The Zero Marginal Cost Society

The sub-title of Jeremy Rifkin's latest book is The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Collapse of Capitalism. Provocative to say the least.  This new book is a logical and worthy successor to Rifkin's last, which was titled, The Third Industrial Revolution. Rifkin has become something of a world class guru on the clean energy revolution that is well underway.  It's about fossil fuels and a market driven economy giving way to a world powered by clean, inexhaustible renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and hydropower.

 

 

 

In The Zero Marginal Cost Society, Rifkin sees industrial capitalism and materialism as giving way to an era that is far more inclusive, empathetic, and sustainable;  a new age in which the cost of goods and services are driven down to near zero by technological innovation and the very market forces that have shaped the world that we know. The millennials, the first generation raised in this new era, are less interested in the accumulation of property and possessions, and far more interested in seeing the world as a collection of commons - like the air, the water, and the biosphere -  that we all depend on and all have a collaborative stake in nurturing.

Many of those that have gotten rich as the facilitators and minions of market capitalism are often quick to dismiss Rifkin's suggestion that they are on their way to being marginalized. But the case he makes is exceedingly compelling.  The profound, global scale changes underway are built on the information internet, the emerging internet of energy, and the just developing internet of things.

Rifkin's credentials are formidable. His more than 20 books have been translated into 35 languages. He has been an advisor to the European Union for more than a decade and has had a significant influence on Europe's adoption of his 'Third Industrial Revolution' vision.

I find the transition Rifkin sees as already underway as reason for hope. Rifkin believes that humanity can weather the storm we have created for ourselves with regard to fossil energy dependence and climate, egregious human overpopulation, resource scarcity and conflict that arises from it, and the perversion of governance by a small number of super rich sociopaths, who use their wealth to prevent change that is contrary to their own personal interests.  The latter, to me, is the biggest threat to Rifkin's positive vision. An example of this: the Koch Brothers, two pathological siblings, who are worth $100 billion between them.  They and their ilk are determined to use their money to pervert history and stand in the way of the kind of change that is critically needed in our world.  The Kochs - who own a massive part of Canada's tar sands -  are heavily involved in fostering climate skepticism and bolstering the Republican party, which has become an almost entirely obstructionist force in American politics.

If the reassuring vision that Jeremy Rifkin illuminates so persuasively in The Zero Marginal Cost Society is to be fully realized,  the ability of the super rich to use their money to derail the transition to a post-market, collaborative future will need to be blunted.   Here again, as I have written in so many of these blog pieces, we have to look at a Constitutional Amendment to turn back the sell out of citizen rights driven by recent decisions of the Supreme Court. The five conservative judges on the Roberts court have opened the floodgates to political influence spending by the Koch Brothers and their super rich friends.  Two decisions,  Citizens United and more recently, McCutcheon vs. FEC
assured that 'he who has the money makes the rules'.

I am inspired by the trends Jeremy Rifkin has identified. As a means of protecting the biosphere, I want to see his hopeful vision  fully blossom.  That is why I  choose to support Move to Amend, an activist organization that is focused on achieving a Constitutional Amendment that says Corporations are not people and money is not speech.  That kind of change would neutralize the ability of big corporate money and the super rich to distort our political process.  If you aren't already on board with this, I urge you to educate yourself then get with the program and be part of the solution.

Jeremy Rifkin's book gives  us reason to hope for a better future. Read The Zero Marginal Cost Society,  then stand with Move to Amend, and do your part to help make it happen.

Here is a link to the webpage for The Zero Marginal Cost Society     http://www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com/  


Here is a link to a one hour presentation Jeremy Rifkin made on his latest book to the leaders of Google... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-iDUcETjvo&feature=youtu.be

An 'Online' Magna Carta

This is a very important issue.  The internet is the only media arena that remains reasonably open and accessible. Corporations like Comcast and Verizon are trying to use their political influence to take control of the internet and limit the ability of users to freely access its content.

Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet.  We must take what he has to say seriously.
________________

Published on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 by Common Dreams

Web Inventor's Bold Call: Time for 'Online Magna Carta'

Tim Berners-Lee issues call for "a global constitution – a bill of rights" to defend digital rights

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

As the World Wide Web celebrates its 25th anniversary Wednesday, Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the system, is calling for an online 'Magna Carta' to protect users in the face of growing surveillance and attacks on an open internet.




 Tim Berners-Lee, World Wide Web inventor, speaking at a press conference on Human Rights Day in December 2013. (Photo: UN Geneva)

 

Tim Berners-Lee, World Wide Web inventor, speaking at a press conference on Human Rights Day in December 2013. (Photo: UN Geneva) Twenty-five years on, Berners-Lee said, "we need to make sure we establish the principles that the Web's been based on — principles of openness, principles of privacy, principles of not being censored."

