To be Abundant or not to be Abundant, that’s the question!

Some takeaways of the OPEN DEBATE about ABUNDANCE

“What got us here won’t get us there”, Marshal Goldsmith

??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Author: Paul Epping

?

Background

Belated, I watched the video of the Open Debate conversation between Peter Diamandis and Peter Zeihan moderated by Xinia Wickett. The debate took place on December 22nd, 2023.

The central theme was: “ Will the Future be Abundant?”

People familiar with Peter Diamandis's (PD) work know that abundance is a central concept. Peter Zeihan’s (PZ) background is in geopolitics. Both view the world through these concepts.

I’m unfamiliar with PZs work; hence, I don’t feel competent to go as in-depth as I wished. ?My comments are more on the concept of abundance that I learned from PD.

Interim conclusion

To jump to the conclusion, I found the conversation very superficial and anything but a debate. It was flat, predictable, and hardly picking up on each other’s insights. How could that be merged or not? Both gentlemen seemed to prefer to stay in their comfort zones. ??The article's title could also have been: "A beautiful dance about avoidance of a debate".

I’m more familiar with PDs work, and during the conversation, I felt compelled to react to it because, at many times, most of the cells in my body seemed to be cramped. I had to release the cramps (without being gene-edited).

Opening

The discussion was opened by PD, who stated that for 100.000 years, our mindset has been one of fear, scarcity, and linear thinking. Having heard this many times over a decade, I could not resist the thought that only with a fixed mindset can you ascribe responsibility to a very narrow function of our brain for so long. We heard the statistics that we usually hear: life span increased, extreme poverty declined, death at childbirth plummeted, we are carrying about 8 billion mobile phones around,? and more (outdated) statistics can be seen here????

Again, my mind could not resist thinking of the people on the move worldwide to escape the miserable situation they are in at home, the increasing number of homeless people flooding cities, the 3.5 million children under the age of 15 dying every year of hunger, diseases in the Sub-Sahara region, the > 200 million people in Africa, who are going to bed on an empty stomach (not knowing if there will be some food in there tomorrow). A kind of delayed death at birth. You have to get a magnifying glass to find countries that are not moving in a right-wing, conservative, and extreme direction, arms-length away from autocratic regimes, even in the Netherlands. Pre-covid UK research revealed that 80% of the adult population doesn’t have a meaning in life. Massive increase in anxiety among young people (J. Haidt, The anxious generation). Trillions of criminal dollars for the development of AI. Yet, the world is (way) better. It depends on what glasses you are wearing.c

Scarcity - Abundance?

Placing ‘scarcity’ consistently on the accused bench is remarkable because there is no abundance without scarcity. Like dark and white, full and empty, cold and warm. When was the last time you started a business to make abundance abundant? If you were to do that, then abundance can not be other than scarce. Throughout the debate, we got some examples that clarified that PD. is departing from scarcity (fortunately), and we transform that into abundance, such as desalination, to solve the problem of scarce freshwater or electricity from wind and sunlight to have an alternative for fossil fuels. Access to abundance is where we are heading. Massively. There is hope even for those empty stomachs, although we have already heard that promise for a long time. So far, the massive transformation seemed to bounce back consistently at the same point in time: the moment of demonetization because that triggers new (better) solutions for the same problem. Problem solved? Indeed, for those who brought it to the market and those who saw their investments flowing back and made the money they desired.

?Geopolitics

PZ brought geopolitics to the virtual table as to why technology was able to make the world better during the last age. In his view, three major events contributed to that. Globalization was fueled by World War II. That accelerated industrialization, with many jobs and economic growth globally, and generated security. Between the seventies and nineties, many young workers propelled huge consumptions, pushing us forward with the technology we face now. However, the demographics don’t look good, and the populations in many countries are aging. This is impacting China, which will affect the global power dynamics. The technologist in me was thinking, ‘So what’? we have the technology to solve that, after all, haven’t we? Throwing a bunch of robots into the mix that will replace labor. We will tax the robots, and that will cover the retirement costs… On the other hand, technology creates new jobs, which has been told to us for many years, and history has repeatedly shown that.

