The Singularity is actually just the Market Unfolding

After watching this excellent video by Dr. Michael Cox, I felt inspired to jot down a few more notes on the nature of a phenomena I’ve decided to call the “market singularity.”  Contrary to popular imagination, the technological singularity Ray Kurzweil speaks of is not the only context in which the phenomena of singularity can apply; and in fact, the definition of any particular “singularity” depends entirely upon the context in which it is used.

What struck me most about the video is when he mentions that while the rate of growth of technology (and thus wealth) has grown at a rate unprecedented throughout human history in the past 100 years alone, what is even more remarkable is that the rate of  this progress has been happening faster in recent years, than in the past one hundred years combined.

In the graphs Dr. Cox uses, technological developments throughout the past 100 years appear to happen in tandem with improvements to communications systems. Anytime there is an advancement in the methods of human communication, whether by telephone, television and radio, or the Internet, there is a corresponding increase in the rate of advancement of all other technologies. And basically what any improvement in communications systems accomplishes is an increase in the speed of information exchange.

The Internet makes this phenomena especially evident, since the nearly infinitely compounded nature of its interconnected networks creates a communication system vastly more complex than the comparatively linear nature of the telephone. Whereas the telephone constituted more or less of a dead-end in design, an end product not capable of transforming into anything beyond its initial form, the internet is nearly organic in its ability to grow, evolve, and replicate. And so it follows that the information economy exists in a state of flux that is as perpetual as it is unpredictable. Much like markets themselves.

And so if markets resemble the infrastructure of the Internet, or rather, the Internet mimics the chaotic and spontaneous nature of the free market, then it seems that any system or structure the Internet successfully employs to organize itself ought to likewise benefit the infrastructure of market exchanges. And that in fact, the two structures ought to be able to seamlessly merge into a single infrastructure, at which point the two phenomena would become indistinguishable from each another. Whereas the Internet was designed to store and organize quantities of objective data, the primary function of markets is, essentially, to convey information about human-specific values. If technology is merely a conduit tool, then markets provide the human action with which to power the machine.

The merging of markets with information technology would allow for seamless price signalling because it would give prices the ability to respond to all known information in real-time. And not just any amount or any type of information indiscriminately, but only that information which is immediately relevant to the value of the commodity in question at the instant at which the transaction occurs. If left untouched by regulation, it is likely that interconnected price networks would spontaneously emerge that would instantaneously monitor price signals and constantly reflect changes in value in real-time. And though market values would be arrived at instantaneously, they would simultaneously exist in a state of perpetual flux as the information around them changed, which is precisely what digital currencies such as bitcoin are designed to accommodate. (Though some will say that this is no different than how the stock market currently works, I beg to differ, due to my belief in the relevance of the labor theory of value, which I will elaborate upon more in later posts.)

If full market anarchism on the Internet was allowed to flourish without any government intervention whatsoever, there would be so many beneficial transactions available to you that you couldn’t possibly make all of them at once, at least not on your own time. And so you could perhaps download into your digital wallet a program to identify which transactions to approve instantaneously if they fulfilled the prior arrangements set out by both parties, and which transactions would require your full attention and bargaining efforts.

The technological singularity Kurzweil and other futurists are talking about is a force shaped entirely by the market. Because the market is the singularity. They are viewing the phenomena through the lens of the products of the market, or through the effects rather than the cause. Yet it is the free market that is the initiator of the exponentially increasing speed of all technology, communication, civilization, and the evolution of our species itself. The components of the technology are merely the inert matter – the plastic, silicon and metal that is incapable of transformation without the intervention of the human mind and hand. And if the inert components of technology are thus incapable of organizing themselves, then the market is the animus through which human motive is enabled to shape its direction, motivations, and outcome.

 

 

 

Tech Envy

So lately it appears that the infamous Occupy-type protesters of the San Francisco bay region have now taken to throwing themselves under the wheels of Google buses as their new cause célèbre of the day. Which certainly prompts the question of what could possibly be so terrible about Google that would motivate these young people to take such careless risks with their own lives for the sake of making a political statement.

