Author Topic: The Zero Marginal Cost Society  (Read 1114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

J_Smithy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +1/-0
    • View Profile
The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« on: June 16, 2015, 02:13:51 PM »
This reminded me of what I thought Diginomics might be about:

Jeremy Rifkin at the #CGC15: “The Zero Marginal Cost Society”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75yiRvi48RQ

I suspect a lot of us realize this is where we are headed.  A society that has the capacity to take care of itself.  Competition and striving to be the best are still important, but because of advancements we become able to connected the unconnected peoples and harness the efficiency of doing so.

More mathematically I suspect diginomics can be seen as a generalization of the bitcoin project.  This video seems to describe such a generalization. It suggests all groups and systems could be "fixed" and arranged like bitcoin.


« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 09:00:55 PM by Travis Patron »

Travis Patron

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Reputation: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Diginomics
  • Bitcoin Address: 18dDdaNSRXVgqkwPtKvFRf5Wcit42K1BbL
Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2015, 01:29:43 PM »
I like to think bitcoin is a subset of what the concept of diginomics represents. It is a mathematical ledger of associating value to different addresses.

In terms of society taking care of itself, I think we are going to see a huge shift in the labor force in the coming decade due to automation technologies. With decentralized autonomous corporations such as the bitcoin network, miners are the real employees. With smart contracts, they will soon be the customers as well. This will render a good number of industries as obsolete.

Humans and their purely biological tool set will be driven out by exponentially rising computer power - something which will leave many worse off and many much better off. Because of this the inequality gap is set to increase, and certainly not decrease. Inequality is one of the underlying patterns of the universe - from expansion of the galaxies, to increasing complexity of business structures and societies. You cannot fight inequality with socialism, but must focus and encourage the very best of the best. Pareto's Principle would call this the 20% producing 80% of the results.

Let's just make sure we are always striving to be the very cream of the crop.

J_Smithy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2015, 02:56:34 PM »
This paper Szabo just tweeted about Smart Contracts, perfectly explains all that: http://www.erights.org/talks/pisa/paper/index.html

Its an awesome read!

Quote
"Why the Third World First? Why may the third world lead the first in the transition to smart contract mediated global commerce? Because of differences in the nature of legitimacy in these two worlds. Because the first world has already paid the homogenization costs -- it has already lost the diversity the digital path could have preserved. And because the third world lacks a working installed base of law and property, which could lead to the leapfrogging seen with cell phones in Eastern Europe."

"The architecture of the Net has dramatically turned this around, creating actual freedom of speech more absolutely than even the best constitutions. "

" once technology costs become inconsequential, we expect the third world to overtake and then lead the first in making this transition. Why?"

"The costs of rule homogenization discussed above, to be paid on the governmental path, is a cost that has already been paid and largely forgotten in the first world. The first world has already lost this great source of diversity, so the digital path's option to avoid paying these costs is not a selling point there."

"Cell phones first became society-wide hits in poor countries with terrible telecommunication, not in rich high-tech societies. (My own observations of Prague vs. Silicon Valley in 1998 corroborate this -- cell phones were everywhere in Prague.) "

"Formal laws in the first world do change under political pressure. One of the more effective sources of pressure are those who stand to gain from large scale commerce with the rest of the world. Once a significant part of the world's economy is occurring in the digital path, first world businesses would then face a choice -- trade with these networks or stay legal-legitimate. This is an unpleasant choice both for them and their governments. The pressures will be great to legalize trade with these jurisdiction-free networks of commerce. Once such unregulatable trade is made legal, the dam will have burst. What will be the character of the resulting world?"

Two large ideas come to me mind here.  In my city there is a certain type of back ally system set up from the old setup when the city was quite smaller.  I highly suspect that a small program where transient peoples could pick up certain bottles and recyclables and bring the to an exchange could benefit from a crypto/smart contract program.  There is a lot to address but the idea of incentivizing even a few homeless peoples to learn basic automated cell phone systems which would give them and idea and a bank account of some sort.  There is a great cost savings I think to the social system if all of a sudden transient people can be "dealt with" by using technology.  The solution here then should involves maths akin to networking and traffic. 

The other thought is from the poker world, transitioning from a system where 3rd party centralized models (poker stars etc.) own the bulk of the game and the profits from it, to a decentralized player owned system.  I believe this could be some form of a lesser dimensional version proposed in the above paper.  Very simple put, you issue shares to control the entire poker network, and create a system that incentives players to cooperate against the current centralized model.

  I'm going to be spending time meditating on these two possibilities and studying around them.  The paper above likens smart contracts to games, or uses games to explain them.  This is something I have been thinking and writing about and I believe that a true solution to poker as a game of hidden information will have significant effects on contracts and therefore our global markets. We are close to brute force solutions in some ways, but truly I think a solution to complex games like poker can only happen through a free market (which is necessarily decentralized).





Li

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2015, 07:52:27 PM »
This reminded me of what I thought Diginomics might be about:

Jeremy Rifkin at the #CGC15: “The Zero Marginal Cost Society”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75yiRvi48RQ

I suspect a lot of us realize this is where we are headed.  A society that has the capacity to take care of itself.  Competition and striving to be the best are still important, but because of advancements we become able to connected the unconnected peoples and harness the efficiency of doing so.

More mathematically I suspect diginomics can be seen as a generalization of the bitcoin project.  This video seems to describe such a generalization. It suggests all groups and systems could be "fixed" and arranged like bitcoin.

Thanks for this video. I had never heard of Jeremy Rifkin, but his talk here is highly relevant and interesting.

J_Smithy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Zero Marginal Cost Society
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2015, 09:10:11 PM »

Thanks for this video. I had never heard of Jeremy Rifkin, but his talk here is highly relevant and interesting.
Yup, me neither, and I thought so too!