Because of these demographics, reaching abundance will be a problem in the foreseeable future.??

This was just the warming up by presenting two different perspectives that do not mutually exclude each other. The rest of the conversation was about saying the same thing with different words. Hence, some observations.

?

Some observations.

?There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Everything has a price, even in a world of abundance. PD talks about 8 billion mobile phones with free access to information. The handsets are about $40, providing everyone access to more information than the president of the US 20 years ago. The funny thing here is that I’ve heard that statement 15 years ago. What was that exponential growth thing again?? Sure, we have the Demonetization and Democratization phases as part of the 6Ds framework.

But wait a minute here before we go to the 6Ds . What does the $40 mean? Well, if you only listen superficially, you may think: ‘Wow! Of course, $40 is darn cheap’… What it really means: $40 monthly subscription, $480 annually in the US! On top of that, you must pay a provider for your Internet access. It’s not for free! Altogether, access to information involves a lot of money for a single mom who has to raise two children and only makes $1.500 monthly and two jobs, or the labor worker fired because of technology that took over. Another example: I had to buy a new computer for my business and a new smartphone…. Both suffered from obsolescence. They could no longer be upgraded to accommodate the latest software, and I could make a cup of coffee while the computer was starting. That was a waste of time in today’s fast world. Surprisingly, the new devices were more expensive than the old ones. Indeed, they have more calculation power, algorithms, etc. This is an excellent justification in a world of exponential growth, making things cheaper, faster, and smaller. Cheaper? Yes, my old ones were darn cheap!

In the free-access-to-information world, someone pays for free WiFi, information, apps, or (some) software. And most likely, it’s you through the hidden costs of your coffee, beer, or sandwich.

Then the famous 6 Ds arrived at the table to underpin the above statement that things will be free or cheap for all.

Here is my take: Democratization is relative.

?

A double paradox

The 6Ds are maneuvering themselves into a continuous paradox. I pictured Esher’s famous M?bius Ring. The 6Ds is a framework, a road map showing what can happen when a solution, based on exponential technologies, matures. Quickly: digitization, deception, disruption, dematerialization, demonetization, and democratization. People make you believe you can stay ahead of the curve and turn disruption into an opportunity for growth and success. Demonetization will usually be achieved through higher efficiencies.? Because we are talking about exponential growth, it is not hard to understand that when a solution reaches the phase of demonetization and democratization, new solutions are already on the way, making the former obsolete soon. Democratization, the phase in which things become available for all, is relative.? In other words, your iPhone 8 or 9 has reached the phase of democratization, thus cheap! Unfortunately, also reached the phase of worthlessness. And this cycle repeats faster and faster. This means those who can afford these new solutions will stay ahead of the curve, and the divide will grow. ?Again, everything is relative, including democratization, in this framework. But it sells, and we can’t escape from this paradox, given how we organize our economy.

A closer look reveals that another paradox is working in that cycle, too: the Jevons paradox. This paradox means that as the efficiency of a resource increases, the cost of using that resource effectively reduces, which can lead to increased demand. This increased demand can lead to an overall increase in consumption, even as individual use becomes more efficient (Wikipedia).

Mass manufacturing kicked in to meet the ‘needs’ of the people. The opposite effect of saving resources through efficiencies happened. The demand increased, and with that, the demand for (natural) resources. ???

???

AI or not AI

I’ve never understood that we will have only two types of companies in the future: those using AI and those out of business. You don’t need a college degree to understand you're gone when you’re out of business! ?There is no company anymore. That only leaves one type of company. It remains unanswered if those companies will be better. The first statement doesn’t make any sense, and if the latter can’t be answered, then this statement is facing the abyss too. The precessional effects of companies have to be mapped out rather than reaching for AI like mad and experiencing the fear of missing out! ??

