by Jaron Lanier
This article left me feeling a bit empty inside. Before this I briefly considered what the future might look like generations from now, but this dark depiction caused me to really imagine the possibilities.
You sit at the edge of the ocean, wherever the coast will be after Miami is abandoned to the waves. You are thirsty. Random little clots of dust are full-on robotic interactive devices, since advertising companies long ago released plagues of smart dust upon the world. That means you can always speak and some machine will be listening. "I'm thirsty, I need water."
The seagull responds, "You are not rated as enough of a commercial prospect for any of our sponsors to pay for freshwater for you." You say, "But I have a penny." "Water costs two pennies." "There's an ocean three feet away. Just desalinate some water!" "Desalinization is licensed to water carriers. You need to subscribe. However, you can enjoy free access to any movie ever made, or pornography, or a simulation of a deceased family member for you to interact with as you die from dehydration. Your social networks will be automatically updated with he news of your death." And finally, "Don't you want to play that last penny at the casino that just repaired your heart? You might win big and be able to enjoy it."
Depressing, right? I would like to bring up the idea that in this so-called "future," you automatically get heart treatment but you aren't given water for dehydration? It's a little dramatic and unlikely, but I see what the author is getting at. Technology is advancing at rapid rates. In the future, immediate resources, like food and water, may become more expensive or even impossible to access because of how we are draining earth's resources. Hence, the beach scene. It is getting easier to create high tech things, therefore devices and softwares are getting cheaper. But there is always something "new." I thought it was interesting to point out that companies are always planning for updates. They implement shortcomings in current technology so people desire to always have upgrades. But how much longer can this go on before our technology has so many features we can't keep track? Will we ever have technology that works perfectly and doesn't need an upgrade?
The last interesting point this author makes is that he believes that people who provide information should be compensated. Right now, we take free networks for the cost of providing our information. We are watched and listened through our devices (another creepy accurate problem this world). People accept this, or don't even know about it. The author argues that we should be paid for our information. He states:
An amazing number of people offer an amazing amount of value over networks. But the lion’s share of wealth now flows to those who aggregate and route those offerings, rather than those who provide the ‘raw materials.’ A new kind of middle class, and a more genuine, growing information economy, could come about if we could break out of the ‘free information’ idea and into a universal micropayment system.
A stronger middle class for compensation of these "raw materials" seems innately unlikely and quite impossible to me. How do we even know who is providing these raw materials? Are we going to have to copyright all of our ideas or information we provide to these so-called tech companies? I'll believe it when I see it I guess...
This article, for me, brought up the idea of net-neutrality, which is such a highly debated topic right now. I'm not well-versed in the subject, but the government desires to rid net-neutrality, which will give more power to corporations in that we the people will have to pay advanced rates for quality internet use. I would like to explore this topic more, and really know the pros and cons to net-neutrality before I make any claims. However, the internet has been a source and resource for free speech and knowledge throughout my life, and I would hate to see that become more costly.