Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Jon Gosier: The problem with "trickle-down techonomics"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 мар 2015
- Hooray for technology! It makes everything better for everyone!! Right? Well, no. When a new technology, like ebooks or health trackers, is only available to some people, it has unintended consequences for all of us. Jon Gosier, a TED Fellow and tech investor, calls out the idea of "trickle-down techonomics," and shares powerful examples of how new tech can make things actually worse if it's not equally distributed. As he says, "the real innovation is in finding ways to include everyone."
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/tal...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
Oy. What does he propose- halting the advancement of all technology? Should we be able to predict the future? I think we can all agree that the Industrial Age has drastically raised the standard of living, not for every last individual, but as a whole. I'm so tired of these contrarian arguments, disguised as being in the interest of the poor and downtrodden, being thrust into the spotlight, only serving to make weak-minded people feel guilty for doing nothing wrong. It's easy to find a big topic and point out the smaller downsides if it. This mindset has become a cancer on the American mind and I would argue that it is a direct cause of our academic, technological, and industrial downfalls of the very late 20th and early 21st centuries.
If you listen to his conclusion he actually proposes that innovators, inventors and CEOs think about the consequences of the technology they are producing, not to halt advancement entirely. Its the access to technology not the production that is the problem.
I understand fully what he said. Inventors, businesses, etc. are motivated by one thing above all others- profit. Some may have other moralistic intentions as a secondary factor, but it's not anything we should expect of them. And how exactly can one possibly suss out all the potential implications of a new technology? And even if they could fathom some negative scenario, likely or not, should they then just can the whole thing?
This whole idea is absurd, pointless, liberal-minded drivel. Only in a society, borne of enthusiastic innovation and economic freedom could anyone even approach the level of comfort of life necessary to afford them the ability to point out why they don't like it. The irony is very real and, sadly, mostly lost on people of his ilk.
Patrick McGuigan Actually I'm in my last year of engineering and, as a belgian conservative, it's not pointless drivel. To begin with you immediately assume that innovation should always be privately funded. I agree that firms are a motor for innovation but they have their limitation. Secondly you assume that we should stop to innovate then. He said no such thing. For example we already have to take the life cycle and waste of a product into account when designing it. This is normal because these are real costs. It just happens to be the case that these kind of costs aren't assigned a monetary value automatically. (If you have problem with this you should look up ecosystem services just to give some idea.)
But there is another point.There is an opportunity cost in design. If you design a product a certain way this might bring a long inherent restrictions which means it's not applicable in some countries because it's to expensive for example. This doesn't even mean there's no profit to be made there. It just means there is no profit to be made there with expensive designs and that you need to adjust your design to it. You therefor have to innovate differently. I am not for extensive government intervention (though by american standards I probably am, our spectrum is considerably to the left), but I do think nuance and proportion has some place in this debate. To dismiss this idea as total nonsense, irregardless of how one would translate it to practise is in my opinion foolish.
I agree with you in that he said very little. And all of the impediments you've pointed out are ones of profitability. He is suggesting that creators take into account the potential negative repercussions of their technology and then... what- change something about it? Make it less successful in the hopes of not creating something that will benefit the vast majority of people while maybe hurting a few? Why are people like this so quick to point out the minority of cons at the expense of celebrating the remarkable pros? The examples he gave were pretty weak. Take the smart phone/health monitoring stuff for example- What would you have the creators do? Not release an app that millions of people use to live a healthier life, so that some imaginary hospital somewhere doesn't assume that this poor person had the same tech, and treat them differently? It is completely ridiculous. If that is the example he chose to illuminate then the real world must be much less volatile. And if the concern is purely about access to these technologies, what does he propose then- giving it away? Maybe a publicly funded, shittier version for everyone? That is called socialism. And innovation starves in those types of economics climates. Again- I remind you of your own comfortable, high-standard living that has afforded you the ability to point out what is wrong with it. This level of prosperity comes from economic freedom, not innovative road blocks.
