James Burke predicted the future in 1973. Now he does it again(audioboo.fm)
audioboo.fm
James Burke predicted the future in 1973. Now he does it again
https://audioboo.fm/boos/1574606-james-burke-predicted-the-future-in-1973-now-he-does-it-again
55 comments
Having large amounts of collected data on citizens doesn't create a tyrannical government. Nor is it required for a tyrannical government: the Nazis did horrible things with very primitive technology. In the same vein, the U.S. government has had seventy years to become tyrannical with much more advanced technology, but it has not.
The key to foiling a tyrannical government is to prevent a tyrannical government from being created in the first place though the political process--checks and balances, rule of law, preservation of values, citizen involvement, democratic and fair elections. It is not by employing a few lame technological defenses or prohibiting specific practice X, Y, and Z. Those are useless against any sufficiently motivated government, and, if anything, they create a false sense of security. Government is not as it has, but as it does.
The key to foiling a tyrannical government is to prevent a tyrannical government from being created in the first place though the political process--checks and balances, rule of law, preservation of values, citizen involvement, democratic and fair elections. It is not by employing a few lame technological defenses or prohibiting specific practice X, Y, and Z. Those are useless against any sufficiently motivated government, and, if anything, they create a false sense of security. Government is not as it has, but as it does.
I agree that preventing tyranny is not primarily a technological problem. But the abuse of power is not unrelated to how easy it is to abuse either. Technology can make it more difficult to abuse power, more difficult to hide any abuse and hence it makes any checks and balances more effective.
Also, I think we haven't seen all forms of tyranny yet. It is very difficult for a democratically elected government not to enforce something popular they are technically capable of enforcing. Even if there is rule of law and checks and balances there is also a tendency toward ever more detailed control and even prediction of individual behaviour.
I fear that the erosion of individual freedoms is possible even in perfectly good democratic societies if there are no technological barriers to that collective power grab. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" remains true even if that power is legitimate.
And my last point is that breaking the law is necessary for the advancement of the law and our societies. Law is not something that falls from the sky or magically emerges from the moral conscience of wise men and women. It is often the result of conflict. If you give too much power to the enforcers of current law that conflict could become too unequal for society to advance and avoid tyranny.
Also, I think we haven't seen all forms of tyranny yet. It is very difficult for a democratically elected government not to enforce something popular they are technically capable of enforcing. Even if there is rule of law and checks and balances there is also a tendency toward ever more detailed control and even prediction of individual behaviour.
I fear that the erosion of individual freedoms is possible even in perfectly good democratic societies if there are no technological barriers to that collective power grab. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" remains true even if that power is legitimate.
And my last point is that breaking the law is necessary for the advancement of the law and our societies. Law is not something that falls from the sky or magically emerges from the moral conscience of wise men and women. It is often the result of conflict. If you give too much power to the enforcers of current law that conflict could become too unequal for society to advance and avoid tyranny.
I rather think that the holocaust would have been a touch more complete had the Nazis had access to big data.
Sidenote, the funny part is the people who tell you that, "No, the U.S. government of today is the most tyrannical government in history".
yes this is more like giving a would be future tyrannical government a large armory and list of people who may potentially oppose them in the future.
As long as those checks and balances work it will never matter that anything any would be protester has said or done online can be recalled at a whim in the future for ad homimem attacks as needed.
As long as those checks and balances work it will never matter that anything any would be protester has said or done online can be recalled at a whim in the future for ad homimem attacks as needed.
I think further to your point of "They only take notice of people when they're connected to...", the real issue is you have no way of knowing when you are connected to something you shouldn't be. Moreover, a group that was once seen as innocuous can all of the sudden be targeted for persecution when the new powers-that-be decide to move the goal posts.
The HN crowd could be considered worth monitoring.
The HN crowd could be considered worth monitoring.
I have this train of thought lately not unlike Burke's.
It postulates that the key issue is assymetry of collection and usage of our personal information. NSA and other intelligence agencies are basically collecting data for malicious purposes from an individual's perspective.
The data banks have no benefit to us as individuals at this point of time. However NSA's databases and technology could be used for many wonderful things to improve our lives.
PRSM.com is just a tip of the iceberg. Even if it is just a joke.
It postulates that the key issue is assymetry of collection and usage of our personal information. NSA and other intelligence agencies are basically collecting data for malicious purposes from an individual's perspective.