"Unless we have an open, neutral internet," he told the Guardian, "we can rely on without worrying about what's happening at the back door, we can't have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It's not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it."

"It's time for us to make a big communal decision," he told BBC. "In front of us are two roads — which way are we going to go? Are we going to continue on the road and just allow the governments to do more and more and more control — more and more surveillance?"

"Or are we going to set up a bunch of values? Are we going to set up something like a Magna Carta for the world wide web and say, actually, now it's so important, so much part of our lives, that it becomes on a level with human rights?" he continued. Echoing that statement, he told the Guardian, "We need a global constitution – a bill of rights."

Because an open internet must be "nurtured and protected" from "some companies and some governments [that] threaten our fundamental freedoms on the Web," Berners-Lee's World Wide Web Foundation has set up the Web We Want campaign to support those groups working for an open, universal web.

A critic of government surveillance, Berners-Lee posed the first question to Edward Snowden Monday at the South by South West conference in Austin, thanking the whistleblower for the surveillance revelations that have been "profoundly in the public interest."
His Web We Want campaign is asking people to help craft an internet Users Bill of Rights to defend digital rights.

Efforts like this are "laudable and noteworthy," Timothy Karr, Senior Director of Strategy at internet rights group Free Press, told Common Dreams, as they "align people around the world around a set of principles that support internet freedom."

"The trick, though," Karr continued, "is going from declaration or statement of rights to action defending those rights as they are continually under assault around the world."
Berners-Lee is also marking the web's anniversary by taking part in a Reddit Ask Me Anything session Wednesday beginning at 3PM ET.

______________________

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Net Neutrality on Life Support

Net Neutrality is about having unbiased and unfettered access to all variety of content - websites, blogs, search engines - that populates the internet.

Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and other communication giants have been working to gain more control over the net. They are lobbying relentlessly to change the laws governing the public airwaves and they have petitioned the judiciary to alter the rules in their favor.

On January 14, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave net providers what they wanted. The court ruled against neutrality and for providers. In effect, this allows the big corporations that deliver the net to introduce their own bias into how internet content is presented to their customers. Bottom line: net content that is politically unpalatable to providers can be stifled or cut off completely from customers.

The case can be made that the traditional media has already been coopted by large corporations. Television and radio and the print media once had local ownership. Now, they are all controlled by a handful of large corporations.  Content is now managed to maximize profit, above all else. The news that is delivered through TV, Radio, and the print media is also shaped to fit the political interests of corporate owners. Fox News is the most egregious example.

The internet has been the one place where the public could go to find content that is not subject to censorship or any kind of bias.  In a net neutral world, all content is treated more or less equally. With the court's ruling, providers like Time Warner can decide what customers are able to access, and when, and how, if at all.

Net neutrality is critical to the  maintenance of a citizen democracy.   Every person should be deeply concerned about the court's decision to hand the keys to the internet over to private corporate interests. 

Here is Stephen Colbert's satirical take on net neutrality... http://www.hulu.com/watch/587624

The Fair Use Doctrine.

These days, there are millions, maybe even billions of digital images, personal quotes, artworks, and other forms of digitized intellectual property circulating freely on the internet.  Much of this material is easily accessible with a keystroke or two.

When I write entries for this blog,  I generally look for photo images, charts, illustrations, quotes from notable authorities, anything that will make my message more compelling. There is a copyright doctrine called' Fair Use' that offers legal guidelines for the public use of this freely available intellectual property.

Here is the Fair Use Doctrine as written in U.S. law...

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[4]


As written in the law, this doctrine is open to relatively broad interpretation. The law seems to boil down to two things. You can't use somebody else's intellectual property to make money for yourself. You cannot use it in a way that casts any kind of negative or unflattering light on the originator of the copy written material.

In my case, when I repost articles of interest that I find on the net, I give credit to the originator of the material. 

Not long ago, I posted a blog entry about a live cam of an eagle's nest on the grounds of the Naval Observatory on the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.  The article was entirely about this live video feed.  To make the piece more accessible, I selected two quality images of bald eagles  I found when I googled 'bald eagle images'.   The images I selected were beautiful,  but did not include the name of the copyright holder. Not long after that blog entry was posted, a person who says he was the owner of one of the images posted a comment on that entry accusing me of stealing his image. I certainly had no intention of improperly using his image. I put it there only to illustrate what the blog was actually about.  That seems to fit very easily within the exceptions allowed under 'fair use'.  Still, since this person was upset with  my use of his copy written image, I immediately removed it from that blog entry.  I then responded to that accuser, telling him that I had removed the image, even though 'fair use' did not require me to do so.

