The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future by Martin Ford
Book Description
What will the economy of the future look like? Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and
globalization lead? This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer explores these questions and
shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future--and
may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis. THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL employs a powerful
thought experiment to explore the economy of the future. An imaginary "tunnel of lights" is used to visualize the economic
implications of the new technologies that are likely to appear in the coming years and decades. The book directly
challenges conventional views of the future and illuminates the danger that lies ahead if we do not plan for the impact of
rapidly advancing technology. It also shows how the economic realities of the future might offer solutions to issues such
as poverty and climate change.
The author recommends that we check out http://roboticnation.blogspot.com for more information on robotics and its
potential impact on employment and on society.
You can't pick and choose the future, February 18, 2011
By Jeff Byrne "wonder woman"
This review is from: The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future
(Paperback)
It first read it seemed the author understood the ramifications of exponential technological growth. Then I saw his graph
on human being's capability of doing routine jobs. The graph basically flat lines, while technology's ability to do "our" jobs
is increasing exponentially. It seems the author is making the same mistake practically all futurists have made in the
past: assuming human beings will basically remain "as is". As Ray Kurzweil sees it, and I tend to agree, we will merge
with our technology and become something more than human beings. There will be no "us" human beings versus
"them" computers. We will be one.
You see this error in visualizing the future in practically every work of science fiction made. Take Star Trek for example.
There we are (human beings) in the 23rd century flying around in warp drive ships with our technological gadgets, many
of which are already in existence today. But what hasn't changed is us. We're still the same frail creatures in 200 years
that we are today. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose the future. Everything will advance due to exponential growth in
technology...including ourselves. So, there will be no future takeover of "our" jobs by machines. They will become a part
of us, and us of them.
Second, why do we even have something called an economy? By definition, economy is the management of finite
resources. I'm sure if we took a poll of who in the world would like a brand new car every three years and free gas for life,
the results would be nearly 100% everyone. But everyone can't have a new car, and everyone can't have free gas for life.
We do not have the resources to provide that. They are finite.
But what if resources weren't finite? What if they were nearly infinite? Would we even need to worry about this thing called
economy? I'm sure many of you see where I'm going with this. What if we had something akin to the replicators on Star
Trek? Done laughing? Good, because it's entirely feasible that we will have the ability to fashion any object we desire out
of the building blocks of atoms within the next 100 years or sooner. Think exponential technological growth. We already
have the ability to manipulate atoms on a basic level, and we have already begun constructing rudimentary
nanomachines. How long before we can create objects at will? Not nearly as long as you think.
My premise is simply this. If there are no "us" human beings versus "them" computer technology...if there is simply "we",
and if technology increases exponentially (which the author agrees is happening), then scarcity of resources will cease
to exist, and subject of the book is a moot point.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Thank you for your feedback.
Report abuse | Permalink
Comments
Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 22, 2011 2:04:21 AM PST
G Goodman says:
You're forgetting one thing though - the tendency of the human race to expand and consume any spare resources. We
will always perpetuate scarcity by increasing our numbers and our consumption per person. That's human nature, and it
ain't changing.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2011 10:47:26 AM PST
Anthony Scolaro says:
Actually, I think Jeff Byrne is spot on.
I also think that I also think that Martin Ford might agree.
I think the problem Martin Ford is trying to address is not the longer term (more than 50 years), but the transition from a
scarcity driven economy to a an economy where scarcity coudl be eliminated.
The transition will be the hardest part. The technology is on glidepath, human culture is not.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
6 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on Mar 3, 2011 2:51:09 AM PST
RobertH says:
I like reading Ray Kurzweil, but "we will merge with our technology?" Who is we? That may be true for a small elite, but it
won't be true for the millions and millions at the bottom. What would be the point?
As American retail goes 80% self-checkout in the next decade, putting another three million people permanently out of
work, what would be the point of embedding cash registers in those people? None. Their work can be done without them
being there, so they're out of the picture entirely.
I know resources are mathematically finite but practically infinite. The bigger constraint is how well we know how to
convert matter into energy and vice-versa in a controlled manner. From building a fire to building a nuclear plant, that's
the bottom line. I'm sure we will eventually achieve Star Trek replicator technology, but that's probably a good 100 years
away.
