A More Better Future
A review of Abundance: Why The Future Will Be Much Better Than You Think by X Prize guru Peter Diamandis and journalist Steven Kotler.
Woe is us! Our overpopulated and overheated world is running out of water, food, and nonrenewable resources, all the while menaced by natural and bioterror pandemics. As The Limits to Growth famously predicted 40 years ago, exponential growth in population, resource depletion, and pollution are leading inexorably to civilizational collapse. Most readers will be familiar with this conventional lament of impending doom.
Now comes X Prize guru Peter Diamandis and journalist Steven Kotler with their new book, Abundance: Why the Future Will Be Much Better Than You Think. Are they insane? Everyone knows that things are getting worse in this worst of all times.
"Humanity is now entering a period of radical transformation in which technology has the potential to significantly raise the basic standards of living for every man, woman and child on the planet," assert Diamandis and Kotler. "Abundance for all is within our grasp." How? The way to beat doomy exponentials is to outrun them with boomy exponentials. Diamandis and Kotler argue that radical progress in overcoming scarcity will be driven chiefly by the transformative application of information and communication technologies to the world's hardest problems.
Diamandis and Kotler begin by asking, why do so many of us despair of the future? They note that natural selection has shaped our brains to be hyper-vigilant about threats. The result is negativity bias, that is, a disproprotionate focus on negative infomation and experiences. Comparatively rare bad news crowds out the more plentiful good—and we believe the world is going ever faster straight to hell.
The two abundance visionaries strongly counter that, in fact, much of humanity has never had it better and that in 25 years everybody could have the access to the resources and knowledge to live fulfilling lives. They point out that doomsters only see the slices of the pie getting smaller; meanwhile, exponential technological progress is creating more pies for everyone.
Solutions to various scarcities don't just add up, they multiply. For example, access to clean water produces positive feedbacks that address and reduce other scarcities. Supplying clean water means that far fewer poor children die of waterborne illnesses, which results in lowered infant mortality rates and thus leads to lower population growth rates, which enables women to join the paid labor force and provide more family resources for educating their less-numerous kids, and so forth.
Diamandis and Kotler liken the spread of the technologies of abundance to the exponential expansion of mobile phone technology throughout the world. In 1990, there were 10 million mobile phone subscribers; today there are more than 5.6 billion. World population is just over 7 billion. So what other exponential technologies might secure global abundance in a generation?
They stack the "grand challenges" that stand between now and reaching global abundance into a three-tiered pyramid. At the base of their pyramid are the challenges of getting enough clean water, good food, and shelter to the truly impoverished. The next tier is supplying abundant energy, ample educational opportunities, and access to ubiquitous communications and information. Freedom and health cap their third tier.
Today, a billion people in the bottom tier of the pyramid lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion to basic sanitation. Diamandis and Kotler cite promising research on new nanofilters for cleaning water and smart grid technologies to dramatically reduce water losses from leaks and cut irrigation water needs nearly in half. Other researchers are working on toilets that turn feces into ash and flash evaporate urine.
On food, while the two techno-idealists mistakenly discount the significant achievements of the Green Revolution based on misinformation peddled by charlatan activists like Vandana Shiva, they do properly celebrate the real contribution that biotech crops have made and will make to boosting farm productivity and reducing hunger in poor countries. While pointing to the success of aquaculture in producing protein, they miss the fact that fisheries being open access commons are the cause of overfishing. They highlight the progress being made toward growing cultured meat in vats.
Fueling exponential technological progress will be a growing cadre of do-it-yourself (DIY) innovators. In a highly connected world, small groups are collaborating to solve problems quickly that bureaucracy-heavy governments and corporations would take years to do. They cite the examples of DIY Drones, which developed autonomous unmanned air vehicles at a fraction of the cost of military contractors. And DIY biologists are creating a tool-kit of standard interchangeable biological parts that can be used to create organisms to clean oil spills or vaccines.
Another positive trend is the increasing integration of the poorest people into the opportunities afforded them by the global economy. Entrepreneurs are figuring out that even poor people have money to spend. For example, Ruf N Tuf jeans are sold as ready to stitch kits costing a tenth the price of regular jeans (although consumers may already be moving up the quality curve on jeans). Dematerialization means that more and more functionality is crammed into less and less material. Consider all the goods and services now available through the average smart phone: cameras, radios, TVs, Web browsers, recording studios, GPS, word processors, flashlights, board and video games, encyclopedias, maps, translators, and more.
