Today, the richest 100 people together own more than the poorest 4 billion.
Inequality goes back to the Stone Age. Excavators found beads, bracelets, and jewels in some graves, while others had just a hole. However, ancient hunter-gatherers were still more egalitarian than any subsequent human society because they had very little property
“Property is a prerequisite for long-term inequality.”
Then came the Agricultural Revolution, and property multiplied along with inequality. As humans gained ownership of land, animals, plants, and tools, hierarchical societies emerged. A small group of elites started hoarding most wealth and power generation after generation.
Then came the Industrial Revolution. In this modern era, inequality started to reduce. This was partly due to the rise of the requirement of the masses. Industrial economies relied on masses of common workers, while military economies relied on masses of common soldiers. This was the primary reason governments started investing heavily in the health, education, and welfare of the masses — because they needed millions of healthy labourers to operate the production lines and loyal soldiers to fight in the trenches.
Now, in the 21st century, people expected the egalitarian process would continue, and inequality would come to zero. However, it seems this might not happen.
Today, the richest 100 people together own more than the poorest 4 billion. This could get far worse.
In the 20th century, industrial civilisation depended on barbarians for cheap labour, so they absorbed them. But in the 21st century, a post-industrial civilisation relying on AI, bioengineering, and nanotechnology might be far more self-contained and self-sustaining.
Not just entire classes, but entire countries and continents might become irrelevant.
In order to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the key is to regulate the ownership of data.
The race to obtain the data is already on, led by data giants like Google, FB, Baidu, and Tencent.
Currently, these giants are operating on the business model of “attention merchants.” They capture our attention by providing us with free information, entertainment, and every form of dopamine, and they resell our attention to advertisers.
But their true business is not to sell advertisements at all. Rather, by capturing our attention, they manage to accumulate an immense amount of data from us, which is worth more than any advertising revenue.
The new model of these data giants is based on transferring authority from humans to algorithms, including the authority to choose and buy things. Once algorithms choose and buy things for us, the traditional advertising industry will go bust.
Imagine asking Google or ChatGPT, “Hey, based on everything you know about mobiles and based on everything you know about me, including my habits and usage, what is the best mobile for me?” If ChatGPT or Google can give us a good answer to that, what is the use of mobile advertisements?
At present, people are happy to give away their most valuable asset — their data — in exchange for free tools and videos. It is like African tribes unwillingly sold entire countries to European imperialists in exchange for colourful beads.
This flow of data will create a network where machines and humans will be merged. At this stage, blocking data won’t be possible as humans will rely on the network for all their decisions, including healthcare and survival.
Imagine choosing to disconnect from this network and refusing to share your private information. As a consequence, the healthcare industry may refuse to give you insurance, or employers may refuse to provide you with a job.
In the battle between health and privacy, health is likely to prevail.
Mandating the government to control the data will probably curb big corporations, but it may lead to a dictatorship. Politicians play on the human emotional and chemical systems. Their speeches and tweets lead to an explosion of hatred or fear. Hence, if politicians can press our emotional buttons directly, generating hatred, joy, and anxiety will become a mere emotional circus.
Private ownership of one’s data may sound more attractive than trusting the government or large corporations, but it is unclear how this will happen.
Today, I can own a share in a large corporation by buying some shares of it. Unfortunately, we don’t have a mechanism or experience in regulating the ownership of data. This is because, unlike land and machines, data is everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
I think, as a single world, we shall create rules on the right use of algorithms to curb their misuse, the way we have curbed the usage of nuclear weapons.