A group of nurses and nursing aids decided to take care of the aging population and wanted to register as a company at the Chamber of Commerce. “Are you using AI?” asks the bot. “Answer with “Yes” or “No”. ?Since the group is taking CARE OF, doing things like washing dirty bottoms, cleaning wounds, having a chat, sitting next to them, grieving with them about the loss of their beloved bird, having a cup of coffee together, etc. The answer is “No”. “I’m sorry, this is not a company according to the essential requirements of the EU law. The call will be disconnected. I wish you a nice day”, is the bot’s answer. I am happy that we have ‘Buurtzorg” in today’s world. What is Interesting to note is the pronoun “I” in this context.? Or someone who wants to start a music band. The Answer is “No” to the use of the AI question. ?Interestingly, we also have something like Taylor Swift in today’s world.

?

Longevity

A favorite topic of many technocrats. The research PD refers to comes from a collaboration between researchers at the London Business School, Harvard Medical School, and the University of Oxford. They published a paper that estimated the economic value of extending a healthy life by one year based on the "value of statistical life" (VSL). More context is needed here, otherwise the $38 trillion stands out too much and distracts from what this is really about. Or not?

VSL measures the economic benefit of reducing mortality risk and is often used in cost-benefit analyses of healthcare interventions. In their paper, the researchers estimated that extending healthy life expectancy by one year would generate an economic benefit of around $38 trillion to the global economy. Food for entrepreneurs! The belief system in the communities working on longevity is that established healthcare facilities can’t do it. Investors flock around entrepreneurs because they are walking paths that avoid approvals, and their solutions are usually expensive. It seems to be an elite business hence a looming divide here again. In other words, wealth lives longer. The distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine still speaks for itself, or have we forgotten? He who pays will be served.??

The researchers argue that this estimate highlights the enormous economic value of investments in healthcare and longevity research and underscores the importance of addressing the root causes of aging and age-related diseases. They suggest that by targeting aging as a treatable condition, we can improve health and well-being while also unlocking significant economic benefits. What I notice often with populistic phrases is the golden pot glowing at the horizon. Bring some AI into the mix, and a healthier, longer lifespan is around the corner. The rat race after that one gene or group of genes that can be switched off, and voilà a few more years to live.

I still have that picture in my mind of a single mom with her two children who want to buy healthy foods and supplements to keep them fit. Low-carbon protein, NMN, multivitamins, etc., are not for free.

?The (fixed) mindset of conceiving aging as a disease is still a weird one. Everything in nature and the universe has a life cycle. Imagine that we escape that cycle; life in the universe will be lonely, I’m afraid. But worse, our babies are already sick at birth because even at that stage, cells are dying and being replaced. They need a DRG code right away!

Get through the next five years, according to Kurzweil, and the ‘Physical ?Nirwana’ is reaching her hands out to you. No suffering, anymore! Hallelujah! ?But for whom? For free? ????

Chips production

PZ eluded a bit in the chip industry, pointing rightly at the monopolistic position of some companies: TSMC, Intel, Samsung, and others. However, what is rarely mentioned is that these companies only exist because of one company that is the beating heart of these chip producers and, by the way, the only company in the world that keeps Moore’s law alive: ASML. Indeed, that Dutch company, the monopolist, is on steroids to keep up with the demand. Lithography using extreme ultraviolet light can print transistors at a single-digit nanometer. If not all countries are included in using these machines, this may lead to ‘interesting geopolitical dynamics.’ However, as both gentlemen seem to have an aversion to politics, it is an easy topic. Since only one company can manufacture these nano-sized chips, satisfying the massive hunger for chips is exceptionally vulnerable. PZ has a valid point point here. Exponential growth will find its bottleneck here. While writing this comment, Taiwan was hit by a 7.4-magnitude earthquake. TSMC’s production was disrupted. We will wait for further effects. Now we have a double vulnerability. ?Let’s shift for a moment from fast thinking to slow thinking. If, for some reason, ASML machines are malfunctioning and not producing the chips on the wafers anymore in the chip factories. AI development will stagnate, the GDP will tumble, and the following depression will knock at doors… The economy will first come to a slow creaking halt, and then suddenly. “Houston, we have a problem!” What is plan B?