On the next tier of their pyramid stands energy and education. Today, one and a half billion people are still without access to electricity. Diamandis and Kotler argue that a future of energy abundance will result from improved solar power, new battery technologies, low energy LED lighting, and traveling wave reactors generate electricity for 50 years while burning nuclear waste as fuel. Algae might produce liquid transport fuels. Schools will be leapfrogged by personalized education will be delivered by cheap laptops connected wirelessly to the Internet.
At the top of their pyramid is health care and freedom. Diamandis and Kotler point out that the last century has seen huge increases in life expectancy from 35 years to 67 years around the globe. They outline a future in which doctors and patients have access to all the world's medical information and diagnostics through lab-on-a-chips connected to their cell phones. They do suggest that "the rigorous, somewhat calcified, nature of the first-world health care regulatory process" will result in health care breakthroughs being made in other parts of the world. Laboratories will quickly concoct personalized treatments for each patient; perhaps even using 3-D printers to produce organs for transplant.
With regard to freedom, the main flaw of this book is that it is almost entirely devoid of any consideration of the institutional requirements that have enabled technological progress they celebrate to occur, namely, the rule of law, property rights, market economies, and free speech. Perhaps Diamandis and Kotler assume that as people around the globe become more prosperous as the result of technological progress they will demand and achieve more social and political liberty.
Nevertheless, the spread of new information technologies is critical for securing and maintaining political freedom and holding governments accountable. Just today, The Washington Post is reporting how the operation of a new website in Kenya, ipaidabribe, is being used to combat pervasive corruption in that country.
Of course, technologies in the wrong hands can hurt rather than help. Diamandis and Kotler briefly look at the threats of bioterrorism, cybercrime, and technological unemployment. Bioterrorism is best combatted by open and broadly distributed technological capability. Cybercrime has no silver bullet solutions, although software that updates itself and plugs security holes would help. Employment is how we earn the wherewithal needed to survive in a world of scarcity; abundance will enable people to pursue goals other than just survival.
Diamandis and Kotler conclude, "We hope that our contrarian view of the future has provide an antidote to some of today's dark pessimisms. Providing abundance is humanity's grandest challenge—one that together, with intention and action, we can make happen in our lifetime." Abundance makes a pretty persuasive case that the future will be better than many people think.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the SINGULARITY!
looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
"
Not if the Dreamboat-in-Chief has his way.
Technology will improve the lives of every human... except energy technology. That must be stuck in the 19th century. Because... uh...
Don't worry, we'll have fusion in about 20 years.
No, thanks to recent advances, it's only always nineteen years away.
Woo Whoo. Progress.
It's a major breakthrough.
Don't you mean you'll have FISSURES
Its been twenty years away for twenty years. As far as future tech, I would settle for hot chicks beamed into my house, ala Logan's Run, and no I don't mean internets pron.
It's only nineteen years away now, dude. Can't you read?
It's been twenty years away for a lot more than twenty years.
Re: Tiny,
I'm an engineer. You're not. There's absolutely NOTHING 19th century about current energy technologies.
What is really happening is that you're such an intellectual fraud that you even delude yourself into thinking that the commodity = the technology. Your stupidity should not be the burden of anybody else but yours.
Burning fossil fuels is itself a technology, specifically a "major" one; we've merely improved the methods. What you don't get is that instead of everything, the market innovates only ways to make money. And that doesn't necessarily include ending dependence on fossil fuels. That industry has done everything in its power to kill innovation away from the basic paradigm. This is precisely why the free market is inadequate by itself. Can you name a single major technology that doesn't owe itself to government investment?
Re: Tiny,
You have NO idea of what you're talking about. There are several thousand different technologies that use different fuels of very diverse formulations for different things and applications. We're not just "burning" oil, you asswipe.
Oh, don't tell me - you find that objectionable.
If the market figured out ways to make other things besides money - let's say, heads of bovines - would you object less?
