Torrenting the Future

Posted by on June 16th, 2010 in industrial design, pirate utopia, post-scarcity

I recently came to the chilling conclusion that we are watching the battle for the human species play out today, and not on the eve of the Grim Meathook Future or the Singularity as I’d hoped.  Something with stakes that big, you’d think would involve at least a few lasers or robot gladiators battling it out for the survival of the future.   Instead, what I found myself watching was the P2P downloads scene.

And, if my initial realization held any water – it wasn’t looking good for Team Humans.

I don’t think it’d surprise or offend anyone if I suggested that we’re enmeshed in many systems that trade off long term survivability for short term prosperity.  It’s pretty clear that if non-renewable resources are continually stripped and burnt through and the rate of consumption of renewable resources  surpasses the renewal rate that we’re kind of screwed in a long-term scenario.    Capitalism (as it is currently expressed) and religious faith in market forces have brought us to a point where if there are not drastic changes in resource management, alternative fuels and materials and distribution of wealth soon (the sooner the better) then the long-term future is looking pretty grim.

(I say “as it is currently expressed” because honestly I don’t have any better, workable ideas than Capitalism.  As far as I’m concerned, Capitalism is that trashy bar right across the county line in a dry county in the US.  It may not be where I’d like to be; the drinks are watered down, and sometimes there are fights, but they’re the only game in town.  Until it stops being a dry county, at least.)

And, as I often point out, its not a good sign that we haven’t figured out how to distribute water, food and shelter in anything resembling an efficient or civilized fashion.

Like a lot of wannabe utopianists or futurists, the hope that I’ve always held out for in the hopes that factors would change and make civilization not just profitable and expansive but sustainable and workable in the human long-game is the creation of a post-scarcity economy.

It could be a by-product of the Singularity or perhaps the Singularity itself, a by-product of a shift up in humanity’s Kardashev level, or just a result of people deciding that this long term survival thing is actually pretty important; but the post-scarcity economy has been my holy grail for a long time now. My thinking has always been that while post-scarcity won’t be a panacea by any means, it would certainly give people ample chances to solve the problems of this world, get out to new worlds, and fall prey to a lot less of the petty squabbling that leads to  continued cycles of human on human violence in the here and now.   I’m by far not the first or last person to think that way; even Marxisim’s endgame was arguably the creation of a post-scarcity environment.

Except, I look at the extant examples of post-scarcity in action and… well…  that’s not going too well, is it?  I’m talking about P2P technology of course.  (I’ll make this quick, without turning this into a rant about piracy.)

Way back when, a Thing was a Thing;  an object occupying physical space, requiring resources to produce and distribute.  It was limited.  To take one Thing and make another of it required equal amounts of resources.  But digital Things (or Things that could be digitally reconstructed) require only a minute fraction of resources of the original to reproduce and distribute.  The question becomes, not “What is the worth of an item factoring in factoring in the limitations of resources?” but “What is the worth of an item that can be copied near-infinitely with minimal expense?”

The answer to that question isn’t clear cut – nor should it be.  It’s probably somewhere between “absolutely nothing!” and the $382 trillion in losses the Pirate Bay is supposedly responsible for, alone.   Instead of lawsuits, you’d think the logical thing to do would be to really sit down and look at the questions P2P and digital media raises about the nature of Things.  And there are some people doing that, but they tend to not be the ones with the giant legal teams.  In fact, let’s look at the resistance the emergence of a post-scarcity economy in the middle of a Capitalist scarcity economy generates:

And that’s all from just a very quick glance at my RSS feed.  There is a lot more demonizing of “non-infringing” p2p for the sake of stopping piracy or pedophiles, companies turning to draconian DRM (DRM itself being a form of artificial scarcity) and it is only going to get worse.   But this isn’t just about piracy.

This is about what happens next.

A friend of mine who collects action figures shows me a custom mod of an Optimus Prime Transformer figure.  I asked him how much it bugged him to dismantle a classic figure and he smiles and tells me he just scanned the parts he needed of his old one with a 3D scanner and built most of the new one with a 3D Printer.   And that’s just one example of how 3D printing is slipping into my everyday life.  We’re rapidly approaching the point where duplicating Things for a fraction of the original resources is easy - and by “rapidly approaching” I mean people you know are rapid prototyping and cloning items as we speak.   It’s not too much of a jump to think we’re not that far from something resembling nano-assembling – rendering ideas like “original” meaningless.  We’re exceedingly close the age where “remix culture” can remix Things with nearly the ease it can remix digital media.

But how will we react?   Will we put DRM on food so it can’t be mass produced?  Will we attempt to limit access to production engines?  Will we allow “market forces” to keep the poor needy while the top 1% don’t even have a concept of need?  Will we rush out to buy iMakers that scan the net to ensure anything you’re producing isn’t a component of a copyrighted product or recipe – or that only produce “family safe” products?

