Comments on: Information wants to be free, but the world isn’t ready

By: Wholewitt

Wholewitt — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:03:39 +0000

I didn’t read any discussion of why should this information be free? If we the taxpayers paid for it, making it free would just give it to our competitors and enemies. Do you see China doing a lot of research and making it available for free on the web? This is a somewhat stupid idea.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:56:13 +0000

Indeed; indeed they could.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:21:26 +0000

They could go for a run.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:18:48 +0000

We have that already, don’t we? It’s called the ‘dole’/unemployment benefit. The employed pay for the unemployed via tax. One would assume that will continue in the future…whoever owns all the robots and makes profit from unemployed people buying their robot goods/services will need to finance these people so they can buy said goods/services….ahhh, that makes sense eh?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:01:47 +0000

All of the good that will come to humanity from the 20% make the 80% irrelevant. I don’t care that they sit and eat Ice Cream. Another way to understand the 80/20 rule is we gain the most advantage from only 20% of what we do. So it is possible than 20% of the time we could be creative and productive and 80% of the time we could just enjoy ourselves – but then again – I also enjoy being creative and productive.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:38:19 +0000

If the need to work gets eliminated, I predict that 20% of humans will cultivate their creativity, and 80% will sit on 20th century sofas watching porn (defined as anything from sexual acts to TMZ to Judge Judy) and eating ice cream.

The 80/20 rule is timeless.

By: asiwel

asiwel — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:01:35 +0000

@hal, I am sorry but your comment is difficult for me to understand, after reading several times. I think I get the first sentence, maybe the second, but the last two just didn’t come through at all. Maybe this is the result of a bad machine translation from another language, perhaps Chinese.

By: Dennis R.

Dennis R. — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:06:46 +0000

Depends on the movie. (BTW, humans as the species with an advanced intelligence seems more like fantasy most days.) But the reaction of a less intelligent species probably wouldn’t be much different than ours if the species were war-like. It would be hard to adjust to the reality that there’s demonstrable proof you are no longer the smartest ones around. We don’t even appreciate “so-called experts” who are our fellow citizens. Why would we expect other life forms to react favorably?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:00:53 +0000

A society like that would fall in on itself. In everything, there must always be contrast; light as opposed to darkness, hot as opposed to cold, consumers as opposed to producers. Where there are the wealthy, there will also be the poor; It’s simply fundamental. In an ideal world, socialism would be the way to go, and our govermental system would be primarily meritocratic, but that is simply impossible with the way things are currently. There are too many people with high ambitions that don’t want to be a part of a whole; they want to be on top, recognized for their achievements and distinct amongst the ordinary and insignificant masses. What would they do if, say, there were no ordinary and insignificant masses?

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:24:21 +0000

…what if we turn out to be the aliens landing on a distant planet someday…. wouldn’t that be an interesting twist on all the alien scifi movies out there…

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:23:07 +0000

Far into the future, it would be interesting to know what humans could or would do if all diseases were fixed….if all energy was unlimited/clean/free if all info was free, if food and water were free/clean/free and all your basic needs met. If previous generations of your family had willed to you assets that eliminated the need for you to work for a living…what would you spend your time doing? (would you invent the next great thing, would you explore the next unknown, or would you drown yourself with the next indulgent pleasure?). Maybe we get to a world where all our needs are met and we have time on our hands to change the world for the better….or we become self indulgent sloths…. Maybe some of each…? Wondering how much greed for example is pushing the development of the next great invention…or is it the creative genius in some that want to do it because it needs to be done or has not been done yet. When I watch some of the ted.com videos from people that seem to have done everything else with their lives (all their basic needs were met a long time ago), they seem to be creating a legacy…or something that changes the world or sounds good on the tombstone, so that gives me hope in humanity.

By: hal

hal — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:11:18 +0000

a sage quote, “life finds a way”. currently, with death serving as a marker of attrition, entropy, and natural selection the herd is culled. Politics, religion, and society will be as different in the future as our view pre-written and oral history humankind offers us. This premise assumes our period of illumination continues to be funded with a cooperative team of bacteria, virus, and astral bodies sharing “tempest in a teapot” time here on planet earth. the winners and losers will little notice the difference after their time.

