“The nature of work, employment, jobs, and economics will have to change over the next 35 years, or the world will face massive unemployment by 2050. This was a key conclusion of the Future Work/Technology 2050 study published in the “2015−16 State of the Future.””
These days, it’s not hard to find someone predicting that robots will take over the world and that automation could one day render human workers obsolete. The real debate is over whether or not the benefits do or do not outweigh the risks. Automation Expert and Author Dr. Daniel Berleant is one person who is more often on the side of automation.
There are many industries that are poised to be affected by the oncoming automation boom (in fact, it’s a challenge to think of one arena that will not in some minimal way be affected). “The government is actually putting quite a bit of money into robotic research for what they call ‘cooperative robotics,’” Berleant said. “Currently, you can’t work near a typical industrial robot without putting yourself in danger. As the research goes forward, the idea is (to develop) robots that become able to work with people rather than putting them in danger.”
While many view industrial robotic development as a menace to humanity, Berleant tends to focus on the areas where automation can be a benefit to society. “The civilized world is getting older and there are going to be more old people,” he said. “The thing I see happening in the next 10 or 20 years is robotic assistance to the elderly. They’re going to need help, and we can help them live vigorous lives and robotics can be a part of that.”
Berleant also believes that food production, particularly in agriculture, could benefit tremendously from automation. And that, he says, could have a positive effect on humanity on a global scale. “I think, as soon as we get robots that can take care of plants and produce food autonomously, that will really be a liberating moment for the human race,” Berleant said. “Ten years might be a little soon (for that to happen), maybe 20 years. There’s not much more than food that you need to survive and that might be a liberating moment for many poor countries.”
Berleant also cites the automation that’s present in cars, such as anti-lock brakes, self-parking ability and the nascent self-driving car industry, as just the tip of the iceberg for the future of automobiles. “We’ve got the technology now. Once that hits, and it will probably be in the next 10 years, we’ll definitely see an increase in the autonomous capabilities of these cars,” he said. “The gradual increase in intelligence in the cars is going to keep increasing and my hope is that fully autonomous cars will be commonplace within 10 years.”
Berleant says he can envision a time when the availability of fleets of on-demand, self-driving cars reduces the need for automobile ownership. Yet he’s also aware of the potential effects of that reduced car demand on the automobile manufacturing industry; however, he views the negative effect created by an increase in self-driving cars as outweighed by the potential time-saving benefits and potential improvements in safety.
“There is so much release of human potential that could occur if you don’t have to be behind the wheel for the 45 minutes or hour a day it takes people to commute,” Berleant said. “I think that would be a big benefit to society!”
His view of the potential upsides of automation doesn’t mean that Berleant is blind to the perils. The risks of greater productivity from automation, he believes, also carry plenty of weight. “Advances in software will make human workers more productive and powerful. The flipside of that is when they actually improve the productivity to the point that fewer people need to be employed,” he said. “That’s where the government would have to decide what to do about all these people that aren’t working.”
Cautious must also be taken in military AI and automation, where we have already made major progress. “The biggest jump I’ve seen (in the last 10 years) is robotic weaponry. I think military applications will continue to increase,” Berleant said. “Drones are really not that intelligent right now, but they’re very effective and any intelligence we can add to them will make them more effective.”
As we move forward into a future increasingly driven by automation, it would seem wise to invest in technologies that provide more benefits to society i.e. increased wealth, individual potential, and access to the basic necessities, and to slowly and cautiously (or not at all) develop those automated technologies that pose the greatest threat for large swaths of humanity. Berleant and other like-minded researchers seem to be calling for progressive common sense over a desire to simply prove that any automation (autonomous weapons being the current hot controversy) can be achieved.
Fear of scientists “playing god” is at the centre of many a plot line in science fiction stories. Perhaps the latest popular iteration of the story we all love is Jurassic World (2015), a film I find interesting only for the tribute it paid to the original Michael Crichton novel and movie Jurassic Park.
Full op-ed from h+ Magazine on 7 October 2015 http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/10/07/opinion-synthetic-biolog…f-mankind/
In Jurassic Park, a novel devoted to the scare of genetic engineering when biotech was new in the 1990s, the character of John Hammond says:
“Would you make products to help mankind, to fight illness and disease? Dear me, no. That’s a terrible idea. A very poor use of new technology. Personally, I would never help mankind.”
What the character is referring to is the lack of profit in actually curing diseases and solving human needs, and the controversy courted just by trying to get involved in such development. The goal to eradicate poverty or close the wealth gap between rich and poor nations offers no incentive for a commercial company.
Instead, businesses occupy themselves with creating entertainment, glamour products and perfume, new pets, and other superfluities that biotech can inevitably offer. This way, the companies escape not only moral chastisement for failing to share their technology adequately or make it freely available, but they can also attach whatever price tag they want without fear of controversy.