The P2P scene and the legal and legislative battles around it worldwide is not just about Piracy.  Piracy is part of it of course, but this is also where the post-scarcity future is being test-bedded.  What should be a conversation about the nature of Things and how we assign value to them becomes a war to ensure the new technologies become all but illegal, even for “non-infringing uses.”

There is a story about Nikola Tesla and J.P. Morgan.   The story claims that Tesla – who was being backed by Morgan at the time – went to Morgan and demonstrated that he had figured out how to generate free electricity on a large scale.  Tesla, the story says, had discovered how to eliminate scarcity from power distribution.  Morgan pulled his backing immediately, because, as we can easily imagine, his fortune and his vision of a future with himself and his ilk at the top of the food chain required only one thing in abundance: scarcity.  True or not, the tale is a good mirror of how things stand now.  Those systems and people and companies and governments that rely on scarcity to maintain wealth and power want the promise of P2P technologies to die on the vine – and that doesn’t bode well for what’s next.  (And let’s stop for a moment and consider how many institutions rely on people not having enough of what they need to maintain their existence.  Would it be going too far to suggest that any institution that relies on scarcity for its income and power is in fact an Enemy of the Future?)

Now I hope this is just what change looks like when you’re immersed in it, and that on the other side of this is a real post-scarcity economy so humanity can get to work on being better instead of keeping everyone in the mud.  But when, like me, you’re preaching the gospel of better living through technology and you watch the technology that could help make that life better continually get burnt down by people anxious to protect their wealth, it makes you worry just a bit.  And the whole mess is just another reminder that the Future isn’t a place further up the timeline, it is the thing we are building right now.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

16 Responses to “Torrenting the Future”

  1. Criminalization of P2P technology and filesharing hasn't slowed it down, though. Sure, it's driven the "scene" more underground, but it's still growing every day, and technological advances haven't stopped.

    Of course, making such things illegal makes the "general public" quite wary of them, which is what impedes progress. But that's because the advances we've had so far just aren't powerful enough. The average person is easy to convince that filesharing is "piracy" and "theft" because the average person has never considered the idea of 3D printing, let alone nanoassembly. The idea of Things no longer being Things only clicks with a very small amount of the population, Generation Z excluded.

    The ability to download a movie for free understandably hasn't sparked the imaginations of the mainstream masses. The ability to print out a Ferrari for $25 in raw materials will be an entirely different story.

  2. Hi Kevin,
    I loved this article and I will link to it from http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com
    I recommend that blog to you, given your inclinations
    and also Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez.

  3. Nice article. I thought it was really well thought out, and made me think a bit, although my personal opinion is that pretty soon our definition of a commodity or a thing will change in the digital sense of the term, and the market will adapt and is already adapting to the presence of P2P and other similar constructs. Maybe all this easy to copy stuff will start turning people off eventually, and quality long lasting hard to reproduce products will become the new fashion. Who knows what the future will hold? I certainly don't sense any grim futures coming from allowing it to exist, though I do see some in the propagation of laws like the ones you mentioned.

    The comment I wanted to make, actually, is that when you asked if DRM of food is going to be next, you didn't happen to mention that this has already been happening, at least in agriculture, for years now. Seed companies hybridize and copyright and genetically alter seed now such that the seeds of the following generation will be barren, or they add genetic markers such that they can identify their particular strain and sue those who keep the seed to replant instead of buying it from the seed company. There are still organic markets out there, but currently the majority of our grown food already has a form of DRM. Its severely frustrating to farmers in my area, at least, and limiting food supplies at this point just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

  4. Thanks.

    That's actually why I threw in that snarky link to Monsanto, in there. The copyright of genetically modified crops and how it is used to control markets, manipulate the industry and destroy competing crops should be fodder for a post (or 30) by itself.

  5. It's juxtaposition of the last one in your list that does me in, every time.

    " Would it be going too far to suggest that any institution that relies on scarcity for it’s income and power is in fact an Enemy of the Future?"

    No.

    This, by the way, is what I was talking about, with Forbes, the other day. This continual tearing-down of the culture and components for change, and throwing the pieces into the burning, sinking ship they were meant to save.

    Spreading this, everywhere.

  6. i really think we need to burn down the world's ideas soon because there is something coming, and it is either going to result in something magical or a full fledged feudal state.

  7. When I think of nano-assembly or methods resembling it, I always think what will happen if we develop these methods without the corresponding method of nano-DISassembly. Cheap to free production without a corresponding means of recycling or waste processing makes me think we’d be living in a world of garbage in short order. (We already are, but it’ll start to increase exponentially when suddenly literally everything is disposable.)

    Tangent to that, I think that such a world will provide a galaxy of opportunities for folks who do repair, re-use and repurpose. For someone with the right point of view on such things, they might never have to have anything built new. Dumpster diving could return as a respectable way of life.