ForYeensSake
Why do you assume it's an assumption? Some economic schools of thought have concluded that privately funded innovation is fundimentally more productive, and that centrally planned models cannot properly account for the economic knowledge problem. You can't even start to address the efficiencies of end of life costs when planners have already ignored the role of pricing in knowing what is worth doing.
"There is an approximately 50% deflation rate for all information technology. That is why mobile phones were only affordable by the wealthy 15 years ago and now are dramatically better yet very inexpensive, so much so that there are approximately six billion cell phones in the world and about a billion smart phones.
Technology starts out affordable only by the rich at a point where it does not work very well. By the time a technology is perfected it is almost free. Even physical devices will become almost free with the advent of 3D printing."
- Ray Kurzweil
Sure, there have always been examples of how some people or the last people to adopt new technology are affected negatively, but that is the price of progress. Consider how many small business owners have been bankrupted or how many people have lost their jobs because of new tech. I think what is of more importance is not new technology itself, but the rate of change. As long as there is sufficient overlap between old and new, and i think there is, the benefits so far out way the costs it hardly warrants discussion.
I grew up to see fax machines, inkjet printers, PC's, cell phones, air bags, anti lock brakes, stability control etc. all hit the market and were all to the benefit of only the wealthy who could afford them - at first. Now people who don't even have jobs have cell phones and people are always trying to find someone who wants their old computers and printers so they can give them away. Many places have free wifi now too so people can access more information than there ever was in a library and in time, the entire world will have internet access. Even rural Africa has cell networks now and has seen triple the growth of global average in recent years. Are the countless lives saved by cell phones worth trading for the few who can't or won't adapt to their use so we can be "technologically moral" ?
Trickle down tech has worked very well raising living standards overall for both rich and poor and will continue to do so. Without the wealthy funding new tech, the poor will never see it.
Totally agree, I think he's saying that the overlap you were talking about is maintained properly
I think the mobile technology he's talking about is already there. Yes he talks about the $400 phone, but there are plenty of tablets available for < $50 that can do the things he mentioned.
I dont really agree with his premise. He argues that the expectation is that all technology will flow downwards, but technology isn't an economic model, its a product or a service. The whole idea of the 'trickle-down' is a by-product and it isn't something thats built into a business plan.
Sometimes a product becomes mass produced and cheaper that eventually most people gets access to, but sometimes not.. Hows that the consumers problem (or anyones problem, for that matter)?
If you want to fix the problem then make more low cost items and coax companies into selling them to the 3rd world for little/no profit, don't come and bug consumers for buying technology..
Distribution not built into a business plan? Le what?
I didn't like this talk at all. The library example is especially bad. When I went to a library as a kid, I could search on a computer to see what books were in my library, and if they weren't available at my library, I could see what other libraries around me had the book, and then either drive to that library (which required a car, public transit probably wouldn't get you there) or I could order the book and wait a week for it to get to my library. If that book were digitized, I could access it from the computers already at the library, no matter which library I went to, and even if someone else was already looking at it. Then being able to access the material from home or on a mobile device would become a perk for those who have that technology, but the base functionality is still there at the library itself, just in a different form.
He's right in that we need to think about the impact of the things we design, but I think he's also being a little irrational. (Or maybe I'm just nitpicking one bad example, either way.)
I think his examples were how they were because he was trying to make the idea he was talking about relatable to the Valley.
No, sorry, it's definitely NOT the job of engineers to consider these things, these are social issues. If someone doesn't have access to some important technology, that's not an issue inherent to the technology itself, it's just a side effect of some social problem, like the wage gap, or education gap, or take your pick! This guy is just conflating things together.
Modern engineering programs are a bit broader in scope.
Everything he discussed wasn't a problem with technology itself but rather a problem with how people utilize it and how laws protect people from those who can exploit it.
My mind was hurting from so much economic illiteracy
So much that you can't contribute.
I do. Almost everyday.
Then why don't you explain instead of just being rude.
