[Ask the Gulch] It seems to me (an information worker) that a great deal of the uncertainty we are facing is the creative destruction that happens when disruptive technologies significantly change (or remove) markets. Shouldn't we expect this?
Posted by pdohara 8 years, 3 months ago to Ask the Gulch
2. The rate of innovation is on an exponential curve and we are (in my opinion) just past the knee of the curve. Example: Innovations in the next 10 years will equal or surpass those of the last 20 years.
3. I have been in the computer technology industry for over 50 years. Typically IT organizations contain the same mix of stick-in-the-mud people (or worse) than any other part of the business. Most IT organizations are still living in the distant past technologically. (I also teach IT classes and I hear from students everyday on how obsolete and stuck their organizations are.)
The financial uncertainty we are facing is due to our central bank, combined with opaque taxation and regulations.
And, yes, we should expect it. I expect a lot more.
Information and the processing of it is a value-added thing.
I just looked at your original question again. The greater access to technology, many theorize, has increased standard deviation in the markets. I supposed that could be disruptive. For me, it's not. Interesting question.
Even such steadfast and seemingly unchangeable endeavors such as merchandise retailing, distribution and shipping are caught in the avalanche of technical innovation. If a person wants to survive in a future marketplace, that person will need to learn to keep up with new ideas and products and be willing to move from job to job, and place to place. The other alternative is to create one's own job through self employment.
The only way to keep technical innovation from rapid change is to become a socialist state. A sacrifice of freedom for security.
YES.
But since the Future is Unpredictable, the best way to handle disruptions is to be a flexible and responsive to the innovations as you possibly can!
What kind of organization or mindset would provide the maximum amount of those two benefits to your industry or any other?
About a dozen and a half years ago, I proposed creation of a database and communications system that, from some estimates, would improve the productivity of each of the thirty or so people just in MY department by at least 20-30%.
Never happened. No funding for its development or ongoing support expenses, though the potential savings would have covered all that in less than the first year of operation.
Vision? sorry... not there....
Scenario: Robots programming robots to make and deliver robots to make products and deliver those products. I see at best a few humans in this process if at all.
Printing food...while waiting for my appointment today I just briefly scanned an article about this. What really raised my ears was they never even considered exacting duplicates of the best steak on earth but instead printing steaks from insects cause of the "Pollution" involved in raising animals...I wanted to shove the article up the authors you know where!
There is much to fear from this attitude of replacing the real thing with a fake when we really could be reproducing the best of the best like never before.
I've no clue at this point as to what would be left to do for most of us. But what I do see is that we might be able to produce for ourselves what was once produced by others. I still think that some compromises might be considered in favor of at least some human involvement.
See, here is the allopathic problem...dealing with the symptom and not the cause.
The Cause?...unions, poor education, improper upbringing, all perverting attitudes; diminishing skills and work place behaviors.
The simple truth is that Humans need to be productive, innovative and involved...without these things we loose the better part of ourselves and become mentally sedentary, worthless and will begin to devolve.
But guess what...as we all have come to realize, this De-evolution is engineered by the very creatures that never possessed these Human qualities in the first place. They have made us in there own image so to speak.
We can take it back by changing our behavior, our children's behavior and taking part in the process:
Yes, Robots should take over tasks that are boring and repetitive, dangerous and harmful; but not where human interaction is desired and beneficial for our species and the health of our society.
The way I see it, what I have observed in the big picture of things, is that no matter how advanced we get, there are always dangers of unexpected collapses, natural and manmade, unintended consequences; so the responsible response should be maintaining a foot hold in both the productive and successful old ways and the best of the new. That way, we will be prepared for what ever the future or nature might throw at us.
Was this the mistake, perhaps, past forgotten civilizations made.
We should study past civilizations more closely for sure
Now, with the ability to re-create a mass compliant, non threatening entity, victory might be within their sights.
This too, defines The Fight for Conscious Human Life.
be endured. Still, maybe there will be new plants
where those computers and machines are made.
Only, maybe they will get computers and robot-like
machines to do the manufacturing.
However, I fear I am missing the thrust of the question. Herb7734 addresses what is most likely your question.
Psst! Old dino stole that.
I don't see how that constant rules out some changing back, though.
You have to expect uncertainty -- which is hard. I f you think you are acting cautiously to secure a safe result you are probably at risk to factors you are not able to take into account.
If it's destruction by government with the only purpose to disrupt and destroy then we should not have to expect this.
If the second occurs the explanation is simple. We chose the wrong government.
If it occurred through the use of criminal elements outside government same answer. Government should be alert for this sort of activity not aiding and abetting.
If the first situation occurs without undue interference then we chose the right government.
Applied this to todays situation where both choices WILL be the wrong choice.
That means we chose the wrong method of choosing government.
Whose fault is that? All we had to do was follow the rule book instead of ignoring it.