Show paragraph

This is a remarkable article.



What is clear to me is that ownership of industry is more of a gameplayer even than sheer economic differences. Beyond mere material difference is a qualia or dynamic difference, a 'problem' that cannot be bridged by any artificial means, including education.



Secondly, where we speak of qualia we may as well also speak of crowd-sourcing and 'minimalist' citizens who wish to make small change doing just about nothing. Clearly, in antimony to the gameplayer dynamics, there is just as much potential in tapping bored citizens for extra variables. This is especially true with growing populations, and education is not necessarily more than a 50% contributor. It isn't the only function of the shifty and restless economy.



Putting these two variables together gives a better picture of the technological future: dynamic industry-owners and shifty-restless drop-in-the-bucket contributors. But there are enough of the two types to have already merged into a third category that is not being utilized: drop-in-the-bucket prodigies that have game changing information but no chance to profit. Clearly these would benefit by sheer cheap tools and public innovation systems, such as more Starbucks LAN-type services, electrodes, or quality based integration (I speak in reference to the obvious correspondence between surveys-internet-news---SIN and the very important reasons to use emotional systems---VIRTUES)