This
interview with legendary Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates in Vox
caught my attention, as it deals with a number of themes that have been
occupying me of late: Billy's dreamworld
Any reader of
this blog (as I tend to joke, all two of them) already knows that I strongly
believe that technological advance has stagnated and is about to completely
stop due to an utterly wrong and perverse incentive schema, so of course what I
feel more strongly about is the contention by Gates that such view (most
forcefully advocated recently by Robert Gordon, whom I cite admiringly with
both gusto and frequency) is myopic, and that 20 years from now we will look at
Gordon’s recent book (prophetically titled The
Rise and Fall of American Growth) with irony and bemusement of how wrong he
got it. On the contrary, I think it will be fully vindicated, and we will
remember Microsoft as the harbinger of mostly bad things which befell society
as a whole starting soon after it was founded. And I think Gates opinion
paradigmatically illustrates the view, very extended between IT people (I
should know, having been one of them for almost 20 years) that nowadays “every
business is a digital business”, and that the little, growingly inconsequential
innovation that still happens in IT can substitute for the stagnation in every
other areas.
Like medicine
(but don’t worry, great advances of really great significance are just around
the corner, in the meantime life expectation keeps on asymptotically –that is,
ever more slowly- approaching its biological limit as non-self-poisoning
animals, roughly around 90 years) or energy production (ditto –sorry Bill, I
work in an engineering firm specialized in the energy generation sector, so I’m
a bit informed about it, and it doesn’t matter how much money any of your
foundations throws at it, we are not going to witness any revolution that
completely decarbonizes advanced economies in the next 15 years… so according
to your quite clever equation we are essentially toast) or building (indeed,
the shrinking populations of many European cities should allow for some
interesting innovations in urbanism and how we create common spaces more
habitable and accessible but what we see really happening is more colonization
of the public space by corporate interests and more pollution and public
squalor) or transportation (replacing all current internal combustion engines
in 15 years with electric… nice dream, not gonna happen: Electric car revolution scheduled for 2022 note that a projection that still
looks quite optimistic has the market share of electrics in 2040 being a paltry
25% of total sales… it doesn’t sound that revolutionary to me).
So we can
take Bill’s delusions as another sign that, within the IT community the view
that “Software is eating the world” is as prevalent as it was when Marc
Andreessen said it for the first time back in 2011 (Software is eating the world).
And why shouldn’t it? They are the only ones (with some bankers, we will get to
that in a moment) reaping the benefits of the last discontinuity of how we
produce and distribute wealth, so it behooves them to see all the world with
not only rosy-colored glasses, but glasses which over emphasize the importance
of what software does to our lives. It is telling that Gates has to resort to
the now a bit worn cliché about the super beneficial effects of IT in the
everyday lives of people not being properly measured in economic statistics (be
them of available wealth, of income or of total factor productivity growth, all
of which have been flat for 90% of the population for decades, doesn’t matter
how many millions Microsoft has pocketed in that time): people before had a
paltry set of vinyl LPs in their shelves, now with Spotify they can carry with
them every track ever recorded! People had the Encyclopaedia Britannica
occupying a lot of space (I wonder if Bill knows how many people had the whole
damn thing back in the day… it was pretty influential, but because of price,
never that much popular) and now they have Wikipedia for free! And, to top it
off, gays can marry!!!!! How can we be so ingrate and not concede that humanity
never had it so good, that technology (coincidentally, the technology that made
him rich, that he is more acquainted with and that he feels he has had a
significant role in advancing…) has vastly improved human lives and that, if we
just let things run its course (i.e. if we don’t rock the boat and rest
contented with the social compact that allowed for the appearance of such technology)
we will have it even better and all will be good (again, thanks to software,
energy will be somehow revolutionized, medicine will make us all, not only the
rich in the 1% who can pay for it, live forever, and probably travel will also
be greatly improved, and we will all tele-transport ourselves with no effort
and –almost- no cost… and of course global warming will be magically stopped,
or even reversed). It is telling that, when asked about the most significant
book he would recommend, he mentions the almost ubiquitous between
techno-utopians The Better Angels of our
Nature, of the equally ubiquitous Steven Pinker… it is kinda becoming the
bible of the movement, as much as my friend John Gray may be riled by it (John Gray really doesn't like The Better Angels).
