Category Archives: Futurist

Digital Economy Series: Through what eye do you behold a digitising economy?

In order to answer this article’s question we need to appreciate how our perspectives have developed. For it is important to note that not only do we all have our own biases but our world views aren’t always in synch on any one of a number of issues.

high angle photo of robot
Photo by Alex Knight on Pexels.com

This development process starts with our beliefs. These are shaped by factors such as our culture, our education and our experiences. What we hold dear, our values, not only grows out of our set of developed beliefs but are also shaped by our family’s values and our successes in life. What builds on these two, in turn, is first our attitudes and finally our behaviours.

This is where our perspectives of the future digital economy come into play. Because the future can not be studied, as it does not yet exist, only our images and conceptions of the future can be. These ideas are built upon our beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours. The vision that we each have of what a fully digital economy will look like depends upon our biases and world views.

Consider the question: “what do you think the future will be like?” From a temperament perspective, are you a hopeful person and by default you look for win-win outcomes? Or are you one who has been bitten by identity fraud and based on your experiences your answer is laced with skepticism. The implication here is that an argument for a fully digitised economy that is utopian in nature could be just as well received as well as one that is dystopian.

The question that follows from this first consideration is this: “what future are you afraid of?”. If you fear being manipulated by omnipresent artificial general intelligence, then you may well rail against “the machine” as it currently stands. Perhaps even exhibiting Luddite-like qualities in your attitude toward technological developments.

In discussing how the future of the economy could unfold, specifically the degree to which it could be digitised, we have seen that there is not one preferred scenario. Several possibilities could eventuate. What underpins any of these paths is the growing preponderance of the digital bit in creating economic value. For it used to be that the economy was solely based on what we could do with the atom – build things, sell things and establish bases of power through the material world. But now it is the world of the bit that is increasingly ubiquitous.

There are then several issues that flow from this increasing digitisation: the skills that we trade for value in the workplace, questions concerning the knowledge and wisdom that can be derived from a super-abundance of data, social responses to the changing structure of the economy, and the shape of governance structures surrounding corporates and other institutions. Finally, what may arise from this trend toward increasing digitisation is the emergence of an “intelligence economy”. One that supersedes the digital economy. An economy where real value is no longer held in varying compositions of bits, but in prized abstractions of knowledge stored in quantum computing machines.

In looking forward from the vantage point of today, what is your preferred future? How would you like this increasingly digital economy develop? Are you hoping for one that is based on solely the taxation of capital, thus freeing humanity through the mechanism of a universal basic income? Or are you hoping that life continues as it is, albeit with some form of control mechanism that reduces any digital encumbrances arising from social toxicity?

Whether we gladly accept this trend or hold deep reservations, the future is progressively digital. This phenomena will impact how value is created, how we lead our lives, and how the state conducts its governance. The nexus of all aspects of the future economy will rest on streams of ones and zeros. For just like the harnessing of physical streams by the waterwheel led to all manner of outcomes, so to will the technology that harnesses digital streams.

 


For more of what I have to offer, visit Dellium Advisory, follow on Twitter, connect using LinkedIn, review my IT Strategy blog, subscribe to my YouTube channel, or buy my ‘Jobs. Future. You.’ workbook.

Digital Economy Series: Will a digital utopia finally come to pass for us all?

In July 1893 220 men and women from the relatively new settlement of South Australia decided to start anew and create a utopian society in Paraguay, South America. Although this “New Australia Co-operative Settlement Association” had some quick wins in clearing land, establishing a township and using cattle as one of their sources of nutrition it all fell apart within two years. Despite their efforts, the ideal that this assortment of well-meaning people sought for was beyond them.

clouds
Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

While examples abound across the globe and across the centuries of utopian projects that ended in disarray, there are others such as the Shaker communities in the 1830’s and the modern Tamera project in Portugal that have achieved success.

However, when it comes to a future digital utopia will the dream be realised like the Tamera case, or will it be another failed venture like the “New Australia” community? Driving these outcomes are answers to several questions. For example, what does this future state look like? What is attractive about it? Do we actually want to live in a society and operate within an economy where “digital” is more dominant than it is today? What of the relationships between business, government and the citizenry? And then there are the global considerations – what structure will the interactions and governance frameworks at a geopolitical level take?

Now, building on the common meaning of utopia, being: “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect” of what form will this anticipated mid 21st Century digital utopia take? Could we attain perfection in employment, in well-being and in society? Regarding employment, one can argue that the technologies of automation and machine learning are laying the groundwork for universal basic income. When it comes to health, advances in personalised medicine could lead to us living in trouble-free bodies. Likewise with the social sciences, and with regtech and fintech, are we not marching toward more efficient transactions and services as well as removing impediments to social harmony?

But, while we can view all this progress and these trends though the prism of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the unfolding reality will be more complex. For one, Maslow’s theory of human nature, where the pinnacle of “everybody desires to reach their full potential” (which is the sub-text of the previous paragraph) doesn’t account for say McClelland’s achievement, power and affiliation motivational impulses. In similar fashion can we ignore Hofstede’s cross-cultural dimensions of power, individualism, masculinity, risk taking and indulgence as we advance towards this “i-nirvana”?

