A short reply to Bryan Parson’s crowd power question

A short reply to Bryan Parson’s question on crowd power.

Brian, Thank you for the feedback and question:

“The idea of technology awakening the impoverished masses, may be a catalyst for hyper-accelerated development. Is that a good or bad thing, I wonder?”

A robust argument could be made either way, depending upon exactly which technologies do get broadly democratized to the masses and when. Great debate rages over this very issue.

What about taking a look at things from a different viewpoint:

• Does it matter if it is good or bad,

Who cares. ‘Good’, ‘Bad’, by whose definition anyway? Is society not changing what is good and bad at an accelerating rate? The disruptive events in Alberta and Ireland recently are redefining what was once considered as bad into good.

• Vision and Message. Positive v Negative,

Replacing a vision of seemingly perpetual poverty with a real live (see it, touch it, feel it) vision of hope: that is a different message.

• Enough already, humanity can get on top of it for once, before it is too late, with exponential thinking,

Society spends much of its resources responding to the effects of poverty. Fewer resources are spent in eliminating poverty. Again debate rages.

We now live in an exponential world where linear thinking breeds failure. Linear thinking might argue that a cheap cell phone, internet, a few seeds and a $700 micro-loan to plant a garden and by a milk cow is all that can or should be done. Steady as she goes linear thinking.

Exponential thinking would identify that the intermittently connected crowd will grow from under 3 billion today to circa 8 billion almost continuously hyper-connected people by 2025. So will grow access to knowledge and information, exponentially.

It is difficult to see a ‘seeds and micro-loan’ policy surviving the approval of the crowd for much longer unless scaled 10x soonish. A 1 billion happy / 7 billion unhappy ratio does not bode well for the future.

It is also difficult to envisage anything other than really bold moves capturing the crowd’s attention to make this all happen. Bold moves hat can evolve into a generational vision as hinted in a post entitled ‘a futurist story about Silicon Valley and Rio de Janeiro’. https://disrupt2thrive.com/2015/05/30/a-futuristic-story-about-silicon-valley-and-rio-de-janeiro/

Moves that envisage a ratio of >7 billion happy / <1 billion unhappy for humanity by 2025.

Anyway, to reply to the question: Neither good, nor bad, just necessary.                                 ddrp1.31.05.02015

A thought about wearables in 2025

A thought about wearables in 2025

The technology gadget space has been increasing dominated by wearables. Newer faster better gadgets and apps are hitting the marketplace at an increasing rate. Particularly through rapidly growing crowdfunding platforms (I.e. Kickstarter).

These wearables appear to fall into 1 or 2 of 3 main categories:

  • capture surrounding data for external processing then analysis (I.e. GoPro) – entertainment mostly.
  • capture data from the human body for outside processing then analysis (I.e. Fitbit) – sort of sensory addition.
  • capture data from the outside world for direct processing and analysis by the human mind, often in innovative new ways. (I.e. Oculus Rift). – technology as human sensory substitution for the minority and sensory addition for the majority.

A decade from now, ~2025, wearables that capture data from the human body will condensed so much that they may become ingestibles. Morning coffee with vitamins of choice and a diagnostic tablet. The diagnostic tablet does a complete body diagnostic and data upload before time for the morning constitutional.

Oculus Rift today, hyper-capable multispectral multipurpose connected glasses in a decade.

David Eagleman gave an amazing talk at Ted2015 in Vancouver on sensory substitution and addition through wearables. Eagleman et al are developing a completely new type of wearable that taps into largely unused human sensory capabilities with a Sensory Vest. A highly recommended watch on the TED website.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_eagleman_can_we_create_new_senses_for_humans

If a deaf person can start to learn to hear in 4 days and can learn a new way to hear everything in ~3 months by simply wearing a vest, could a person with hearing be able to learn a new language in ~3 weeks or less? Read and write at the same time?

Education well and truly disrupted. Online and long distance learning re-defined. Learn directly from the internet?

A decade from now, ~2025, learning something new may take not much longer than making the decision and putting on a vest. Kickstarter Alert!

Anyhow, just a thought from a seasoned old roughneck.