I had an interesting chat with a client today, where while I set the scene of the misery I see in the future due to the direction we are heading, I also tried to look at the positives. The problem is most of what we do as people in this world is pointing in the wrong direction. I have called most of what we do as busywork, but perhaps that isn't fair since the work itself isn't the issue as much as what we create with it is.
For example, we could look at the production of an iPhone, that requires tens of millions of people to feed the supply chain, from the initial design, through raw material extraction and processing, component manufacturing, assembly and distribution. Because while there are millions involved directly, each of these factors have their own supply chains with design and development included, such as the machinery that extracts and processes the raw materials, or builds the trucks and planes for distribution. All this, to create a device that largely is used for entertainment.
It isn't that the supply chain roles are useless, but what if instead of tens of millions involved in creating an iPhone, the same people were instead working toward creating a machine to clean the air or water, or to improve farming practices. What if all those highly educated engineers were collectively adding their brain power toward developing clean energy sources?
At the moment, the majority of the supply chain and the people hours put into development and production is pointed at creating products and services that make our world worse. Not just the environment worse, but our experience as humans. The majority of people don't get a lot out of their work other than a pay check and the meaning they apply to it is largely a rewrite, trying to justify that what they do is actually meaningful. However, if the majority of people were collectively working on the real problems we face as a species, they would likely feel deep connection, meaning and relevance in their lives.
And what is absolutely stupid about all of this, is that people argue about the negative economic impact of winding down things like the oil industry and other industries that do harm but employ people, as if moving to new tech won't create employment. The thing is, that old tech creates less employment and becomes increasingly robotic, because it is about doing the same task more efficiently. With new tech that is yet to be created, it is about developing what hasn't been done yet, which means multiple ideas looking to solve single problems, with no clear answer yet as to which one is better.
For example, let's say one of the product brief was to "clean the air of toxic pollutants", how would we go about that? Cleaning the air isn't about reducing the pollution pumped into it, as that just slows down the decline. To have clean air, we need to reverse the damage, which likely requires both technological advancement to create tools that filter the air, as well as grow back rainforests, and repopulate biodiversity. And this means that in order to do one thing, many other things need to also develop. The "clean air" is like the iPhone, in order to have the end product, it is going to take the collective energy of millions and millions of people working to solve the problem.
The problem with most of the challenges we face as a species though, is that unlike the outcome of an iPhone, there is no singular product that can be trademarked and profited from. Yes, the supply chain would look very similar to current production, but what product is there to sell? Along that supply chain though, there are many, many products that are required, it is just that the ultimate one is missing. And this is the problem. The iPhone makes profit for Apple Corp. and the suppliers make profit along the way, but ultimately the consumer pays that constant markup percentage.
We all consume the air we breathe for free.
Even though it is polluted. There is no business incentive to clean the air. There is no business incentive to clean the oceans or grow back forests. We no longer create things because we need them anymore, we create them to make profit. And because of this, the things that we actually need to survive will keep being underfunded and underinvested into with brain power, because the brightest people on earth, want to get paid, because that is the success metric we use.
If it doesn't make money, it doesn't have value.
And it is because of this mindset that I have very little faith in humanity reversing the damage to the environment that we need to survive as a species. We will kill ourselves in our reality, to make more of something that exists in our imagination.
The potential to turn our human resources to improve the world would not only create more jobs than are available today, but they will also utilise the very technology that is taking jobs now. For instance, a lot of people think that manual labour jobs are safe because the robots aren't going to be good enough. But they are basing this on the robots they have seen today, which are designed by humans. In five years from now, when it is far more intelligent AIs being applied to solve these problems, those robots are going to be physically more capable than a human - stronger, faster, more precise.
They will still need energy.
To finish with, consider something. How often do you charge your smartphone? Most do it every day, many do it multiple times a day, with some carrying around charging banks with them so they never run out of power. Now, what have you done with that energy? Tens of millions of people, putting in billions of person hours and pushing huge amounts of pollution into the environment were needed so that you can do it.
Worth it?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.