Rude? oh my lol, you must be new to the internet lol
Exactly lol
I'm sorry but this talk is filled with poorly drawn conclusions.The worst part is that the examples he gave (bitcoin, cellphones ect.) are some of the best examples of things that were once only available to the upper classes and now are becoming available to nearly everyone. The natural lifecycle of tech is to scale and become cheaper and more accessible as time goes on.
P.S. He can't even give any concrete solutions to this "Problem", and spoiler alert - it's because there are none.
"trickle-down techonomics" is something we see everyday and we should all be optimistic about.
How many programming languages are inaccessable to the public and only in the hands of the few?
It seems absurd, to argue that the field of technology does not trickle down. It seems like the LEAST tenible field to make this argument. We don't just recieve a trickle, if you havn't noticed, It's a flood.
Did you watch Back to the Future 2? It derails your point. If it was a flood, back in the 1980's, flying cars would be considered lowtech today.
Except that he *just* made a thorough, convincing argument to that effect.
LazyOtaku
Sort Answer: Movies do not accurately reflect economic reality.
I think the centralization of airport towers and the onerous hurdles in place for the average person to fly an aircraft is a not insignificant bottleneck to ubiquitous flight. Not to mention that patent law puts every technological development that comes into existence for over half a century pause through state based market protectionism.
Try to also imagine governments that are OK when individual use of small scale reactors to deal with the energy requirements of such aircraft's. That kind of radical freedom isn't part of the lexicon of the modern state.
State collectivism has killed any such possibility to such a develpment in millions of ways, not to mention their economic commitment to the coercive funding of the road system. Any such backpedaling would expose the centralized economic calculation problem. So onward, the commitment is enforced, even to technological detriment.
Still, I don't believe economics does not render magical thinking feasible, as such that's certainly what hover boards were, and various other elements of Back to the Future.
Brady Rose
Well lack of cheaper flight may have more to do with energy requirement to overcome gravity and needs complicated mechanical system that are expensive to maintain and build.do you have any idea of power density of nuclear reactors their mass and cost to manufacture highly enriched fuel for such a small core?
This problem has existed since the beginning of recorded history hasn't it? The rich prosper while the poor do not? I completely understand how frustrating it is to see suffering, however I honestly don't believe in slowing our role in advancing as a society to compensate for all of those who may get left behind? That kind of thinking is pretty backwards in my opinion.
Except that supporting the unfortunate makes life better for everyone ...
He wasn't asking people to slow down? Or even to stop and help the poor. He pointed out problems and suggested ethics in technology might lead to solutions.
He went from how technology can affect people negatively at the beginning, and suddenly to how only privileged people get technology...
He seemed to be all over the place. Giving laptops to poor communities in Third World Countries isn't bad, the key is education. The key to everything is education.
Did he say giving laptops to poor communities was bad??
Inventing technology to 'include everyone' will do nothing to help those who refuse to help themselves.
ironic saying that on youtube. huh? not an uncensorable p2p video/discussion network.
i get what you are saying, and i symathize. but at the same time pretty much every user is at the mercy of big monopoliy services. even great hackers usually use services like twitter and github.
it's frustrating to see how poorly some people protect themselves, but really even people who try often don't get very far.
I disagree with his base idea. We should not worry about the ways of life that will be left behind while we try to make progress.
I am in no way a Christian, but I learned in University that it was the true meaning behind the Kain and Abel story was not about murder, but the changing of a way of live. It was the settler killing off the nomadic life style. "Am I my brothers keeper?" was asking if the new way of life have to help the old way and hinder its own growth?
I can't help but think it is rather Darwinian to just allow new ways to appear and for natural selection to take its course.
Gee. I have lack of access to a multi-million dollar mansion, a Maserati, vacations on the Riviera....
I Want My Maserati! Give me an Obama Maserati!
I think this is only a temporary problem. We see older technology becoming more affordable and working its way down. Still, this is a good point to make to the technology innovators to take the distribution into consideration.