The data banks have no benefit to us as individuals at this point of time. However NSA's databases and technology could be used for many wonderful things to improve our lives.
PRSM.com is just a tip of the iceberg. Even if it is just a joke.
Looking forward it seems unavoidable that our lives will be fully recorded, and that we will not be able to control this. There are two possible ways to deal with this: either we have strong data privacy legislation which enforces data firewalls that the subject of that data controls, requiring a judicial review to bypass on an individual basis, or we abandon the notion of digital privacy and accept that everything we do and say is known to everyone. In the long term, i imagine it could become the second option, but for those of us who grew up with a sense of privacy it will be a hard transition.
Burke also says that we are in a transitional period and offers a solution for the NSA data collection. Checks and balances from the public would allow us to do queries on the people who queried our data.
Half-transcript, half-paraphrasing of the key quotes:
something is going to change within 40 years to change our lives as greatly as the changes since we came from the caves to modern day.
The problem is that, as we try to solve privacy, feeding the world, etc we spend months of time discussing these short term problems in board rooms and parliament whilst labs around the world are working on nanotech
Richard Fynman said that there is "no physical law against creating a personal nanofactory", like a 3d printer, to print anything from basically air, dirt and some Acetylene gas (for added carbon).
Everyone will be able to make anything they need for practically nothing, and this will destroy current economic systems and government.
When nanofactories appear, they will address the problem of scarcity. All our years have been spent constructing organisations and systems to share everything. There will be no need for any social institutions, as they all exist to share things, to address scarsisty.
Why would we still live in massive cities, when we have no more factories, no more need for economies of scale? People will be able to then live by themselves on a mountain using solar panels for power and no need for utilities.
Physical contact between people will happen, but be rarer and and 3d holography will be used to allow this over great distance, to allow you to talk to someone as if they are there, no screen, but if you try to touch them you'll just go through them.
We are going to live through extraordinary times over the next twenty-thirty years!
Edit - Further good bits I missed on the first pass:
In response to "You seem as optimistic as you were in 1970":
* laughs * Well you know what they say about pessimists: They jump out of the window and they're no longer involved.
something is going to change within 40 years to change our lives as greatly as the changes since we came from the caves to modern day.
The problem is that, as we try to solve privacy, feeding the world, etc we spend months of time discussing these short term problems in board rooms and parliament whilst labs around the world are working on nanotech
Richard Fynman said that there is "no physical law against creating a personal nanofactory", like a 3d printer, to print anything from basically air, dirt and some Acetylene gas (for added carbon).
Everyone will be able to make anything they need for practically nothing, and this will destroy current economic systems and government.
When nanofactories appear, they will address the problem of scarcity. All our years have been spent constructing organisations and systems to share everything. There will be no need for any social institutions, as they all exist to share things, to address scarsisty.
Why would we still live in massive cities, when we have no more factories, no more need for economies of scale? People will be able to then live by themselves on a mountain using solar panels for power and no need for utilities.
Physical contact between people will happen, but be rarer and and 3d holography will be used to allow this over great distance, to allow you to talk to someone as if they are there, no screen, but if you try to touch them you'll just go through them.
We are going to live through extraordinary times over the next twenty-thirty years!
Edit - Further good bits I missed on the first pass:
In response to "You seem as optimistic as you were in 1970":
* laughs * Well you know what they say about pessimists: They jump out of the window and they're no longer involved.
Richard Fynman said that there is "no physical law against creating a personal nanofactory", like a 3d printer, to print anything from basically air, dirt and some Acetylene gas (for added carbon).
Just because there's no physical law explicitly prohibiting nanofactories in great mile-high letters of fire doesn't mean there actually exists a practical way to build nanofactories.
Worse, just because there's a practical way to build nanofactories doesn't mean there's a practical way to make them safe for the general population. Be prepared for the biggest, baddest DRM regime the world has ever known, because an unrestricted matter compiler is almost but not quite at the top of my list for "Sci-Fi Doomsday Weapons".
Physical contact between people will happen, but be rarer and and 3d holography will be used to allow this over great distance, to allow you to talk to someone as if they are there, no screen, but if you try to touch them you'll just go through them.
Why would you do that? People like physical contact. Living in a Real Place is interesting to many people, living in Real Nature is interesting to many people, but the in-between of sub/ex-urbia has basically universally failed to please anyone in particular.
