The industrial revolution divided the world into those who had capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those who produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools, worked the land, etc.). Those on the side of labor couldn't provide value without access to capital where it could be used. Conversely, those with capital need labor to extract value from it. The factories don't run themselves.
In theory, this would balance out and lead towards some level of equality. In practice, the high barrier of entrance and smaller numbers on the side of capital made it much easier for them to drive down labor prices and exploit. That led to massive inequality—think robber barons and the like—which in turn eventually led to the organized labor movement.
We are now recapitulating this historic arc in the information revolution. Now the world is divided into those who own data and those who produce it. Large corporations own giant fields of data and the computing technology required to derive actionable information from it. Everyone else gives up their personal data and attention to feed those enormous machines. This has led to the growing inequality that is causing a breakdown in institutional trust and is driving people out of cities that are increasingly affordable only to the elites who run the data factories.
At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.
> The industrial revolution divided the world into those who had capital (owned factories, tools, land, etc.) and those who produced labor (worked in the factories, used the tools, worked the land, etc.).
Don't be silly. The world was divided long before the Industrial Revolution, and if "labor" was ever on top of things, it was for fleeting moments. What changed with the Industrial Revolution was the collection of economic power in the hands of a mere titan of industry — instead of some baron, or prince, or caesar, or warlord, or chieftan, or other political personage.
Very true. We are witnessing how a new aristocracy is being built. This time it’s not based on skills in warfare but around business skills. But the result is the same: you have a small group who thinks they are better than others and deserve to receive the vast majority of the profits society creates. And they manipulate the game to their advantage.
This seems to happen in all societies until a revolution happens and the cycle starts anew just with different actors.
We are going though iterations of societies/empires/cultures. Each round has the same issues but we get to learn from- and bring solutions from the previous one. The collective is much stronger than influential individuals but there has to be a collective will to change the game. It seems to me that we are more humanitarian than many previous cycles but I'm afraid we wont show much of an interest in [epic] game design until things get truly terrible. (Cheran pops to mind: That Mexican town of 16k that got rid of police, politicians and mobsters)
This time we did get game design down to an art with fine mechanics and cheap execution. Perhaps someone with a sharp pen can draw the parallels for us. Surely (if the will is there) it is easy to design something better than the stupid formula where we pretend Personal gain = Collective gain.
Oligarchy is as old as civilization. A roman senator was just as beholden to a major olive oil producer 2000 years ago as an American senator to a major oil producer today.
The division happened when transitioning from hunter gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work) to agriculture, where land became a prized possession.
> The division happened when transitioning from hunter gatherers (which didn't need possessions, just hard work)
I am sure hunter gatherer societies were also very territorial. If the area you are hunting or gathering does doesn’t have much animals or plants, all the hard work won’t get you nearly as much food as someone who has a lot of plants and animals on their land.
And if you don’t think early humans were territorial just take a look at chimpanzees or even lions. Being tribal and territorial goes back a long ways.
Different ages, different divisions, different criterion.
1500 years ago those who could hoard land and power and influence after the fall of the Western Roman Empire went into decline formed the kernel the feudal aristocracy. But those who were able to capitalize on the merchant and industrial revolutions starting 500 years ago, and the rise of global capitalism, became the kernel of the bourgeoisie in the modern era.
> At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.
In theory, this would balance out and lead towards some level of equality. In practice, the high barrier of entrance and smaller numbers on the side of capital made it much easier for them to drive down labor prices and exploit. That led to massive inequality—think robber barons and the like—which in turn eventually led to the organized labor movement.
We are now recapitulating this historic arc in the information revolution. Now the world is divided into those who own data and those who produce it. Large corporations own giant fields of data and the computing technology required to derive actionable information from it. Everyone else gives up their personal data and attention to feed those enormous machines. This has led to the growing inequality that is causing a breakdown in institutional trust and is driving people out of cities that are increasingly affordable only to the elites who run the data factories.
At some point, we will hopefully have an "organized data movement" where people work together to be able to make effective demands about how their data can be harvested and used. We aren't there yet.