Hi Terry, Ken and all.
It was good of Terry to throw in a little skepticism about the course of things, who is in charge, and what are the downsides.
The New York Times had another telling article the day before the one Ken cited that should cause yet another take on the future of research - the extremely wealthy may control the subject matter and focus of research as they become “benevolent” sponsors with their own needs in mind. see:Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html? src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article&_r= 0
So what is the future of research given this totally capitalist version where the very rich see themselves as being good and giving back and others take an anti capitalist view?
How pervasive is either of these developments in other countries? And how much of each crosses borders as with the Gates Foundation’s work.
Food for thought,
Chuck


On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:23 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Ken,
> Rifkin's is a nice  article but I feel  both little mistaken and very late
> to the party in its thinking. 
> Some thought:
> 
> 1. Rifkin seems to have a mistaken   kind of theoretical and idealistic view
> of not-for-profit organisations. A typical business structure for a
> not-for-profit organisations comprises a pair of co-managed entities. One
> (the not for profit)  acquires all the tax, public grants, subsidies, public
> service fees, free land, exemptions from charges and controls, charitable
> benefits and charitable income.  The linked second entity strips the money
> out of the not-for-profit entity by charging for providing services and
> access to assets (the second entity holds all the assets). This structure is
> one of several forms of profit making initiatives involving not-for-profits.
> It provides an efficient way for the for-profit side of not-for-profit
> organisations to  gain direct access  to national funds collected from
> taxation of workers and other businesses.  This two-part organisational and
> variants  is found widely in religious, educational and  charitable and
> not-for-profit  organisations involved in social services provision. In many
> ways it makes more sense to the not-for-profit sector as a different kind of
> for-profit sector. Rifkin's reasoning makes a different kind of sense with
> this in mind.
> 
> 2. The idea  and practice of reducing the cost of products to as close as
> possible to zero with its attendant social benefits is OLD. It is a
> well-established idea in engineering design with the ideas of efficient,
> centralised and  production and service provision.  It is the reason why
> cities are the most environmentally beneficial places rather than the
> countryside. It  has been the driver of widespread reductions in  poverty,
> improvements in social conditions of masses, greater life expectancy and
> improved health. One  factor that has acted against these benefits has been
> craft production and design. Think of hand producing an IKEA fork (ignore
> the knife and spoon). How much for a well paid crafts person to produce by
> hand ONE IKEA fork. My guess is $500-$1000.  How much is an IKEA fork
> produced efficiently engineered mass-production? Possibly 1cent each? It is
> low prices of everyday things  that  enable citizens on low incomes to live
> without the health disadvantages of poverty. The creation of the
> technologies that enable the low prices are themselves capital dependent.
> Rifkin apparently doesn't include this capital flow and its needs, which is
> much the same as happened in the industrial revolution.
> 
> 3.Rifkin appears to misunderstand what happens with de-centralisation and
> localisation. 3D printers use approximately 100 times the energy to produce
> objects than conventional mass production methods. In addition, local
> environmental pollution is massively higher. Put simply, replacing
> centralised mass-production with local production results in significantly
> worse environmental and energy outcomes and costs. This is contrary to
> Rifkin's claims. Another example, Rifkin grounds some of his arguments on
> the benefits of car sharing - but car sharing of the sort most commonly
> practiced only  makes sense in terms of centralised work arrangements of the
> sort requiring high levels of capital.
> 
> Feels to me like an essay that's superficial and hasn't had things worked
> through.  The implications for design, I suggest, are around increasing
> awareness of the importance of designing for mass-production and the role of
> the internet of things (outside surveillance)  in gaining increased benefits
> from centralisation and mass-production and the avoiding of unnecessary
> localisation. 
> 
> ... and the maths is coming. . ..
> 
> Best regards ,
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
> Sent: Monday, 17 March 2014 11:25 AM
> To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
> Subject: The Internet of Things and The Rise of Anti-Capitalism
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Jeremy Rifkin has written an important article in the New York Times on an
> issue with important implications for design - and for design research. The
> rise of the non-profit sector and the role of design services in social
> innovation come to the foreground in this kind of thinking.
> 
> You will find the full article at URL
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism
> .html?hp&rref=opinion
> 
> Excerpt below
> 
> --snip--
> 
> We are beginning to witness a paradox at the heart of capitalism, one that
> has propelled it to greatness but is now threatening its future: The
> inherent dynamism of competitive markets is bringing costs so far down that
> many goods and services are becoming nearly free, abundant, and no longer
> subject to market forces. While economists have always welcomed a reduction
> in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological
> revolution that might bring those costs to near zero.
> 
> The first inkling of the paradox came in 1999 when Napster, the music
> service, developed a network enabling millions of people to share music
> without paying the producers and artists, wreaking havoc on the music
> industry. Similar phenomena went on to severely disrupt the newspaper and
> book publishing industries. Consumers began sharing their own information
> and entertainment, via videos, audio and text, nearly free, bypassing the
> traditional markets altogether.
> 
> The huge reduction in marginal cost shook those industries and is now
> beginning to reshape energy, manufacturing and education. Although the fixed
> costs of solar and wind technology are somewhat pricey, the cost of
> capturing each unit of energy beyond that is low. This phenomenon has even
> penetrated the manufacturing sector. Thousands of hobbyists are already
> making their own products using 3-D printers, open-source software and
> recycled plastic as feedstock, at near zero marginal cost. Meanwhile, more
> than six million students are enrolled in free massive open online courses,
> the content of which is distributed at near zero marginal cost. [article
> continues]
> 
> --snip--
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ken
> 



-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------