By the way, does anyone remember back in the 90s, when Newt Gingrich suggesting giving computers to homeless people, and everyone just made fun of him, because what would a poor person need a computer for? Now it seems like he was just ahead of his time.
Interesting talk, but technology does not become the problem simply because it doesn't happen to always be 'the' solution. Gosier's last example goes right to the heart of the true problem we face. Here land is being bought up in Africa by canny 'investors', emboldened and enabled somewhat by technology yes, but land grabs have occurred throughout history so clearly fundamental problem is our relationship to the land itself..
No one should own nor invest in land, which was made by no human endeavor, only investments in capital production can truly benefit society. Were the economic rents of this land collected and redistributed to the community via a citizens dividend (as happens with Alaskan oil revenues) then full private ownership right could be established without the damaging threat of land speculators.
As technology reduces the need for 'jobs' we will need to further collect and redistribute this and other Ricardian 'economic rents' to guard against capitalism's Achilles heel of monopoly, or wealth will only accrue to an ever diminishing subset of passive owners.
The problem with Trickle Down is that there is no such theory.
I don't understand how "trickle" has been made out as something good when the money is flooding up. Should it not be a fucking stream? I mean, really, a trickle is not enough...
Awesome and succinct talk
This is a really nice counterpoint to Silicon Valley's drive for innovation and profit. I hope we can still turn that trend around and shift our focus from the top end of the opportunity spectrum to the entire range of accessibilities...
Technology is a two edge sword. In one hand it giveth and in the other it can taketh away. And like every other material good, there will be "haves" and the "have nots."
You mean like, literally throughout all of history?
Exactly.
He sums up at the end:
"Real innovation is in finding ways to include everyone"
This seems like a pointless and unfounded statement. He hasn't through what he is talking about and has no real conclusion. I don't see any value in this.
Pissing on the lower class isnt a great way to keep your head on your shoulders
Aside from my severe disappointment that no one on TED was actually about to tackle the horrible idea of trickle down economics, I was surprised to find that this guy made some good points. Uncomfortable points, but points nonetheless.
“We shape our tools and, thereafter, our tools shape us.” - John Culkin (1967)
How many jobs have "HELPING TECHNOLOGIES " taken from American people and around the world? Grocery stores, offices, factories trading floors and on and on..... remember people ....Actions = Consequences.
This seems really dumb to me. Don't public libraries have computers with internet access? Aren't there devices capable of reading e-books that are dirt cheap? You don't need the latest overpriced Apple or Samsung product to benefit from technological advances.
HUGE assumption: tech improvements primary intention is to benefit everyone. Cars, televisions and lawnmowers are wonderful inventions but none of them benefit everyone. Does Jon Gosier say "something went wrong. not everyone has a lawnmower!" No. It does not mean anything failed or has a problem, any more than that when you eat everyone does not become full.
If you cant afford a phone, you damn sure cant afford to go to the doctor...
This reminds me of that interview with Michael Lewis about high-frequency trading and jacking up prices milliseconds before stocks are bought using high powered computers. Tech can be exploited in many ways.
Efficiency can be good, but it can also be incredibly bad when used as a tool for control. Efficient control over people will be the pursuit of those with power, this is human nature. Tracking what you eat, how active you are, what you read, what your politics are, what speech is politically correct, what websites are more trustworthy than others is a slippery slope for the rights of the individual, especially when that power is in the hands of a few. An individual tracking that information for themselves, is knowledge and it is personally rewarding, but an individual tracking other peoples behaviors for their own personal gain and power is wrong and its none of their damn business. That being said it won't stop the powerful from trying. I think technology is great, but while we go through technological changes ever more rapidly, we must ensure that our freedom is protected and without apology.
Humans, you just can`t imagine and comprehend how little use and value you will have in the future, if current state of affairs will go on ...
OOHHH so mysterious
Gareth Field
It is for most people. Almost half of the Americans thing Sun is revolving around Earth and many economists don`t understand opportunity costs, so ...