The problem rests in your assumption that the market is only composed of a few plutocrats that makes us use things so they can make money.
Again with the misuse of the word "paradigm." The fact is that consumers want oil, Tiny, as other technologies have been rejected in favor of oil, and that includes whale blubber and charcoal. The industry ahs not killed anything, the consumer has sovereignty. The fact is that you simply don't like people making choices, you want them to be slaves - that's all.
What's inadequate is your brain. The market is ALL of us - WE, you and me and everybody else, ARE the market.
If people had a free choice and adequate knowledge, would they choose to get their energy from burning fossil fuels? It is anything but the result of an aggregate expression of free will, it is an entrenched industry that pays governments to keep it entrenched. Are you suggesting that such manipulation is impossible? Are all antitrust laws unnecessary? Does a major political party not exist to support the interests of that industry, even going to war for them?
Innovating ways to make money, but not anything else, leads to innovations only in how better to extract and transport fossil fuels. To change the whole picture for some purpose requires direct public action, just like every other major technological innovation ever. Do you not think basic scientific research plays a role in innovation? How profitable is it for some company to engage in basic research?
You mean we the people? Government is the instrument of OUR will. Not that you're wrong, but in the market, some are more equal than others. What doesn't quite work is when you mistake description for prescription.
He actually thinks government is at OUR control!
I'm counting on the Tonys of the world to re-elect Me into many, many more terms.
You have it 180 degrees backwards, Tony... YOU are the instrument of OUR will.
And don't you fucking forget it, prole.
Now, go forth and shill for your masters. We might even let you live, come Shithammer Day.
Whatch what you say, or he will send his army to control you.
Re: Tiny,
They are, they have and they did.
Yeah, and the money for the graft must come from the magical money tree!
You are making such an ass of yourself, Tiny, it's not even funny.
The money comes from government printing presses, literally and figuratively, which only adds to the perversity.
If people had a free choice and adequate knowledge, would they choose to get their energy from burning fossil fuels?
Big yes, because it is currently the most affordable (and efficient) option.
What's efficient or affordable about destroying the environment?
Of COURSE it's affordable and efficient to destroy the environment. If it wasn't, then our ancestors wouldn't have destroyed entire forests to build their houses and boats and shit.
Now that doesn't mean it is the best idea, but it is definitely the most efficient. Of course even when a company decides it's in their best interest to do something different, it's never good enough for assholes like you. Then you come with your mandates and rules and regulations. And that's when the person trying something different says fuck it.
"Can you name a single major technology that doesn't owe itself to government investment?"
Yup, gates and Jobs would still be working in their garages, Ford and the wright brothers next them.
Can you name a single major technology that owes itself, Out side of weapons, to government investment?
Um, Gates and Jobs would have been nowhere without ENIAC the first computer built by the government to calculate ballistic missile trajectories.
...we had electric cars in the early 20th century.
By the way... have you given up gasoline yet?
http://inventors.about.com/od/.....hicles.htm
American Designs
In the late 1800s, France and Great Britain were the first nations to support the widespread development of electric vehicles. In 1899, a Belgian built electric racing car called "La Jamais Contente" set a world record for land speed - 68 mph - designed by Camille J?natzy.
It was not until 1895 that Americans began to devote attention to electric vehicles after an electric tricycle was built by A. L. Ryker and William Morrison built a six-passenger wagon both in 1891. Many innovations followed and interest in motor vehicles increased greatly in the late 1890s and early 1900s. In fact, William Morrison's design with a capacity for passenger is often considered the first real and practical EV.
You were saying?
lol.
The most advanced form of useful energy production at present is nuclear. It's YOUR team, Tony, that gets their panties all in a twist over it.
And 19th century technology? WTF is wind power? 18th century, that's what.
Tony: You know exactly what energy technologies should be adopted for the next 100 years, right?
Don't feed the troll Ron. We have professionals for that.
Oh no, heaven forbid I dare question the eternal wisdom of the marketplace, which, all by itself with no government direction whatsoever, has decided to continue burning fossil fuels until there are none left.
Even supposing there had been, say, a century worth of governments propping up the fossil fuel paradigm, we wouldn't want to muck things up further by taking a single positive action to do what is obviously necessary. All the major technological innovations have come from directionless market selection. Give me a minute and I'll think of one.