But before
thinking a bit about how plausible is the claim that software is “eating the
world”, or that all of our technologies failing to advance more or less at the
same time except for one (software) is no big deal, because better software is
really all you need to have a better life, let’s turn for a second our
attention to why it is that our tech visionaries seem to share that bizarre
opinion. We can glimpse some of the reasons in this recent article at Wired: potential dark side of VR
. It is surprising (I may have said shocking if my capacity for shock had not
been blunted by frequent observation of
humanity’s follies) that in a society that seems to place so much importance in
the exclusive possession of material things (remember that the dominant reason
of our age assigns social precedence based almost exclusively in the amount of
material things that one can exclusively command) seems to give so much
credence to people saying that material things are not that important after
all, and that their simulacra (that is what software is, isn’t it? Just a
simulacrum of real experiences, but more on that later) can be just as
satisfying, so people should really rest contented with their Spotify and their
Wikipedia, and do not complain if their mattress is too hard, their houses too
small, their means of transportation to get to work are shabby, their clothes
made in Bangladesh are worn out after a couple of washings, the heating in
their homes is insufficient, their food essentially trash which is killing them
and the power plants that generate the cheap electricity they consume are in a
state of disrepair and furthermore, burn great amounts of fossil fuels which is
turning the planet’s climate into a hothouse… But not to worry, soon they will have Oculus
Rift and will be able to imagine they are basking in the sun in the porch of a
Kennebunkport mansion (only there will be no sun in their filthy apartments,
and the smell around them will be very different, and when at some point they
have to take their VR glasses off they will be faced with a much less pleasant
AR (Actual Reality).
In the end, such
espousing of a universal income seems to be (unsurprisingly) tainted, as Evgeny
Morozov argued in “The Guardian” this last weekend: Silicon Valley's support for Basic Income is a dastardly plot
. Investors in tech companies, and Bill Gates, tend to see a brilliant future
thanks to the ubiquity of software when software by itself does very little to
improve people’s lives, as soon as we talk about actual people’s lives, as opposed
to a tiny fraction of the time of a tiny fraction between them devoted to a
specially perverse form of leisure. Ask an unemployed parent (out of work for
years because globalization took overseas all the jobs he could aspire to perform), a single mom that has to work two shifts because she couldn’t afford
day care if she didn’t, an elderly lady spending her days alone because her children
had to move to different cities pursuing scarce job opportunities, ask any of
them how happy they are because they have Spotify and Wikipedia and Uber and Airbnb,
and gays can marry (well, some of them may have a gay relative, so at least the
“progress” of History in the last decades has not entirely gone down the drain). How excited
they are for the soon-to-come launch of Oculus (or Sony’s Morpheus, or
Playstation VR), and how their lives are about to be revolutionized for the
better. Some revolution!
Our tech
titans believe that Sw is all important because they feed from the very particular
group for which software has been, indeed, a significant part of their lives:
the cohort of American university students (or their European or Australasian equivalents) that started coming of age in the
90s, when videogames became good enough to keep people (some people, those with
enough time or the peculiar mix of brain circuitry and hormonal chemistry to
find spending hours on end in front of a monitor a satisfying enough way of
using their time) hooked. The kind of people for which Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas was a major event in their biographies. Coincidentally, the same people
that defined the hook up culture, so their life for four years was essentially
reduced to study (more or less, depending on how demanding their future alma
maters were), gaming and (mostly drunk) fucking. Not much in terms of creating
strong emotional bonds or training oneself in the importance of stable
relationships.
Because that’s
what the opposite of videogames and VR is: real friends, real family and obligations.
Deciding to work a bit more, or sleep a bit less (or a lot less!) to provide a
better future for your offspring, or to help a friend out of a rough spot, is
the exact contrary to spend a turn more (and then another one, and another one)
at your Civilization IV game. In the first case, the consequences of your actions
are everything. In the second, there are no consequences whatsoever. That is
software in a nutshell: the realm of the fake, where you can always restart the
game if the choices you made turn out bad. Even in the corporate realm, it has
this nasty little secret: 80% of the corporate investment in new applications
comes to naught, doesn’t produce any noticeable change in the bottom line,
leaves the company that made the investment not better off. But that doesn’t
mean that it doesn’t have any good effect: it definitely lines the pockets of
the ones who built the software in the first place, and who worked (hard, I’m
not denying that) to install it. The same ones that will produce papers, and
studies, and news reports praising the extraordinary effect that their industry
had in their clients (an elaborate scam is no less of a scam if a lot of
apparently respectable people participate in it).
Of course,
people that have made a living out of writing (and selling) software, and that
hire mostly kids that have spent their best years lost in the software realm
(playing videogames), think that software
is the most important product of human civilization, and that advances in
software are the prodigy of the ages. They don’t get much involved with the moral
valence of a matrix scenario of millions living in trailer parks and being fed
semi processed refuse but feeling happy most of their waking time in some
artificial paradise because neither them nor their progeny (if it exists, a
number of them choose to go childless… as the kind of life they live is not
worth living, much as they may resist being characterized like that) nor their
friends or loved ones would ever have to make such choice or be forced to live
such life.
So I’ll end
this post (as so many of late) with what a friend of mine described as a "call
to arms": do not let them fool you. Software is not “eating the world”, and the
advances in software and information processing do not compensate for the
stagnation in all other areas of society, and specially do not compensate for
the lack of progress in the average income of 90% of the population. When
someone tells you how happy you should be because you have Spotify and
Wikipedia shout back to them that they can keep their virtual baubles, and that
you would have his Mercedes, his first class plane tickets, his platinum
American Express and his 10,000 square foot Mac Mansion any day of the week
over hearing canned music (mostly of abominable quality) and finding really
fast when Donald Trump was born.