    Business is just going to have to learn that in a post-scarcity economy they have to move from manufacturing based model to models dependent on human creativity, innovation and ingenuity. They’ll have to learn to trade in things that machines can’t (yet) do, such as design, aesthetics, art, etc. As such, business will soon find itself behind the times and racing to catch up since the open-source maker culture is already chugging along happily toward the future.

    Yes, they’ll whine and complain like a two-year-old screaming in the check-out line at Wal-Mart. But the ones who win will be the ones who can adapt. Adaptation has always been the key to the future, that’s never going to change.

  8. Post-scarcity economy?

    How about the post-economy economy? As in, there won’t be an “economy”. An “economy” exists when resources that entities NEED are scarce and need to be redistributed in an efficient way.

    What happens when Transhumans don’t NEED anything except, materials, an energy souce, nanomass, computing power and knowledge-bases and can recycle anything they make into anything else they need on the fly? What happens when Transhumans don’t NEED to eat, sleep, live on a planet or anything else a human takes for granted? What happens if Transhumans don’t even need a “civilization” in the sense humans understand the term? That makes hash of the “Kardashev” levels and explains why we don’t see any evidence of “galaxy wide engineering” as Ray Kurtweil suggests we would see if alien civilizations existed.

    Sure, there will be a transitional period where concerns about “post-scarcity economies” might be appropriate. I suspect the speed of change will make that period very short – and probably very scary – indeed – at least for people whose thinking is still human.

  9. Those civilizations further along on the Kardaschev scale may be operating in such a way that it’s not detectable to us. If they’re nanomass, who says they have to be in a solid layer around a star? It might be just as efficient energy-wise to exist in a mesh of strands a few milimeters thick englobing the star at a hundred million miles radius from the star. They may be far enough apart that the light of the star is not noticeably dimmed from a distance, and the strands themselves would not be detectable visually. Any civilization that got that far would be able to also make its mass undetectable to other forms of sensing as well. They might also simply appear as clouds of dust if they were something like utility fog. They might be out there and visible, it’s just that the visible signs happened a long time ago and they’re so far away the visual of it hasn’t yet reached us.

    They may not be interested in talking to us for the same reason we don’t feel like talking to trees. They may think that we think so slowly that surely we can’t be sentient, and therefore to them it’s like talking to the furniture.

  10. I definitely think this is what change looks like when you're in the middle of it. Companies who create objects (as opposed to data) have been contending with the kind of issues you touch on for longer than the MPAA/RIAA/etc, and I think the kinds of goods that are knocked off give us a clue as to how this is going to play out in the future.

    Let's assume the existence of your machine that can create anything, given some materials.

    I think a person who wants a snickers bar might choose to create an equally-tasty candy bar from a cc-licensed instruction set, rather than bootleg the snickers.

    I think a person who wants a handbag MIGHT STILL choose to create a Prada clutch rather than create an equally beautiful and useful cc-licensed handbag.

    Why? Because the Prada has been tagged with a fairly significant amount of additional data. It conveys a substantial amount of information to both the owner and to observers who know what it is (that the owner can afford it, that the owner has a certain kind of taste, etc). These tags have largely been created by the manufacturer's marketing.

    (cont)

  11. (cont from previous comment)

    But this is already changing, and this change is going to accelerate. Increasingly, I see friends who might choose to buy a handmade bag through Etsy rather than a Prada. Because now that object is also tagged with a very significant amount of additional information. It says something about the owner that a mass-produced item cannot. And the person who makes it is on twitter and you can find out how and why the bag was designed as it was and a million other things. These tags are created by social networks, and people are slowly discovering that they are very useful tags also.

    The struggle for mass information sellers of all types (whether that be mass market movies or designs for athletic shoes in the future) is going to shift away from DRM sooner than people think. Getting fair compensation for data you create is not the problem of the future. Near term, the real battle is already shifting to struggle for control of distribution (imagine your future countertop manufacturing machine… built by Apple) and marketing channels. But yeah…. that's still deep inside the middle of the change.

  12. overly-worded article.

    the term you are looking for is 'disruptive technologies' which will lead to post-scarcity.

  13. Might want to get a better website then Cracked for your point that $382 trillion dollars are lost each year. That number is a complete fabrication, most companies simply take piracy figures and say that everyone of them would have clearly bought the game/movie, and thus they count it as a lost sale. This is not correct in anyway, it's simply corporations with insanely unfair copyright laws attempting to make it look like all pirates would buy products if we cracked down, which is not the case. It's impossible to track the TRUE amount of lost sales without first analyzing the reasons behind piracy, which these companies refuse to do.

  14. Exactly. It's an absurd number. That's why Cracked, a website specializing in the absurd, chose to cite it.

  15. [...] Grinding: Torrenting the Future [...]

  16. The http://compmovie.com/ BEST MOVIES.