?

Gene modification and fertilizing ??

This topic has passed the conversation several times and is a no-brainer, except that (over) fertilizing has eroded massive amounts of land, and pounding with the technical hammer will only sometimes work. Nature accepts a lot and is resilient, but it has its limits, and land degradation is one of those. Fertilizers, pesticides, and production contribute to the decrease in diversity. I’m not sure whether this will be abundant soon. And if something is immediate, then it is this. ?

Technically, we can modify crops. Wouldn’t it be better to address the root causes? Technology cannot solve hunger and waste; they are political problems. We may turn countries suffering into more prosperous ones by redirecting investments from AI to people in need and bringing them to self-sustainment and abundant food! Many countries exploited them; maybe the same countries could show more bravery and fundamentally solve their problems. ????

?Capitalism, Capitalism, Hosannah ?

Politics—hell no, nothing good comes from that. Over the past century, democracies have been on the rise, aren’t they? ?Believe in capitalism and entrepreneurs, and we will survive! Yeahhh. Let’s do it! More, more. The heck with scarcity, there is enough, and technology will be there to solve everything because don’t underestimate the creativity of entrepreneurs. The biggest challenges are the most extensive opportunities.

Investing in entrepreneurs focusing on biotech and AI. In the realm of the 6Ds, one can ask: “Is investing the right thing to do?” Imagine an entrepreneur telling an investor: “Hey pal, thank you for your interest! I really appreciate that you believe in our ‘beyond belief’ AI-generated gene-editors that can cure any disease and modify crops that are 100% resistant to pests, drought, and floods. It will take the world by storm because it will be on the market in less than one year. Most importantly, it will be democratized and abundantly available for free soon after that!” ?GDPs are going to suffer. and there is no future for that holy attribute of the economy. All because of the 6Ds leading us to an abundant world of everything! ?

?And again, I can’t resist the thought that something scared the sh**t out of some billionaires, who did abundantly well and who had to build shelters to hide or boats to float around somewhere in anticipation that something that is seriously abundant would hit them.

I’m siding with PZ … where is the pause button? We need time; do we have enough time?

Summary

The AI-generated summary at the end was laughable: boys and their toys. It didn’t add value and repeated what we have heard over the past decade over and over again.

But it shows the dominance of the left deductive and linear brain, which misses a holistic, connected view of the world, which is more than technology.

Turning your backs (arrogantly) on politics in a country that is in deep need of clarity and urgently has to be rescued from the tentacles of oligarchs dictating the political arena in the USA is a sign of irresponsibility and being disconnected from reality. Sitting comfortably in a bubble feels way better.

As a suggestion, related to the statement that people inherently are good, please read Rutger Bregman’s 'Humankind'. It's a brilliant book about that topic. He made himself 'famous' and 'hated' at the Economic Forum in 2019, where he stated that 'dismiss the 'stupid philanthropy schemes', saying the real issue that needs tackling is tax avoidance. 'We can invite Bono once more but come on; we've got to be talking about taxes ... all the rest is bullshit in my opinion.' ?

I think that abundance in a finite world is hard to accomplish when we close our eyes to what is infinite and abundant in that same finite world, and not mentioned once: is LOVE! That one has a few strange aspects: everybody has access, it’s really for free, and it feels good. However, it can’t be coded, it can’t be bought or sold, it’s not transactional, it can’t be traded on the stock market, and yet it is the most potent attribute humanity has. ???

Lastly: let me be clear: this is not a personal crusade. It is a voice against superficiality and populism rooted in the hunger for more power, ego, GDP addiction, performance obsession, and exploitation. Promises, wrapped in a thin layer of caring for a better world. Nothing has been changed, let alone transformed. The same things only go faster. I firmly believe in technology and its potential when we develop and use it consciously!

Remember: ?“What got us here won’t get us there’, should be taken seriously!