It is difficult for a well-meaning scientist or engineer to push society towards greater freedom and equality in a single country. It is even harder for such a professional to effect a great change over the whole world or improve the human condition the way transhumanists, for example, have intended.
Although discovery and invention continue to stun us all on an almost daily basis, such things do not happen as quickly or in as utilitarian a way as they should. And this lack of progress is deliberate. As the agenda is driven by businessmen who adhere to the times they live in, driven more by the desire for wealth and status than helping mankind, the goal of endless profit directly blocks the path to abolish scarcity, illness and death.
Today, J. Craig Venter’s great discoveries of how to sequence or synthesize entire genomes of living biological specimens in the field of synthetic biology (synthbio) represent a greater power than the hydrogen bomb. It is a power we must embrace. In my opinion, these discoveries are certainly more capable of transforming civilization and the globe for the better. In Life at the Speed of Light(2013), that is essentially Venter’s own thesis.
And contrary to science fiction films, the only threat from biotech is that humans will not adequately and quickly use it. Business leaders are far more interested in profiting from people’s desire for petty products, entertainment and glamour than curing cancer or creating unlimited resources to feed civilization. But who can blame them? It is far too risky for someone in their position to commit to philanthropy than to stay a step ahead of their competitors.
Even businessmen who later go into philanthropy do very little other than court attention in the press and polish the progressive image of the company. Of course, transitory deeds like giving food or clean water to Africans will never actually count as developing civilization and improving life on Earth, when there are far greater actions that can be taken instead.
It is conspicuous that so little has been done to develop the industrial might of poor countries, where schoolchildren must still live and study without even a roof over their heads. For all the unimaginable destruction that our governments and their corporate sponsors unleash on poor countries with bombs or sanctions when they are deemed to be threatening, we see almost no good being done with the same scientific muscle in poor countries. Philanthropists are friendly to the cause of handing out food or money to a few hungry people, but say nothing of giving the world’s poor the ability to possess their own natural resources and their own industries.
Like our bodies, our planet is no longer a sufficient vehicle for human dreams and aspirations. The biology of the planet is too inefficient to support the current growth of the human population. We face the prospect of eventually perishing as a species if we cannot repair our species’ oft-omitted disagreements with nature over issues of sustainability, congenital illness and our refusal to submit to the cruelties of natural selection from which we evolved.
Once we recognize that the current species are flawed, we will see that only by designing and introducing new species can suffering, poverty and the depletion of natural resources be stopped. Once we look at this option, we find already a perfect and ultimately moral solution to the threats of climate change, disease, overpopulation and the terrible scarcity giving rise to endless injustice and retaliatory terrorism.
The perfect solution could only be brought to the world by a heroic worker in the fields of biotech and synthetic biology. Indeed, this revolution may already be possible today, but fear is sadly holding back the one who could make it happen.
Someone who believes in changing the human animal with technology must believe in eradicating poverty, sickness and injustice with technology. For all our talk of equality and human rights in our rhetoric, the West seems determined to prevent poorer countries from possessing their own natural resources. A right guaranteed by the principles of modernization and industrialization, which appears to have been forgotten. Instead, we prefer to watch them being nursed by the richer countries’ monopolies, technology, and workers who are there cultivating, extracting, refining, or buying all their resources for them.
So, quite contrary to the promises of modernity, we have replaced the ideal of the industrialization of poor states with instead the vision of refugee camps, crude water wells, and food aid delivered by humanitarian workers to provide only temporary relief. In place of a model of development that was altruistic and morally correct, we instead glorify the image of non-Westerners as primitives who are impossible to help yet still we try.
The world’s poor have become not the focus of attention aimed at helping humanity, but props for philanthropists to make themselves look noble while doing nothing to truly help them. What we should turn to is not a return to the failed UN development agendas of the 1970s, which were flawed, but a new model entirely, and driven by people instead of governments and UN agencies.
It is high time that we act to help mankind altruistically, rather than a select few customers. The engineers and scientists of the world need to abandon the search for profit, if only for a moment. We should call on them to turn their extraordinary talent to the absolute good of abolishing poverty and scarcity. If they do not do this, we will talk about direct action to break free the scientific gifts they refused to share.
We live in courageous times. These are times of whistle-blowers, lone activists for the truth, and lone scientist-entrepreneurs who must be praised even if our profit-driven culture stifles their great works. And although we live in courageous times, we seem not yet brave enough to take real action to overcome the human disaster.
