What is real life coming to owe digital life?

After a couple years in the flat part of exponential growth, the steep part is now arriving for the massive multi-player online world construction kit called “Second Life.” With 1.7 million accounts, membership in “Second Life” is growing by 20,000 per day. The current doubling rate of “residents” is 7 months, still shortening, which means the growth is (for now) hyperexponential.
For this talk the founder and CEO of “Second Life,” Philip Rosedale, tried something new for him— a simultaneous demo and talk. His online avatar, “Philip Linden,” was on the screen showing things while the in-theater Philip Rosedale was conjecturing about what it all means. “This is a game of ‘Can I interest you more in what I’m saying than what’s going on on the screen?’”

He showed how new arrivals go through the “gateway” experience of creating their own onscreen avatar, explaining that because intense creativity is so cheap, easy, and experimental, the online personas become strongly held. “You can have multiple avatars in ‘Second Life,’ but the overall average is 1.25 avatars per person.” The median age of users is 31, and the oldest users spend the most time in the world (over 80 hours per week for 10 percent of the residents). Women are 43 percent of the customers.

The on-screen Philip Linden was carrying Rosedale’s talk notes (handwritten, scanned, and draped onto a board in the digital world). Rosedale talked about the world while his avatar flew (”Everyone flies— why not?”) to a music club in which a live song performance was going on (the real singer crooning into her computer in real time from somewhere.) The singer recognized Philip Linden in the on-screen audience and greeted him from the on-screen stage.

“More is different,” Rosedale explained. People think they want total and solitary control of their world, but the result of that is uninteresting. To get the emergent properties that make “Second Life” so enthralling, it has to be one contiguous world with everyone in it. At present it comprises about 100 square miles, mostly mainland, with some 5,000 islands (all adding up to 35 terrabytes running in 5,000 servers). Defying early predictions, the creativity in “Second Life” has not plateaued but just keeps escalating. Everybody is inspired to keep topping each other with ever cooler things. There are tens of thousands of clothing designers. Unlike the aesthetic uniformity of imagined digital worlds like in the movie “The Matrix,” “Second Life” is suffused with variety. It is “the sum of our dreams.”

The burgeoning token economy in “Second Life” is directly connected to the real-world economy with an exchange rate of around 270 Linden dollars to 1 US dollar. There are 7,000 businesses operating in “Second Life,” leading this month to its first real-world millionaire (Metaverse real estate mogul Anshe Chung). At present “Second Life” has annual economic activity of about $70 million US dollars, growing rapidly.

As Jaron Lanier predicted in the early ’90s, the only scarce resource in virtual reality is creativity, and it becomes valued above everything. Freed of the cost of goods and the plodding quality of real-world time, Rosedale explained, people experiment fast and strange, get feedback, and experiment again. They orgy on the things they think they want, play them out, get bored, and move on. They get “married,” start businesses with strangers— “There are 40-person businesses made of people who have never met in real life.” Real-world businesses hold meetings in “Second Life” because they’re more fun and encourage a higher degree of truth telling.

Pondering the future, Rosedale said that every aspect of the quality of shared virtual life will keep improving as the technology accelerates and the number of creators online keeps multiplying. (”Second Life” is now moving toward a deeper order of creativity by releasing most of its world-building software into open source mode.)

Real-world artifacts like New York City could become regarded like museums. “As the fastest moving, most creative stuff in our society increasingly takes place in the virtual world, that will change how we look at the real world,” Rosedale concluded.

Share This ▼

 
A good article on the digital preservation problem in Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4201645.html?page=1

When the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz takes to sea, it carries more than a half-million files with diagrams of the propulsion, electrical and other systems critical to operation. Because this is the 21st century, these are not unwieldy paper scrolls of engineering drawings, but digital files on the ship’s computers. The shift to digital technology, which enables Navy engineers anywhere in the world to access the diagrams, makes maintenance and repair more efficient. In theory. Several years ago, the Navy noticed a problem when older files were opened on newer versions of computer-aided design (CAD) software.

“We would open up these drawings and be like, ‘Wow, this doesn’t look exactly like the drawing did before,’” says Brad Cumming, head of the aircraft carrier planning yard division at Norfolk Navy Shipyard.

The changes were subtle — a dotted line instead of dashes or minor dimension changes — but significant enough to worry the Navy’s engineers. Even the tiniest discrepancy might be mission critical on a ship powered by two nuclear reactors and carrying up to 85 aircraft.