There's a much bigger problem to deal with in the immediate next-two-decades future. We haven't achieved a replicator
yet, but automation is already creating permanent unemployment. That's why we have such persistently high
unemployment. What are we going to do about that? Most people can't even imagine 40% unemployment, but we could
easily be at that level in 20 years.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
7 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2011 2:54:59 AM PST
RobertH says:
Precisely, Anthony Scolaro. You understand exactly. How much misery will have to be endured before we come out the
other side? And if we resist making the necessary changes, social unrest could even turn our world upside down.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on Mar 21, 2011 10:09:33 PM PDT
DDH says:
The problem with Kurzweil's view is that he bases it upon the assumption (paradigm) that biological process, particularly
that which produces mind, correlates in detail with the way computers work. That is, Kurzweil has a garden-variety
engineer's world view, and it only corresponds to living processes in very superficial ways. Kurzweil couldn't be more
wrong.
In truth, we do not know how human thought processes work. We're not even close because we insist on using only
culturally available models (as history shows: imaginary spirits, various kinds of engines and, now, computers of various
wrinkle) and fail to ask the kinds of questions that that peers might ridicule. Note, too, that processor speed is no
panacea.
In fact, we do not know how life works (the mechanism remains elusive) and have no sufficient definition of life (which
hinges on knowing its method of organization and function) because we have no overarching theory of what life is.
Disciplines of the so-called "life sciences" have no common language with which to discuss its various aspects across
its length scales. There should be no surprise that Kurzweil doesn't know of what he so tediously and immodestly
speaks.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:57:43 PM PDT
Anthony Scolaro says:
DDH, so, I will submit that we do not need a biological equivalent of the mind. I think Ford is at the same point. The
automating equipment does not have to be a biological equivalent. It just has to do some of the job. And through
continuous improvement, it will do more and more for less and less. This is how our computer age has been going for
30 years!
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2011 12:10:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 28, 2011 12:11:49 PM PDT
Jeffrey Vanek says:
G Goodman, Would humans necessarily increase their numbers without totalitarian natalist ideologies that insist on
marriage, forbid abortion, contraception, and sex that isn't about reproduction? Under capitalism, there's a clear
imperative: labor creates value, so the cattle (us) must be bred. Marriage is husbandry. Once there's no value in human
labor, there's no imperative to be fruitful and multiply in competition with other nations. Humans will achieve a new level
of freedom. We won't become accustomed to using each other or breed and train ourselves to increase the wealth of
investors.
Book Description
What will the economy of the future look like? Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and
globalization lead? This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer explores these questions and
shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future--and
may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis. THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL employs a powerful
thought experiment to explore the economy of the future. An imaginary "tunnel of lights" is used to visualize the economic
implications of the new technologies that are likely to appear in the coming years and decades. The book directly
challenges conventional views of the future and illuminates the danger that lies ahead if we do not plan for the impact of
rapidly advancing technology. It also shows how the economic realities of the future might offer solutions to issues such
as poverty and climate change.
The author recommends that we check out http://roboticnation.blogspot.com for more information on robotics and its
potential impact on employment and on society.
You can't pick and choose the future, February 18, 2011
By Jeff Byrne "wonder woman"
This review is from: The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future
(Paperback)
It first read it seemed the author understood the ramifications of exponential technological growth. Then I saw his graph
on human being's capability of doing routine jobs. The graph basically flat lines, while technology's ability to do "our" jobs
is increasing exponentially. It seems the author is making the same mistake practically all futurists have made in the
past: assuming human beings will basically remain "as is". As Ray Kurzweil sees it, and I tend to agree, we will merge
with our technology and become something more than human beings. There will be no "us" human beings versus
"them" computers. We will be one.
You see this error in visualizing the future in practically every work of science fiction made. Take Star Trek for example.
There we are (human beings) in the 23rd century flying around in warp drive ships with our technological gadgets, many
of which are already in existence today. But what hasn't changed is us. We're still the same frail creatures in 200 years
that we are today. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose the future. Everything will advance due to exponential growth in
technology...including ourselves. So, there will be no future takeover of "our" jobs by machines. They will become a part
of us, and us of them.
Second, why do we even have something called an economy? By definition, economy is the management of finite
resources. I'm sure if we took a poll of who in the world would like a brand new car every three years and free gas for life,
the results would be nearly 100% everyone. But everyone can't have a new car, and everyone can't have free gas for life.
We do not have the resources to provide that. They are finite.
But what if resources weren't finite? What if they were nearly infinite? Would we even need to worry about this thing called
economy? I'm sure many of you see where I'm going with this. What if we had something akin to the replicators on Star
Trek? Done laughing? Good, because it's entirely feasible that we will have the ability to fashion any object we desire out
of the building blocks of atoms within the next 100 years or sooner. Think exponential technological growth. We already
have the ability to manipulate atoms on a basic level, and we have already begun constructing rudimentary
nanomachines. How long before we can create objects at will? Not nearly as long as you think.