For the Western digital utopian vision may include a freedom to individually pursue creativity and education, but for those across the Asian or African continents the digital utopia may centre on social unity and shared economic activities. And while either personal or communal achievement is at the heart of each of these potential future states, individuals motivated by power could well be disenfranchised.

And this is where our move to digital ubiquity may actually reconcile these competing impulses and world views and realise a digital utopia. For the long-held and default perspective on our atom-centric economy is scarcity. It’s supply and demand. We pay a price in exchange for owning a thing. But in a bit-centric economy abundance is the dominant narrative. This abundance stems from the fact that there is relative little marginal and distributional cost associated with the production of digital goods and services.

For example, social media services don’t have limits on the number of people that can access their platform simultaneously. Likewise there are relatively few limits that can be placed on sources for Internet of Things data. And with the relative price of computer power and data storage always falling, the opportunities of artificial intelligence influencing the natural and social sciences seemingly knows no bounds.

It is with this perspective of abundance in a fully digital economy that a digital utopia may well come to pass for us all. While not in the same format for everyone across the globe, but certainly with some common threads and with unique contextualisations dependent upon who and where we are.

 


For more of what I have to offer, visit Dellium Advisory, follow on Twitter, connect using LinkedIn, review my IT Strategy blog, subscribe to my YouTube channel, or buy my ‘Jobs. Future. You.’ workbook.

Digital Economy Series: “Who and what is holding us back from a fully digital economy?”

Among many responses to the to the unfolding phenomena of a digital economy there are two that stand out. The first, is “yes, we will be enmeshed in a full digital economy by 2050”. The other, and more phlegmatic, response is “potentially, we could be enmeshed in a fully digital economy by 2050”. Upon examining the reasons for the less than full hearted second response, we reveal the forces arrayed against change. What follows is an assessment of the second response.

stop sign
Photo by Mwabonje on Pexels.com

Consider the fields of human affairs in which we are experiencing change. There’s environmental change, shifts in international and domestic politics, technological advances and the constant innovation in the health and human services sectors. Let us not neglect the spheres of finance, education, and governance. The list goes on. Trends, change and drivers of change. All threads in the dynamic tapestry of early 21st Century life.

In among all of this we are examining the digital economy and who and what is stymieing what some would call progress to the realisation of a fully digital economy in the decades ahead.

Asking questions is the key to this examination. Questions like: who benefits from the status quo and who loses if we go fully digital? What are the social, political, economic, legal, environmental or technological barriers to realising a fully digital economy? Are cultural worldviews and belief systems the obstacles in the path to building an economy that is fully digital?

Turning firstly to the status quo. Benefiting from the status quo are those whose influence, power and profit are founded on the world of atoms. If these attributes of prominence do not translate to the world of bits change is resisted. Remember the retailers of a few years back? To them the internet was but a passing fad. They saw no need to embrace the digital economy.

Our reference point for an examination of the social barriers could be the introduction of Facebook. Once Metcalf’s law kicked in, ordinary people could see the inherent value in sharing their lives online and overcame their reluctance to enter their personal and private details into the Facebook database. Turning to one potential aspect of life that could be with us the time ahead: personal artificial intelligence assistants (we do have Alexa, Cortana & Siri now don’t we?). Our uneasiness with being second guessed ahead of time by artificial intelligence may be rendered moot because of the value and ease these new machines bring to our lives, relationships and careers.

And what of the governing class and the way political life is conducted. Is it because of the Machiavellian dictum “never attempt to win by force that can be won by deception” that political barriers will remain? For with this category of barrier the perspective that “a fully digital economy is equivalent to full transparency” may well be the non-negotiable impediment raised by its stakeholders. An anathema to the political class.

And what of legal barriers? Consider the difficulties presented by cryptocurrencies, the machinations we have with privacy in a digital world, and the conundrums with copyright. And let us not forget the implications of RegTech, the jurisdictional challenges faced by taxation authorities in this digital world, and the quagmire at the interface of human bodies and technology.

Finally, there is who we are as individuals, as members of families, communities, tribes and nations. All revealing a rich and complex global panoply of worldviews and belief systems. We can conjure images of dystopia and pockets of doomsday preppers as symbols of resistance to a fully digital economy. And similarly we watch the countervailing forces of progressives and conservatives. Progressives seeking a better way, conservatives seeking to only incrementally improve the way things are. And then we have the reactionaries who are bent on impeding any forward movement that the forces of improvement show.

Given all this, is it any wonder that we have so far been able to thread the needle of change. Is it any wonder that the quality of so many parts of our daily life for so many lives is better than what it was decades ago?

There is no single “who” or “what” holding us back from a fully digital economy. But what there is this: a multitude of challenges that are to be overcome on our collective arc of accumulation.

 


For more of what I have to offer, visit Dellium Advisory, follow on Twitter, connect using LinkedIn, review my IT Strategy blog, subscribe to my YouTube channel, or buy my ‘Jobs. Future. You.’ workbook.