Category: 3/4/16

Well firstly, I think that the world will continue to become more and more technologically advanced and there’s little we can do about it. This is definitely a good thing in some ways. Technology has given us artificial limbs, the internet, and my Kitchenaid mixer which has changed my life forever.

That being said, I think I tend to lead more towards the “techno-pessimist” side. People are starting to rely less and less on other people and more and more on machines. Next time you ride the train look up; I guarantee at least 90% [this is my own unsupported guess] of the riders are using their phones (listening to music counts). I know that I am starting to sound like someone’s grandmother during the classic “kids these days” speech but it’s true. There already have been abundant problems concerning hacked personal information, bombs that could turn every living thing into dust, and the ever present threat of robots taking over (this one I don’t actually believe is a real concern).

In relation to the articles that I have lead for this week I still believe that technology and building bigger will not be a cure all. While the first article was particularly dense for someone with an economics background consisting of a single intro class in high school, what I did manage to glean from it was that cities are more sucessful when their population consists of educated people. However, this is not a deciding factor because a college degree may have more weight in one city than another due to the arbitrary presence of certain companies. This is incredibly disheartening because the means to a successful metropolis is a paradox. Moretti says that having a platform innovative company locate in a certain area is what creates a brain hub. But for an area to become a brain hub there must be a successful innovative company to attract other companies. Although venture capital cities have helped not only the intellects but also the poor living in the area, they are partially responsible for the decline of other cities such as Detroit. There is no real formula for attracting innovators.

Technology obviously plays a big role in the development of cities. Figuring out where all of the new residents will (can afford to) live is a huge issue, especially in New York. Glaeser’s book (or the sections I’ve read) discusses this problem. To be completely honest, I think that he is wrong. For one, building hundreds of new skyscrapers in the city will create an influx of wealthy people. Perhaps rent in the less popular neighborhoods will decrease a small amount, but I doubt significantly. Secondly, there is not a lot of land left to build on. The land that is potentially available consists of green spaces and the more residential areas in the outer boroughs, Brooklyn included. We just had an extensive conversation about gentrification last class so I hate to beat a dead horse, but skyscrapers equal a new type of neighborhood which leads to an increase in rent prices and displacement. I do not think that it is possible (in New York) to build more skyscrapers and suddenly have a moderately priced apartment for everyone. There is a constant influx of people into successful cities which means we would constantly have to build new places to keep prices down.

So in conclusion,

Gif courtesy of Kevin Rawdon’s Facebook

In “The New Geography of Jobs”, Enrico Moretti seems to attribute the ability of a city’s economy to the state of the rest of the city. He observes that those with more knowledge tend to live and work in more knowledge-based communities, and this clustering makes a city’s innovative economy more successful. This success makes more highly-skilled laborers come to the city, and it drives out unskilled-laborers. This creates quite a gap between the economic levels of cities, and Moretti points out further that this gap makes all other economic equalities stand out as a result. Moretti also observes that cities that have a growing number of innovative jobs were brought up by the multiplying factor, under which a few of these more-skilled and more creative jobs were taken, leading to an increase in the amount of jobs in that city as well as an increase in the total economy of that city in terms of salaries and wages earned. I agree with the notion that when one area fosters, another area suffers as a result, and the economic tides are constantly moving and changing.I think that i would be a techno-optimist if i was working for an are with a good economy, whereas id be a pessimist if I weren’t.

The satanic mill of technological progress is a concept that mystifies and intrigues me. There appears to be a deterministic, teleological signature to the historical progress of the homo sapien, and while I would not leap to mythological, Hegellian conjectures, I would confidently assert that, provided that mankind survives this next century of tampering with the fabric of reality, the human destiny is in store for wonders beyond current cognitive understanding. The literally exponential growth of technology is just now beginning to rev its engines for the first and last time, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born. Human beings, as biologically conceived, will never know “normal” life (that is, life which is attuned to natural programming) ever again.