There are nearly 500 entries in this blog. Only that one time has somebody made an issue of my usage of material freely available on the net.  I believe the approach I have taken to this issue is readily defensible under the fair use doctrine.   My advice to anyone who uses copy written material is to err on the side of caution.  If you think the owners of that material might be offended, the best course is not to use it.

Edge - A Web Presence that is Worthy

Imagine a website that serves mostly as an outlet for good ideas from the minds of some of the world's best thinkers. Edge is the name of the site. It's the brainchild of a New York based innovator named John Brockman. I confess, Brockman is new to me. All indications are that he is an impressive thinker himself.  

Edge is shaped to inspire, but it's not  for lightweights.  It's not dumbed down. The visitor is assumed to have a scientifically open mind and the ability to thoughtfully  process information.

There are more than a few forward thinking, scientifically focused presences on the net that seek to engage and influence in a positive way.  Edge stands out. It is shaped for an intelligent audience; the kind of visitor that favors compelling ideas over mindless hype and promotion.

This site is  built on good science and nuanced insight.  It's a bunch of really smart people expressing themselves on a variety of subjects, with  ideas that contribute to a sustainable world view.

Edge appears to be gender equal.  Smart women with good ideas are showcased as often as men.   I  like that,  because women have every right to be treated equally.  Also, it does seem that most women are genetically selected to nurture. How wonderful is that?  A huge dose of caring and compassion is very much what the world needs.

One thing I wish for is that the mentally engaged crowd that subscribes to Edge join with the caring people who  champion  the natural world, and those good folks  who fight for women's rights, and  Indigenous rights, and gay rights, and animal rights. To some extent, it's already happening. It needs to happen a whole lot more.  These noble constituencies that represent different causes  need to  get on the same page and work together.  They need to come together and  focus on reshaping our seriously corrupted form of governance.  What we have now is a corporate plutocracy, driven to a substantial degree  by legalized bribery.  That must change. Those of us who want to be progressive game changers - I have to assume that includes the exceptional men and women who interface at the  Edge  website -  need to engage at the grass roots with all the other good people who want to build an equitable, life-affirming future.  We need to work together for a common solution to the political dysfunction that diminishes everything we care about.

I have joined the Edge  online community. Take a look yourself. If smart thinking works for you, check Edge out for yourself. Here is a link to the website... http://www.edge.org

 

 

 

 

Mental Floss - 50 Misconceptions

This is one of those quirky, fun bursts of creativity found on You Tube.  Entertaining and even enlightening...


Here is the link to Mental Floss...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxIGlMrrhQM&feature=player_embedded

Primary Focus - An Open Internet

So much is going on these days; the world is in such turmoil,  the importance of keeping the Internet open, unfiltered, and easily accessible cannot be overstated. 

Any strategy for affirmative and inclusive change depends on networked communication fostered by the Internet.  The first of all the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution affirms the fundamental right to free expression.   

In the world we know, the Internet has become civilization's nervous system. It allows us to communicate with each other quickly, easily, and cheaply in remarkably broad fashion. It gives anyone with a tablet or smart phone the ability to access countless nodes of knowledge and perspective.

The net is an opening to many pathways for growth and understanding.

The net is indispensable to the forging of public consensus, and should never be limited by any form of censorship.

In Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries,  the Internet has powered the 'Arab Spring'.  In every nation where the Internet is an unencumbered, open source of competing ideas,  at every level of governance - local, national, regional, and global - dialogues are ongoing that result in common purpose.

There are forces at work that don't support free expression, at least not when it involves ideas incompatible with their own.   People who are threatened by competing ideas don't want a free, open, and easily accessible net.  The corporate providers of internet services like Comcast want to be able to control the information their subscribers can access.  There are powerful interests who will happily pay big money to these providers to restrict what's available on the net.

Net Neutrality is the concept that assures a free and open internet. Free expression is a right affirmed by the 1st Amendment.  At this moment in Washington, lobbyists focused on the net are working their manipulation game in the halls of Congress. Their mission is to restrict net neutrality. We the people must be vocal on this subject. We must let our elected representatives know in no uncertain terms that any kind of legislated limit on open access to the net is unacceptable.