My premise is simply this. If there are no "us" human beings versus "them" computer technology...if there is simply "we",
and if technology increases exponentially (which the author agrees is happening), then scarcity of resources will cease
to exist, and subject of the book is a moot point.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Thank you for your feedback.
Report abuse | Permalink
Comments
Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 22, 2011 2:04:21 AM PST
G Goodman says:
You're forgetting one thing though - the tendency of the human race to expand and consume any spare resources. We
will always perpetuate scarcity by increasing our numbers and our consumption per person. That's human nature, and it
ain't changing.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 22, 2011 10:47:26 AM PST
Anthony Scolaro says:
Actually, I think Jeff Byrne is spot on.
I also think that I also think that Martin Ford might agree.
I think the problem Martin Ford is trying to address is not the longer term (more than 50 years), but the transition from a
scarcity driven economy to a an economy where scarcity coudl be eliminated.
The transition will be the hardest part. The technology is on glidepath, human culture is not.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
6 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on Mar 3, 2011 2:51:09 AM PST
RobertH says:
I like reading Ray Kurzweil, but "we will merge with our technology?" Who is we? That may be true for a small elite, but it
won't be true for the millions and millions at the bottom. What would be the point?
As American retail goes 80% self-checkout in the next decade, putting another three million people permanently out of
work, what would be the point of embedding cash registers in those people? None. Their work can be done without them
being there, so they're out of the picture entirely.
I know resources are mathematically finite but practically infinite. The bigger constraint is how well we know how to
convert matter into energy and vice-versa in a controlled manner. From building a fire to building a nuclear plant, that's
the bottom line. I'm sure we will eventually achieve Star Trek replicator technology, but that's probably a good 100 years
away.
There's a much bigger problem to deal with in the immediate next-two-decades future. We haven't achieved a replicator
yet, but automation is already creating permanent unemployment. That's why we have such persistently high
unemployment. What are we going to do about that? Most people can't even imagine 40% unemployment, but we could
easily be at that level in 20 years.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
7 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2011 2:54:59 AM PST
RobertH says:
Precisely, Anthony Scolaro. You understand exactly. How much misery will have to be endured before we come out the
other side? And if we resist making the necessary changes, social unrest could even turn our world upside down.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on Mar 21, 2011 10:09:33 PM PDT
DDH says:
The problem with Kurzweil's view is that he bases it upon the assumption (paradigm) that biological process, particularly
that which produces mind, correlates in detail with the way computers work. That is, Kurzweil has a garden-variety
engineer's world view, and it only corresponds to living processes in very superficial ways. Kurzweil couldn't be more
wrong.
In truth, we do not know how human thought processes work. We're not even close because we insist on using only
culturally available models (as history shows: imaginary spirits, various kinds of engines and, now, computers of various
wrinkle) and fail to ask the kinds of questions that that peers might ridicule. Note, too, that processor speed is no
panacea.
In fact, we do not know how life works (the mechanism remains elusive) and have no sufficient definition of life (which
hinges on knowing its method of organization and function) because we have no overarching theory of what life is.
Disciplines of the so-called "life sciences" have no common language with which to discuss its various aspects across
its length scales. There should be no surprise that Kurzweil doesn't know of what he so tediously and immodestly
speaks.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2011 1:57:43 PM PDT
Anthony Scolaro says:
DDH, so, I will submit that we do not need a biological equivalent of the mind. I think Ford is at the same point. The
automating equipment does not have to be a biological equivalent. It just has to do some of the job. And through
continuous improvement, it will do more and more for less and less. This is how our computer age has been going for
30 years!
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2011 12:10:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 28, 2011 12:11:49 PM PDT
Jeffrey Vanek says:
G Goodman, Would humans necessarily increase their numbers without totalitarian natalist ideologies that insist on
marriage, forbid abortion, contraception, and sex that isn't about reproduction? Under capitalism, there's a clear
imperative: labor creates value, so the cattle (us) must be bred. Marriage is husbandry. Once there's no value in human
labor, there's no imperative to be fruitful and multiply in competition with other nations. Humans will achieve a new level
of freedom. We won't become accustomed to using each other or breed and train ourselves to increase the wealth of
investors.
 |
 | |  | |  | |  |