###
Synthetic biology image from https://www.equipes.lps.u-psud.fr/TRESSET/research8.html
(A) Enclosure of three red-fluorescent 200-nm spheres inside a “giant” liposome labeled with DiO. A wideband ultraviolet excitation filter was used for the simultaneous observation of these two differently stained species. Images were digitally postprocessed to balance the colors and to adjust their brightness at an equal level. (B) Trajectories of the particles. They were free to move but did not pass through the membrane. © GFP entrapped by a “giant” liposome. To get rid of noncaptured proteins, the solution was filtered by dialysis in such a way that the fluorescence background level became negligible with respect to the liposome interior. (D) Fluorescence photographs of λ-DNA-loaded liposome. λ-DNA was stained with SYBR Green, while DiI (red emission) was incorporated to liposome membrane. Liposome was observed through a narrow-band blue excitation filter (suitable for SYBR Green). (E) Same as previously with a wideband green excitation filter (suitable for DiI). Because of a low fluorescence response, part D was digitally enhanced in terms of brightness and contrast. In comparison, part E was darkened to present a level similar to part D. These pictures were taken at an interval of ~1 s, just the time to switch the filters. (E) Fluorescence picture of λ-DNA-loaded liposomes. Green dots stand for λ-DNA molecules, and lipids are labeled in red. A wideband blue excitation filter was used for this bicolor imaging, and a high-sensitivity color CCD camera captured it. [Anal. Chem. 77 (2005) 2795]
Suggests a mechanism to be adopted for any
cryptocurrency that would alter the fee layer to
help fund a new public good.
From ABIS concept
In 2013, following a period of reflection and visioning, I imagined the possibility of completely altering the financial system as we know it. This vision, known as ABIS, will now see its first-ever implementation.
The implementation is now being issued in BCN’s GUI Wallet with the release of v. 1.0.8, where the transaction has been re-envisioned to allow the user new ways to explore the possibilities of transactions and realize greater giving potential, initially through two use cases involving unique forms of donations:
This wallet is now available for anyone around the world to utilize and can aid those seeking to facilitate voluntary donation processes, and it is possible that more use cases for further microgiving possibilities may be added to the graphical wallet in the future.
Social Dimensions and Notions of the Transaction Have Limited Wallet Design Universally.
Most wallet software is designed with certain assumptions about what transactions are. If most in society have developed an assumption about what a transaction is, the manifestation of what our cryptocurrency wallets become (and the format in which the graphical user interfaces are developed to facilitate transactions) will tend to follow such a trend.
If a transaction (in which one sends, or transfers resources) remains limited notionally only as an exchange of currency for goods, services, or other currency, there is a problem in terms of the capacity which we are allowing ourselves to develop and enjoy from decentralized systems.
Certainly, this problem has not solely been in Bytecoin (BCN) but can be seen in any other cryptocurrency wallets as well, and of course, in all currency systems. Legacy systems — those which utilize fiat currencies and rely heavily upon central banks — simply do not have the flexibility to transmit very small amounts efficiently. Cryptocurrency systems are better poised to handle small amounts, but how they handle them will differ depending on the type of cryptocurrency being utilized.
Up to this point, some technical challenges exist which have kept cryptocurrency and wallet developers from tackling the issue, as mentioned in the BCN developer’s blog post, ‘Future of Slacktivism: How 1,000,000 Likes Can Save Lives’. Thus, cryptocurrency wallets do not yet emulate natural giving systems to the degree that they could.
The problem is that, around the globe, we have not yet re-envisioned the transaction to allow the user new ways to explore a transaction’s full potential and offer the option of greater giving potential. However, we now have the means to do so.
The initiative taken by the Bytecoin community to address this issue has resulted in software that is arguably the first of its kind ~ resistant to financial censorship (utilizing BCN’s installable desktop graphic wallet, which has anonymity preferences for transactions which the user can alter on a sliding scale ranging from greater to lesser anonymity), and now, allowing compassionate options for any user, which allow small donations to be sent and received anywhere in the world without any need for an intermediary.
Because the entire concept is fully voluntary there are really a nearly infinite range of choices, essentially limited only by the technology, fees, and network limitations. The user is contemplating who to provide a micro-donation to and at what level and at what threshold the microdonation(s) will be broadcast, based on their wallet settings.
And I hope that we would in this model of giving become more like the bees that share pollen as they bounce from flower to flower (indeed, the acronym of the concept, ABIS, stands for “Ants, Bees, Information, and Systems”).
An interesting commentary from recent events comes from the transcript of Pope Francis’s remarks to US Congress on Sept. 24, 2015:
‘We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology’; ‘to devise intelligent ways of… developing and limiting our power’; and to put technology ‘at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral’
We have the tools now at our disposal, and these tools are vital to have, but even more vital is having compassion and the desire to extend what we have to others, and to build systems in ways which do not rely upon coercion, violence, and the perils of institutional power.
