4 ms·

An excellent sentiment, but it must be noted that this is a very transient time, both technologically and socioeconomically. The current situation in Europe is

by FD3SA 13y ago

An excellent sentiment, but it must be noted that this is a very transient time, both technologically and socioeconomically. The current situation in Europe is a canary in the coal mine for the developed world, as technology fiercely marches on and makes plebs of the middle class and rulers of the lucky few who can capitalize on this technological upheaval. I'm far more interested in conversations regarding where we are headed, rather than from whence we've came [1]. 1. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robo...

thebear 13y ago
I'm far more interested in conversations regarding where we are headed, rather than from whence we've came Can you have the former without the latter?
rdtsc 13y ago
> I'm far more interested in conversations regarding where we are headed, rather than from whence we've came [1]. Interesting, I can think of a number of issues: 1) Rising inequality in the Western World. And the article you pointed out really shows the end result -- robots replacing people. That has been happening with industrialization for a while now. But now robots can build robots and the ones who will have the power will be the ones who will control the robots that build the robot factories. Kind of like meta robotics (I am sure there is a more defined term or concept that I am just not familiar with here). What happens to all the masses then. Robots make us food, do our work for us, and what do the average number of people do? State sponsored welfare? Just get a check every month enough to buy food and shelter and then play video games. There is thought that it actually wouldn't be that bad to have a direct subsidy like that but it would be a complete anathema according to certain other political and economic principles. Resources will be become the final bottleneck? Maybe even with robots we can't grow enough corn. 2) Related to the above there is some notion of "trickle-down" effect. Not related to wealth necessarily but related to technology, where countries can jump from agrarian or tribal life straight to using cell phones. That's pretty interesting. Idealistic perhaps, as I doubt that in an of itself will make a dramatic difference in their quality of life but it is good to keep an eye on that. What happens if even the most poor eventually have access to smart phones? Does it help them put food on the table in the evening? 3) Related to 2) -- information becomes unchained. The real globalization happens when groups of citizens can communicate with each other directly rather than goings through official propaganda and power control channels. Sort of stuff we saw with Arab Spring, now Turkey. This is kind of stuff is really interesting. Apparent stability to a large state of revolt in <24hrs is pretty impressive. 4) Back-pressure starts building from entrenched interests (countries, governments, traditional gatekeepers). The idea that there is citizenship and you can't just move from one part of the world to another unless you are a large multinational corporation, is here now, does it make sense, who does it benefit? The desire to de-anonymize sharing of information. I can see cryptography becoming illegal in many contexts. DRM being shoved into more devices -- on one side yay, more people have access to information!", on another, "oh but they only get locked down controlled, filtered and monitored information coming from a few distribution channel monopolies". Religious, nationalism, fear was/is a very good mass control lever. Maybe that won't work as well going forward? But what will?

by FD3SA 13y ago

thebear 13y ago

I'm far more interested in conversations regarding where we are headed, rather than from whence we've came Can you have the former without the latter?

rdtsc 13y ago

> I'm far more interested in conversations regarding where we are headed, rather than from whence we've came [1]. Interesting, I can think of a number of issues: 1) Rising inequality in the Western World. And the article you pointed out really shows the end result -- robots replacing people. That has been happening with industrialization for a while now. But now robots can build robots and the ones who will have the power will be the ones who will control the robots that build the robot factories. Kind of like meta robotics (I am sure there is a more defined term or concept that I am just not familiar with here). What happens to all the masses then. Robots make us food, do our work for us, and what do the average number of people do? State sponsored welfare? Just get a check every month enough to buy food and shelter and then play video games. There is thought that it actually wouldn't be that bad to have a direct subsidy like that but it would be a complete anathema according to certain other political and economic principles. Resources will be become the final bottleneck? Maybe even with robots we can't grow enough corn. 2) Related to the above there is some notion of "trickle-down" effect. Not related to wealth necessarily but related to technology, where countries can jump from agrarian or tribal life straight to using cell phones. That's pretty interesting. Idealistic perhaps, as I doubt that in an of itself will make a dramatic difference in their quality of life but it is good to keep an eye on that. What happens if even the most poor eventually have access to smart phones? Does it help them put food on the table in the evening? 3) Related to 2) -- information becomes unchained. The real globalization happens when groups of citizens can communicate with each other directly rather than goings through official propaganda and power control channels. Sort of stuff we saw with Arab Spring, now Turkey. This is kind of stuff is really interesting. Apparent stability to a large state of revolt in <24hrs is pretty impressive. 4) Back-pressure starts building from entrenched interests (countries, governments, traditional gatekeepers). The idea that there is citizenship and you can't just move from one part of the world to another unless you are a large multinational corporation, is here now, does it make sense, who does it benefit? The desire to de-anonymize sharing of information. I can see cryptography becoming illegal in many contexts. DRM being shoved into more devices -- on one side yay, more people have access to information!", on another, "oh but they only get locked down controlled, filtered and monitored information coming from a few distribution channel monopolies". Religious, nationalism, fear was/is a very good mass control lever. Maybe that won't work as well going forward? But what will?