It is not the purpose of this blurb to expound in detail about the theories, hard facts, and philosophical implications involved in this dramatic description. It is is suffice to say that a damning and mounting body of evidence is available if one wishes to research the topic, and intellectuals in the know, such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, recognize the existential chaos that we are on the cusp of, and are taking actions to anticipate it.  Specifically, there will be a threshold– an event horizon at which, in a matter of minutes, an artificial Mind exponentially more powerful than our own will seize control, utterly and permanently, and continue to expand into the universe without end. It is quite impossible to say whether this will be a “good” or “bad” thing… this quite depends on ultimate priorities (is the human goal to create ultimate consciousness, regardless of consequence? to preserve and advance our species as we currently know it biologically? to advance consciousness and form ad infinitum, but only our own? etc.) of which, among humans, there are legion.

This all may seem terribly abstract and distant (which is the reason why many people dismiss this gargantuan issue), but the conclusion is this: Ultimately, the concern over whether technology is beneficial for humans or not is a moot point. Human nature will never allow for the halt of technological progress– to create greater life than our own is written in our programming. Due to the perceived inevitability of our transcendence and/or destruction (they are not mutually exclusive) one must recognize a Darwinian reality. Those who cannot adapt to the demands of new technology (aka, those who cannot pursue work that cannot be done by a machine) will rage and moan, but they will die out. They are no longer for this world. There is therefore a moral imperative to provide quality education and advanced skills to as many human beings as possible, so that they may join the ranks of the relevant, and maintain whatever dominance the human brain possesses in the world for as long as possible. Relegating technology to a simple matter of profit, efficiency, standard of living or convenience is simply not possible anymore. As such, it is useless and naive to attempt and hold back the flow of technology in any respect. As creatures of independent agency, we ought to still be able to choose whether or not we personally accept the technologies given us, but we cannot prevent them on a societal level, and even on a personal level we must, in any case, be able to endure the consequences of our actions.

In effect then, I would not deem myself a technological “pessimist” or “optimist”, but rather a fatalist of sorts. There is nothing to be gained by hoping for or assuming a particular outcome, we must simply evaluate where technology stands, attempt to sway it how we may, and prepare ourselves for whatever fortune lies ahead. I am an optimist in the sense that I cannot wait to see what beauty, power, and revelation technology has in store for us, but a pessimist in that I advocate supreme caution in all technological steps going forward, for we grow ever closer to dramatically twisting reality beyond any semblance of comprehension. We are Prometheus, and are quite literally playing fire. With what faculties and agency we have then, we must decide how best to serve Man. We cannot douse the inferno, but if we are strong enough, we may yet dance in the shadows of the flames.

I would say that most people in NYC have become more and more dependent on Technology. For example New Yorkers depend on Technology for transportation, paying their bills and even finding a place to eat. I would say even I am extremely dependent on technology for schoolwork and even my day-to-day life. For example since I commute from Staten Island with my phone I can find out exactly when the bus is coming, about what time ill get to school and I can even read my textbook all on my phone. Also these technological breakthroughs that make our lives easier, also make new innovations and breakthroughs easier. For example with the technological breakthrough of the computer many modern day scientists can now run calculations in seconds when previously it would take weeks. However with the introduction and dependence on technology come a lot of problems that were never there before. For example with the automation of factories, factory workers are in short demand. However you could see a large increase in the demand for software engineers and computer experts. This presents more problems. Firstly the demand for these positions may not create nearly as many jobs as there were factory jobs, which leads to a lot of unemployment. Secondly to fill these positions you need highly trained people most likely college graduates. While this creates jobs for college graduates it displaces and unemployed those without the means for this kind of education and training. While there is no doubt in my mind that New York will become more and more technologically dependent some day in the future we might be the ones with the outdated skills and so we must make sure that we balance our technological development as a city as to not displace those who have not adapted to the technological breakthroughs.