The value of technology and of capitalism which allows technology to blossom is so pervasive it is invisible; like the value of water to a fish. (Fish can't appreciate water if it knows not of air). But a glimpse of the value of free markets and its use of technology can be seen by merely comparing the life of a person today at the threshold of what is considered "poor" a level which includes air conditioning, color TV and smart phones, with the life style of the kings of old. Heck of someone in the middle class even just 50 years ago.
Tech is already restricting employment opportunities in some ways, or at least changing the dynamics of the process
I understand his point, but he makes it sound way too close to an excuse not to move forward. It scares me that he thinks we need to establish a legal code of ethics in the development of tech like we did for banking and business. Look how well that worked out.
You have no idea what trickle down economics is. It is another phrase for how a free economy works without the government taking from the rich to give to the poor, to themselves or their corporate pet projects. If you have 12 minutes to spare, go to my channel where I have created a video explaining trickle-down economics in a simple way where it's hard to argue it's a bad thing.
Yea, umm, word to the wise, insulting someone first thing might not be the best way to entice them to consume your content.
Gareth Field
Since when was saying "You're wrong" an insult.
Gosier didn't even mention job loss because of "trickle-down techonomics". I suppose since he's a "tech investor", he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.
I think the downsides of new technology he describes dont outweigh the benefits they offer
"They" aren't making his life as easy as he thinks it should be.
Why is there so many dislike?
On topic though, I have just the right slogan which will save us all:
"do no evil".
Oh wait =P
(good talk btw)
Ethics vs efficiency/tech.
He really had to stretch to find his examples. I would have a much easier time arguing that technology has an overwhelmingly positive effect on the poor in terms of raising quality of life and providing avenues out of poverty, and that technology 'trickles' to the poor extremely rapidly in today's economy. For example, the original smartphone came out in 2007 and today you can get an equivalent phone for less than $50 without a plan. For proof that smart phones have a positive effect on society and the poor please watch any one of roughly half of all TED talks... :)
This talk seems ill-informed, pretty disaspointing for a TED talk. All of his examples assume that the price of tecnologies will be the same in the future when they are more expected to be used. This is obviously historicaly innacurate.
We need to move away from out "earning"/resourcing each other to learning to live sustainably as a collective and have basic human rights be food shelter and internet access then we can focus all our effort to improving living conditions off all people in health and comfortability and expansion beyond earth. Basically a change from work to live / survive to work to thrive / explore.
It is so ironic that you added Internet as a "basic human right" along with food and shelter. I hope you are ok if this internet human right is fulfilled by being accessible only at public schools and public libraries. If it were a right to have Internet at home it implies someone has a right to own a computer to access it. All of these things have to be built and paid for by someone. They cost money. How can anyone have a right to somebody's money? Money is a result of someone's labor and time, essentially their life. You wouldn't advocate someone has a right to someone's life? Why would you advocate someone has a right to someone's property as in shelter, food and Internet? You might say "rich people" but keep in mind rich people aren't someone who always exists. In many countries of the world there aren't enough rich people to tax or the ones who are rich have negligible resources. So where would the money come from to give everyone shelter, food, and Internet (lol)
As soon as you can figure out a way to make people work to their full potential and pull their share of the load then your collective utopia will work. Every historical example of collective societies end in the exploitation and starvation of the lower classes, so you have your work cut out for you.
most techs are designed for profit.
We need true trickle-down tehconomics; as-well as true trickle-down economics.
Truly, we are at the brink of collapse.
I believe, he has few good thoughts. Piece of I. n
what if in a few decades there is a worldwide collapse of the internet :( got to learn not to rely on the web(imo) 🙍
A "collapse of the internet", as you call it, can realistically only happen when society breaks down as such. The internet isn't going anywhere.
k3nny111 could happen today
GuitarZombie So could a first contact with alien life. But I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
and the aliens shut down the internet
Survival of the fittest.
fit for what?
First comment