It should be clear to anyone who is paying attention that the world is in the midst of a transformation. Artificial Intelligence is changing the way we think about knowledge: why learn anything when we can simply ask a ChatBot for the answers? Another transformation that is underway is the shift from owning things to subscribing to digital services.
Own Nothing, Have Everything. | Orit Dolev | TEDxShenkarCollege
In a TED Talk on YouTube, entitled “Own Nothing, Have Everything,” a technology designer explains her vision of a future where, taken to extremes, people might not own physical possessions. In the comments below the video, the vast majority condemn her proposal. However, when one thinks about it, we are already well on our way. In vacation rentals, so-called timeshares, whereby someone buys the right to use a property for a certain percentage of the time, have been around for a long time. Similarly, car-sharing organizations now exist. To give a personal anecdote, two years ago, until I was ready to buy my own car, I was a member of a Vancouver car-sharing co-op, Modo, in which I was able to reserve a car near my home for a few hours, or even a day. I didn’t have to worry about parking space or maintenance, although I did have to ensure that I topped up the gas tank for the next user.
In the culinary realm, it is now not uncommon to avail of services that deliver ingredients and a recipe, enabling subscribers to cook unique dishes without the risk of preparing too much or too little or not having a vital ingredient. In the realm of music, iTunes, Spotify, and so on allow us to listen to every type of music imaginable, without having to own physical copies of the music. I could go on with further examples, but I believe you get the point.
In her talk, the technology designer, Orit Dolev, imagines a world where the rich won’t need to own their own cars but will be able to instantly summon a luxury car, and have it “disappear, like magic” when it is no longer needed. We all know that most devices from cars to refrigerators contain computer chips, so it makes sense when she says that as objects become “smarter” with artificial intelligence and technology they will increasingly become part of digital services, to be swapped and shared.
As for employment, she says that with the “supercomputer in her pocket,” i.e. smartphone, she can work anywhere in the world. Technology has seen the rise of the so-called digital nomads who are not tied down to a physical office. For people like her, physical possessions become a burden, so it makes sense to subscribe to services that provide objects on an as-needed basis. Until today, I had not heard of replacing one’s wardrobe with a clothing service, but that is one of the things Dolev envisions. Clothes would be delivered daily by a drone, enabling one to wear a different set of clothes every day of the year! It will be possible to have shoes custom-made based on scans of our feet, and clothes that are digitally tailor-made for us.
She says homes won’t need washers or dryers, and that furniture and decor will be changeable because they will also be digital services. Furthermore, imagine what impact digital services might have on dating and relationships!
Dolev argues that by not having possessions we will be freer to enjoy what she claims are more important, experiences. I am probably a lot more receptive to her message than the average person because I lived a semi-nomadic life as an English language teacher in East Asia and the Middle East for 30 years, and therefore got used to renting accommodation and getting rid of things when it was time to move to a new location. Furthermore, for over a decade I have been attracted to the philosophy of minimalism, which as the name suggests, is living life with the minimum number of possessions. I went so far as to sell or give away most of my books and a lot of sporting gear such as skis, but now I regret that, to be honest. On the other hand, I don’t have to pay for storage like I did before.
My view is that the lifestyle the technology designer advocates is one that will not be followed by everyone, but will be adopted on a spectrum from almost no use of digital services by the poor to virtually exclusive use of them by the wealthy elite. Additionally, this will be parallelled by a division in society over healthcare and education, with the peasants living unfulfilled lives while the elite are able to enjoy self-actualization. (The gap between the “haves” of the developed world and the “have nots” of the developing world will become even more exaggerated also.)
To sum up, I feel that there must be the option to not give up ownership of possessions for those who wish to maintain that right. Judging from the numerous hostile remarks in the comments section below Dolev’s video, most people are not ready to make this change, but change is coming whether they like it or not. I feel that the digital services described could improve the quality of life for millions, but that people should not be expected to give up ALL of their possessions. I think some kind of blend of ownership and digital services is the answer because people get very attached to objects, especially things they have made themselves such as a restored car, a sweater they knitted, or a picture they painted. They may have a pair of jeans that fit them perfectly that they don’t want to give up. As they say, fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a wild ride.
Patrick B’s Blog 
This is another aspect of the approaching future that I hadn’t thought about Peter. Ms Dolev seems a bit extreme, but I think she’s onto something. We really don’t know where we’re going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is an exciting time to be alive with all the change going on
LikeLike
Her “magic” for transportation is someone else owning the car and being your servant; and her model seems to be the transnational companies that are undermining local taxi companies and creating a workforce of marginally-employed independent contractors (shielding those transnationals from the tax burden of employing people). “Working from anywhere”, as she does, is about work stripped of human interaction. My work life was face-to-face and hands-on with patients. I would never trade that for my phone and a hotel room. She’s going to 3D print her custom shoes, wear them once, then recycle them. She won’t own shoes, but she’ll have to own a 3D printer in her apartment to make them? Or will all living spaces come with a 3D printer instead of a stove and refrigerator, so we can print doodads instead of cooking meals?
I think her premise, that we are slaves to possessions and that private property may be a root of all evil, has some merit. Like many tech workers whose actual work is seldom explained (she’s a “technology designer”), she seems to have lot of big talk but a poor sense of direction (if promoting Uber and Lyft is the way to a mass transit system). I think there are other visionaries (some of whom I just wrote about) who have a much more grounded and human-centric vision. Her vision seems to be centered on robots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent comment, Sir. I suppose the question is, just because technology allows us to do something, do we have to do it? This highlights the importance in a solid grounding in humanities is essential for our visionaries and leaders. Like you, I don’t want a robot dictating how I should live my life. However, the current generation may be more open to the kinds of things she’s talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My other question for her is: who do you propose should own all of the actual stuff? (Since there will still be “stuff”.) Will it be jointly owned through a cooperative or socialized system, or will all property be in the hands of transnational mega-corporations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A co-op would be ideal but global corporations will probably own the stuff, regrettably. Of course, the power brokers will be a few billionaires, which we see is already happening a la Musk, Gates, Bezos et al.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t watched the video but I can’t help but get the sense of a terribly shallow communism from her concept. I’m all for prioritizing experiences over things and how less is more in that aspect. But the no ownership and this drone for clothing nonsense?! How about we just own less? How about a capsule wardrobe instead of a drone that delivers stuff daily. I feel like having endless options for so many things will distract us from what’s important in life (i.e. experiences) rather than actually benefit us. I am also wary of this everyone can work anywhere from their phone type of thing… I personally view and hope for a future where we start to remove a lot those jobs (a lot of middle management/paper pusher positions/influencers) and we all have more tangible jobs. Not to mention many jobs require people to be there physically like in healthcare. But in some senses I do like the idea of co-op-ing more but really can’t we just start and stop with universal healthcare, better public transportation, and guaranteed housing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You brought up some good points. Yes, the lifestyle she advocates is extravagant. Thanks for your input.
LikeLike
Some interesting observations.
With the 4th Industrial Revolution, many things that we used to purchase are now freely available, music being an obvious example. I mean, who actually buys it these days, when it can be downloaded so easily? Public libraries have been around for centuries, so, again, there is no need to buy a book. My local library will order whatever I request, albeit with some delay.
Free bikes/scooters for public use are increasingly common in many modern cities, as are cars, for a fee. Public WiFi is widely available now.
That said, there will always be private property, IMHO.
But I see the availability of things open to all as a public good.
LikeLiked by 1 person