This is why you ignore Tony, Ron. He is a pyromaniac with a flamethrower in a field of strawmen.
So are you saying there's room in your worldview for large-scale government investment in sustainable energy technology?
NO. There is NO room.
Thought not. Then it must be the "sustainable" part you object to, since large-scale government investment in energy is exactly what you favor with your incessant oil whoring.
The hundreds of millions of dollars the Koch brothers spend on lobbying and electioneering is not to promote a free market, it's to maintain their own handouts and prevent competition.
...because you are such a pussy-boy.
Have you forsaken all fossil-fuel-related devices yet?
No. Are you better than me because you just don't give a shit?
*I* don't go around bleating about how people should live the way I say they should live, while continuing to live the way I want to live.
Tony considers himself to be better than just about everyone, but whines like a 9-year-old girl when he is proven to be wrong.
...as he claims libertarians want to force everyone to live a certain way, while he maintains his Team Blue Cheerleader captaincy which gives him license to... force everyone to live a certain way.
I'm a shrill, irritable cocksucker.
And MY way is the ONLY way. Deal with it.
I have no interest in telling you how to live. Individuals making good choices is not going to be enough. I'm simply in favor of changing government policy from lavishing fossil fuel energy to investing in better technologies. I don't expect a world with people like you in it to do it via individual responsibility.
Nevermind that green energy is more heavily subsidized than fossil fuels. But you're tony so you conveniently ignore that all the time.
Um, Tony... keep quiet about big-money donors lobbying and electioneering. We're kinda busy doing that very thing right this minute.
"Changing government policy" = "forcing people to live a certain way".
You're no better than any random Christian dominionist who wants to run America according to *their* dictates.
Only if you assume that the status quo is the freest possible world. You're currently being "forced" to live in a fossil fuel-based society. My policy doesn't change the amount of force, it just directs it in directions that won't destroy the environment.
I guess you don't really care about the birds that fly into turbines or the impact building a dam for hydro has on the ecosystem.
Your grasp of economic fundamentals is very constrained.
Re: Tiny,
This statement tells me that you have no idea what "paradigm" means or entails.
There's no "fossil fuel" paradigm any more that there could be a "firewood" paradigm or a "corndog" paradigm or a "Tonka truck" paradigm.
You certainly do your best to prove that you're an intellectual fraud, Tiny. You're like a cub scout except backwards.
Okay, you can be an engineer (though for the life of me I don't get why you all are so fucking dumb), but I am a person who does the English language for a living. Formally, I actually am against the modification to paradigm's usage that happened in the 60s. I'm sorry for using it loosely. Energy production is dominated by fossil fuels, a translation for those of you who mistake pedantry for intelligence.
.....but I am a person who does the English language for a living.
Another demonstration of your professional skills. Well done sir.
http://inventors.about.com/od/.....hicles.htm
You were bitching about "ancient" technology upthread. Still gonna bitch?
"does" the English language?
I do!
I do the english language right ......like I like doing a backwards cub scout.
Yeah--oil has been killing off better technologies for a long time. Old isn't necessarily bad. It's causing wars and destroying the environment that is bad.
It's causing wars and destroying the environment that is bad.
Then tell your buddies in government to stop doing that.
And tell those fuckers in the Middle East to stop starting wars, while they're at it.
Hey, has Obama authorized any drone strikes lately?
Maybe Sadaam shouldn't have had invisible WMDs.
Maybe your party shouldn't have helped to give Fucktard Bush the power to go to Iraq.
You find nuance in the strangest places.
You mean like Obama is starting to see WMDs in Iran?
Partisan Asshole
You're like a cub scout except backwards.
Well that's how I prefer my cub scouts.
I vote for the immediate imposition of the Corndog Paradigm.
What I meant to say is that I don't know but the wise TOP MEN of government will tell me what is best in this area and what to think about it. I am serene.
Shorter Bailey: MONORAIL!!!!
No thanks. I'll hope for the best, but continue prepping.
This is why Conservatism is a pool of rancid shit (to paraphrase Hayek).
The market craves innovation (liberalism) and rewards it while the status quo protects the old industries (BP, XOM).