Their answer hinges upon the growing economic inequality and income gap in America, a trend they primarily attribute to the growing power and profits of giant tech companies concentrated along the west coast, many of which are headquartered in San Francisco. Yet as a victim of the income gap myself, and as a person who studies economics in great depth,  I feel confident in attributing the current structural problems of our economy to flawed government policy rather than the actions of private companies. Only governments can wield the legal authority to manipulate and distort markets through public policy, whereas private companies wield no greater power in the economy than to influence consumers to buy their products.

And yet the protesters of Google believe that their disenfranchisement is somehow directly correlated with specific individuals working within the tech sector, and that Google employees are somehow personally responsible for vastly complex global economic forces that no one company, nor industry for that matter, could possible have any direct ability to influence or control.

I find it immensely difficult to direct any anger towards a company that adds as much value to my life as Google does. Or pretty much any tech company, for that matter. If it were  not for computer engineers, I wouldn’t be writing a blog this very moment that has the potential to reach millions of readers. And were it not for the Internet, the protesters of the Occupy movement would not have been able to organize to the extent that they did, had they been able to organize at all. Could Tahrir Square have happened without the help of Twitter? I seriously doubt it. And so it seems evident, to me at least, that technology is an inseparable component of progressive social revolution in today’s world.

As a former participant in the Occupy movement, I value the communication tools that the Internet has put within easy reach, enabling me to find and communicate instantaneously with those people who share my values and interests. My self-education in economics and political theory would not have been possible without the Internet and search engines such as Google. Nor would I have been able to find and connect with other like-minded activists to form what ultimately became the Occupy movement, a movement which I’m sure many of these Google protesters participated in as well. As an activist and scholar, it makes no sense for me to reject those companies that created the social tools with which I empower myself.

There was a study done not too long ago where pollsters asked the public whether they would give up the Internet in exchange for a million dollars. And the answer of 99% of those asked? Absolutely not. Nothing, apparently, has created as much meaning, value or wealth for today’s world than the Internet, if the numbers in the poll prove correct. And something that no amount of money could ever replace is a very powerful entity indeed that ought to command respect from all those who rely upon it in their daily lives.

As far as the income inequality issue, let’s not forget that these tech workers didn’t end up becoming successful by accident, and that they worked super hard to get where they are in life, taking risks and making sacrifices that most others aren’t willing to attempt. And not only did they possess the raw brainpower to pull it off, but more importantly they decided to invest that talent towards ends that benefit humanity as a whole, rather than serve the basest of narrow self-interests and short-term profits.

As uncomfortable as it may be for some to admit, our undergrad college degrees aren’t worth much of anything these days. And while that has a lot to do with the faulty economics of excessive loans inflating the perceived value of a college degree, it’s also a function of the phenomena where technology is replacing many of the relatively low-skilled jobs that most of us once filled, myself included. Those with rare and highly specialized skill sets, such as tech and science workers, will always be in higher demand in the employment market.

Is this a hard pill for me to swallow? Of course it is. But at the same time, it’s forcing me to figure out how to adapt, to think creatively, to self-improve, to create something of value that is relevant to others; and in the process, hopefully help me redefine the concept of value itself, which ought to become a pretty big asset if I work hard enough at it. In essence, it is forcing me to evolve, thus enabling me to achieve something far greater than I was capable of before.

The Google protesters apparently feel that the Google techs make far more money than they deserve. And yet think about the vast, if not immeasurable amount of wealth these innovators have created not only for today’s generation, but for the future of our species as a whole. If anything, these protesters should be pausing for a second to ask themselves what sort of value it is that they themselves are capable of contributing to society, and in what ways they can adapt to the changing times to make that value indispensable.

Related articles

• S.F. tech companies’ civic image at stake as backlash grows (sfgate.com)
• 2013: The year we stopped trusting technology (salon.com)
• #Googlebus protest – What does it say about Oakland’s future? (oaklandlocal.com)