ABISprotocol
PGP 0x6c70abf8a7486f02
Money is the primary mechanism for storing and exchanging value, especially in our daily purchases, and it’s heading rapidly into a faster, smarter and more mobile future. Nevertheless, the constant in the midst of change will remain levels of human trust in the proliferating forms of money. That’s because we have an ancient and abiding partnership with money and no relationship is ever sustainable without trust.
It’s a time of accelerated innovation in this field due to the rapid global expansion of digital banking, especially online and mobile financial services. However, while payments and transfer of money shift inexorably towards mobile devices as the consumer technology of choice, digital currencies expand in scope and number and online shopping begins to enter a golden age, cash is still the most successful and popular form of money ever. Its trust level, as public money backed up by a promise to pay from the government which minted and manufactured it, remains extremely high. This is evidenced by the way the Greeks turned to cash during their fiscal and monetary crisis which rocked the whole European Union, as well as by cash’s current 8.9% per annum average global growth rate. Cash is undoubtedly one of the most successful social technologies in history.
In short, the future of money will be mobile, faster in execution and settlement, and yet as heavily dependent on trust as ever. In my view, for that very reason, there’s unlikely to be a cashless world in this century. Nor is such a scenario desirable, unless you’re a fan of a Big Brother society largely dominated and dictated by multinationals more powerful than many national governments. A cashless world would subvert the economic freedom of citizens to choose the form of money and payment they want and, if that weren’t bad enough, it would lead inevitably to even further marginalisation of the world’s poor. Besides, cash is already universally trusted, instant in execution and mobile in nature (that is, just as portable as a smart phone).
That said, digital banking is here to stay and provides massive levels of convenience and efficiency. Financial institutions the world over are fiercely focused on developing omnichannel (“every channel”) strategies to provide seamless customer experiences across all their banking channels.
In addition, a great “money race” is now on to dominate the world’s vast payment markets between the global card brands, the banks, the technology providers (such as Apple and Samsung), the Internet giants (e.g. Google. Amazon, PayPal), the social media giants (including Facebook, WeChat and Twitter) and, of course, the major retailers.
Having sketched a broad context for understanding what’s happening in the world of money and payments, here are ten megatrends to consider. This will be followed by six additional movers and shakers to watch in the coming months and years.
Megatrend #1: The smart world is coming
The smart world of smart consumers, some wearing smart technologies like the Apple Watch, smart devices and smart homes, is on its way. This will take place within the Internet of Things (IoT ). Gartner forecasts that the 3.9 billion smart devices connected to Internet at the end of 2014 will increase to about 25 billion by 2020. A key device in the smart world is likely to be the phablet. It should become the dominant mobile device. The number of phablets is expected to increase from 27 million in 2012 to around 230 million by the end of 2015. Business Insider, for example, predicts phablets will outsell smartphones by 2017. Money will gain multiple new forms as it adapts to this new smart world. Old and new forms of money will co-exist, resulting in much greater choice and convenience for consumers.
Megatrend #2: e-commerce is rising, along with digital shopping
Fortune Magazine recently rated the Bank of Internet, an online bank, as the 56th fastest growing company in the world. Online buying is growing exponentially across the globe. For example, WWW Metrics (http://www.wwwmetrics.com) expects Australians to spend $10 billion more online in the next five years than they do currently. The ease and convenience of online shopping cannot be disputed. Although it will never completely replace high-street shopping or lead to the rise of ghostly and abandoned shopping malls, it will probably enjoy good year-on-year growth for a long period to come. This megatrend will increase the importance of digital money.
Megatrend #3: There is a shift to mobile internet and mobile commerce
Today, mobile devices outsell PCs and laptops in a game-changing shift to mobile-based internet. It is therefore not surprising that mobile shopping is growing at 4 x the rate of online shopping. For example, Finextra has reported that 37% of e-commerce originates from a tablet or smart phone. Global mobile purchases are expected to rise from $150bn in 2014 to $214bn in 2015. Mobile money is going to be a big part of the future.
Megatrend #4: Debit card use is on the rise
The rise of mobile commerce does not mean the demise of cards. Retail Banking Research (RBR) have reported that there are now 12 billion payments cards in the world, which were used last year to make 235 billion payments, totalling $20 trillion. The debit card is the king of these cards, representing 68% of the global card market. This share is expected to rise to 72% by 2020. By contrast, credit card share is predicted to decline from 23% to 20% by 2020. Prepaid cards, at the bottom of the scale, have a mere 5% of the market. It is clear that card payments will dwarf mobile payments for the foreseeable future. It will be a long time indeed before mobile payments get close to card payments and cash payments. Nevertheless, the future is very bright for mobile money.