I point out how the great capitalists are liberal and the Cons here attack them instead of taking their advice.
Are you off your meds?
This article is about abundance - which will be led by biotech, the net, software, clean energy, education, all domains dominated by liberals.
The Abundance will be led by SkyNet, which - as we all know - goes straight down the middle.
Grey, muddled sameness for all - but lots of it!
TEAM!!!!!!!!
Abundance != relevance. Or, get back to me when you learn what energy density, scalability, and storage are all about.
huh?
Your leap from innovation to liberalism is curious, but what is this "market" of which you speak?
If, in our current klepto-corpocratic farcism, the great capitalists are liberals, well, that should give you pause, and perhaps even a clue.
The ones who are poisoning capitalism are conservatives or libertarians--like the ones who fund this magazine. Curiously, they always seem to be the offspring of the self-made as well, unlike the great capitalists to which shrike referred.
Isn't it odd how the people who actually earned their wealth are more apt to favor social responsibility?
Isn't it odd how the people who actually earned their wealth are more apt to favor social responsibility?
Isn't is odd that you make these completely unsupported statements that serve no purpose other than to reinforce you worldview.
Name a wealthy conservative who is not the offspring of a smarter, more decent, more liberal guy who actually earned his money. I'm sure there are some.
I'm a shrill, irritable cocksucker. Deal with it, fish.
I know that Spoofey! Now put the "real" shrill, irritable cocksucker back on the line.
How can you tell the difference, fish?
The spoof will sometimes admit error and acknowledge character flaws. The "real" Tony is impervious to logic.
No, even Real Tony slips now and then, despite his self-professed perfection.
The "liberal" businesses of tech, software, education, and bio-engineering depend far less on public largesse than the old conservative business of mineral extraction.
Education and Bio-Engineering don't depend on public largesse?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Needs more Christfags!
I'm lately making an effort to less poetic and more prosaic.
I think I will retire "Bushpig" too. We must all look forward (but with an appreciation of the gems from the past).
Well damn.
Shilling for Team Blue again, shrike?
Sun must've risen today.
I will allow shrike to live, as long as he continues to please Me.
Natural selection has given the U.S. a larger percentage of people who can't be educated. Do a google search on standardized test scores. Watch the video IDIOCRACY.
Shut up, Slappy!
Don't blame Natural Selection for that.
Blame Institution-Sponsored Selection.
Is that the institution named Education that you listed above as a leader to the future?
Alternatively, look up the Flynn effect.
I'm still not convinced in the whole singluarity/radical-transformation-technology theories that abound for a few reasons.
One, Moores law is hitting a plateau. Aside from nano-processing, you can't base a prediction of the future on a faulty premise, ie. that processing speed will continue to advance the way it has exponentially.
And two, the gap between extreme poverty and first world technology isn't as vast as most people assume. One bad solar flare from the sun and we'd be back to 1800's-style living over night. And lets' not forget that currently half the world still lives under these conditions today. The failure to address electricity infrastructure is one of the biggest faults that our society has ignored.
There have been plenty of "advanced" societies for their time (see, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, etc.) who no longer hold any claim to leading to the world in technological progress.
Our current status is by no means guaranteed, nor is the future.
There have been plenty of "advanced" societies for their time (see, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, etc.) who no longer hold any claim to leading to the world in technological progress.
I think your point escaped me. *looks out window* Yep, there it goes.
My point is that there are historical indications that some societies progressed forward with technology only to watch it all come crumbling down due to various reasons. Egyptians for example had pretty advanced forms of engineering, but this was hardly a guarantee that they would remain at the forefront of technological progress. Same with the Greeks or even the Romans for that matter.
I'm not saying we will regress back to papyrus writing overnight, but the idea that technological progress is on a fixed upward slope ignores the failures of other societies that at one point were indeed at the forefront of new technology. As I mentioned above, a major shock to our electrical grid (be it a solar flare, a massive EMP burst, or an atmospheric nuke for instance) would cause a catastrophic halt of the aforementioned progress.
For the most part, technology has stalled due to limitations imposed by governments, be they Egyptian God-Pharohs (redundant, I know), inward looking Chinese Imperial Bureaucrats, Imperial Roman Christians who were opposed to any knowledge not sanctioned by the Church, or Roman Catholic Popes who fought for the supremacy of the Church.
