Forums

In the article below, it is stated that globalization has historically worked for rich, influential companies and economies. These entities use technology and their financial resources to accumulate wealth for the privilege few, while those with lesser means are force to sit by, unable to compete. With the Blockchain technology, individuals would be able to communicate, negotiate and even transfer funds between them without dealing with larger companies or economies. In essence they will be getting rid of the middle man. This is suppose to allow everyone access to the free market but at what price? Without the 'middle man' how are transaction supposedly secure? How do we stop nefarious entities from transferring funds such as terrorist if we do not have auditors or even laws in place?
This technology might allow everyone to compete in the free market but it does need oversight and its been my experience that technology usually starts off with the idealistic notion that it would benefit everyone but somehow in our capitalistic world, someone will find a way to profit from it at the expense of others.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/globalization-failed-too-many-people-120047280.html

I was highly intrigued by the concept of this new blockchain technology as described in the article and in the post by A_Shar. What I found to be of particular interest is the knowledge that this futuristic technology, although it has good intentions to benefit the “middle-man” so commonly described throughout, the creators are also aware of the potential downfall of such technology. While my classmate, Lindsey44, has mentioned DeLillo’s Cosmopolis in reference to such negative capabilities, I have found that such warnings can also be heavily seen in Gary Shteyngart’s Super Sad True Love Story, which is set in a future, dystopian world not so surprisingly different than our own. The technology of the apparat was at first somewhat confusing, but I was soon able to make the connection that it was a sort of advanced “smartphone.” While our smartphones are not currently capable of projecting our credit scores and “fuckability” ratings to those around us, I think Shteyngart uses these concepts to show just how far technology could go in the wrong direction, even if it was originally created with a positive purpose in mind. The apparati devices, much like this new, up-and-coming technology, seem to have originally been self-serving: it stores your data for you, it allows you to communicate to the outside world through streaming videos, it allows you to buy all of your needs and wants from a global market; all of these things seem beneficial for organizing, storing, sharing, and communicating whilst living “busy lives.” The problem, however, is that all of this information sooner or later stopped being personal, and became a platform to sell personalities and uniqueness, making them into little more than numbers and data to be analyzed and consumed, fitting in with the capitalist culture that the West breeds and depicted as a tool for government control. Super Sad True Love Story seemed to offer little hope for the future of technological advances considering the apocalyptic rupture near the end of the novel that temporarily paused technological communication which showed peoples inability to verbally and emotionally communicate with each other, and instead turn on each other because they cannot relate or exude any succinct amount of empathy. I did appreciate the optimistic tone of the article though and the self-awareness that the technology behind “blockchain” could begin to function differently than anticipated and be used to encourage that which it intends to fight against. I would like to think that such events can be properly prevented, but given my experience with Western culture and the warnings from Shteyngart, I have my doubts that it will be used solely for “good.”