cwbe coordinatez:
866
1551575
1303683
7750884

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::4
total children::1
1 ❤️


show[ 2 | 3] flat


Rifkin predpovedá, že Internet of Things povedie k veľkej efektivite zdrojov, a tým pádom k zero marginal costs, inými slovami neobmedzenosti spotreby. To, podľa neho, bude znamenať vznik spoločnosti, ktorá už nebude podliehať tragedy of commons, ale označuje ju za Collaborative Commons, kde sa už nerobí rozdiel medzi producentmi a spotrebiteľmi a zanikne kapitalizmus.

Kapitalizmus sa, imo, nerozloží sám od seba pod tiažou ekonomiky. Bude treba politický zásah. Skôr sa mi pozdáva názor v tých odsekoch dole, že sa práca bude prekarizovať či zanikať, a ak sa nijako nezmení prerozdeľovanie, tak žiadni "prosumers", kreatívne využívajúci voľný čas, nebudú.




http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/creepy-new-wave-internet/?insrc=hpss

For many of us, it is difficult to imagine smart watches and WiFi-enabled light bulbs leading to a new world order, whether that new world order is a surveillance state that knows more about us than we do about ourselves or the techno-utopia envisioned by Jeremy Rifkin, where people can make much of what they need on 3-D printers powered by solar panels and unleashed human creativity. Because home automation is likely to be expensive—it will take a lot of eggs before the egg minder pays for itself—it is unlikely that those watches and light bulbs will be the primary driver of the Internet of Things, though they will be its showcase.

Rather, the Internet’s third wave will be propelled by businesses that are able to rationalize their operations by replacing people with machines, using sensors to simplify distribution patterns and reduce inventories, deploying algorithms that eliminate human error, and so on. Those business savings are crucial to Rifkin’s vision of the Third Industrial Revolution, not simply because they have the potential to bring down the price of consumer goods, but because, for the first time, a central tenet of capitalism—that increased productivity requires increased human labor—will no longer hold. And once productivity is unmoored from labor, he argues, capitalism will not be able to support itself, either ideologically or practically.

What will rise in place of capitalism is what Rifkin calls the “collaborative commons,” where goods and property are shared, and the distinction between those who own the means of production and those who are beholden to those who own the means of production disappears. “The old paradigm of owners and workers, and of sellers and consumers, is beginning to break down,” he writes.

Consumers are becoming their own producers, eliminating the distinction. Prosumers will increasingly be able to produce, consume, and share their own goods…. The automation of work is already beginning to free up human labor to migrate to the evolving social economy…. The Internet of Things frees human beings from the market economy to pursue nonmaterial shared interests on the Collaborative Commons.
Rifkin’s vision that people will occupy themselves with more fulfilling activities like making music and self-publishing novels once they are freed from work, while machines do the heavy lifting, is offered at a moment when a new kind of structural unemployment born of robotics, big data, and artificial intelligence takes hold globally, and traditional ways of making a living disappear. Rifkin’s claims may be comforting, but they are illusory and misleading. (We’ve also heard this before, in 1845, when Marx wrote in The German Ideology that under communism people would be “free to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, [and] criticize after dinner.”)

As an example, Rifkin points to Etsy, the online marketplace where thousands of “prosumers” sell their crafts, as a model for what he dubs the new creative economy. “Currently 900,000 small producers of goods advertise at no cost on the Etsy website,” he writes.

Nearly 60 million consumers per month from around the world browse the website, often interacting personally with suppliers…. This form of laterally scaled marketing puts the small enterprise on a level playing field with the big boys, allowing them to reach a worldwide user market at a fraction of the cost.
All that may be accurate and yet largely irrelevant if the goal is for those 900,000 small producers to make an actual living. As Amanda Hess wrote last year in Slate:

Etsy says its crafters are “thinking and acting like entrepreneurs,” but they’re not thinking or acting like very effective ones. Seventy-four percent of Etsy sellers consider their shop a “business,” including 65 percent of sellers who made less than $100 last year.
While it is true that a do-it-yourself subculture is thriving, and sharing cars, tools, houses, and other property is becoming more common, it is also true that much of this activity is happening under duress as steady employment disappears. As an article in The New York Times this past summer made clear, employment in the sharing economy, also known as the gig economy, where people piece together an income by driving for Uber and delivering groceries for Instacart, leaves them little time for hunting and fishing, unless it’s hunting for work and fishing under a shared couch for loose change.

So here comes the Internet’s Third Wave. In its wake jobs will disappear, work will morph, and a lot of money will be made by the companies, consultants, and investment banks that saw it coming. Privacy will disappear, too, and our intimate spaces will become advertising platforms—last December Google sent a letter to the SEC explaining how it might run ads on home appliances—and we may be too busy trying to get our toaster to communicate with our bathroom scale to notice. Technology, which allows us to augment and extend our native capabilities, tends to evolve haphazardly, and the future that is imagined for it—good or bad—is almost always historical, which is to say, naive.