This week’s readings focused primarily on the innovative sector of global economy and how cities are able to develop and flourish. Firstly, the definition of a city had to be given and Glaeser put it simply as an absence of physical space between people and companies. This definition was important in learning how a city develops and succeeds because all the human talent that is concentrated in one area and their ideas (or what is called “human capital”) is what leads to innovation and productivity.
Cities used to thrive on harbors and importing/exporting physical goods, but they have now shifted to relying on the innovative sector which provides ideas, innovation, ingenuity, knowledge to “create things the world has never seen before.” According to Moretti, this leads to the multiplier effect, increasing employment and salaries for those who provide local services to the innovative worker. Therefore, for a city to develop economically, it must attract innovative companies that will provide jobs for the less skilled workers by consuming more local services than other workers and creating a need for more local jobs.

Since innovative workers are attracted to other innovative workers, the economy of the location changes and develops but it also increases the divide between cities and communities because talent lays with the talented and the “talentless” are drawn together, separate from the talented. Another point that also exacerbates “The Great Divergence” is that one worker with a college degree gets less salary than another worker with the same degree in a bigger, more productive city, simply due to geographic location.

Although right now this increase in demand for innovative workers seems like it is greatly improving the global economy and especially the economies in large cities, I believe there is the possibility of “creative destruction” where these innovative jobs and new technological advancements will actually destroy jobs. Cities can become more mechanized and dependent on technology. Already technology has taken the jobs of many, producing what a human would in a fraction of the time and fraction of the cost.
Moretti believes that this is unlikely since the innovation sector of the economy is always increasing and looking for new talent. Perhaps this is so but I don’t think there is enough innovators to keep supplying jobs for the less-innovative, the labor workers. And even if the numbers of innovative workers keep increasing, the technological advancements they come up with will also keep increasing until the need for physical laborers will be almost non-existent with machinery taking over the jobs of human workers.
Technological advancements can be amazingly helpful to the world and the economy as we’ve seen with the creation of planes for trading and global communication technology as well as medical advancements that save millions, maybe billions of lives every year, its rapid growth may take a toll on the jobs of the less innovative.

From discovering fire to creating the first computer, throughout most of history, humans have always sought ways to make life easier from themselves. Humans’ ingenuity has led to a society where people have access to a steady supply of food and water, where people can travel halfway around the world in less than a day, and where people can know about anything that’s happening in another part of the world at any time. We often take innovations like these for granted in how difficult they were to achieve them and how many sacrifices were made as a result. Despite the drastic changes that occur in society due to innovation, time and time again, whenever innovation occurred, new jobs arose. That could very well change in the future where innovation in the form of robots can completely replace people in jobs.

I have always wondered what the logical conclusion for humanity would be if robots actually took all of our jobs. Would we be a society of beggars because we have no jobs or would we be in a perfect paradise where our only jobs are to “enlighten” ourselves? I suspect that the answer is neither one of those two options. Or perhaps the replacement of people by robots in jobs only result in the creation of newer, much different jobs. I believe that this is the most probable scenario. As incredible as modern computers and robots are, they will always have one great limitation: the lack of a human brain. Computers and robots have are capable of amazing things: they can execute billions of calculations in a matter of seconds, they can drive cars given the right conditions, and studies have shown that they are capable of learning new information so long as there’s code in place to parse this information. However, computers are governed by hard-coded logic. No matter how many layers of complexity you fill a computer with, they will always be driven by simple logic, which ultimately stifles the computer’s ability to innovative. The human brain, on the other hand, is innovative. It can think outside the box and at times make seemingly illogical decisions that may end up working out in the end. That is something that robots can never achieve. The new innovative economy will most likely be a symbiotic relationship between robots and people where robots will do most of the heavy labor, and people will maintain and improve the robots.