Just because there's no physical law explicitly prohibiting nanofactories in great mile-high letters of fire doesn't mean there actually exists a practical way to build nanofactories.
Worse, just because there's a practical way to build nanofactories doesn't mean there's a practical way to make them safe for the general population. Be prepared for the biggest, baddest DRM regime the world has ever known, because an unrestricted matter compiler is almost but not quite at the top of my list for "Sci-Fi Doomsday Weapons".
Physical contact between people will happen, but be rarer and and 3d holography will be used to allow this over great distance, to allow you to talk to someone as if they are there, no screen, but if you try to touch them you'll just go through them.
Why would you do that? People like physical contact. Living in a Real Place is interesting to many people, living in Real Nature is interesting to many people, but the in-between of sub/ex-urbia has basically universally failed to please anyone in particular.
> Why would you do that? People like physical contact. Living in a Real Place is interesting to many people, living in Real Nature is interesting to many people, but the in-between of sub/ex-urbia has basically universally failed to please anyone in particular.
There are only 57.5 million square miles on Earth and 7+ billion people so us all living in isolation seems physically difficult.
There are only 57.5 million square miles on Earth and 7+ billion people so us all living in isolation seems physically difficult.
So it's impractical and undesirable.
Welp, better get the town council to legislate it into existence, then! Population density is for people who read Asimov instead of Heinlein when they were little, the pig bastards!
They're all going to end up in a stinking hivemind when the negentropy runs out, anyway, while we'll die proudly on our lunar dirt-farms!
(Sorry, I'm just feeling snarky today.)
Welp, better get the town council to legislate it into existence, then! Population density is for people who read Asimov instead of Heinlein when they were little, the pig bastards!
They're all going to end up in a stinking hivemind when the negentropy runs out, anyway, while we'll die proudly on our lunar dirt-farms!
(Sorry, I'm just feeling snarky today.)
You forgot the last part:
> You seem as optimistic as you were in 1970
> * laughs * Well you know what they say about pessimists: They jump out of the window and they're no longer involved.
> You seem as optimistic as you were in 1970
> * laughs * Well you know what they say about pessimists: They jump out of the window and they're no longer involved.
Survivorship bias!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Oh, good call! I've added that, as it's an amusing note to finish on
Bull market for acetylene gas and mountain wranglers.
Our grandchildren will run ski mountain making startups.
Nano-factories are interesting but I think safe biological enhancement, especially of intelligence, is going to be even more interesting. Anyone ever see the Limitless movie? Sure, that's not possible today but we are quickly unraveling the mysteries of the body.
I grew up watching the Connections series on VHS from my local library.
More than a decade later Netflix recommended the DVD set to me based on my preferences—It was like running into an old flame. Watching them as an adult, they are even more amazing than I originally remember.
More than a decade later Netflix recommended the DVD set to me based on my preferences—It was like running into an old flame. Watching them as an adult, they are even more amazing than I originally remember.
Burke's naivete about the externalities of an out-of-control surveillance apparatus are appalling: ignoring the fact that innocent people do get swept up for happening to match criteria of a secret scoring algorithm is just burying one's head in the sand. Instead, he alludes to a simplistic perspective that the world is a happy-clappy paradise where innocent people have "nothing to hide," and by virtual of volume of communication, shouldn't worry.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6304729
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4453659
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6304729
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4453659
Lots of gold on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeConnection?feature=wat...
The original on BBC : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038zhb9 see from 44 mins on.
It is the simplest and clearest explanation of why nanotechnology matters and what's happening while we all play with Web 3.0
I can't agree it's all coming to pass as be says, nor in those timescales. But only a few technologies need to pay off and we will see an end to scarcity.
It is the simplest and clearest explanation of why nanotechnology matters and what's happening while we all play with Web 3.0
I can't agree it's all coming to pass as be says, nor in those timescales. But only a few technologies need to pay off and we will see an end to scarcity.
We will never see an end to scarcity. It isn't merely a flaw that humans seek power. A society without concentrations of power is a weak society, and weak societies will always be subservient. Concentrations of power means inequality, and there can be no inequality without scarcity. Therefore scarcity is both unavoidable and valuable.
Scarcity of what, and over what time scale?
Human time will always be scarce, and it is valuable to each of us. We can also never have enough knowledge, so that is scarce in some senses, though it is a non-exclusionary good. Material goods fluctuate in scarcity, one can look at metals, silks, porcelain, and many other examples of commodities and their products which vary in price by region and era.
