Humanity in the Machine: What Comes After Greed?

by Brian David Johnson

In this first of the series Humanity in the What Comes After Greed? world-renowned futurist, Brian David Johnson, counters the myth of runaway, soulless machines, by investigating how technology reflects the mission and values of the societies that create it. From high-speed NASCAR racing to high-speed financial trading, Johnson explores our intimate relationship with our machines and how we incessantly tune them for success, for profit, and routinely for greed. But what comes after greed? Understanding that we imbue our technology and machines with our humanity means we must think more closely about what we are building, why we are building it, and what we want our tools to accomplish. Can we optimize for something other than profit? Streamline for profit plus... other fairness, quality, safety or social responsibility. How do we comprehend the dark side of our choices? Ultimately Johnson discovers how we can design our machines and technology to become the reflection of our better selves?

100 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 11, 2013

About the author

The future is BRIAN DAVID JOHNSON's business. From 2009 to 2016, Johnson was Intel Corporation’s first-ever futurist. Currently, he is a professor of practice at Arizona State University’s School for the Future of Innovation in Society, and a Futurist and Fellow at Frost & Sullivan, a visionary innovation company that’s focused on growth. He also works with a broad range of groups including governments, militaries, academics, non-profits, private industries, trade organizations, and startups to help them envision their future. Johnson has more than 40 patents, and he has been published in many consumer and trade publications, including The Wall Street Journal and Slate, and he appears regularly on Bloomberg TV, PBS, Fox News, and the Discovery Channel.

Reviews

[Ninja · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly looks at HFT, maximising for profit and excess profit - but touches on a few other interesting topics as well, including a kind of peer-to-peer loan system, and general considerations of what people are optimising for. Written in a conversational style, and yes, as noted elsewhere, it's rife with typos. Would have liked a little elaboration on the notion of machines echoing our humanity.
The epilogue was a little surprising with its optimistic outcome: I was totally envisaging several ways things could end up far more pessimistic!

[Madeline Wright · Rating 2 out of 5]

This took me so long to get through. I found a few typos and some of the pages were super repetitive. The idea was promising but the execution, eh...

[Kevan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was not edited. There are a distracting number of typos and mistakes, from spelling to grammar to punctuation. Style-wise, it feels as if it were written in a day, or perhaps dictated to someone -- very sloppy structure, with lots of repetition. (A passage about the need for high-speed internet connections when doing high-frequency trading on wall street refers to "the speed of light" six times in the same paragraph.)

Confirmation bias, I understand, is when you have an idea and begin to research it, and in every answer you hear, you find a way to make it seem as if it supports your position, even when it doesn't. That's what this book does, all the way through. The author tells stories about people he interviewed about the question of "optimizing the financial system for something other than profit."

Here's how the book goes:

Author: "Economist friend, do you think it's possible to optimize for something other than profit?"
Economist: "Definitely not. In fact, that's incredibly dumb."
Author: "Haha, economist, you're so quotable. I'll write that down."
Economist: "No seriously, that's a terrible idea."
Author: "Okay bye! NASCAR director, can we optimize for something other than profit?"
NASCAR Director: "I run a racecar business. Why are you talking to me?"
Author: "I love NASCAR! Just make up an answer about cars!"
NASCAR Director: "Okay, well, I mean, we optimize cars to be safe and drive fast. So...optimizing things happens, yes."
Author: "Great! Bye! Engineering friend, does optimizing exist?"
Engineer: "Yes, people optimize things."
Author: "Awesome! Friend-person, do you know anything about the history of wall street?"
Friend: "No, I don't, maybe read a book?"
Author: "Great idea! I'll read a book about the history of wall street. Hmm, says here that wall street always existed for profit generation. I don't like that much. Who else should I talk to? Oh look, an optimistic economist! Optimistic economist, do you think investors can be tricked into making the earth a better place?"
Optimistic Economist: "Yes, some funds exist to reward companies for lower carbon footprints and such. Investing in those helps the world in some way."
Author: "I winnnnnn!! All future things on the earth will now measure positive things instead of profit!"

The author performed no credible research, had only shallow conversations, and employed nothing but his own hunches in order to advance his idea. So as a result, the concept was undermined instead of championed. Now, instead creating a compelling case to help the world buy into the idea of moving beyond a system that is finance-centric, he's bolstered the assumption that "only poorly-researched idealists believe in this kind of future."

This makes me sad, because I absolutely agree with his idea: there IS a shift to valuing meaning over money, and finding ways to measure things besides profit. I *wanted* him to make a compelling case for this concept.

So now it's our turn. Let's keep building on these ideas, people, and do it with language and research that advances, rather than undermining, the idea of a better world.