It is more likely that the influx of robots would cause a temporary fall in demand for low-skill labor. However, I am confident in society’s ability to shift to a tech-oriented economy. If not that, the service sector will most likely remain dominated by humans. The US had begun long ago shifting towards a tech/service-oriented economy. “Over the past half-century, the USA has shifted from an economy centered on producing physical goods to one centered on innovation and knowledge.” This is due to outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries. As a result, the shift to a tech-oriented economy should not be too drastic for the US. Though we should include programming as part of our core curriculum if we are to make steps to include the working classes and people outside the tech-centric cities. For the issue of tech being dominated by a few big cities, I feel that the issue is mostly a consequence of culture. The US, especially in the cities, is changing and the other cities will eventually catch up. There are also places in the web where programmers all around the world can work together and not have to be located in the special “tech cities.” While the venture capital and tech as an industry is centralized in the big cities, tech as a culture is widespread and is growing every single day. In the end, I am very tech-optimistic. I am also skeptical as to how much the shift to tech would really harm our economy.

However, the real question facing humanity is how do we help other countries acclimate themselves to changing economy? Ultimately, the tech boom will reach developing countries. It’s already reaching China—the world’s number one manufacturer and exporter. For years they’ve thrived on their ability to attract foreign investment due to their massive yet cheap labor force. However, the influences of rising wages and a higher expectancy of standard of living in that country has been causing a slow, but steady outflow of manufacturing jobs to Southeast Asia and India. In response, there are reports that in late 2015, China was already making moves in building large robot-oriented factories, places that used to be dominated by cheap labor. While these moves were probably necessary, they could very well lead to the predicament facing the US today.

There was one day when I was using the bathroom in Boylan and when I went to wash my hands, I put my hands under the faucet expecting the water to come out of the spigot. I stared blankly in the mirror waiting for the water to come out, but it did not. I thought the sink was broken or not working for some reason. When I looked down, I realized I was supposed to turn on the water manually. I laughed at myself and then sadly realized how dependent I was on technology, to the point where I expected to wash my hands without actually even turning on the water. The readings for this week helped me think of this problem on a larger scale. What if all of New York City is so dependent on technology and technology advancing in the future?

I think in terms of New York City’s future, I see a continuing advancement and dependence on technology. With the over-crowding problem, New Yorkers expect transportation to become more efficient, faster, and able to carry more people at a time. New Yorkers probably also expect better land usage and innovation in architecture, whether that be in terms of aesthetics or functionality. I also think that art in technology will increase and maybe add to this ‘hipster’ vibe in New York City, as it did in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Advancing technology is a wonderful and beautiful thing because it gives populations more control over their environments and it can prolong life expectancies as well as even save lives. Technology allows us to stay connected and share ideas. However, I have some regards.

One of the readings talked about, “Recognizing that innovation can also result in the destruction of innovation jobs themselves [logically, how can it not].” There is so much uncertainty when it comes to knowing what direction technology will take in New York City, or anywhere for that matter, and how it will affect the city’s economy. Another reading said that, “the winners today can be losers tomorrow.” There is no way of telling how, when, at what rate, in what competitive force, etc. technology will come out in. But most importantly, I understand the pattern that the author describes. When an innovator moves into a community and creates or advances technology in a way, it acts as a beacon for other innovators to come into the same community and do the same thing. However, innovators can be considered entrepreneurs, and when they come into a community, attract others like themselves to come to the same community, and change the face of the community, it sounds comparable to gentrification. This pattern is analogous to rich people coming into an area and gentrifying it. Other reasons why I am a semi-techno-pessimist is because in order for everyone to participate and appreciate the advance in technology, people require higher levels of education and the means to pay for the advanced technology. The author does not give a solution to the fact that not everyone can participate because not everyone can afford the higher levels of education needed to become a “brain hub” or even afford to buy the new iPhone. There needs to more equity and equal opportunity for the technological revolution. There is also no mentioned place for the average folk/average family, or newly arrived immigrants.

So regarding the city’s future, I definitely see and understand the need for technology to continue to advance and make our lives easier, healthier, and better. However, the side effects of the technological revolution make technology a luxury. People need proper schooling to become innovators, and people need the means to pay for new technology. In addition, technology can replace and even discontinue many jobs, which will not be beneficial to the economy or New York City residents. It could build a wider gap between the rich and the poor. So I see myself trying to be a realist in expecting New York City to continue to become a stage of new technologies, but I am a techno-pessimist when I think about the consequences of the growth of technology.