, no sex, boring drugs, and the pervasive feeling that no one knows what they’re doing.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >Any time you wanted to do anything it would either have to be booked in advance or you’d have to wait for delivery. oh my special personality defects will probably mean I won't ever be able to go anywhere, do anything, and will eventually starve to death under this system.
- TT3351 6y ago
  I believe the implication is that AI handles this complicated work
- ohthehugemanate 6y ago
  I do not like the future described in the article... but the scheduling nightmare is not currently the reality with by-the-minute cars, bikes, scooters, meals, groceries, apartments, personal tech, server infra, or home services. What makes you think it would be for other classes of product? If anything it's done away with some of my previous scheduling constraints. No more oil changes or tire rotations! No more grocery trips! Etc etc. Personally I don't like it because in a renter world, the owners have an extraordinary amount of power.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    I can’t imagine being able to schedule whether I want to play guitar, exercise, read, or start on a new woodworking project. I pick up my guitar few times a day to practice, not at set times. I exercise either in the morning or the evening depending on my mood and my plans. I’m usually working my way through a few books at a time so I may choose any of them to read. I work on projects when I can squeeze an hour or two in or when I wind up with a free afternoon. None of that would ever happen if I had to block out time for it or wait for the necessities to be delivered. Hell, half the time I don’t even know what I want to build until I rummage through the various fasteners and bits of scrap wood laying around and something strikes my fancy. The same goes for cooking, some of the best meals I’ve made were whipped up from the ingredients I had on hand. A perfectly planned life would be devoid of happy accidents.
Frost1x 6y ago
This is critical. As long as we operate in a highly competitive climate, private ownership and rights associated with it become a necessity. Ownership not only legally guarantees your rights but denies others rights (your competition). Even with a well optimized sharing economy inside a highly competitive environment, you'll look for ways to break the optimization process favorable to yourself. If everything schedules at my whim I'll be sure and use the most scarce and difficult to obtain resources to lock them down and trade that time to others for something else I want. Short of living in a post scarcity economy, it would never be feasible.
- collyw 6y ago
  I feel that "post scarcity" requires some definition. In the west very few people go hungry and the vast majority of people have a mobile phone - something that was an expensive status item just a couple of decades ago. It feels like if we made everything "post scarcity" by today's standard, we would have a load more things that people would be striving to acquire. On the other hand maybe post scarcity is what some buddhist monks who give up everything are closer to achieving than anyone in the west.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    it seems possible that food, water, shelter, and even healthcare could be provided to everyone in the near future, but positional goods will always exist. it will never be possible for everyone to live in a manhattan penthouse, be treated by the best doctors, etc., and people will still compete for access to these things.
    - collyw 6y ago
      In Europe, particularly in the richer countries such as Scandanavia those are generally not a problem. A few years ago a friend from Denmark said that the whole country had 16 homeless people. Obviously there are people who have problems but I think those run deeper than just not being able to afford the basics.
    - jpttsn 6y ago

stilley2 6y ago

The author states their intent at the bottom > Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

mindslight 6y ago
That disclaimer is completely disingenuous though. The piece is written in language that implies positivity and acceptance. You could take the same objective conditions and write a doomsday narrative - 'I am unable to ever truly relax, because at a moment's notice my living room might be commandeered for a business meeting. Technically I could take it off the market, but then I would have no way to make up for prime time real estate usage and would have to leave the city'. > My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology This is straight out of every sci fi dystopia where those at the privileged productive core are taught to fear and pity the outsiders. Complete with the straw men that the others chose to reject technology, rather than merely rejecting the invisible authoritarianism they're swimming in. Though usually the story is about waking up, rather than how good the dream is. I don't think this piece helps the discussion at all, but is rather just more fuel for the populist-neoreactionary backlash. If this is the future "the elites" are grooming us to accept, then I can understand the desire to burn it all down. The sustainable path forward involves making technology work for us as individuals, rather than abdicating our individual autonomy to opaque systems that are undoubtedly controlled by powerful overlords.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

>It's the polar opposite of the outrageously inefficient model where everything you use, you own, and for 99.9% of the time, the thing just sits there depreciating or taking up space. Truly amazing how it's apparently inefficient for ordinary working people to own things that we actually use and enjoy sometimes, but it's perfectly efficient for the investor class to own the fruit of our labors. Honestly, a complete reversal of any real notion of efficiency.

ragnese 6y ago

The only reason I'm not hopping on board the don't-own-stuff train is because the cynic in me believes this is all a ruse by the elite class to further own all productive capital and to render the lower classes even more subservient and dependent on their good graces. If the "1%", so to speak, gave up all their yachts and patents, and ownership of ride-hailing services and farming were fully socialized, then maybe I'd get on board. Until then, I'll believe that this is the wealthy trying to milk even more freedom from us.

globular-toast 6y ago

What's wrong with something sitting there and not being used? It's not causing any extra consumption. It's using space, but I don't wish for a future where I don't even have enough space to keep a personal car. As for sharing everything, it's a good theory but would never work in practice. Have you ever lived with people outside of your family or bubble? Some people are filthy and don't even take care of things they own, let alone things they don't. Are you expecting to be able to select who you are happy to share with?

lmm 6y ago
> It's using space, but I don't wish for a future where I don't even have enough space to keep a personal car. I'm already living that present. It's really nice. Walkable neighbourhoods full of interesting things to see and do, because that space isn't being wasted on car storage. > As for sharing everything, it's a good theory but would never work in practice. Have you ever lived with people outside of your family or bubble? Some people are filthy and don't even take care of things they own, let alone things they don't. That seems like a problem that can be solved technologically. Certainly e.g. Zipcars have always been clean when I got in them, somehow.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  I definitely agree with getting cars out of neighbourhoods. I would happily park my car out of town and use my bicycle to go and get it. However, it would only work if everyone was bound by the same rules and I was treated like a first-class road user on my bike. Maybe only affluent people currently use Zipcars. I really don't want to share a car with certain people and neither do you. The more I think about it seems like it would do more to divide people than anything.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Opportunity cost is still a cost and many still decay even unused - it does cause extra consumption by proxy. A renting/sharing everything model would have issues and it is better to have a choice in the matter essentially. Imagine the outrage if some snobby place decided to ban cars with leases or rentals on them from their parking lots or from any renting in a city.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>Obviously some things are going to be bothersome, such as the idea of people holding business meetings in your living room when you are away. and also stupid, since the needs of a business meeting are rather different than the needs of a living room, and living rooms must service all sorts of people and families. And finally families own stuff because kids need and want stuff, you're not going to have your kids favorite doll delivered when they want to play with it.

awb 6y ago

> Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.