Will the Future of Work be Virtual?

Will the Future of Work be Virtual?

There is an interesting discussion going on the in tech scene right now. Jeff Jarvis got the ball rolling by writing a post at Buzzmachine about the Jobless Future we might be facing. Other tech leaders like Paul Graham and Jason Calacanis then joined in the discussion. Earlier that week Jarvis changed his upcoming talk at South by South West accordingly.

This is of course a topic that can’t be covered in one single blog post or by one single person. There are too many factors that led to the point we are at today. It seems as if we have reached what I would call “peak employement”. No more jobs are being created though more and more job seekers, old and young are entering the market. Why didn’t this happen earlier you might ask.

One of the reasons I see is that we live in relative peace and prosperity for over 60 years now. World War I and II together with pandemics like the Spanish flu in 1918 killed tens of millions of people and though it might sound sarcastic, it had its influence and actually regulated the job market. If you get back further in time you had even more wars and pandemics, Black Death for instance killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population and left entire regions deserted, without any survivors. In other words for most parts in human history there was more work available than people.

As a second reason, we must consider that until the industrial revolution there has always been a substitute for workers to go to. When people moved from rural parts into cities, they found work in new industries as all of these needed lots of man power. The windmill did not kill jobs, it probably even created them as people were able to produce more flour than before. Therefore they needed more farm worker for bigger fields, people who get the wheat to the mills etc.

But the moment a machine gets more productive than workers this ecosystem breaks down. Today two people are working on the field during harvest. One of them is driving the combine harvester (which in itself is the substitute for two former jobs: the harvester and the thresher) and the driver of the tractor.

If you combine those two factors, growing population and replacement of workforce by increasingly effective machines you have the basis of Marx’s Communist Manifesto on the one hand, and on the other hand a huge problem to deal with today. What kind of jobs are we going to create to not only allow people earn their living but also do something meaningful?

As we are in the picture of farm work already, let’s talk about Chinese prison workers, sweat shops and the phenomenon of gold farming. In May the Guardian published an interesting piece on Chinese prison workers who were forced to play World of Warcraft by night in order to create virtual goods and currency which then has been sold to gamers on the network. The same exists for popular games like Farmville where workers take care of the virtual farm while the owner sleeps.

Although the circumstances leave me with a disquieting feeling it becomes clear that in some parts of our society virtual goods and currencies are very real already and therewith they have value. Owners of virtual farms are willing to spend real money in order to grow their virtual estate and there seems to be enough of them to turn it into some kind of a gold rush including illegal activities to satisfy the increasing demand.

Up to today our school system is still preparing the next generation for a world in which most graduates would work in plants, bolting together cars, assembling TVs or sewing clothes. The problem is that those jobs have either been outsourced to developing countries, are taken by machines or are completely gone as the products themselves don’t exist anymore. And even those workers in China and India have to fear for their jobs as we were recently able to learn from Foxconn which is planning to "hire" one million robots.

While it is of course true that technology will create new jobs in industries that don’t even exist today, those however will only be a substitute for the jobs dying. There are lots of highly qualified people working in the oil industry today. People with the same skill set are going to work in the sector renewable energy or Cleantech a decade from now. But what will be the substitute for people with skills in manual labor, those who worked on the fields and later built cars and television sets?

As I wrote last week I believe that basic programming and / or skills in graphic design need to become part of every child’s education. While I don’t think that new technologies can offer jobs for everyone those skills will be a minimum requirement to at least get the chance of a job interview.

Similar to the opportunities that colleges offer you can take a look at the league of professional WoW or Counterstrike players around the globe. This is already an interesting option for talented teenagers today to become a professional e-athlete and earn serious money. It is the 21st century version of going to college and becoming a professional football or basketball player.

