Society Doesn't Know How To Deal With Abundance
from the we're-hard-wired-for-scarcity dept
There's a great post about a recent Clay Shirky talk that highlights one of the key reasons why I think so many people have trouble understanding the economics of abundance. In the talk Shirky points out that, as a society, we're not really hard-wired to deal with abundance:Abundance breaks more things than scarcity does. Society knows how to react to scarcity.Indeed, if you look at all of human history, probably 99.999999% of it has been about dealing with the issues of scarcity. In fact, our entire original economic philosophy (which is really just two and a half centuries old) was based on "resource allocation in the presence of scarcity." Historically, abundance just hasn't been an issue that we've had to deal with very much. And the problem is that people try to apply the mental rules of scarcity to abundance and they basically kick out an error message. It's a "divide by zero" sort of problem. You get infinity as a result, and you think it's wrong.
So the response is almost always the same. Rather than actually trying to deal with what abundance enables, people try to force abundance back into a feeling of scarcity -- which they're comfortable with. That is, they try to apply artificial rules and restrictions to make the abundance feel like it's scarce, so that they can understand it again.
But, that's not how disruption works. Disruption changes the old models -- and abundance can be disruptive in very significant ways. And disruption doesn't happen in an orderly transition, such that those who are stuck on the old models can gracefully and gradually learn about and switch over to the new models. As Shirky says:
It's easy to say "preserve the best of the old and combine it with the best of the new," but in revolution, the best of the new is incompatible with the best of the old. It's about doing things a whole new way.Indeed. This is a point that is brought up by our critics a lot. They claim that content creators and the like shouldn't even try to shift over to the new models while the old models still have some life in them or while the new models aren't really well proven. There's this belief that they can hang onto the old, and gradually add some elements of the new, and then eventually make the jump. But, what Shirky points out more eloquently than I ever could, is that much of the new stuff is really incompatible and very much in conflict with the old. If giving away your content increases new opportunities, how do you square that with an old business model that was built entirely around the scarcity of content?
No one doubts that this is difficult, and at times requires a big leap of faith. But there's no question that there are many things today that are abundant, where they used to be scarce. And that presents a huge challenge. Yet, time and time again, we've seen that when something becomes abundant it is not a bad thing -- but an opportunity to do something even larger. It's just that it's incredibly difficult to do that if you're still hanging on to the old ways.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abundance, clay shirky
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
it doesn't
more like people with so much dont want to give any to anyone cause they think they have some right to wealth at the expense of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't
Those of us who have the gumption to work hard and build wealth deserve the fruits of our labor.
It is time that you develop some self respect and earn your way.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dishonest artists and the non-artists, well, I guess that's a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Division by Zero = Infinity
But many functions won't behave like "the limit goes to infinity", but rather to some other results, a traditional example is "function goes to minus infinity from one side, and plus infinity on the other side".
Anyways, keep up the good work,
MrSonPopo
PS:
related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
He's good at math, not people skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Division by Zero = Infinity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do companies that are run well and according to all known good rules of management still fail?
Answer: Business models are not absolute, they're fit for purpose. When the situation and purpose change, so too do the business models.
It's more difficult to change the already existing system to fit the new situation than it is to simply start over. Especially when all the incentives tell you the low end or emerging market isn't enough to placate your companies needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
Yes it's one of the most insidious flaws in the human psyche. They get hooked onto this control thing and it eats away at them from the inside - they become like Gollum from the Lord of the Rings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
I may disagree with Mike Masnick but he is at least willing to stand behind what he has to say, while you are not. It seems to me that small mindedness is far too common on TechDIRT.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
Rather i was referring to all your posts with 9 lines beyond just your name even though the actual content of your post is a single line message. It comes off as extremely egotistical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree to a point...
However, I see a complete lack of understanding of what economics is all the time from the general public. The best example I can think of is jobs. When technology warps the market such that something previously scarce is now more abundant, there absolutely should be job loss; otherwise, we're being inefficient and wasting resources by retaining jobs that are no longer needed, and ones that would be of more value to society if they were eliminated and the manpower reallocated elsewhere. Yet, we waste billions of dollars on "stimulus" projects and other boondoggles, prop up the USPS, GM, housing, etc. because we are unable to understand that scarcity changes based on either increased supply or decreased demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
While they are supposed to be the best and the brightest, that also gives them the "they know best" attitude, hence the attempt to control the product and the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
You have hit the nail on the head and this is what I have been saying. Unlike Obama and his cronies would have you believe, capitalism is not failing. Unregulated capitalism is. And by regulation, I am not talking strict regulation, but common sense regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I agree to a point...
i don't think it's stretched out. i think that jobs are a political football and both sides have really rosy outlooks on how to create jobs: one side wants to pull the restraints off of capitalism so businesses can grow and create jobs. the side wants to restrict big businesses so new markets can be created and entered into. nether side will ever succeed so it's all going to stay the same: business will go unchecked until it causes huge problems, then it will be checked in misguided ways that cause other more severe problems.
I'm guessing you don't work for USPS or GM and I'm also guessing you haven't struggled to pay bills/find work...Good for you...
a lot of technology types, myself included, got wiped out in the last bubble-burst cycle and ended up looking for work and not finding it until the tech sector got back on its feet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree to a point...
True but most job loss in the west in recent years has been unrelated to technology but rather related to an economy which relies on exploiting the structural differences between first and third world economies.