For the most part, technology has stalled due to limitations imposed by governments
Gee, that sounds familiar.
What you mean is religion stalls progress. True, because it forces itself in at the beginning of technological innovation: education. But it's odd that you cite civilization's centers of innovation as examples of places where stalled innovation happens. It seems pretty clear that an equally plausible correlation is that the bigger the government, the more technological innovation.
Shut the fuck up Tony, the adults are talking.
So, if we had a government big enough to control *everything*...
Mommy, Daddy, can I stay up and play wrestle-in-bed with you?
What you mean is religion stalls progress.
Yep.
And the ascendant religions in the west today are eco-paganism and socialism.
Sure, but it would be a pause, not a halt.
Where in North America are there actual 'Free Markets' in energy? Up here in the Canadas the province of Ontario has Niagara Falls to base its electricity production on. Of course you need a lot more than the falls, but decades of the system being run and subzidized by the government has left most of our electrical grid sorely out of date. Recently Toronto Hydro was denied much of the funds it requested to upgrade its terrible 1950's grid.
If these were actual companies they would have had incentive to keep the system tip top and would have charged what it cost. Or maybe not, maybe just a few plutocrats would have electrified lights...
Sure, but it would be a pause, not a halt.
Yeah, but how long would that "pause" last?
A few months? A year? A decade? A generation?
Look at how utterly dependent our current modern society is on electricity for simple things like fresh water and sanitation alone. Never mind food or communications or healthcare.
You can get an idea of what it would look like by visiting the epicenter in Haiti.
Say it with me:
We. Are. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
The world is swiftly becoming a digital datebase prison. No more freedom. Only taxes, cheating hoes, bad food, and a miserable death. There is no escape.
There are a lot of good restaurants where I live (Portland's upper east side). Sorry you're not eating well but that doesn't mean the rest of us are too!
I love Portland. The food and drink in Portland is top notch. You are lucky, man.
database
datebase sounds like more fun
Not in prision.
Ron:
I agree that the future will be better than we think.
However, when we get there, all the doomsayers will be saying how everything has gone to crap in the years that have elapsed between now and then.
Also: Please note that crying "DOOM" sells a lot more books than saying "We're going to get through this." Until you learn this, you are never going to sell as many books as Paul Erlich.
See, the optimists just write science fiction. Which, for the most part, is optimistic simply in the fact that we're still around.
Yeah.
Those optimistic SF stories like On the Beach and Alas, Babylon!.
Cold War propaganda. Besides, I didn't say all science fiction writers were optimists.
Alas, Babylon was bad for me because Tampa gets nuked in it. I prefer happier fates, like the one where Tampa doesn't get destroyed but Orlando does in Star Trek: Enterprise.
I have a fondness for SF stories that start with a nuke landing somewhere between the Capitol Rotunda and the Lincoln Memorial.
They need more of those. I remember a miniseries called Amerika, where the Soviets beat us with the strategic use of EMP.
Sadly, they ended up having to slaughter the entire Congress.
Sadly, they ended up having to slaughter the entire Congress.
Then it was the "feel good" movie of the summer movie season!?
We're going to consider the "fish" post to be a direct terrorist threat on our fine Congresspersons.
The Secret Service is on their way now. PLEASE say you have a gun, "fish"... we love a good shoot-out.
Oh, God, this is making us soooo moist.
Hell is somehow supposed to be worse?
More futurist bullshit. No one can "read" the future.
Let a million databases bloom!
Damn you lawyers and your paper universe; your 2000 page bills that nobody reads; your sodomizing of contract law, the constitution, and personal freedoms in general.
I take it the ABA looked unfavorably upon your application to practice law? Pity.
Maybe your law school will offer a refund? Tee Hee.
In the year 2020:
Womyn will have gonads.
Men won't.
The US military will still be killing scores of innocent people
Being anti-social will be a capital offense
Lawyers will still be hated
Wall Street will still own everything
Technology will be used to keep the poors at bay
I see cordoned off brains.
Preachers with underwear stains.
I see pill popping blondes in Spring.