Picture: Abel Grimmer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

CT scans of shark intestines find Nikola Tesla’s one-way valve

Evolution proves to be just about as ingenious as Nikola Tesla

Credit: Gerald Schömbs / Unsplash
Surprising Science
  • For the first time, scientists developed 3D scans of shark intestines to learn how they digest what they eat.
  • The scans reveal an intestinal structure that looks awfully familiar — it looks like a Tesla valve.
  • The structure may allow sharks to better survive long breaks between feasts.
Keep reading Show less

Are we really addicted to technology?

Fear that new technologies are addictive isn't a modern phenomenon.

Credit: Rodion Kutsaev via Unsplash
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink, which has partnered with the Build for Tomorrow podcast to go inside new episodes each month. Subscribe here to learn more about the crazy, curious things from history that shaped us, and how we can shape the future.

In many ways, technology has made our lives better. Through smartphones, apps, and social media platforms we can now work more efficiently and connect in ways that would have been unimaginable just decades ago.

But as we've grown to rely on technology for a lot of our professional and personal needs, most of us are asking tough questions about the role technology plays in our own lives. Are we becoming too dependent on technology to the point that it's actually harming us?

In the latest episode of Build for Tomorrow, host and Entrepreneur Editor-in-Chief Jason Feifer takes on the thorny question: is technology addictive?

Popularizing medical language

What makes something addictive rather than just engaging? It's a meaningful distinction because if technology is addictive, the next question could be: are the creators of popular digital technologies, like smartphones and social media apps, intentionally creating things that are addictive? If so, should they be held responsible?

To answer those questions, we've first got to agree on a definition of "addiction." As it turns out, that's not quite as easy as it sounds.

If we don't have a good definition of what we're talking about, then we can't properly help people.


"Over the past few decades, a lot of effort has gone into destigmatizing conversations about mental health, which of course is a very good thing," Feifer explains. It also means that medical language has entered into our vernacular —we're now more comfortable using clinical words outside of a specific diagnosis.

"We've all got that one friend who says, 'Oh, I'm a little bit OCD' or that friend who says, 'Oh, this is my big PTSD moment,'" Liam Satchell, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Winchester and guest on the podcast, says. He's concerned about how the word "addiction" gets tossed around by people with no background in mental health. An increased concern surrounding "tech addiction" isn't actually being driven by concern among psychiatric professionals, he says.

"These sorts of concerns about things like internet use or social media use haven't come from the psychiatric community as much," Satchell says. "They've come from people who are interested in technology first."

The casual use of medical language can lead to confusion about what is actually a mental health concern. We need a reliable standard for recognizing, discussing, and ultimately treating psychological conditions.

"If we don't have a good definition of what we're talking about, then we can't properly help people," Satchell says. That's why, according to Satchell, the psychiatric definition of addiction being based around experiencing distress or significant family, social, or occupational disruption needs to be included in any definition of addiction we may use.

Too much reading causes... heat rashes?

But as Feifer points out in his podcast, both popularizing medical language and the fear that new technologies are addictive aren't totally modern phenomena.

Take, for instance, the concept of "reading mania."

In the 18th Century, an author named J. G. Heinzmann claimed that people who read too many novels could experience something called "reading mania." This condition, Heinzmann explained, could cause many symptoms, including: "weakening of the eyes, heat rashes, gout, arthritis, hemorrhoids, asthma, apoplexy, pulmonary disease, indigestion, blocking of the bowels, nervous disorder, migraines, epilepsy, hypochondria, and melancholy."

"That is all very specific! But really, even the term 'reading mania' is medical," Feifer says.

"Manic episodes are not a joke, folks. But this didn't stop people a century later from applying the same term to wristwatches."

Indeed, an 1889 piece in the Newcastle Weekly Courant declared: "The watch mania, as it is called, is certainly excessive; indeed it becomes rabid."

Similar concerns have echoed throughout history about the radio, telephone, TV, and video games.

"It may sound comical in our modern context, but back then, when those new technologies were the latest distraction, they were probably really engaging. People spent too much time doing them," Feifer says. "And what can we say about that now, having seen it play out over and over and over again? We can say it's common. It's a common behavior. Doesn't mean it's the healthiest one. It's just not a medical problem."