Human time will always be scarce, and it is valuable to each of us. We can also never have enough knowledge, so that is scarce in some senses, though it is a non-exclusionary good. Material goods fluctuate in scarcity, one can look at metals, silks, porcelain, and many other examples of commodities and their products which vary in price by region and era.
Interesting that you mention that, I was thinking along similar lines as both yours and the parent comment.
A true knowledge economy is what I would expect as the result of a "nano-factory" revolution. How much you know and what you know could be as valuable in direct terms as how much you earn is today in dollars.
I am sure I have heard this discussed in more detail before. Probably on HN.
Obviously we are several generations removed from such an event as the cultural shift would be profound. I don't think any of us would like it, me included. I always feel dumb so imagine I'd be part of the lower class in this world.
A true knowledge economy is what I would expect as the result of a "nano-factory" revolution. How much you know and what you know could be as valuable in direct terms as how much you earn is today in dollars.
I am sure I have heard this discussed in more detail before. Probably on HN.
Obviously we are several generations removed from such an event as the cultural shift would be profound. I don't think any of us would like it, me included. I always feel dumb so imagine I'd be part of the lower class in this world.
[deleted]
Scarcity is definitely both a social and a physical phenomenon. If we didn't have it we'd be forced to invent it.
Came here to say this, but take it further. Power is a function of survival and reproduction odds improvement. It may be that something else begins to shift that balance, but that flaw will never go away. We are just animals.
I fail to quite grasp what both of you are arguing.
Power is desired in scarce societies when lack of power means lack of sufficient resources for survival and reproduction
Where those resources are available to all, then power be ones a function of aberration not necessity
With sufficient mobility and abundance invasion and tyranny will become like beating up water. Recently a guy in Syria asked advice on best European country for asylum. He had a job remote in Australia, so whilst looking like a refugee he was actually just moving house. Imagine is everyone on Syria right now had that option.
What if one day they gave a war, and everyone just left.?
Power is desired in scarce societies when lack of power means lack of sufficient resources for survival and reproduction
Where those resources are available to all, then power be ones a function of aberration not necessity
With sufficient mobility and abundance invasion and tyranny will become like beating up water. Recently a guy in Syria asked advice on best European country for asylum. He had a job remote in Australia, so whilst looking like a refugee he was actually just moving house. Imagine is everyone on Syria right now had that option.
What if one day they gave a war, and everyone just left.?
On the one hand, I think people are downvoting you out of moral feeling rather than geopolitical argument.
On the other hand, the geopolitical argument is simple: all that needs to happen is that someone anti-scarcity takes over the world and enforces their tyrannical power on everyone looking to reimpose scarcity and resource competition.
You're welcome to have moral qualms with that, but it's basically just the capital-F Futuristic version of Communism.
On the other hand, the geopolitical argument is simple: all that needs to happen is that someone anti-scarcity takes over the world and enforces their tyrannical power on everyone looking to reimpose scarcity and resource competition.
You're welcome to have moral qualms with that, but it's basically just the capital-F Futuristic version of Communism.
Minor nitpick - the PM programme had an edited version of this. For some reason they chose to host the full-length version outside the BBC - and only link to it from their Twitter feed.
My mistake - I assumed the audioboo hosted version was just some random copy and pointed folks at what sounded like the original.
No idea why they would host external to BBC - is it geo-restricted?
No idea why they would host external to BBC - is it geo-restricted?
Yes! I still own all three sets of Connections (I, II, and III) as well as the game.
He is _so_ good at taking ideas from many sources and presenting them, showing how they might fit together or did fit together to create whole new ideas....
He is _so_ good at taking ideas from many sources and presenting them, showing how they might fit together or did fit together to create whole new ideas....
Fascinating views. The privacy angle is quite in line with what is already happening. With the recent Snowden affair there has been a huge brouhaha about privacy etc. but if you look at “private” information that financial and retail companies already possess you will find that people actually don’t care. As long as you get a 0.5% less on your mortgage or credit cards and some 10% discount on purchases, people are more than happy to have companies record every transaction that you make.
I’m not sure on the nanotechnology future that he has laid out though. Specifically, what is the source of energy to transform the air/water/dirt stuff into goods and what is the rational for saying that starting with water/dirt/O2 will be the cheapest route to getting whatever stuff we need. Not convinced on that front.