Hand grenades, philosophers on cocaine.
Did I walk in on some kind of poetry slam session? I'm feeling really, really white at the moment.
And I think to myself:
What a wonderful world!
Piracy is a good field to go into.
Also, personal protection industry will be big.
Condoms, cocaine, date sites, Hollywood out.
Dental dams, GHB, date rape, Bollywood in.
Yes, the future is going to be great!
It's expensive; make it cheaper.
Do you speak Mandarin? If not, you're so fucked. HA HA
So we'll be able to buy more shit. Yea.
What raises the standards of living of every human is division of labor. What Technology does is lower the cost of production.
What solves scarcity problems is private property and the market - nothing else, as the 120 million dead due to socialist schemes can tell us. Again, technology helps by lowering the cost of production, but by itself technology does not solve scarcity problems - for that, you need trade and accurate prices.
The database is your god
because the more we know about you,
the more you will have to know of us
accommodate your few days on the planet
to appease our interests
or risk losing your social standing
so that no one will recommend you for a job or anything like that
you are part of the collective
now socialize or else
Whatever crackers is smoking,
pass that shit over here than
So does this mean that Reason will some day stop relying on donations?
We've decided to see things yours and Tonys way....we're looking for our tax support too!
Now pay up bitch!
Fuck off, Max. They're not *taxpayer* funds, so shut the fuck up.
American Designs
In the late 1800s, France and Great Britain were the first nations to support the widespread development of electric vehicles. In 1899, a Belgian built electric racing car called "La Jamais Contente" set a world record for land speed - 68 mph - designed by Camille J?natzy.
It was not until 1895 that Americans began to devote attention to electric vehicles after an electric tricycle was built by A. L. Ryker and William Morrison built a six-passenger wagon both in 1891. Many innovations followed and interest in motor vehicles increased greatly in the late 1890s and early 1900s. In fact, William Morrison's design with a capacity for passenger is often considered the first real and practical EV.
You were saying what, again, about old technology?
So... we need a future where even the poorest, starvingest hobo can afford a brand-new all-electric car, recharged with zero fossil fuels, at little to no cost... and where jet planes, railroads, and semi trucks are powered the same way... and there are NO emissions, of any kind, anywhere on the entire fucking globe.
But we'd *still* be doomed, no doubt, as even if we could achieve all of the above... some Fucktard Leftist Doomsayers would conjure up yet another We're Fucked Scenario.
Probably electromagnetic in nature. Then we'd have to give up all electric-powered devices.
Yeah, we're just swimmin' in a bright-assed fuckin' future.
"I have no interest in telling you how to live."
Then why do you vote Democrat?
Then again, why do Team Redders vote Republican?
Answer: For the same reasons.
Because I don't stupidly assume the status quo is the freest possible world? Besides, libertarians want to change many lives far more significantly than I do.
Oh, yeah, you're of the opinion that "bigger is better"... and nut just when it comes to government.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
At what point does your vision of government control too much, Tony?
Let's leave out sexuality from this equation. Talking about every other aspect of our lives here.
Is there a tipping point - again, leaving out sex-based activities - that you, as a liberal, would say "sheeeit, even THAT is too much government for me"?
Bearing in mind, as always, that your Team, and the other Team, lust after power. (Deny it all you want, but your Team do loves them some power.)
...as Tony attempts to dazzle us with bullshit.
From what I've observed, he won't give a coherent, straight, bullshit-free answer. Liberals are incapable of it.
Hunh....Hunh....Hunh......goddamnit GOVERN ME!!!! Yeah! GOVERN me you bitch! DEEPER! GOVERN ME....yEAH! You KNOW that's how I need it! GOVERN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoof, but pretty close to my inner voice.
As if there was any doubt. You self loathers entertain me endlessly!
So... you're saying that *is* what your inner voice says?
...spoofers are self-loathers?
I smell projection. Perhaps shame.
He loves being dominated, after all. He's a liberal.
Being gay is only a sidebar. He'd be just as into being whipped by his masters, if he were straight.
Wow... I need to step up my game. Then again, I just got here.
Gay Oklahomans are self loathers! So tough to get a date....BrokeBack Mountain Bar notwithstanding.
Oh Spoofey...I wish I could quit you!!!!
