Hi everyone,
here’s the second part of my re:publica experiences. This time it’s about some of my favorite talks, which also relate to topics that concern or occupy us at Schaltzeit:
Net neutrality
In her talk “Ist die Netzneutralität in Europa noch zu retten” (Can net neutrality in Europe still be saved?), Prof. Barbara van Schewick explained the current state of net neutrality in Europe clearly and simply. What does net neutrality mean for startups and SMEs? Why are the effects of data fast lanes and zero rating equally negative for the economy? Can real innovation still develop with them? Watch it here: https://re-publica.de/16/session/netzneutralitat-europa-noch-retten
To me, net neutrality sounds important and worth supporting. The law has been passed by the European Parliament and Council, but the guidelines have not yet been adopted, and here it is primarily the regulators who are tasked with shaping them. Will they use this to shape them in the spirit of net neutrality? Who knows – we’ll see. In practical terms, you can, for example, find out more here https://savetheinternet.eu/de/ and sign an online petition.
Visions of the future
I also liked the talk by Mads Pankow very much – especially because the future is always our topic. He specializes in questions of the philosophy and sociology of technology and gave the talk “Klassenkampf der Roboter – Werden die Produktionsmittel uns enteignen?” (Class Struggle of the Robots – Will the Means of Production Expropriate Us?). To put your mind at ease – no, they won’t, he says. Humans are highly unique in how they process and evaluate information. We have neurons that fire at different strengths and hormones that influence our behavior and thus steer an extremely complex thinking and decision-making process. Robots, on the other hand, only have 1 and 0 and can only do as much as their algorithms allow – and these must be programmed and controlled by humans so that concepts such as law and moral decisions are built into their application.
And will robots replace humans in working life? No – at least not in everything, is his answer. Society and the economy will have to change fundamentally, because everything to do with formalization and process control will be taken over by robots in the future (goodbye, clerks; ciao, middle management…). But the programming of the algorithms and parts of the execution of the tasks organized by robots will still have to be done by humans. The term “glass ceiling,” however, will take on a new meaning: the line between simple human order-takers of machines (workers who execute) and complex human order-givers to machines (programmers).
Work will detach itself from productive output, and the very term work will be defined differently. To prevent a widening gap in society, we will seek meaningful activity in maintaining and nurturing our communities. Universal basic income is a plausible model for the future here, he says. How this can be translated into economic processes and what happens to the existing value chain, he did not answer.
Still, this vision of the future is one of the least horrifying I’ve come across so far – or at least it was packaged far more optimistically than much of what I had heard until then.
Technology
Agriculture, too, has become highly digitalized in recent years – as Daniel Werner’s talk on “Farming 4.0” showed me. Today, when we see a tractor plowing a field, chances are the driver is twiddling his thumbs rather than steering. Guided by GPS, the big machine can plow the field, sow it, or even fertilize parts of it as needed, accurate to within 2 cm. The only thing the tractor isn’t allowed to do yet is drive home on its own – it is classified as a danger in road traffic and to people. Ultimately, that is also why truly autonomous robots are not yet allowed on fields, and there is still a long way to go before this becomes possible outside of university trials.
You can find the third and final part of my re:publica coverage here.
