Mark Zuckerberg lays out the future for the world
The Short Version
In a 5,800-word essay delivered yesterday, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg described what he sees in the future for the social media giant and how that future could impact the world. The manifesto was so sweeping that it raises the question of whether the company might one day become more powerful than governments.
A Bit More Detail
There are some 1.85 BILLION Facebook users around the globe. Pretty much the only place you won’t find people on Facebook is China, where it is illegal, and even there some people manage to get around the laws. Approximately 1.23 billion of those people use Facebook daily. In a strictly digital sense, one could say that Facebook is its own country, which is interesting. If Facebook owned enough real estate to house all its users, it would be the largest country in the world.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Facebook—the largest digital country in the world.
When we couch it in those terms, that makes yesterday’s missive by Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg the equivalent of a State of the Union address. All the same points are there. He addresses the current state of Facebook, recognizes some challenges, they lays out some long-term plans for making everything better—just like a good State of the Union speech only with more thought and cohesion than we’re likely to ever see from the 45th president.
Zuckerberg bases his statement around the question:Â are we building the world we all want? Looking at that question as the head of a giant global technology firm is one thing. What we see in how Mark answers that question, though, is something broader. He uses the word “communities” in both an online and offline context, effectively blurring the line between the two. As the two merge, the possibility of creating an actual nation-state based not on physical geography but on digital interconnectedness becomes a genuine possibility.
Consider what he says early on in his essay:
Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science. Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.
I’m sorry, is this a software company or the United Nations he’s addressing? What he’s attempting to tackle are issues that traditional governments have not had much luck in successfully solving. Does he actually think that Facebook can do a better job?
Yes, he does, and he could actually be correct. Facebook does a much better job of building cohesive communities around topics and ideas and convincing those communities to take action than even the best of governments. Facebook also had a broader reach than do most governments, successfully reaching to almost every country in the world. Facebook’s biggest limitation at the moment is the 4.2 billion people who are still without Internet. Solve that problem, and Facebook’s ability to drive community action could well become limitless.
How does this nation develop?
To fuel growth and address the challenges he’s raised, Zuckerberg says five questions must be answered:
- How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is declining?
- How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can affect us?
- How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a voice?
- How do we help people build a civically-engaged community in a world where participation in voting sometimes includes less than half our population?
- How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations, and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?
He then divides the remainder of the essay into sections addressing each of those questions. His words are well thought out, intelligent, and realistic given what he has already proven he is capable of doing. Facebook has the ability to reach across borders without needing to sign treaties or worry about bureaucratic policies. The software company can effect change simply through the will of its users without having to worth through an argumentative congress or parliament.
Should Facebook be successful in matters such as recognizing and shutting down things such as bullying and terrorist recruitment, it will have addressed global violence more thoroughly than all the armies of the world and will have proven that it can be done without firing a single shot or levying the first sanction. I don’t know that we would necessarily consider this online diplomacy, for there would be little need for negotiation. The software would assist the affected communities in eliminating the problem for themselves.
I strongly encourage you to read Zuckerberg’s treatise in full. Think carefully about everything he has to say. Then, consider, if you were offered digital citizenship in the Nation of Facebook, would you take it?
That reality could be closer than we think.
Time To Eliminate The Hoarders
Dreams are odd and unusual things that sometimes have a meaningful message and other times are nothing more than a series of bizarre images that have no noticeable relationship to real life. Sometimes, dreams are replaying events of the past, especially those one wishes they could change. Other times, dreams indulge in fantasies, things we might like to do if we didn’t have to suffer the consequences of doing them. Dreams are not trustworthy. Dreams are not predictable. They are glimpses into a part of our mind that science has yet to understand. So, when I dreamed of a movement to eliminate billionaires the hard way, I woke up trying to tell myself that it absolutely does not mean that I’m bloodthirsty.
In my dream, we (those faceless individuals with me) commandeered a submarine and torpedoed Jeff Bezos’ yacht. We (presumably the same group) then used a surface-to-air missile to take Elon Musk’s plane out of the sky at 30,000 feet (Is that even possible?). Immediately, the world started being a better place as the billions of dollars they hoarded were distributed more equitably through charities named in their wills. While their deaths were news for a moment, people quickly forgot all about them and went on about their business.
Reality would be much different, however. For all the calls to “eat the rich,” killing rich people isn’t sufficient to redistribute billions of dollars of wealth equitably. Billionaires have wills, trusts, and succession plans already in place to make sure that whoever comes behind them continues to build on the wealth they already have. Like fighting the legendary Hydra, cutting off one head only causes two more to pop up in its place. If we’re really going to put an end to billionaires, all of them, then we are going to need a much better plan, one that ensures money is getting to where it’s most needed.
First, let’s take a look at who, exactly, we’re talking about when we use the term billionaire. Forbes just updated their list last week. Consider who’s hoarding the most wealth.
The number of billionaires has increased by 141 over last year, up to 2,781 with an aggregate value of $14.2 trillion. The US has the most, by far. China comes in second and India third (up significantly from last year). It is almost impossible to wrap one’s head around how much money these people have. Let’s examine the obligatory comparisons.
Excluding war, these are the four biggest problems addressing the world at the moment and they could all be completely eradicated by 2030 and our group of billionaires would still have more money than they can possibly spend. Think about that for a moment. All the world’s most critical needs can be met if the world’s billionaires would kindly get their heads out of their collective asses.
Apparently, all those billionaires need some incentive. The go-to response is that they need to be taxed. That sounds like it should be an easy solution. However, the US government wastes approximately .51 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy. Even at the most streamlined methods, it would still double the cost of any endeavor. Other countries are worse. Then, once the government has the money, there’s the fight over who gets how much. Inevitably, the military, which doesn’t need any more fucking money than it’s already getting, would be yelling and screaming for more and there are far too many politicians willing to give it them because of the pull the military-industrial complex has. Several billion would be lost to pork projects in individual states under the guise of “creating jobs.” The inefficiencies of government cause very little actual help to reach the people who need it.
A much more efficient way would be for the billionaires to get together and handle these matters themselves. They already have the people and the structure and, unlike governments, have reason to operate in the most efficient way possible. Think of all the good Chef Jose’ Andres is doing with World Central Kitchen and he isn’t a billionaire! These problems are fixable without involving governments and the solutions would almost certainly last longer and be more effective than any government-funded project would be.
The problem is, that billionaires don’t want to work together and don’t want to let go of the money they’ll never spend. The motivation has to come from people like us. We have a couple of choices: either we stop buying their products and dump their stocks (which puts more money in our own pockets), or… we start buying rocket launches and putting them to good use. How many billionaires do you think we’d have to blow out of the sky before they got the hint?
Before you get all self-righteous about murder being wrong, stop and think about the degree to which billionaires who could help world problems and don’t, are accessories in the deaths of millions of people who die because they didn’t have enough food, protection from the elements, enough education to survive, or sufficient access to healthcare. MILLIONS of people that they could and should be helping.
There is a moral responsibility we all have to help those in need. Hoarding wealth in extreme amounts does not excuse anyone from that responsibility. Knowing that you could completely eradicate an inhuman condition and doing nothing more than throwing pennies at it (donations less than $100,000,000) makes you just as inhumane. Billionaires are the real animals in our society, and yes, that includes the ones you like.
This all brings to mind the French Revolution and the solution they found for the inhumanity of the rich: cut off their heads. The advantage of using rocket launchers is that you don’t have to get as close to the filth.
Share this:
Like this: