The future is nigh, and it might not be good.
Hello my fellow technophiles, technophobes, conspiracy theorists and...liberals. I came across an interesting article today in The Guardian about the coming 4th technological revolution. Interesting ideas - what they boil down to is pretty simple though: The more we automate, the more machine learning, AI, nanotech, etc. take over our industries (I'm looking at you manufacturing, mining, transportation, construction, service delivery, finance, medicine and public safety/warfare - not to mention math, science, engineering, etc.), the more consolidated wealth is going to get.
As if it wasn't already consolidated enough. But ultimately what The Guardian is saying is that there will be less for the rest of us. Why? Jobs, obviously. No job, no money. But also - to make money off of these new technologies, you either need to have a lot of money to invest in it (Elon Musk style) or you have to be able to create/refine it (Musk again). Seriously, has anyone else noticed that the guy looks like a Bond villain?
I've thought about this subject a lot. I've written a book that, shameless plug, is set in a universe centuries after we played with all of these fires, got ourselves burned, and walked ourselves back from the proverbial abyss. Sort of - that's the fun part about fiction - you get to blur the lines wherever you like for the sake of plot. Or allegory.
Now, do I think the next few decades will be apocalyptic? Not really. We tend to lurch on as a species, although sometimes the cost of our lurching is ridiculously high. What I'd like is a rate of change that is gradual and organized enough to evoke a reasonable, timely social response. And I want that response to be logical and empathetic enough to ensure we're not wholesale leaving people behind. I can't say the same for some of our institutions, which shall remain nameless - some of those can go.
Now, I include myself in the prospective left-behinders. I'm an office worker primarily and a content creator second. Becoming a starving artist as a fallback plan does not appeal to me. So either I'll have to figure out another way forward - possibly when I'm at an age where that will be very hard, or I'll have to up my creative game. And get a lot better at the making money thing.
The problem with this kind of hope is that history doesn't seem to agree with me. Each technological revolution or episode of major social upheaval sees its share of winners and losers. Those who anticipate the change correctly end up cleaning up nicely. If you need evidence of those ahead of the curve, just Google Facebook, Bitcoin and Tesla. Once they might have been a joke, but now they're some of the largest success stories of our time.
The problem with social responses though, is that they usually start at street level and, eventually, have to be picked up by governments. Only by the time that happens and governments get involved, it's usually too little, too late - or too ineffective to be of much help. So, as unfortunate as it is for some of us, our future will likely come down to this choice: adapt or perish. And by perish, I don't mean die off. I mean watch while your ability to participate in and understand the world as it exists diminishes over time. Then you'll die.
As if it wasn't already consolidated enough. But ultimately what The Guardian is saying is that there will be less for the rest of us. Why? Jobs, obviously. No job, no money. But also - to make money off of these new technologies, you either need to have a lot of money to invest in it (Elon Musk style) or you have to be able to create/refine it (Musk again). Seriously, has anyone else noticed that the guy looks like a Bond villain?
I've thought about this subject a lot. I've written a book that, shameless plug, is set in a universe centuries after we played with all of these fires, got ourselves burned, and walked ourselves back from the proverbial abyss. Sort of - that's the fun part about fiction - you get to blur the lines wherever you like for the sake of plot. Or allegory.
Now, do I think the next few decades will be apocalyptic? Not really. We tend to lurch on as a species, although sometimes the cost of our lurching is ridiculously high. What I'd like is a rate of change that is gradual and organized enough to evoke a reasonable, timely social response. And I want that response to be logical and empathetic enough to ensure we're not wholesale leaving people behind. I can't say the same for some of our institutions, which shall remain nameless - some of those can go.
Now, I include myself in the prospective left-behinders. I'm an office worker primarily and a content creator second. Becoming a starving artist as a fallback plan does not appeal to me. So either I'll have to figure out another way forward - possibly when I'm at an age where that will be very hard, or I'll have to up my creative game. And get a lot better at the making money thing.
The problem with this kind of hope is that history doesn't seem to agree with me. Each technological revolution or episode of major social upheaval sees its share of winners and losers. Those who anticipate the change correctly end up cleaning up nicely. If you need evidence of those ahead of the curve, just Google Facebook, Bitcoin and Tesla. Once they might have been a joke, but now they're some of the largest success stories of our time.
The problem with social responses though, is that they usually start at street level and, eventually, have to be picked up by governments. Only by the time that happens and governments get involved, it's usually too little, too late - or too ineffective to be of much help. So, as unfortunate as it is for some of us, our future will likely come down to this choice: adapt or perish. And by perish, I don't mean die off. I mean watch while your ability to participate in and understand the world as it exists diminishes over time. Then you'll die.
Comments