Accelerating Change --- Why technology will be the defining battle of the 21st century

ReasonOnline ^ | 08/13/03 | Ronald Bailey

[ClearCase_guy]

It took nearly 1,800 years for per capita incomes in Western Europe to triple, from about $450 in 0 A.D. to $1,269 in 1820 A.D., according to economic historian Angus Maddison.

I am staggered by the sheer stupidity of this statement. Per capita income cannot be meaningfully measured during this time-frame.

[.cnI redruM]

My initial instinct is to concur wholeheartedly. I especially liked the line about candlemakers vehemently opposing the light bulb.

I'm of the opinion that one of major reasons that code-writers and technical documentation specialists in India and China can work on projects for Oracle is that the internet has advanced to the point where this is possible.

The tech-workers losing their jobs in SIlican Valley today are the candle-makers of the 21st century.

[Dead Corpse]

"The question remains, can this advance be sustained?"

The answer to this is a resounding "YES", but with one caveat... Government must not get in the way of advancement. Governments are wonderful at destroying things, very poor at encouraging or creating advancements.

[TheGeezer]

What I want to know is, when will the WWW gain consciousness? And, having done so, will it immediately die from veneral disease?

[IronJack]

Without pondering this article at length, I cautiously disagree with its premise. At its root, technology is motivated by human curiosity and a desire to control one's surroundings. There is a strengthening movement against both of those motives, apparent in such ideologies as anarchists and latter-day Luddites.

In a more moderate vein, technology has, in many cases, outstripped the moral boundaries that should constrain it. It's like handing a two-year-old a loaded gun. We're capable now of doing so much more than ever before, but at our simplest, we're still just hairless apes grunting and howling around a different jungle.

Technology may continue its advance, but the repercussions will not be solely economic. The question becomes "Will technology define our society, or will our society define our technology?" I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[ClearCase_guy]

Have you read the William Gibson triolgy, starting with "Neuromancer"? The people in the book speak of the time When It Changed. It refers to when a greater-than-human AI process becomes immanent in the network (which Gibson called the Matrix -- in 1983).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Per capita income cannot be meaningfully measured during this time-frame."

The Romans were pretty damned good at keeping records, so we DO have a reasonable idea of the population of various areas and the level of income therein (remember why Joseph was in Bethlehem--so "all the world can be taxed"). Admittedly, it is an estimate rather than a true measurement as we expect today, but it is an estimate based on reasonable information.

[boris]

"In a more moderate vein, technology has, in many cases, outstripped the moral boundaries that should constrain it."

Dr. Gatling invented his gun because it would end warfare by making it too horrible to contemplate.

Other examples come readily to mind.

--Boris

[ClearCase_guy]

Your point is well taken. But what I was getting at was that the world did not really function as a cash economy back then. There was slavery, and later serfdom. Most people were subsistence-level farmers. You could go through life without ever touching a coin -- it would have been unusual if you did get a coin.

Based on that, I say that comparing per-capita income in (let's say) the year 500 with the year 2003 is silly. It can be done, but I think it gets you nowhere.

[mattdono]

Boris...you are, of course, pointing out the age-old problem with technology: that it can be used for good or evil.

Unfortunately, this line of logic is usually what leads to government interference (i.e., to keep the evil controlled). I am not sure how I feel about it. I feel that technology is generally good (e.g., advances in medicine, scientific understanding, etc.), though I obviously would concede the possibility of utterly attrocious uses as well.

P.S. I hadn't seen (no offense, noticed?) you out on the boards lately. Good to post with you. It is always an interesting discussion, even when (maybe especially when) we don't agree.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Based on that, I say that comparing per-capita income in (let's say) the year 500 with the year 2003 is silly. It can be done, but I think it gets you nowhere."

Sure it does. Total goods and production (i.e. GNP) divided by total population means the same thing now as it did then--but the "error bars" are bigger, as both the "GNP" and "total population" numbers are estimates rather than measurements.

We have even today a large percentage of the population as "zeros" just as they did then. Only today they are not slaves--they are just "on welfare". Even so, they still are part of the overall economy (as consumers rather than as unpaid producers of wealth).