Megatrend #5: In-store NFC payments are being outstripped by mobile commerce in the mobile payments space
Near Field Communication (NFC) based payments – often called “tap and go” or “wave and pay” — have a slow adoption rate but should pick up a head of steam within the next five to ten years. They’re unlikely to grow at the brisk rate at which mobile commerce is growing. Deloitte estimates that only 7% of smartphone users use mPay at POS (Point-of-Sale). By 2018, in-store NFC payments are forecast to reach only about 4.5% of card volume. For the near future, NFC won’t be used much by customers in retail stores with high Average Order Values, but more at coffee shops and fast food chains with lower Average Order Values. Nevertheless, by 2020 there could be 2.2 billion NFC enabled phones and there is a good chance NFC may become a dominant technology as a result of global EMV compliance, with Visa and MasterCard building NFC into the migration path.
Megatrend #6: The omnichannel, customer-centric world has arrived
What Steve Jobs did so well was to introduce the “zen” feel of consumer technology after decades of boring, inert computer hardware and software. Now, there’s no turning back. All channels must be intuitive, all channels must complement one another, there simply must be a seamless omnichannel experience. This is the key to retention of the digital customer. This means money will become more zen-like, especially in an era when Customer Owned Devices (CoDs) have given the connected consumer more power, compared to more static self-service banking through traditional ATMs. Self-service terminals gave the customer access to banking services after hours 24 × 7 but they are banked-owned devices. Now consumers do their banking on their own technology. They demand a personal, smooth, convenient level of service purged of any old-fashioned “clunky” technology experiences. Money cannot afford to look and feel old-fashioned. Thanks, Steve. (By the way, polymer banknotes used in Canada, Australia and being introduced into Britain from next year, may well be the new look of cash, given the increased longevity and security they provide for notes.)
Megatrend #7: The bank branch is being reconfigured
In this increasingly digital world, in which non-banks can provide money and financial services, banks need to resist disintermediation from these new players by redefining the relationship to their customers. I’ve already indicated that the smart banking experience is going to be paramount. Accordingly, banks are redesigning their branches, to provide a balance of digital and traditional services, employing customer-facing technology. Assisted self-service, including remote video banking and in-person assistance, is proving very popular in this new world. At the same time, respect is being shown for the role of Customer Owned Devices and the kind of experience they offer to customers. Banks are saving costs and improving efficiency through increased automation, especially deposit automation. Self-service automation now accounts for 2/3rds of branch transformation technology, according to RBR. The costs of cash are being pushed down through cash deposit acceptance and through recycling ATMs, which are enjoying phenomenal growth in China, for example. RBR states that automated deposit and recycling ATMs make up 40% of global shipments in our industry. The bank branch of the future must be highly automated, smart, offering both in-person teller assistance and video banking.
Megatrend #8: The ATM is evolving into an indispensable value-adding 24×7 customer touchpoint
As CEO of the ATM Industry Association since 2005, I can attest that there is no global movement away from the ATM. ATM shipments have been growing y-o-y since 2010 following the global economic crisis of 2008–9. In fact, the ATM is central to both branch transformation and the omnichannel approaches. It is a highly trusted customer touchpoint found in great locations. I foresee deployers focusing more and more on valued-added services at the ATM, from ticketing to bill payments, while deposit automation and recycling ATMs will continue to reduce the costs of cash on a global scale (cash handling can account for 30–40% of the total cost of operating a large ATM estate). Besides, ATMs are main distribution channel for cash (for example, in the UK 72% of cash is acquired through cash machines) and cash demand is growing (see Megatrend #9 below).
Megatrend #9: Global cash demand is rising at 3 x the rate of economic growth
In an ATM Industry Association study of growth in currency in circulation in thirty countries, representative of advanced and developing economies, over a five year period from 2009–2013, it was found that global cash demand is growing at an average of 8.9% p.a. This is 3 x the rate of global GDP during this time. The study was based on central bank statistics in these thirty countries in annual reports. This figure accords with a prediction by the leading retail banking research house, RBR, that annual cash withdrawal volumes will grow by 7.9% between 2013–2019. In the BRICS countries, which contribute 20% of world GDP with 40% of its population, currency grew y-o-y in this period at 11%, compared to 4.5% in the Eurosystem. If you want to get a feel for cash production in the world’s number one economy, check this out: in the USA, 6.2 billion banknotes were printed in 2014, about 24.8 million per day!
As mentioned earlier, recent turmoil in Greece pushed up demand for cash. For example, in May, 2015, €45 billion in banknotes was in circulation, which equates to just over €4,000 per citizen.