Here is a link to a group that is focused on protecting your right to an open internet...http://www.theopeninter.net/

What Happened to the Media

There was a time when people took for granted that their local newspaper and the evening news were reliable; that they could be trusted to deliver an honest and accurate picture of the world. Newspapers and TV stations that served cities and regions, for the most part, were started by enterprising people who were part of those communities and still lived there. Times have changed.  Newspapers and TV stations are most often owned by media corporations with no direct stake in the markets they occupy.. Their customers are not the readers and viewers they serve, but instead the deep pocket corporate interests that provide the lion's share of their revenue.

In the case of newspapers, revenue from subscribers is dwarfed by the money that comes in from paid advertising, especially the full page, color ads purchased by food chains, retailers, and large corporations.

Television stations are entirely dependent on income from selling commercial air time.  The customers they serve are almost exclusively corporations that are assiduously focused on their bottom lines.

Ownership consolidations over the past few decades have put most of the nation's newspapers and TV operations in the hands of a handful of mega media empires like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation; example; Fox Network. Murdoch's operation is the worst example of media that shapes its reporting and its overall message to fit the narrow agenda of its corporate customers.  NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN also show fealty to their big money customers.   The 'news' they report is routinely shaped to fit the narrow world view of the corporations that buy advertising.

Newspapers are struggling to stay afloat as the internet, more and more, is becoming the place people look to for news and information.  Part of this trend is inevitable as the old gives way to the new and more convenient way of staying informed. There is also the matter of trust.  The decline in circulation that is crippling most newspapers has been hastened, in my view, by the perception by many readers that the information delivered by their papers is misshapen or inappropriately sensationalized to serve their corporate conservative customers.

In the case of television stations, selling commercials is where profitability comes from. The high cost of commercial airtime pretty much limits the customer base to businesses with products or agendas to sell. Viewers are treated as fodder, with programming designed to attract them in the specific demographics most valued by commercial customers with products to promote.

The unfortunate reality is that big media, both print and electronic, has lost the trust of its readers and viewers.

The internet is rapidly replacing newspapers, radio, and TV as the place to go to be informed. For the moment at least, their are many sources of information available on the internet; some worthy of trust, others not. Free access to information on the internet is itself under assault by cable providers and telecom companies who want to control the information available to net users. The term 'net neutrality' defines the condition of free, open, and unfiltered access to the net's capabilities and services. 

It is in every citizen's interest to strictly regulate corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and other providers that deliver the internet to people like me and you. Providing is what they do, and that is all they should be able to do.  The neutrality of the internet must be protected. No provider should be able to control or restrict in any way an individual's ability to freely access the information available on the net. Given the history of the media, a free, open and unfiltered net is something no citizen can afford to take for granted.

Here is a link to a group that is focused on protecting net neutrality...  http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality

Tom Tomorrow's Gag Reflex

Tom Tomorrow is a funny guy; a cartoonist with an attitude about politics and the insanities of our bruised and broken American culture.  TT's real name is Dan  Perkins. The things that make him gag are reflected in his work.  I love his work.  It's smart, courageous, and unapologetic. TT  enjoys drilling sociopaths, stupid ideas, and corrupted institutions like the NSA.  He's my kind of guy.

Here is one of TT's most recent cartoon offerings. It's called, 'The Bottomless Pit of Arbitrary Accounting'.

Tom Tomorrow's cartoons used to appear on Salon.com. He works now for the Daily Kos online.  He's also published a couple of books.    If you think like me, you should be a Tom Tomorrow fan, if you aren't already.

Here is a link to Tom Tomorrow's webpage... http://thismodernworld.com/

Creative Commons

There is a titanic struggle going on below the public's radar on this subject.

In the interview link below, Lawrence Lessig talks about the creative commons and the threat to reasonable, open access.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWnYW084FM

Net Neutrality and Open Access

This is one of the most important issues of our time.  It is also perhaps the most under reported.  Net neutrality is about open and unimpeaded access to all resources on the internet.  Providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are pressing Congress to pass regulations that give them the right to control  access to and flow of information on the internet. 

Net neutrality is the way the First Amendment of the Constitution is manifested on line.  Access should remain free and open,  without undue manipulation by those guided only by profit or those interested in limiting access.

Free and unencumbered access to information on the internet is fundimental to democratic expression.  We all have a stake in this. We all need to engage in the dialogue about net neutrality and open access.

Here is a link to a non-profit that is focused on this very important human rights issue...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Encyclopedia of Earth

Here is a tremendous, open source, immanently accessible, peer reviewed information resource on all subjects related to the Earth sciences.

http://www.eoearth.org/

What makes a Video go Viral?

Here's a guy who works at You Tube talking about what makes a video go viral. Not an easy thing given that 48 hours of video are uploaded to You Tube every minute of every day.

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_allocca_why_videos_go_viral.html