Life in 2030: these are the 4 things experts can't predict. Trust and truth!

“Trust is a social, economic and political binding agent. A vast research literature on trust and social capital documents the connections between trust and well-being, collective problem solving, economic development and social cohesion. Trust is the lifeblood of friendship and care-giving. When trust is absent, all kinds of societal woes unfold, including violence, chaos and paralysing risk-aversion.”

Life in 2030: these are the 4 things experts can't predict
via Instapaper

Life in 2030: these are the 4 things experts can't predict

“This explosion of connectivity brings new possibilities, but also economic and social vulnerabilities. The level of coordination and coding required to stitch the Internet of Things together is orders of magnitude more complicated than any historical endeavour yet. It is likely that things will break and no one will know how to fix them. Bad actors will be able to achieve societal disruptions at scale and from afar. Consequently, we are faced with some hard, costly choices. How much redundancy should these complex systems have? How will they be defended and by whom? How is liability redefined, as objects are networked across a global grid and attacks can metastasize quickly?”

Life in 2030: these are the 4 things experts can't predict
via Instapaper

What Will Our Society Look Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere? The view from 2065

“Humans look back at the beginning of the 21st century the way people then looked back at the 18th century: a time of sickness and disaster, where children and loved ones were swept away by diseases. Cholera, lung cancer and river blindness no longer threaten us. By 2065, humans are on the verge of freeing themselves People like Ray Kurzweil, the inventor and author of The Singularity Is Near, are entranced with the idea of living forever. It’s something I’ve always found depressing, but I wouldn’t mind having several lives packed into one. And that seems reachable. “AI won’t lead to immortality, because there will always be accidents,” says Susan Schneider, “but it will lead to extreme life extension.” Of course living longer will be cool only if the world is actually not a hellscape—and if you live in one of the nice parts. “I think [curing diseases] would be wonderful,” she says, “especially if we had cheap energy and were able to end world resource scarcity. I imagine some societies will come closer to achieving that than others.” from the biology that created them.”

What Will Our Society Look Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?
via Instapaper

The Paradox of Universal Basic Income: must-read by Joi Ito

“That would be applauded by libertarians and some conservatives, but not by many others.

Underpinning the Silicon Valley argument for UBI is the belief in exponential growth powered by science and technology, as described by Peter Diamandis in his book Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think. Diamandis contends that technological progress, including gains in health, the power of computing, and the development of machine intelligence, among other things, will lead to a kind of technological transcendence that makes today’s society look like how we view the Dark Ages. He argues that the human mind is unable to intuitively grasp this idea, and so we constantly underestimate long-term effects. If you plot progress out a few decades, Diamandis writes, we end up with unimaginable abundance: “We will soon have the ability to meet and exceed the basic needs of every man, woman, and child on the planet. Abundance for all is within our grasp.” (Technologists often forget is that we actually already have enough food to feed the world; the problem is that it’s just not properly distributed.)

Many tech billionaires think they can have their cake and eat it too, that they are so rich and smart the trickle-down theory can lift the poor out of poverty without anyone or anything suffering. And why shouldn’t they think so? Their companies and their wealth have grown exponentially, and it doesn’t appear as though there is any end in sight, as Marc Andreessen prophetically predicted in his famous essay, “Why Software is Eating the World.” Most of Silicon Valley’s leaders gained their wealth in an exponentially growing market without having to engage in the aggressive tactics that marked the creation of wealth in the past. They feel their businesses inherently “do good,” and that, I believe, allows them to feel more charitable, broadly speaking.”

The Paradox of Universal Basic Income
via Instapaper

The Tyranny of Convenience - made me think

“In the developed nations of the 21st century, convenience — that is, more efficient and easier ways of doing personal tasks — has emerged as perhaps the most powerful force shaping our individual lives and our economies. This is particularly true in America, where, despite all the paeans to freedom and individuality, one sometimes wonders whether convenience is in fact the supreme value.

As Evan Williams, a co-founder of Twitter, recently put it, “Convenience decides everything.” Convenience seems to make our decisions for us, trumping what we like to imagine are our true preferences. (I prefer to brew my coffee, but Starbucks instant is so convenient I hardly ever do what I “prefer.”) Easy is better, easiest is best.”

Opinion | The Tyranny of Convenience
via Instapaper

From dopamine to serotonin - good post about happiness - by Humberto Schwab

“According to Robert Lustig, there has been a fundamental error or even a system fallacy in the way the Americans understand the “pursuit of happiness.” A philosophical principle that was firmly established by Jefferson.

We can see that happiness has been mixed up with pleasure. People got the toxic message that happiness can be bought, exchanging pleasure for happiness. The fast-food industry explicitly stresses that you can buy ”happiness.” Also on the internet and in the daily language, we see a complete confusion of these fundamentally different concepts.”

From dopamine to serotonin
via Instapaper

Resisting Reduction: A Manifesto, via Joi Ito

“Developing a sensibility and a culture of flourishing, and embracing a diverse array of measures of “success” depend less on the accumulation of power and resources and more on diversity and the richness of experience. This is the paradigm shift that we need. This will provide us with a wealth of technological and cultural patterns to draw from to create a highly adaptable society. This diversity also allows the elements of the system to feed each other without the exploitation and extraction ethos created by a monoculture with a single currency. It is likely that this new culture will spread as music, fashion, spirituality or other forms of art.”

Collaborate · Resisting Reduction: A Manifesto
via Instapaper

How to Fix Facebook? 9 Experts

“Facebook should become a public benefit corporation. These companies must aim to do something that would aid the public, and board members must also take that public benefit into account when making decisions. Mark Zuckerberg has said that Facebook’s goals are “bringing us closer together” and “building a global community.” Worthy, beautiful goals, but easier said than done when Facebook is also stuck delivering ever-increasing profits and making its platform serve the needs of advertisers.

What if Facebook were actually free to do what it says it wants to? What if it didn’t need to devote so much energy to the evil sides of the business, whether catering to filter bubbles, addicting and manipulating users, seizing data, bending over backward for advertisers and destroying competitors?”

How to Fix Facebook? We Asked 9 Experts
via Instapaper

In our focus on the digital, have we lost our sense of what being human means?great post by Genevieve Bell

“We will need new practitioners to tame and manage the emerging data-driven digital world, as well as those to regulate and govern them. Rather than just tweaking existing disciplines, we need to develop a new set of critical questions and perspectives. Working out how to navigate our humanity in the context of this data-driven digital world requires conversations across the disciplines. In the university sector, we need to rethink how we fund, support and reward research, and researchers. At a funding level, our privileging of Stem at the expense of the rest of the disciplines is short-sighted at best, and detrimental at worst.

Invest in the human-scale conversation

We need to invest in hard conversations that tackle the ethics, morality and underlying cultural philosophy of these new digital technologies in Australian lives. Do we need an institute or a consortium or a governmental thinktank? I am not sure, but I think it would be a good start. We have a great deal of concern about our future and the role of technology in it. We have a responsibility to tell more nuanced, and yes, more complicated stories – governments, NGOs, industry, news media, every one of us. We also have a responsibility to ask better questions ourselves. We should be educated stakeholders in our own future; and this requires work and willingness to get past the easy seduction of killer robots.”

In our focus on the digital, have we lost our sense of what being human means? | Genevieve Bell
via Instapaper