For years now, I have noticed a widening gap between fact and perception regarding cash. Despite being under threat from some governments and other agencies seeking to create a cashless society, as well as a largely hostile media, cash is holding its own as a dominant payment method in the brave new world of digital banking and shopping
Megatrend #10: Remittances and financial inclusion are growing in importance
Today, there are still 2 billion unbanked people. 38% of adults do not have access to basic financial services. That is why financial inclusion is going to be so important a tool for addressing the growing wealth gap between haves and have-nots, which is neither sustainable nor just. However, there is hope: mobile money! While 28% of US households are either unbanked or underbanked, mobile penetration is at 90% of households. Just look at how mobile phones transformed the landscape in Kenya. The renowned MPesa mobile money transfer and payment system gained 17 million users in just 8 years. Mobile phone owners who had never had a bank account in their lives could suddenly conduct secure, fast and convenient financial transactions.
Tellingly, cash in circulation continued to grow strongly during these years of exponential MPesa growth. Today cash transfers and use of vouchers are set to revolutionise global humanitarian aid as more effective than goods. In a time of migration crises, rising natural disasters and extreme weather events, giving cash and vouchers to people in need, trying to survive in an emergency, is the civilised way to go. Physical aid, hamstrung by tough logistics, seldom empowers those most in need in a timely fashion.
What’s also important to the world’s poor is the ability to send remittances. In 2014, there were $440 billion in recorded remittances. Now big names like PayPal are entering this growing remittance market. Money can mean survival. The world would be a much better place if we could take remittances and money transfers to a new level. That’s money in action.
Now think about the following innovations likely to further change the world of money in the near future.
Movers and Shakers #1: Samsung Pay is likely to become the leader in mobile payments within months of its launch
Samsung Pay is going to blow Apple Pay (sorry, Steve) out of the water and here’s why. It combines NFC and MST (Magnetic Secure Transmission) communication, so it can be used at 30 million merchant locations worldwide. Apple Pay is stuck in the slow-moving NFC space. In addition, Samsung is partnering with a network of big players, including global banks, card brands, PayPal, etc. Samsung Galaxy S6 is seen by many technology gurus as the world’s leading smartphone. Finally, the new payment app will be linked to smart TV through a partnership with PayPal to enable payments on the TV platform, using a secure virtual keypad, in thirty-two countries.
Sadly, Apple Pay has a high drop-out rate with 48% of 1st time users not using it again (source: Tremont Capital). While I see the Apple Watch making a major statement and becoming a status symbol among young smart consumers, Apple Pay is probably doomed to play second fiddle to Samsung Pay.
Movers and Shakers #2: PayPal is moving into retail stores and remittances
PayPal, which has 130m online accounts, has agreed to buy online money-transfer company Xoom Corp.for $890m. Xoom’s online service lets users send money internationally, often via mobile phone, charging $5-$10, as well as pocketing the difference in the exchange rates; the service may also be used to pay bills. At the same time, PayPal is also partnering with Discover Financial Services to enable PayPal payments at retail stores. Is PayPal going to become the world’s biggest “bank” of the digital age?
Movers and Shakers #3: Zapp is likely to become a successful domestic mobile payment solution in the UK
Zapp in the UK, introduced by VocaLink, which is part of LINK, the powerful national ATM network, is one to watch. The system will use NFC, which is widely deployed in the country, but will works on the ACH system, which means it will exclude interchange while enjoying fast settlement. It is available to 18 million UK account holders and is strongly supported by all the major banks and retailers. Sounds like a winning formula to me. Money, after all, has a strong national identity and dimension. It isn’t as intangible as it may seem, even in the electronic age.
Movers and Shakers #4: Digital currencies and blockchain technology are here to stay
There are now over 500 decentralised digital currencies in existence. Some central banks are even considering issuing a national digital currency as a back-up currency. There is also talk of future digital currencies which could be asset-based, such as linked to gold or property assets. In Greece after its monetary crisis, it was decided to install 1000 Bitcoin ATMs.
What is becoming clear to operators and to regulators is that the blockchain technology behind bitcoin, which is incredibly robust, has other potential applications, for example, programmable money and currency exchange. Expect to see digital currencies and blockchain technology revolutionise the nature and uses of money.
Movers and Shakers #5: Social media giants are expanding their role in the payments space
Facebook purchased What’s App, with its 500m subscribers for $22bn to add to its own users — 1.19 billion monthly active users, 874 million mobile users, and 728 million daily users. That’s a huge move and it has implications for the future of money. Users can now send or receive money in Facebook Messenger after adding a debit card to the Facebook account. Then you can open a chat with the friend you want to send money to, enter the amount you want to send, click next to your debit card and then click Pay.
Meanwhile, WeChat, with 600m active users, has a mobile payments app for customers to buy in-app items or services. It works for both in-store payments (where retailers will likely scan a QR code generated by your order inside WeChat) or for purely online purchases that’ll be delivered later.
Social media will completely change the face (excuse the pun) of money. They will make it more personal and intimate.
