PIP Report: The Future of the Internet II

The Pew Internet & American Life Project published its Future of the Internet II participated in the survey which attempts to report in September of 2006. Hundreds of internet leaders, activists, builders, and commentators were polled to gauge public perceptions (limited by the scope of its participants, natch) of the effect of the internet on social, political, and economic life in the year 2020. The idea was to replicate Pool's work published in Forecasting the Telephone: A Retrospective Technology Assessment.

Seven scenarios were constructed and offered in a manner designed to elicit discussion. The responses were:

• A global, low-cost network thrives: a-56%, d-43% (I don't believe the poorest countries in sub-saharan Africa or southeast Asia will get there by 2020. Will the initial "low-cost" access to far-flung locations be robust? Useful? Will content be restricted by governments or requested by cultural groups?)
  
• English displaces other languages: a-42%, d-57% (English as lingua franca yes. English at the ultimate expense (i.e., extinction) of other languages? I can see network technologies and a global economy speeding up the decline of niche languages in particular)
  
• Autonomous technology is a potential problem: a-42%, d-54% (The great Kurzweil vs. Joy debate. Fascinating topic...I'm on the fence. I do believe that someone will eventually cause great harm to some segment of the human race through sloppy work/testing. This will be followed by a greater harm performed through targeted malfeasance. Could we benefit from a code of "creational ethics" or list of commandments that guides the creation of nano-technologies, et al?)
  
• Transparency builds a better world, even at the expense of privacy: a-46%, d-49% (Hmmm...that's a tough one and the scores show it.)
  
• Virtual reality is a drain for some: a-56%, d-39% (This doesn't concern me personally and I question the survey's use of the term "addiction" as being limiting and more pejorative than required to elicit a meaningful response to the question. I like Wang's idea that, "multiple personalities will become commonplace and cyberpsychiatry will proliferate". I also appreciate Denzil Mayers suggestion that technological advancement will aid fragmentation of deeper levels of shared reality rather than provocation of high-level cultural fragmentation.)
  
• The internet opens worldwide access to success: a-52%, d-44% (Yes...for those with the will, talent, and means to do so)
  
• Luddites/refuseniks will segregate themselves from modern society and commit terror acts: a-58%, d-35% (This is an old story and a cyclical problem. Flood and famine are part of the human condition. We'll always have to contend with malcontents and perverse, pathological reactions to environmental and cultural change)
  

Ranking of priority of global info and communication technology development came out in this order:

• Building network capacity and getting people connected to it (Of course! Hey Bill Gates...start writing checks, man!)
  
• Creating legal and operating environment that permits user-oriented services (build first, legislate second...not always a helpful solution architecture in my experience. The open source and commercial markets will easily fill the services gap...this isn't something that needs "prioritization"...it'll get done without a guiding hand)
  
• Establish an international microcredit system (I'd have ranked this second...it fits hand in glove with the first priority)
  
• Develop and effective international security watchdog organization (Toffler would be groaning at this one...a planetary bureaucracy!)
  

In Depth: Scenario Three

• Some opine that it's the people who control the technology that are of concern, not the technology itself. Others don't see us losing control of what we create. Blackout of 2003, anyone?
  
• There is more of a fear of what we cannot foresee than the opposite
  
• Some find the question to be a tired examples of an old AI bogeyman routine
• Do we need to plan for non-technical "step-down" replacement systems so that we can backup the loss of a critical technology?
• Should we be working actively to avoid "unintended consequences"?
• A few suggest that the steeper the j-curve, the better...less drudgery, sooner!
• Can social power grow along with technological power? Can this thwart runaway technology?
• Is true AI close or far away? Kurzweil predicts his "singularity" by 2045
• Ethical considerations: should we be building god-like, massively intelligent machines?
  
• Nanotech is a very real thing and virtually at hand
  

I like the Fuller quote, "The only way you can predict the future is to build it."

PIP has an interesting longitudinal study in the making if they continue to produce these reports over time.

A News Hour with Jim Lehrer segment reviewing the study features PIP's Lee Raine is available.