It is a kind of economic version of the story in Asimov's novel "The Gods Themselves"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Themselves
Unfortunately exploitation of cheap labour in the third world has the side effect of importing third world economics into the west - which will result in disaster for the poorest third of the population in the west - plus the economic equivalent of the "supernova" in the Asimov novel...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must learn how to deal with our greatest abundance:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We must learn how to deal with our greatest abundance:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decision makers, absolute power corupts absolutly
OMG WRONG. you could do an IQ test of the conservative party of Canada versus say i dunno any university faculty and get the real picture.
NO the truth is htey most understand that being bribable means they get easy riches for stripping our rights and freedoms so someone can profit , and that is usually someone who also afterwords offers them a job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of my favorite books of all time ...
"disruption doesn't happen in an orderly transition, such that those who are stuck on the old models can gracefully and gradually learn about and switch over to the new models."
With that I fully agree. Now look into the future where the entire manufacturing base can be replaced by something you keep in you garage and can be easily expanded based on what you need and want to build. The only things that are valuable then are the raw materials that are used for building things. Even the raw materials will loose their value as people improvise and use different materials.
People think that unlimited copies of music and videos are bad. That is just the failure of the media industries. Imagine the failure of the manufacturing base as people dont need to buy from them any more.
Now thats disruption ... and a game changer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Early Societies Dealt with Abundance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Early Societies Dealt with Abundance
Not abundant, and not infinite, not in the sense of economics. Abundant doesn't mean there's a lot of them, and infinite doesn't mean renewable with a large supply. Consider sunshine and air as abundant and you can see how different those are from deer. If you want a deer to eat, you have to go find one, get close enough to it, kill it, butcher it, and take it back to the village. If you want water, you have to carry a container to the river and carry the water back.
Compare that to the process of getting more sunshine (when it's daytime and not cloudy). Abundant deer meat would mean you could walk outside your tent in the morning and pick up as much of it off the ground as you want. And this would be true every day forever, so there's no need to store any for later either.
Hunting parties, weapons, tools, and probably a lot of social structure was there in part to deal with the scarcity of food. Other scarcities were water (unless you live right on the bank, you have to go get it), shelter, clothing, and perhaps mating opportunities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Early Societies Dealt with Abundance
The same is true for inventions, in that the inventor invests staggering effort to produce the invention and to teach the invention with a patent. That effort is not free. Granted there are plenty of people who think that things should be free, leaches on society, but nothing is really free.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's infinity. Which humans can't really seem to grasp - and it's expectantly logical for a 'finite' being, such as humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abundance & Insight
Increasing population means that pathogens have more opportunity to mutate and more rapid spread. It is only a matter of time before we have a pandemic and at this time it is prudent to sterilize air in HVAC system with UV C, thereby killing airborne viral, bacterial and fungi. So eliminating increasingly more pathogens and more virulent pathogens is now a new cost of being able to breath.
One of the interesting things is that when Mike Masnick talks about abundance it is usually in the context of copying others intellectual property. When someone makes something which belongs to others "abundant" they are thieves. All the rationalizations in the world will not change this.
One thing which is not abundant for inventors is time to develop and perfect their inventions. This can take years and in some cases a lifetime.and during that time the inventor needs to have income just like Mike Masnick needs income from giving big companies "insight" which keeps those companies happy enough to pay his freight.
So how is it that Mike Masnick deserves to make a living based on as much as the market will bear from his "insight" but inventors should should not make a living from their "insight" because people like Mike Masnick believe that the value inventor's "insight" should immediately drop to the marginal cost of reproduction?
The patent system grants inventors a limited time of exclusive use in exchange for the inventor fully disclosing their "insight" to the public while Mike Masnick keeps his "insight" scarce and doles it out a bit at a time for hard cash.
Tell me, which of the party's "insight" has the most value to society? Who is most deserving of compensation, those who keep "insight" scarce or those who share their "insight" broadly in a way which allows others to build ever greater "insight"?
It is also important to recognize that not all "insight" is created equal and that some "insight" is probably more bull than real "insight" :)
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abundance & Insight
"The patent system grants inventors a limited time of exclusive use in exchange for the inventor fully disclosing their "insight" to the public"
Take these two statements and do a thought experiment.
Suppose an inventor comes up with an idea to fix the problem in your first statement.
Based on your second statement he then receives the right to arbitrarily stop the world from receiving the benefit of his invention - and thus the power to allow an avoidable global disaster to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abundance & Insight
Conversely, if there is no reward for finding a cure then why in the hell would I or any other inventor dump our life, soul and financial resources into addressing the cure if all we are going to get is kicked around?
Remember that nature will relentlessly continue to develop new ways to kill people so if those producing the inventions are not fairly rewarded then they will not have the will or resources to do their work.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Abundance & Insight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supply Side Assumption - linear growth
an interesting thought... mmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Nature-Community/1975-03-01/The-Plowboy-Interview-John-Shutt leworth.aspx
(start on page 13) where it's argued that Europe was *bathed* in abundance starting around 1500, and then lists all the ideas and attitudes we 'created' as a result. And suggests that those days are over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree to a point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abundance Economy via Nano Replicators
The only scarce stuff would be rare elements like gold and platinum (who cares?) until we get working fusion power to transmute hydrogen into them, and, scarce human services and information, until the information is out on the web, then its open source.
People would be able to spend their time doing what they want, gardening, reading, fishing, eating and drinking anything they want with no side effects because nanomachines maintain perfect physical body structures, studying, inventing, travelling, etc.
Does anyone here see any flaws in the human side of this? Don't say there are flaws in the physical side because we know nano robotics and related are possible based on the laws of chemistry, physics, and biology.
What would YOU all do if YOU personally had these nanofactories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]