Earlier, I was listening to the March 21st episode of Preet Bahara’s Stay Tuned podcast. In it, he interviewed the founder of Sun Microsystems—spawn of Java, the Scourge of Programming—and current venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Among many things discussed was a prediction made by Khosla: that in the next fifty to sixty years, we would be in a state of abundance. Billions of bipedal robots would make labor effectively free. Expertise (lawyers, doctors, programmers and the like) is similarly cost-free due to continually advancing AI. He says ‘we’ in the global sense, so this prediction is not limited to the so-called First World or a select few nations.
He’s far from the first and certainly not the last to make such grand forecasts. Prominent futurist Ray Kurzweil and entrepeneur Peter Diamandis co-wrote a book aptly called Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think, a modest-length gushing about emerging and potential technologies that will revolutionize the world. The modern archetype of the ‘techbro’ incorporates high-minded hopes for the future (or, depending on your perspective, delusions of grandeur.) In the case of Khosla’s prediction however, I find it has weight precisely because of his heavy immersion in the business of betting on the winning team, or startup company as it were.
It’s an open secret that Africa will be one of the most pivotal regions in the world over the next century, because it’s widely seen as exploitable. Not just in mineral wealth or even manpower, but in a geopolitical sense as well. A small African nation rife with warring militias and a meager GDP at best would find the offer of a corporation to come in, clear out the militias and build company infrastructure almost impossible to resist. Forget company towns. For the corporation bold enough to invest, to commit that much? They could build a company country in all but name. China, in their trademark blend of capitalist practicality and communist philosophy has already encouraged their business leaders to make inroads to Africa with this in mind.
So I do believe that by 2070, if not a little earlier, we’ll see cities of the future beholden to no one but their corporate creators. Where everyone can live idyllic lives of luxury and tranquility, enclosed in an ecosystem of the company’s design for the company’s own ends. These ends might not even be malevolent or even banal in their amorality. Each their own nation in practicality, a representation of that company’s philosophy and business acumen.
The metamorphosis of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire comes to mind. The Republic was bloated, ineffective and being frayed by rival powers. One rose above them all, his name synonymous with leadership and rule, becoming the first emperor. Julius Caesar was a net benefit for Roman society; even I cannot argue that (and I’m a resident Cicero/Republic fanboy.) But even had Caesar not been assassinated, he would’ve grown older, and one day died. A successor would still need to take over, and that’s the great looming unknown in this future hypothetical. A great company run by a great leader founds a great city. An oligarchy, but one led by a wise and steadfast board of directors with a philosopher-king of a CEO. But decades later, they’ve all either died or retired. A new generation comes in, unfettered and unbound. They’re an unknown, and this time isn’t just a company at stake—it’s a population. It’s not just people’s livelihoods, but their lives at stake.
When companies fail currently, they get consumed by other entities. Assets are sold off, trademarks are relinquished, employees move on. No one bats an eye when the fate of the office building is brought up. But what about when that office building houses the employees? Their families? People unrelated entirely, save for the fact that they’ve chosen to live there? What about when it’s not an office building, but an entire county, or even the equivalent of a state? Do other companies buy out districts on the cheap, or are they just bulldozed and scrapped for parts? It’s hard to see where the rights of the residents would exist, if they’d even exist at all. Surely the company who ‘partnered’ with a weaker nation wouldn’t be bound by whatever attempts to enact governmental rule may have been made by that nation. In fact, odds are that partnership would be even more farcical, as it’d be obvious to even the most well-intentioned company that ensuring the loyalty of their national partner would be of paramount importance.
In essence, I believe Khosla’s prediction because it’d be a natural investment. I think it will be much like when the iPhone was debuted—some players will mock it as unnecessary, a select few will express concern at what it means, but most will adopt it. It will be fantastic, it will revolutionize daily life, but it will ultimately put much at the mercy of a company’s whims. Only it won’t be a small little communications device, but everything we live and breathe around those who choose to live in their worlds.