Is Tony self-self-spoofing??
That shit ain't legal here. Go on, now... git!
Tony|2.7.12 @ 9:48PM|#
"...Besides, libertarians want to change many lives far more significantly than I do."
Yeah, shithead.
Libertarians would like to do so by persuasion, not with guns like you prefer, shithead.
Sorry, I'd prefer not to be shot if I don't agree with you, shithead. I'm well familiar with the fact that wish otherwise, shithead.
From what I've observed, he's convinced that not using force is just as bad as pointing guns at the heads of the people.
Or voting, instead of just letting politicians from his party stay in power until they die.
That's right Tony. Freedom IS Slavery.
They cite the examples of DIY Drones, which developed autonomous unmanned air vehicles at a fraction of the cost of military contractors.
To be fair, they did what they did only after the military contractors had already brought the necessary technology to a significant level of maturity. Just sayin'.
I don't disagree with the general line of thinking in your article Ron. But this is one area where I see this funny idea floating around the universe and it's just plain wrong.
This is along the lines of the "open source" design concept. Even DARPA has fallen for this mistake in recent times. Open source approaches work sometimes, but they're much more limited than is often touted.
Open source only works when a) people are "designing" things where the key, base technologies are already essentially established, and b) where the overall systems engineering configuration control needs are minimal.
In other words if it's at about the complexity level of a brownie mix, and if you can get all the ingredients easily at the grocery store, open source can work. But don't ask it to do much more than that.
The data links that a drone requires are not the product of "open sourcing". The autopilots that a drone requires are not the product of "open sourcing". The composites and other materials that modern drones are made of, are not the product of "open sourcing". The engines that propel drones, while old technology, are not the product of "open sourcing".
The development of the 787 and A380, not to mention the F-22 and F-35, are utterly beyond anything that an open source project could hope to pull off, because the systems level engineering is just not amenable to the open source M.O.
Most people (and especially the doves) sadly underestimate the magnitude of the contribution that the DoD makes to modern technological innovation.
War is hell, but we'd be a lot poorer today without the DoD funding all the R&D that it does.
Strange that the very organisation you are wanking over uses open source themselves.
There is nothing great about F-22 engineering, any private enterprise could do the same. The fact is that only government are motivated in creating weapons of mass destruction. War is hell, enabled by war porn cunts such as you.
Tony and Shrike, the two cheerleaders of liberalism.
The one thinks that the Christian Taliban is after him, he also personally insults his own family yet worships Soros like he his father. The other thinks government invented the lightbulb and that having a worthless arts degree makes him an expert on thermodynamics and practically everything else.
thats really a great content but it becoming little bit confusing for me to read...
I have no argument with the central thesis of this book (at least as presented in this review); the neo-Luddites have always been wrong and always will be. But the focus is entirely on technology. What's missing is the fact that every government on the planet is busy debasing its currency, spending wildly beyond its means, and in general destabilizing the global economy. Where is this wondrous new technology going to come from if (or rather, when) we suffer an economic collapse? Depletion of natural resources doesn't much trouble me; endless deficits and Quantitative Easing do.
Yes, well, the poorest American today does have a higher standard of living than any of the Caesars or English Monarchs except the last.
But, contra Marx, technology does not create itself. People create technology when they live in a culture of freedom. Given the trends toward socialism, islamicism, and demographic collapse, any marxist/materialist assumption that good times ahead are historically necessitated are optimistic at best.
what?no
Yes, it is reassuring to see that some very intelligent, thoughtful people have such an optimistic view of the near future. Diamandis and Kotler's upbeat vision of the future helps allay, somewhat, my own anxieties, which center on climate disasters triggered by global warming. But this review of their books does not address how Diamandis and Kotler grapple with the implications of what the U.N. and other respected agencies warn will be an increasingly warmer, more crowded world plagued by rising sea levels, vanishing coastline, epic droughts and hundreds of millions of climate refugees. It's hard to reconcile the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change -- a threat that is real and is becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore -- with Diamandis and Kotler's rosy scenario.
The more technology improves and new inventions are made the more we will have to buy.
That is all right so long as we have a workforce and community that can afford to buy these new inventions.
Thanks