I’m not sure on the nanotechnology future that he has laid out though. Specifically, what is the source of energy to transform the air/water/dirt stuff into goods and what is the rational for saying that starting with water/dirt/O2 will be the cheapest route to getting whatever stuff we need. Not convinced on that front.
Yeah well retail companies won't just throw you in jail if you disagree with their new "marketing" campaign. There's quite a difference between a company you willingly give information to and a government trying to find out who are possible dissidents and how those dissidents could unseat those in power.
I'm not sure - if private companies maintain these databases, wouldn't it be easy for a hypothetical corrupt government to access them?
This is absolutely true, however there are alternatives to companies that track you. Go to JCPenny and they don't force you to use a credit card to purchase some shoes. If you use cash, as opposed to a credit card, you won't be added to their database. The difference between a retail store and the government is whether you have the choice of having your information stored in a database. So yes, a government could just up and say "all your base are belong to us" to supplement any information they already have, but there is no opt-out for a government that might already have information on you based on phone calls and your Internet graph.
He may soon be incorrect about them not being interested in the content of your calls, only "who you speak to". Before long, always-used speech recognition will be plausible, if it isn't already. Yes, imperfect, but more information than just who you're speaking to.
It is doable already with the NSA's Utah data center to run existing speech-recognition programs on all U.S. phone conversations. (By my back-of-the-envelope estimate.)
James Burke is brilliant. I uploaded the full Connections series last year (they had already existed on another channel but were split into 10min vids): http://www.youtube.com/JamesBurkeConnection
Some interesting bits:
Nanotechnology will bring real personal manufacturing at the molecular level giving people the ability to produce nearly anything for virtually nothing. This will result in the destruction of current socioeconomic systems and government as there will be no need for any type of scarcity monitoring or control or labour.
People will trend away from cities, and live in smaller more natural close knit communities. Realistic 3D holographic projections will further enable this.
He attributed the nanotechnology factory idea to the great Richard Feynman.
Nanotechnology will bring real personal manufacturing at the molecular level giving people the ability to produce nearly anything for virtually nothing. This will result in the destruction of current socioeconomic systems and government as there will be no need for any type of scarcity monitoring or control or labour.
People will trend away from cities, and live in smaller more natural close knit communities. Realistic 3D holographic projections will further enable this.
He attributed the nanotechnology factory idea to the great Richard Feynman.
I would expect nano-printers to have the same effect as essentially free digital reproduction had on music, print and video. There'll be free stuff, and stuff you'll pay for. Why do people pay? Partly to be part of a community; partly because (hopefully) it's better if a whole lot of people worked on it to serve your demographic. I don't think it will change the structure of society, but will have pretty similar dynamics to present day internet.
Today's internet and the digitization of media have had a humongous effect on the economics of content production.
There's a very relevant episode of Freakonomics Radio that discusses obsession with predictions and their actual value: http://www.wnyc.org/articles/freakonomics-podcast/2013/aug/2...
I've watched his series Connections about three times over. It's excellent and well worth your time.
For a good examination of what kind of society you might get when scarcity is gone and humans can create stuff at the drop of a hat, read Michael Moorcock's 'The Dancers at the End of Time". He doesn't go into details of how they got there or how it all works, but very interesting nonetheless. The main characters seem to settle into some kind of permanent battle to outdo each other with lavish parties and collect people from passing civilisations and time travellers just so they can have someone to talk to.
We are already moving to a more and more service base economy though. People still pay in one way or another for movie or television content. Nanofactories won't change that.
I would not classify movies and television content as services, but I agree that non-material goods provide real value that nano-factories cannot simply replicate. We will continue to require labor intensive services (, such as plays, restaurants, etc.), and non-exclusionary goods, (i.e. films, designs, concepts).
I think he's naive with some basic human behaviours and economics of it all. What he says is 90% true though.
Replicator and holodeck?
For a man who specializes in foresight, Burke misses the boat on eavesdropping.
"They don't care about ME! They only take notice of people when they're connected to an group or event that is being monitored"
Well no shit. Thats like saying a tyrannical government only silences those who oppose them. They don't care about you today, but as soon as you stick your head up everything you've said and all your human connections are immediately tagged. I find that discomforting! And what a poor showing from the interviewer not to mention this.