Jaron Lanier pdf, by Jaron Lanier Who Owns the Future?, book pdf Who Owns the Future?, PDF files by Jaron Lanier. Product details. Author: Jaron Lanier q. Jaron Lanier is the bestselling author of You Are Not a Gadget, the father But there is an alternative to allowing technology to own our future. Editorial Reviews. cepcosojurre.gq Review. An site Best Book of the Month, Jaron Lanier's last book, You Are Not a Gadget, was an influential.

Jaron Lanier Who Owns The Future Pdf

Language:English, French, Portuguese
Published (Last):03.09.2016
ePub File Size:25.59 MB
PDF File Size:18.57 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: WILLENA

Who Owns the Future? by Jaron Lanier. 10 Want to read; 2 Have read Third interlude, modernity conceives the future. Part 4, Markets, energy landscapes, and. Who Owns the Future? by Jaron Lanier - The “brilliant” and “daringly original” ( The New York Times) critique of digital networks from the “David Foster Wallace. Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF 'Who Owns the Future?' by Jaron Lanier (Simon and Schuster; 7, ). Table of Contents.

I want digital network— ing to cause more value from people to be on the books, rather than less.

But today Kodak is bankrupt, and the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in , it employed only thirteen people.

Jaron Lanier's 'Who Owns The Future?' What On Earth Is This Guy Talking About?

Where did all those jobs disappear to? And what happened'to the wealth that those middle-class jobs created?

This book is built to answer questions like these, which will only become more com- mon as digital networking hollows out every industry, from media to medicine to manufacturing.

Instead, its value comes from the mil- lions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it. Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value.

But when they have them, only a small number of people get paid. That has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.

Instead of enlarging our overall economy by creating more value that is on the books, the rise of digital networking is enriching a rel- ative few while moving the value created by the many off the books.

In all these cases, we see the phenomenon of power and money becoming concentrated around the people who operate the most central computers in a network, undervaluing everyone else.

That is the pattern we have come to expect, but it is not the only way things can go. That will make power and clout more honestly distributed, and might even lead to a persistent middle class in an information econ- omy, which would otherwise be an impossible goal. Terms It would be impossible to only use preexisting terminology to com— municate the ideas in this book.

The problem is not that there are no relevant, familiar terms, but that all the preexisting terms have baggage or common uses that are just enough askew from What I need to say that they bring more confusion than clarity. So unfa- miliar terms and expressions will appear. Think of it as the high-priority index. Today, we can still think of information as the intangible enabler of communications, media, and software. But as technology advances in this century, our pres- ent intuition about the nature of information will be remembered as narrow and shortsighted.

But eventually most productivity probably will become soft— ware-mediated. Software could be the final industrial revolution.

Keeping you connected to the best ideas in the world of new non-fiction

It might subsume all the revolutions to come. These and other examples will be explored in detail later on. Maybe technology will then make all the needs of life so inex- pensive that it will be virtually free to live well, and no one will First Round worry about money, jobs, wealth disparities, or planning for old age.

I strongly doubt that neat picture would unfold. Instead, if we go on as we are, we will probably enter into a period of hyper-unemployment, and the attendant political and social chaos.

Who Owns the Future?

The wise course is to consider in advance how we can live in the long term with a high degree of automation. Put Up or Shut Up For years I have presented complaints about the way digital tech— nology interfaces with people. You have to decide for yourself. There is also a material cost. People are gradually making themselves poorer than they need to be. Instead, we should seek a future where more people will do well, without losing liberty, even as technology gets much, much better.

My goal is to portray an alternate future in which people are treated appropriately as being special. Pay people for information gleaned from them if that information turns out to be valuable. If observation of you yields data that makes it easier for a robot to seem like a natural conver- sationalist, or for a political campaign to target voters with its mes- sage, then you ought to be owed money for the use of that valuable data.

As software and networks 7 become more and more important, we can either be moving toward free information in the midst of insecurity for almost everyone, or toward paid information with a stronger middle class than ever before. The former might seem more ideal in the abstract, but the latter is the more realistic path to lasting democracy and dignity. An amazing number of people offer an amazing amount of value over networks. We might even be able to strengthen individual liberty and self-determination even when the machines get very good.

The law states that chips get better at an accelerating rate. Instead of being added, the improvements multiply. There are millions who desire to star upon the stage, many more than are needed to supply the number of people who wish to sit in the stalls in front of a stage. Which is why acting is such a notoriously badly paid profession at the lower levels. The idea that we've made a social bargain to pay people to be actors even though we don't need to is simply nonsense.

So you have to have a broad distribution of wealth. This will come as a huge surprise to all of those who have made their billions from catering to the tastes and desires of those at the bottom of course. Hamburger Helper didn't become popular because the middles classes were scrimping on the meat budget.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that a society could well be better with a strong middle class and a broad distribution of wealth: just that this particular reason isn't it. This is simply the wrong way around. The aim and intent of new technology is to destroy jobs. That's the whole point of the game: to automate something that previously took human labour. The aim and point of a tractor drawn plough is to destroy the jobs of men digging the field by hand.

It's not that there's no reason for a new technology not to create jobs: it's that the whole point of a new technology is to destroy them. I mean, one of the issues is that in a market society, a middle class has always required some little artificial help to keep going. That's not a little artificial help: that's rent seeking.

Half of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is agitating against this being done by the Guilds of his day.

As Smith pointed out, it is precisely by destroying those little "artificial aids" that the rest of us prosper. And we have indeed been cutting away those supports for a couple of centuries now and as you'll note the middle class is rather larger than it was in On the subject of music, again, he seems to think that the point is for the producers of it to do well: I think in the total of music in America, there are a low number of hundreds.

No, that's exactly the way that you build a successful and vibrant society. We have some few hundred producing the music which hundreds of millions enjoy.

160_Lanier_Prelude Chap 1.pdf - /Who Owns the Future 53 t f...

Instead of, say, , producing the music for hundreds of millions to enjoy. This frees up 99 thousands and some hundreds of people to go and do other things for hundreds of millions to enjoy. And it matters not what either: changing nappies, making YouTube videos or painting nails. As a society, as a whole, we now have music, dry babies, painted nails and videos to watch.

We are richer as a society: we've now got four things not one. Precisely and exactly because we are using less labour now than we did to produce that one thing, freeing up labour to produce the other three. There's another name for this process: getting wealthier.

Lanier's opinions upon music, code, I know very little of these areas and so have nothing to say. But I would say about his venture into economics here. Some very good advice from his former mentor, Richard Feynman : "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. I'm a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rHis vision of a humanistic information economy is one in which participants achieve "economic dignity" by being proportionally compensated for all their contributions to the massive clusters of information — the so-called "big data" — circulating across digital networks.

We do. So unfa- miliar terms and expressions will appear. What's more, his writing is infused with the caffeinated enthusiasm of Silicon Valley, and his technologist's bias shields him from angst over the social and psychological ramifications of saturating human experience with such chronic opportunities for data analysis as the real-time tracking of our royalties.

This will come as a huge surprise to all of those who have made their billions from catering to the tastes and desires of those at the bottom of course. He specializes in the arcane and innovative, as might be expected. Ordinary people will initially start to earn a little when others are interested by their tweets, blogs, social network updates, videos, and the like.

Take services, for starters. As mentioned in the introduction, most successful Internet companies offer some service for free loc. Revolutions can happen without it, too, he says.