The challenge of retrieving digital files isn’t an issue just for the U.S. Navy. In fact, the threat of lost or corrupted data faces anyone who relies on digital media to store documents — and these days, that’s practically everyone. Digital information is so simple to create and store, we naturally think it will be easily and accurately preserved for the future. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, our digital information — everything from photos of loved ones to diagrams of Navy ships — is at risk of degrading, becoming unreadable or disappearing altogether.

(more…)

Share This ▼

(with Richard Rockefeller and Larry Brilliant)

10,000 families in the US, Katherine Fulton reported, have assets of $100 million or more. That’s up from 7,000 just a couple years ago. Most of that money is “on the sidelines.” The poor and the middle class are far more generous in their philanthropy, proportionally, than the very wealthy.

Philanthropy across the board is in the midst of intense, potentially revolutionary, transition, she said. There’s new money, new leaders, new rules, new technology, and new needs. Where great wealth used to come mainly from inheritance and oil, now it comes from success in high technology and finance— and ideas and expectations from those business experiences inform (and sometimes over-simplify) the new philanthropy. Some of the great older institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation are radically reorganizing around new ideas and opportunities. But still the greatest amount comes from individuals, many of whom are now “giving while living” instead of handing over the task to heirs.

One major new instrument for philanthropy are the community
foundations, “the mutual funds of philanthropy, where donors can outsource their strategy.” There are 1,000 such organizations in the world, 700 of them in the US, led by innovators such as Acumen Fund, Social Venture Partners, New Profit Inc., and Women’s Funding Network.

Online giving is growing rapidly, including the development of
philanthropic marketplaces for direct, selective, fine-grain giving. Give India, for example, is a national marketspace of charity exchange. “By 2020,” Katherine predicted, “we will see a headline, OPEN SOURCE PHILANTHROPIC PORTAL TOPS $1 BILLION IN GIFTS.”

Katherine drew a matrix to classify kinds of philanthropy, with
Short-term & Responsive on the left, Long-term & Systemic on the right; Personal & Local on the bottom, Global on the top. An important trend is from the lower left to upper right, from local and short-term toward global and systemic, exemplified by Bill Gates’s move from bringing computers to American schools to bringing health to Africa.

“Philanthropy is how we make the long now personal,” she said. The trait most often missing in philanthropy, including the new philanthropy, is stamina, patience. “Instead of rewarding success with continued funding, the givers get bored and look for something new. Really effective giving requires deep contextual understanding and tolerance for ambiguity. My advice to new donors is, ‘Pick at least one difficult and complex issue and stick with it, and join with others to work on it.’”

The greatest needs require philanthropic stamina but will also reward it. She quoted Danny Hillis: “There are problems that are impossible if you think about them in two-year terms— which everyone does– but they’re easy if you think if fifty-year terms.”

Richard Rockefeller and Larry Brilliant joined Katherine on the
stage, and discussion got going that wound up lasting to 1am at dinner with the sponsors of the Seminar series. One subject was the isolation that often comes with great personal wealth. Katherine emphasized that donors have to visit up close with whatever they’re giving toward. Dr. Rockefeller supported that, describing how different his view was of Doctors Without Borders once he had worked with the physicians in the field in Peru and Nigeria. He said that
direct experience helps free you from lots of theories that are just wrong, and from philanthropy that is a projection of your own neuroses.

Questions from the audience revealed a continuing problem with the whole social sector, which is the lack of clear mechanisms of self-correction and accountability. Government has checks and balances. Business has the bottom line. But “it’s hard to speak truth to philanthropy,” Katherine said. Richard said he looked closely at a $20 million effort by the Robert Wood Johnson to evaluate its programs and was unimpressed by the result. Larry Brilliant added, “And the new philanthropy is even less accountable
than the old.”

Over dinner the subject came back to the 10,000 families with over $100 million dollars, most of it inactive. One problem is that giving really large grants is harder than small grants. Only
universities are well geared to attract and receive the multi-million dollar gifts that result in named buildings and additions to already bloated endowments. New institutions and mechanisms are needed for directing large grants in new directions.

And something generational is going on, Katherine mused. The generation of Andrew Carnegie and Richard’s great grandfather John D. Rockefeller had a strong religious tradition that inspired them to public generosity and inventiveness. Those who came of age in the 1960s and early ’70s had their experience with political activism as a driver for later philanthropy. “But I notice that many who became adults during and after Ronald Reagan seem to have no framework at all for giving.”

Share This ▼