agregador de noticias
Aug 07, 2017
The 'innovation dilemma' has driven a lot of education and labour policy over the last few years with legislators trying out how to wring more productivity out of an increasingly unprepared labour force. But what if the issue of productivity has nothing to do with labour, or technology, at all? That's the argument considered here. Irving Wladawsky-Berger suggests that instead of taking advantage of freer trade and technological progress, companies and their managers are focusing on arbitrage to increase productivity, creating illusory short term gains with long term consequences. "By a misguided policy of suppressing wages and thus throttling mass consumption, unchecked managerial elites may inadvertently cripple the technology-driven productivity growth responsible for their rise," he writes.[Link] [Comment]
The core of this post is based on the slogan, attributed to Picasso, "Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist." But what are the rules? Do they tell you what to paint? Of course not. The 'rules' are a syntax. When Amy Burvall writes "Virtually every piece of media we are confronted with (from pop songs to poetry, from TV shows to classic texts), makes assumptions that the audience knows certain references" she refers not to 'content knowledge' but rather to the way culture has transformed content into language, taking specific reference and turning them into syntax. It's important to understand the difference. Otherwise you'll think that memorizing Shakespeare is the same as getting an education, when the real learning consists in how to use Shakespeare - or anything else - to make your own voice heard.[Link] [Comment]
I’ve long wondered what is meant by industry 4.0. Some shining techno world of robots and Artificial Intelligence? Or the end of batch production for individualised goods (although we have been told this is happening for the last thirty or so years). The rise of service – although how does this relate to industry and it is hardly new? And whatever was Industry 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for that matter?
Erinc Yeldan, Professor of Economics at Yasar University, sums it up pretty well writing in Social Europe. In an article entitled “Beyond Fantasies Of Industry 4.0″, he says”
As a popularized futuristic concept for the 21st Century, “Industry 4.0” reveals a Messianic expectation of a technological revolution encompassing the utilization of advance techniques of digital design and robotics for the production of “high value-added goods”. It doesn’t matter in this conjuncture, nor of relevance, to ask what the characteristics of the first three episodes of industrialization were, and why do we conceptualize the emerged fourth industrial advance with a digitalized mark (4.0), rather than in plain English. It seems what matters now is the urgent need for creating an image of vibrant capitalism serving its citizens in the embrace of globalization.
If we accept the idea of Industry 4.0 as real (and I am highly dubious), Erinc thinks the question of ownership is critical for the future:
..to whom will the ownership rights of the robots belong? States as owners of public (-?) capital? Private ownership as organized along trans-national corporations under the post-imperialist phase of global capital? Men and women of the scientific community who in the first place designed and projected them? Or perhaps, a de-centralized, democratically operating societal network, above and beyond nation states?
Although I agree, this is just a part of the argument about teh future of technology. Technology is not a natural phenomenon, it is a socially derived process. How we use technology – for private profit or for public good is a political and social issue. It is long time the meanings and assumptions of the Industry 4.0 fantasy were explored from a social viewpoint.