By: Tom B.

Tom B. — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:03:02 +0000

Autocracy is the embodiment of our roots – survival of the fittest. Capitalism is moderation of autocracy where there can be many “fittest” and the door is always open for anyone fit enough to pass through. Socialism is the higher order of things, but it also has the greatest potential for abuse and reversion back to earlier forms in disguise.

The real question is: how do we get power hungry people to accept their fair share? Until these people become anathema to society, the system will need to have an intrinsic way to deal with them.

One way I have though of to deal with it is to grandfather all wealthy individuals into their money, but not allow any inheritance. Once they’re all dead, we could get rid of money altogether. Of course, if we figure out how to extend life forever before they’re all gone, we’ll need a different solution.

By: hunter

hunter — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:09:34 +0000

why shouldn’t someones worth be based on their ideas? all the progress society has garnered is through rewarding those who contribute. automation will reduce the need for humans and hopefully drastically decrease populations that are filled with parasites like all you “spread the wealth thieves” and leave some breathing room for creators not consumers. breathing doesnt deserve reward.

By: Tony Stender

Tony Stender — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:04:24 +0000

Another alternative is to have the consumers (who fund the world) receive a credit in terms of conserved income as a percentage of their contribution to, the viability of of consumerism as the engine of capitalism.

The current political situation, where the corporations basically become the government, by funding the players, thereby reducing the “citizens” to the role of consumers.

Having created this environment via the Supreme Court, the corporations have altered the governmental power structure to suit their own wishes. SO it seems to me they are now responsible for the well being of the consumers which they have basically dis -enfranchised.

One method is to have the corporations include the consumers in their tent.

Just an idea …. no panic yet!

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:00:50 +0000

Coordination of the basic ideals between those that are affected first. They need to organize. Through peaceful dialog the further ramifications can be anticipated and lessened. Capitalism will try to hold on, but as time goes on it will become more apparent that it can’t. Different measures can be implemented until the old system is totally replaced. The central theme is easy. Consumers need money to consume, even if it has to be given to them. Then it’s a question of fair equity. Should somebody or a country become a gazzillionaire from say asteroid mining? What is our relationship to each other? In Wall Street Money Never Sleeps they talk of morel hazard. Not being responsible with someone else’s money. Should someone have more money than they can spend? What if everyone had more money than they could spend? What if you spent money and everyone got richer even you because we all own everything? How much money would you spend? What happens to the valuations of things? Capitalism is going to fall. It’s a question of why and what will replace it.

By: star0

star0 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:48:11 +0000

That’s a brilliant essay!

I agree with R. U. completely. Loosening the economic pressure cooker is what we need to do, not try to stop the free flow of information.

By: clains

clains — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:45:06 +0000

Optimism as used by David Deutsch: Although problems are inevitable, solutions will always exist, provided the right knowledge is sought out and acquired.

This kind of progressive viewpoint is essential in discussions, for instance, about the potential for political discourse on the internet. There IS a good way to do it. There IS something that would solve the problem we have now. We just have to find the right way to do it, the right solution.

By: DougW

DougW — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:37:51 +0000

Unfortunately, the internet has not eliminated greed and power-lust from the human psyche. The desire of those who control the automation and information empires to gain ever more power is a major problem as we move toward a labor-free world. My real fear is that we eventually end up with a world where a person’s value is determined solely by whether their ideas are marketable. Scary stuff ahead….

By: Spotted Marley

Spotted Marley — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:19:08 +0000

A fantastic idea if ever I heard one. Now if only we could affect change through good ideas…

somebody needs to invent something that does THAT

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:14:36 +0000

“…find a way to…distribute wealth to those rendered economically obsolete. …”

That’s what I’ve been talking about. When automation makes a person obsolete, the instruments of automation must pay the Unemployment and Social Security taxes of the discarded person.