Now, if you want to talk about "wealth distribution", then that is a horse of a whole different pigmentation, as the fraction of "dirt poor folks" was significantly larger than in the "First World" today.

[StriperSniper]

when will the WWW gain consciousness?

This will help: The New Diamond Age

[ClearCase_guy]

Now, if you want to talk about "wealth distribution", then that is a horse of a whole different pigmentation, as the fraction of "dirt poor folks" was significantly larger than in the "First World" today.

That's precisely why I think "per-capita" is a red herring. Look, in the USA we might say that our per-capita income is $30,000 (or whatever) and Sweden's is (let's say) $31,000. This tells us that lifestyles in the two countries are roughly comparable. But in Zimbabwe, the per-capita income is $1000, so we know that most folks don't have DVDs, microwaves, and 401K plans.

I feel that the term "per-capita income is silly if wealth is inherently held by the few (as it was before industrialization). Look, if we have a small country occupied by Bill Gates and 1000 people on welfare, the per-capita income in about $20,000,000. It's true enough, but I think it tells you little of importance.

In short: I think that economic data from long ago can be derived and studied and use can be made of it in many cases. But "per-capita income" is, IMO, meaningless when society is divided between rich royalty (1%) and dirt poor serfs (99%).

[TheGeezer]

I haven't read any Gibson. I recalled from The Terminator the line, "It gained consciousness on (such-and-such a date...)" Since I work supporting a medium-sized network, I'm confident that it won't happen soon...;>)

[Wonder Warthog]

"In short: I think that economic data from long ago can be derived and studied and use can be made of it in many cases. But "per-capita income" is, IMO, meaningless when society is divided between rich royalty (1%) and dirt poor serfs (99%)."

But it is NOT meaningless. It measures the productivity of the given society as a whole. That the wealth ends up being concentrated in a tiny percentage of the population is irrelevant--the meaningful information is that a certain number of people generate a certain amount of wealth per person---not that they end up OWNING it.

Gross domestic product (i.e. total wealth) won't give you tne necessary info, as it tells you nothing about the productivity per person.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse. I'm not an economist and I may be way off here. My final attempt:

If we are discussing technological change, and its affect on productivity, then is income the right metric? Inflation and deflation over the course of a millenium are very hard to figure and, I think, create a margin of error which is far too big.

Inflation ups your income, but doesn't (necessarily) increase your productivity. Deflation can be caused by higher productivity, but can lower your income. So, isn't is risky to look at overall societal income (or per-capita income) and make a judgement call about how productive the people are?

If I want productivity metrics, I would measure productivity. If I want income metrics, I would measure income. I don't think they are the same thing. I'm not comfortable postulating a whole lot of data from the year 1 to the year 1820, swallowing error margin after error margin and coming up with a "per-capita income" figure and THEN using that figure to make a statement about productivity. I think at some point in the process we just go off into neverneverland.

[RogueIsland]

The tech-workers losing their jobs in SIlican Valley today are the candle-makers of the 21st century.

Your analogy is completely flawed. IT and Engineering are not obsolete, so anyone with delusions of making a "buggy whip" comparison needs to rethink it. In order to find a correct and legitimate analogy to the gutting of U.S. technology base, you would have to look back in history for another viable, strategically important industry that was simply shipped overseas.

[.cnI redruM]

You write like a frightened man who is hearing the sound of inevitability. Industries and jobs are not birthrights and there are never guaruntees. If IT was viable, it wouldn't have crashed in 1999 and noone would incur the transactions costs involved in finding foreign workers to fill professional positions.

Perhaps, another way to look at it, is that IT is no longer viable at $90,000 a year per employee. The Governement hasn't paid entry-level employees in IT even close to that. Their jobs advertise all over www.USAJobs.opm.gov every day and remain unfilled. Sometimes for three years.

The starting salary for a GS-9 is 7 times what Oracle pays Chinese db programers and once you get tenure, they have to catch you in bed with a live boy or a dead girl to ever get rid of you. Permanent IT job security is just a point, a click and an annoying application process away. It just doesn't come with the Hamptons lifestyle.

It's not the IT jobs that are getting exported, its the champaigne lifestyles and the caviar dreams.

[IronJack]

"I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."

-- Robt. Oppenheimer, called by many The Father of the Atomic Bomb.