Movers and Shakers #6: Current C is a model of a mobile payment app from a retail consortium
Finally, don’t write off the major retailers. They, too, want a piece of the payments action. Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) is a company created by a consortium of U.S. retail companies, including Walmart and 7-Eleven, with $1 trillion in annual sales. The consortium has developed a merchant-owned mobile payment system which works through a digital wallet and a smartphone app. To make a purchase, the user scans a QR code shown on the cashier’s screen, or has the cashier scan a QR code from the phone’s screen. The payment settles on the ACH system for speed and efficiency.
These 10 megatrends and 6 movers and shakers together sketch the picture of a battle of the titans for control of the ever-expanding global payments market as it gets transformed by the new digital options opening up for billions of increasingly connected consumers. When the dust settles, only the strongest, most trusted forms of money will still be standing.
Michael Lee’s second book on the future, Codebreaking our Future – deciphering the future’s hidden order, was published in 2014 (http://www.amazon.com/Codebreaking-our-future-Deciphering-fu…atfound-20). He is also author of a trilogy of science faction novels available on Amazon, Voyage of the Moon Dream, Heartbeat and Rocket Ride of the Secret Cosmonaut (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Faction-Trilogy-Cosmonaut-Hear…moon+dream)
Our interstellar challenge is, how do we as a planet confined humans, become an interstellar species? This encompasses all human endeavors, and is vitally dependent upon interstellar propulsion physics to realize our coming of age as an interstellar species.
There are so many competing ideas on how to realize interstellar propulsion. These include chemical rockets, ion propulsion, nuclear engines, solar sails, atomic bomb pulse detonation, antimatter drives, small black holes, warp drives and much more.
How do we sift through all these competing ideas?
For his objectivity and courage in stating that mathematics has become so sophisticated that it can now be used to prove anything, I have named the approach to solving this interstellar challenge the Kline Directive, in honor of the late Prof. Morris Kline.
To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, and to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts, (1) Legal Standing, (2) Safety Awareness, (3) Economic Viability, (4) Theoretical-Empirical Relationship and (5) Technological Feasibility.
Legal Standing: Do we have the protection of the law?
Mr. Gregory W. Nemitz of The Eros Project is the first person I know, who pushed the limits of the law. As a US taxpayer, Nemitz claimed ownership of Asteroid 433, Eros, and invoiced NASA $20,000 for parking and storage of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft. Citing faulty interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, NASA refused to pay. On April 26, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge Howard McKibben dismissed the case. We have to address this. What is to stop other governments from imposing taxes on our outer space commercial activities that is “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”?
Safety Awareness: Can we protect our crew and our planet?
In the heady rush to propose ideas for new propulsions systems or star drives it is very easy to overlook safety considerations. Quoting E.J. Opik, “Is Interstellar Travel Possible?” Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol 6, page 299. “The exhaust power of the antimatter rocket would equal the solar energy power received by the earth — all in gamma rays”. And Opik quotes the eminent Carl Sagan, Planet. Space Sci., pp. 485–498, 1963, “So the problem is not to shield the payload, the problem is to shield the earth”.
Economic Viability: Can realistic commercial viability be determined?
Space exploration economic viability is not an accounting problem that can be solved by CFOs and accountants. This economic viability is a physics and engineering problem. For example, chemical rocket propulsion to Alpha Centauri, our nearest star, would cost about $1.19x10^14 or 23x 2011 world GDP.
Theoretical-Empirical Relationship: Is the hypothesis empirically sustainable?
String theories are a good example of a theoretical-empirical relationship that is yet to be proved. Let’s remember Prof. Morris Kline’s words when theorist claim a velocity of 1032 x c (velocity of light) is achievable. Don’t get me wrong. Mathematics is vital to the progress of the sciences, but it needs to be tempered with real world experimental evidence, otherwise it is just conjecture, and ties up our search for interstellar propulsion technologies.
The reverse is equally valid. Without the theoretical underpinnings, there will not be much experimental progress. Podkletnov’s gravity shielding experiments are a good example. In 2 decades since Podkletnov published his experiments, there has not been any experimental progress. My inference is that none of the proposed theoretical explanations addressed all the observations and therefore, could not guide future experiments.
Technological Feasibility: Does it work?
Technological feasibility in a realistic and finite time frame is vital. Technological feasibility quickly leads back to the question of commercial viability. Developing future feasible technologies is an iterative process between technological feasibility and commercial viability, until we can reach the stars without having to ask the question, whom do we select to leave Earth?
Applying the Kline Directive, a quick method of eliminating competing technologies is to construct the Interstellar Challenge Matrix that compares the pros and cons of each competing propulsion technology.
Can we hasten the development of interstellar propulsion technologies? Yes.