0000086601551575013036830775088407752712
al-caid
 al-caid      07.11.2014 - 14:03:55 , level: 1, UP   NEW
tesim sa za tych 60M userov tej stranky a aj za tieto pestre moznosti ako zobrat svoj zivot do ruk; no ma to niekolko problemov: prvy je samozrejme ekonomicky, trebars chcem si kupit krygel, a tam vidim len ten americky styl pre psenicne piva, okrem toho cena je dost vysoka a tiez nie som si isty, ci sa to s postovnym a obmedzenymi vyrobnymi moznostami/setreni na materiali (krygel musi nieco vydrzat!) mne ako zakaznikovi oplati; no a tamto hovori len o produktoch, nie o sluzbach! mozno v buducnosti budu roboty schopne spravit bypass alebo pekny uces, ale teraz na to treba ludi, ktorych je obmedzene mnozstvo

potom je tu stary dobry spotrebitelsky etnocentrizmus, ktory ma opodstatnenie v tom, ze nakup regionalnych vyrobkov znizuje naklady na prepravu; na druhej strane, ak zijeme v bohatsej krajine, moze sa to bit so zvysenymi nakladmi na pracu (nemusi ist o financie, moze ist o kulturnu rozmaznanost typu "chcem jeleni gulas aspon raz do tyzdna" alebo "kto by dnes chcel tesara za muza"), a nakoniec rozhodne cena, ktora vedie ku globalizacii

a tu prichadzame k tretiemu problemu a kritike tvojho nazoru: politika ma o globalizaciu a lokalne specifika zaujem, takze bude zasahovat do procesu skor konzervativne, skor lokalne protekcionisticky; firma ako Etsy moze existovat v ramci obrieho americkeho trhu, no ak chces vyrazit na rusky trh s tonami jablk, tak ti to Putin zatrhne a este ta zruinuju jablka spanielske - pricom sam si si na vine, lebo si sa neprisposobil, resp. neloboval si dost u nasej vlady

000008660155157501303683077508840775271207752763
palino
 palino      07.11.2014 - 14:47:55 , level: 2, UP   NEW
etsy má ďaleko od zero marginal society; kým nie je sustainable energy, obnoviteľné zdroje, plne automatizovaná práca, ktorej výsledkom sú predmety trhu, tak sme stále na rovnakom mieste
čo sa týka toho posledného bodu- automatizácia práce, ktorá vytvára HDP, tam je asi najviac pokroku; práca bude čoraz vzácnejšia, náročnejšia, ale v kapitalizme je primárnym zdrojom príjmov tzv. ľudský kapitál; čo s tým?
pri automatizácii je spotrebiteľský etnocentrizmus prekonaný, globalizácia priamo nahráva automatizácii a lokálna politika globalizácii nebráni- dočasne- možno bude morálny pokrok v zmysle šírenia zlatého pravidla opäť narušený sériou vojen, ale možno platí aj, že ak máme väčšiu schopnosť deštrukcie, tým sa to viac vyvažuje na tej druhej strane tvorenia, kreativity, prosperity
trh je možno ultimátna odpoveď na vojnu, ale kapitalizmus nemusí byť jediný model trhu

00000866015515750130368307750884077527120775276307752818
al-caid
 al-caid      07.11.2014 - 15:57:06 , level: 3, UP   NEW
ludsky kapital vyspelych krajin vychadza prave z ocenovania tvorivych, neautomatizovatelnych schopnosti; je ale otazka, ci k vyuzitiu tychto schopnosti je lacnejsie vynajst stroj alebo najat cloveka z menej vyspelej krajiny - ano, moze ist o pokrokove odvetvie priemyslu, no ked ma chudobnejsia krajina xM hladnych krkov s holymi rukami, co si vyberie? globalizacia je rovnako druh pokroku, no odlisny: vedie k vytvaraniu centier a periferii, nie k optimalizacii vyuzivania zdrojov (to moze byt "moralny" dosledok raz, trebars freony sa zakazali celosvetovo, no zas okolo tych CO2 emisii je dost cirkus)

tento pokrok nespomaluju len vojny, ale aj "mier" na ekonomickej periferii, kde oligarchia brani vzniku strednej vrstvy

0000086601551575013036830775088407752712077527630775281807752959
palino
 palino      07.11.2014 - 18:26:40 , level: 4, UP   NEW
vždy je lacnejšie vynájsť stroj a stroj sa bude postupne zavádzať všade, kde je to možné(koľko je v skutočnosti neautomatizovateľných činností- v konečnom dôsledku stačí architekt systému- mysliteľ, vynálezca), ak sa nič nezmení v trende(nedávno som čítal článok o tom, že už aj v takej relatívne komplexnej činnosti ako právo dochádza k substitúcii)
ktorý podnikateľ si vyberie drahšiu alternatívu v podobe ľudskej práce v kapitalistickej ekonomike v hociktorej krajine? asi žiaden
vytváranie centier a periférii ide v globalizácii ruka v ruke s optimalizáciou- stále pre korporácie platia poučky o trhovom mechanizme; je tu indiferencia voči ľudským osudom a vlády sa len prispôsobujú, lebo tiež medzi sebou súperia, aby vytvorili vhodné prostredie na dočasný pobyt tej-ktorej korporácie
musíme ísť k základom sociálnej spravodlivosti pri týchto problémoch; autor vyššie naznačuje, že niečo vznikne spontánne, ale nemyslím si; zanedbáva totiž mocenský charakter vzťahov v spoločnosti