Abundance In the Exponential Era with Peter Diamandis | Exponential Manufacturing

[@JakeVoorhees]

This is an amazing video, thank you so much. I read "The Singularity is Near" by Kurzweil about 10 years ago and have followed these themes ever since :) I cannot wait for the future. What an amazing time to be alive :)

[@keepcreationprocess]

Amazing time to squeeze people out , their purse and their life........The survival of the fittest and the most dishonest people. What a terrible time to live in, if you don t have a job/money, or have an illness under your skin. Everything is possible in this life - nature provides for us all, but it does not mean you have the access to the solution, that they will make sure, YOU HAVE TO PAY THE MAXIMUM PRICE for the care and security. All prices will increase 3-10 times from now on. You have to pay for the environmental/ marketing / research/ development /governmental costs. Technology will be able to solve all kind of problems, but PEOPLE will NEVER LET this happen....... Work bitch //// you are going to PAY for it / pay for us.......even if you can get it FREE from NATURE.......they will not allow you...to do so. More regulations, more restricted laws, and more lies and false assumptions.

[@InfiniteCyclus]

You could also include the decline in capital per person in one of those charts. Essentially the centralization of capital and thus power...

[@franksang5014]

InfiniteCyclus That is true to an extent but you also have to see the diminution of resources required to start a company. Concomitantly the difficulty or ease of starting a successful company. Instagram being an example they gave. 3D printing will further facilitate this. However it is imperative that we work on financial equality.

[@InfiniteCyclus]

Frank Sang Sure.. But there will never be 7 billion disruptive companies to create wealth for everyone... We're going to a sharing society where 99,9% of the populous owns nothing and is completely powerless and dependant on the system...

[@franksang5014]

InfiniteCyclus Well what does own nothing mean? If it means relative to billionaires then i suppose that is a possibility. If it means relative to previous historical standards of living then the answer is that we will be more prosperous than we have ever been. This has, of course, been happening. Anyways as Hans Moravec says in his seminal book "Robot" it is unlikely that the people will simply take their obsolescence lying down. We will want a part of that abundance. Furthermore if the capitalistic status quo is to remain then consumers are a vital part of the equation. Also you said a decline in capital but essentially this is not true and i was wrong to agree. If you take a look at the GDP per capita of information economies then you will see that the growth is exponential. Not only this but as we see here money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/ globally we have been adding people to all brackets of the income range except the poverty one. Not to say that low income is a great place to be but it is livable. In fact my relatives in Mexico live on what would be the low income bracket. Anyways this is not meant to be a refutation of income inequality as it is very much a problem. However what it does mean is that we are living much better even given this glaring problem. Abundance has a corollary effect even with the reality of rampant inequality. If the wealth is so vast then 99.9% of a quintillion or a similarly large number is still a lot. Couple this with the reduction of price of commodities by the transformative nature of the technology with which they will be created and you realize that while inequality remains what could be considered a humanitarian problem it is not one for the deprivation of essential things. Also to the point that the low income bracket has been growing it is quite simply explained by the fact that those moving from the poverty bracket have most likely moved to the low income bracket and when poverty is sufficiently reduced it is logical to deduce that many will move from the low income to the middle income bracket or otherwise. In fact a lot of those from the poverty bracket have skipped the low income bracket entirely. Either way this is really all obsolete considering that labor will be obsolete in the near future. When labor is obsolete and the abundance is not being created by us then it would be logical for the system to be structured to not give such a large proportion of the wealth to a select few. Needless to be said it is logical while labor is not obsolete but fundamentally i believe that the obsolescence of human labor will cause a restructuring of our current system. Of course we could digress into the argument that in the future we will not run and structure the world ourselves but rather beings more intelligent than ourselves or maybe even the argument that these very beings will be our extinction... but we will simply leave it at that.

[@InfiniteCyclus]

Frank Sang I must emphasize that my problem is mostly with the dependence one has to the system. Not that someone else has more than me or something.

[@InfiniteCyclus]

Frank Sang And the decline in capital I'm really referring to is the one when robots will take most of our jobs and the creation of new assets would be quit impossible..

[@madasarbu5408]

Great show! Thanks! Peter Diamandis is a true legend. You should listen to him on The Art of Charm Podcast.

[@TimBergeronTV]

Singularity should be uploading videos in 4k :)

[@dawanrobinson5697]

I like the idea about disruptive stress/opportunity

[@mufaddal89]

WHere can I get the intro music ?