Since disproving the validity of Alcubierre-type warp drives, interstellar propulsion physics is currently non-existent. To birth this propulsion physics, in 2012, I classified physical hypotheses/theories into 3 categories (1) Type 1: The Millennium Theories, (2) Type 2: The 100-Year Theories and (3) Type 3: The Engineering Feasible Theories.
Type 1, Millennium Theories require more than a 100 years and maybe up to 1,000 years to prove or disprove. Mathematically correct but inscrutable with physically verifiable experiments, even in the distant future. String and quantum gravity theories fall into this category. Why? If we cannot even figure out how to engineer-modify 4-dimensional spacetime, how are we going to engineer-modify a 5-, 6-, 9-, 11- or 23-dimensional universe?
Type 2, 100-Year Theories show promise of being verified with technologies that would require several decades to engineer, test and validate, and do not lend themselves to an immediate engineering solution. The engineering solution is theoretically feasible but a working experiment or technology is some decades away as the experimental or physical implementation is not fully understood.
Type 3, Engineering Feasible Theories lend themselves to engineering solutions, today. They are falsifiable today, with our current engineering technologies, if one knows what to test for and how to test for these experimental observations.
We as a society need to apply the Kline Directive to invent new propulsion physics theories, that are at best Engineering Feasible and at worst 100-Year theories.
We now have the tools to quickly eliminate both theoretical and experimental proposals that are highly likely to be unproductive, and focus on those that truly have potential of delivering commercial interstellar propulsion technologies. In the US money is no object, as the combined 2015 DARPA and NSF budgets, is $10.26 billion. Allocating a very small slice of these budgets for propulsion physics would be an enormous step forward.
(This article was originally published in the Huffington Post.)
How 3D printing is changing the way we manufacture and produce is already a fact, step by step, in different areas, from aerospace to the medical areas.
How will this impact the established processes, the economy, the patient …
Is this the dawn of personalized medicine? patients will be able to print their own pills at home? Will 3D printing represent an enhancement to distribution processes?
Exciting but at the same time other questions are if following a cheap driver is really safe…
“Would the FDA be able to oversee personal pill printing? Should they? If an automated pill printer goes out of whack and misprints medication, would the blame fall on the machine’s manufacturers or the operators (i.e., the patients)? What if the machines were hacked? If people can reverse engineer patented drugs through 3D printing, how can those patents be protected? Will it be a detriment to drug development?
will people be able to hijack pill printers to manufacture illicit drugs?” This is the same situation we have now with RPAS/UAS (Remote Piloted Aircrafts/Unmanned Aircraft Systems) and cyberthreats ..
Read more at http://singularityhub.com/2015/08/14/first-3d-printed-drug-u…-medicine/
Quoted: “Sometimes decentralization makes sense.
Filament is a startup that is taking two of the most overhyped ideas in the tech community—the block chain and the Internet of things—and applying them to the most boring problems the world has ever seen. Gathering data from farms, mines, oil platforms and other remote or highly secure places.
The combination could prove to be a powerful one because monitoring remote assets like oil wells or mining equipment is expensive whether you are using people driving around to manually check gear or trying to use sensitive electronic equipment and a pricey a satellite internet connection.
Instead Filament has built a rugged sensor package that it calls a Tap, and technology network that is the real secret sauce of the operation that allows its sensors to conduct business even when they aren’t actually connected to the internet. The company has attracted an array of investors who have put $5 million into the company, a graduate of the Techstars program. Bullpen Capital led the round with Verizon Ventures, Crosslink Capital, Samsung Ventures, Digital Currency Group, Haystack, Working Lab Capital, Techstars and others participating.
“This cluster of technologies is what enables the Taps to perform some pretty compelling stunts, such as send small amounts of data up to 9 miles between Taps and keep a contract inside a sensor for a year or so even if that sensor isn’t connected to the Internet. In practical terms, that might mean that the sensor in a field gathering soil data might share that data with other sensors in nearby fields belonging to other farmers based on permissions the soil sensor has to share that data. Or it could be something a bit more complicated like a robotic seed tilling machine sensing that it was low on seed and ordering up another bag from inventory based on a “contract” it has with the dispensing system inside a shed on the property.
The potential use cases are hugely varied, and the idea of using a decentralized infrastructure is fairly novel. Both IBM and Samsung have tested out using a variation of the blockchain technology for storing data in decentralized networks for connected devices. The idea is that sending all of that data to the cloud and storing it for a decade or so doesn’t always make economic sense, so why not let the transactions and accounting for them happen on the devices themselves?
That’s where the blockchain and these other protocols come in. The blockchain is a great way to store information about a transaction in a distributed manner, and because its built into the devices there’s no infrastructure to support for years on end. When combined with mesh radio technologies such as TMesh it also becomes a good way to build out a network of devices that can communicate with each other even when they don’t have connectivity.”
Read the Article, and watch the Video, here > http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/filament-blockchain-iot/