Few today would argue that novels are in-and-of-themselves addictive — regardless of how voraciously you may have consumed your last favorite novel. So, what happened? Were these things ever addictive — and if not, what was happening in these moments of concern?

People are complicated, our relationship with new technology is complicated, and addiction is complicated — and our efforts to simplify very complex things, and make generalizations across broad portions of the population, can lead to real harm.


There's a risk of pathologizing normal behavior, says Joel Billieux, professor of clinical psychology and psychological assessment at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and guest on the podcast. He's on a mission to understand how we can suss out what is truly addictive behavior versus what is normal behavior that we're calling addictive.

For Billieux and other professionals, this isn't just a rhetorical game. He uses the example of gaming addiction, which has come under increased scrutiny over the past half-decade. The language used around the subject of gaming addiction will determine how behaviors of potential patients are analyzed — and ultimately what treatment is recommended.

"For a lot of people you can realize that the gaming is actually a coping (mechanism for) social anxiety or trauma or depression," says Billieux.

"Those cases, of course, you will not necessarily target gaming per se. You will target what caused depression. And then as a result, If you succeed, gaming will diminish."

In some instances, a person might legitimately be addicted to gaming or technology, and require the corresponding treatment — but that treatment might be the wrong answer for another person.

"None of this is to discount that for some people, technology is a factor in a mental health problem," says Feifer.

"I am also not discounting that individual people can use technology such as smartphones or social media to a degree where it has a genuine negative impact on their lives. But the point here to understand is that people are complicated, our relationship with new technology is complicated, and addiction is complicated — and our efforts to simplify very complex things, and make generalizations across broad portions of the population, can lead to real harm."

Behavioral addiction is a notoriously complex thing for professionals to diagnose — even more so since the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the book professionals use to classify mental disorders, introduced a new idea about addiction in 2013.

"The DSM-5 grouped substance addiction with gambling addiction — this is the first time that substance addiction was directly categorized with any kind of behavioral addiction," Feifer says.

"And then, the DSM-5 went a tiny bit further — and proposed that other potentially addictive behaviors require further study."

This might not sound like that big of a deal to laypeople, but its effect was massive in medicine.

"Researchers started launching studies — not to see if a behavior like social media use can be addictive, but rather, to start with the assumption that social media use is addictive, and then to see how many people have the addiction," says Feifer.

Learned helplessness

The assumption that a lot of us are addicted to technology may itself be harming us by undermining our autonomy and belief that we have agency to create change in our own lives. That's what Nir Eyal, author of the books Hooked and Indistractable, calls 'learned helplessness.'

"The price of living in a world with so many good things in it is that sometimes we have to learn these new skills, these new behaviors to moderate our use," Eyal says. "One surefire way to not do anything is to believe you are powerless. That's what learned helplessness is all about."

So if it's not an addiction that most of us are experiencing when we check our phones 90 times a day or are wondering about what our followers are saying on Twitter — then what is it?

"A choice, a willful choice, and perhaps some people would not agree or would criticize your choices. But I think we cannot consider that as something that is pathological in the clinical sense," says Billieux.

Of course, for some people technology can be addictive.

"If something is genuinely interfering with your social or occupational life, and you have no ability to control it, then please seek help," says Feifer.

But for the vast majority of people, thinking about our use of technology as a choice — albeit not always a healthy one — can be the first step to overcoming unwanted habits.

For more, be sure to check out the Build for Tomorrow episode here.

Why the U.S. and Belgium are culture buddies

The Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural map replaces geographic accuracy with closeness in terms of values.

According to the latest version of the Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural Map, Belgium and the United States are now each other's closest neighbors in terms of cultural values.

Credit: World Values Survey, public domain.
Strange Maps
  • This map replaces geography with another type of closeness: cultural values.
  • Although the groups it depicts have familiar names, their shapes are not.
  • The map makes for strange bedfellows: Brazil next to South Africa and Belgium neighboring the U.S.
Keep reading Show less