[@BrickFlicksTV]

Interesting how Intel suggested they are purposely slowing Moore's law. Meanwhile AMD is about to release a processor that'll compete with Intel. Can it really be slowed?

[@ramblerandy2397]

This is the thing. You can only slow down progress if everyone is willing to do so. Like a cartel. But somebody will always break ranks. They will seize the opportunity. This has often been the case in the past, but now it works much, much faster.

[@davefroman4700]

In 2018 Researchers in Alberta Canada used AI deep learning to perform manufacturing at the atomic scale for the first time in history. The scientific community is heralding it as the most disruptive technological innovation since the Gutenberg Printing press. In June 2019 another group of researchers were able to do it with nano robotics. People have no idea how fast Nano-replication is coming.

[@alastairleith8612]

@26:00 Earth is 8.3% aluminium by weight! Never knew.

[@MrAndrew535]

Despite all the hype society has not overcome the mentality of competition. As well as competition, many other things with which people identify will fall by the wayside, as one would logically expect from an evolving species. Other examples of moribund identifiers will be art, music, drama, entertainment a need for comfort. In fact, all things we have experienced throughout our lifetime which appeal to our five senses will become obsolete. Whatever constitutes our existence the five senses will not be required. If anyone can logically justify the need for the five senses in an a higher cognitive existential state then I would be more than content to abandon this position. Although this is the way it may on the surface, this is not a negative nihilistic position. If it is a natural progression of our cognitive development then I fail to see how that could be interpreted as a bad outcome. The real question now is whether or not this outcome is inevitable? Above is what is very likely to be beyond the event horizon of the singularity. the most interesting thing is the voluminous evidence which supports it. What has consistently changed the world (or at least our experience of it)? Originality! Originating from pure thought, or phrase in an alternatively which if you were really smart would blow your mind, Immaculate Conception. Immaculate/pure conception/thought. So I confess, that idea isn't original. My suspicion is that our brains are wired to permit exponential development, however, language is intrinsically linear and as such, it is a language which limits human progress, particularly an over-dependence on written language. Granted, this proposition is based on theory, but theory nonetheless, built on a solid foundation of logic and well-founded science. Again granted, it is my own unique interpretation of the science I have examined. More to come. Perhaps!

[@alitopan1975]

If this is true why is the iPhone getting more expensive every year?

[@richardf911]

Because the iphone is on the way out.

[@GoddessKate1]

IN USA COST per GIGABIT internet has been increasing not decreasing, as SPECTRUM has BOUGHT OUT Time Warner Cable, so now just for 100mbs a 10th of a gigabit it costs $39.99 plus tax special limited time price which then jumps to $69.99 ! So if you wanted GIGABIT times it by 10x!..

[@wendellallen553]

GoddessKate1 that's not true I am a mailman and the new houses being built are built with fiber optics(im guessing) and they have 1gb speeds for 75 dollars but yeah if u do have a older house that maybe true I have a apartment and I get 200 mbs for 55 plus modem though and taxes it's 85 though.

[@alastairleith8612]

It's a myth Kodak ignored their own invention of the photographic CCD. Sometimes stories aren't quite that simple. They actually led the digital consumer camera market for many years. But smart phones along with social media ended film, digital camera and print markets in the consumer space. For Kodak yes, but for others too. The consumer film and print market was where the Kodak rivers of gold ran, even though motion pictures and many other divisions were also profitable. Some of them at least foresaw the disruption of digital and attempted to ride it. Not least Willy Shih who took that first invention and built an entire digital product division within Kodak which maybe could have been better supported.

[@MrDonkov]

It´s a golden age to start a business. However I also think it´s naive to expect that technology will solve all of our problems.

[@TDrudley]

Yeah, sadly human beings exist to block progress.

[@MrC0MPUT3R]

+Drudley Kill all humans

[@TDrudley]

MrC0MPUT3R Not quite yet.

[@squamish4244]

Technology that supports internal well-being is not nearly emphasized enough by Peter Diamandis, and that's his weak point. We could shove the external world full of shit but it still wouldn't really make us happy. He talks about the amygdala's role in generating fear but never (to my knowledge) mentions what to do ABOUT that neurological process.

[@alastairleith8612]

Including Climate which is the joker in the pack. We may have already tipped over catastrophic consequences. Nobody in the world can be certain, we just don't know enough.

[@killap3nguin]

In 10 years you think people will live to 140-160 years old? What a stupid statement. You can’t slow down the aging of joints and the skeletal system