What do you think?
Rate this book
Future Perfect: The Case for Progress in a Networked Age
From the New York Times bestselling author of How We Got To Now and Farsighted
Combining the deft social analysis of Where Good Ideas Come From with the optimistic arguments of Everything Bad Is Good for You , bestselling author and one of the most inspiring visionaries of contemporary culture, Steven Johnson, maps the ways a connected world will be both different and better.
Steven Johnson proposes that a new model of political change is on the rise transforming everything from local government to classrooms to health care. It’s a compelling new political worldview that breaks with traditional categories of liberal or conservative thinking. Johnson explores this innovative vision through a series of fascinating from the “Miracle on the Hudson” to the planning of the French railway system; from the battle against malnutrition in Vietnam to a mysterious outbreak of strange smells in downtown Manhattan; from underground music video artists to the invention of the Internet itself. At a time when the conventional wisdom holds that the political system is hopelessly gridlocked with old ideas, Future Perfect makes the timely and uplifting case that progress is still possible.
Combining the deft social analysis of Where Good Ideas Come From with the optimistic arguments of Everything Bad Is Good for You , bestselling author and one of the most inspiring visionaries of contemporary culture, Steven Johnson, maps the ways a connected world will be both different and better.
Steven Johnson proposes that a new model of political change is on the rise transforming everything from local government to classrooms to health care. It’s a compelling new political worldview that breaks with traditional categories of liberal or conservative thinking. Johnson explores this innovative vision through a series of fascinating from the “Miracle on the Hudson” to the planning of the French railway system; from the battle against malnutrition in Vietnam to a mysterious outbreak of strange smells in downtown Manhattan; from underground music video artists to the invention of the Internet itself. At a time when the conventional wisdom holds that the political system is hopelessly gridlocked with old ideas, Future Perfect makes the timely and uplifting case that progress is still possible.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
84 people are currently reading
2160 people want to read
About the author
Steven Johnson
118 books1,957 followersSteven Johnson is the bestselling author of twelve books, including Enemy of All Mankind, Farsighted, Wonderland, How We Got to Now, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Invention of Air, The Ghost Map, and Everything Bad Is Good for You.
He's the host of the podcast American Innovations, and the host and co-creator of the PBS and BBC series How We Got to Now. Johnson lives in Marin County, California, and Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and three sons.
He's the host of the podcast American Innovations, and the host and co-creator of the PBS and BBC series How We Got to Now. Johnson lives in Marin County, California, and Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and three sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews
October 10, 2012
The first third of the book contains an interesting and highly readable popularisation of recent scientific texts on the role of networks in social organisation. Unfortunately the last two thirds of the book are filled with highly enthusiastic and uncritical examples of how these network structures might change various fields of society. Mainly these case studies fall short of valid analyses since they create false dichotomies between network structures, market structures and hierarchies. Instead of telling the more differentiated tale that network structures increasingly supplement traditional forms of social organisation the cases push the more sensationalist tale that network structures will replace traditional structures. For more balanced accounts of the phenomenon see for example: Bruce Bimber, Andrew Flanagin, Cynthia Stohl (http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogu...), Andrew Chadwick (http://www.andrewchadwick.com/post/91...) or Dave Karpf (http://themoveoneffect.com/about-the-...).
November 26, 2012
Another good one from Steven Johnson, though better suited to someone who is relatively new to net culture and its politics. For someone like that, there is a lot here to think about, and (ideally) challenge one's assumptions. "Peer progressivism" is at least as good a name for the not-quite-yet political movement he discusses, and his explanation of that movement in the first part of the book is thoughtful and interesting.
The second and larger part covers several topics intended to show peer progressivism in action or to provide more detail on aspects of its world view(s). This part is somewhat less successful, moving a bit too quickly through several topics, any one of which could merit a short (or long) book on its own. Those who are familiar with these topics won't find very much here they don't know already (this being more of an overview or introduction, and not a redefinition or revisionist work). But Johnson has assembled a good set of anecdotes and examples to illustrate his points.
I doubt the book will convince skeptics. But it should be very helpful for those hoping to understand the netizen mind better, and particularly useful to those seeking a politics that could leave behind the interminable rehashing of the 1960s that has held us back for decades.
The second and larger part covers several topics intended to show peer progressivism in action or to provide more detail on aspects of its world view(s). This part is somewhat less successful, moving a bit too quickly through several topics, any one of which could merit a short (or long) book on its own. Those who are familiar with these topics won't find very much here they don't know already (this being more of an overview or introduction, and not a redefinition or revisionist work). But Johnson has assembled a good set of anecdotes and examples to illustrate his points.
I doubt the book will convince skeptics. But it should be very helpful for those hoping to understand the netizen mind better, and particularly useful to those seeking a politics that could leave behind the interminable rehashing of the 1960s that has held us back for decades.
October 3, 2012
I became interested in reading this book after hearing the author discuss it on NPR. I was interested in considering it for a class I'm teaching in the Spring on social change. On the whole, I found it an interesting read. His main thesis is that new technology has allowed for new network structure (in particular open, diffuse peer-to-peer networks) to provide a modern solution to issues faced by both governments and markets (which ofter are structure in hierarchical networks). It's a big idea book in which he explores implications of peer progressive for community, journalism, technology, incentives, governance, and corporations. Although I liked it I'm still not sure how it fits in with my overall course.
The author definitely reads in different areas than I usually do, which I found useful. At the same time, I would have loved to hear his take on/relate his theory to Social Worlds Theory (exemplified in the work of Anselm Strauss and his students), and Social Fields Theory (exemplified by the work of Kenneth Wilkinson and his students). Moreover, some of his discussion of the role of technology in progress could have been really informed by Herbert Blumer's work, Industrialization as an Agent of Social Change. Moreover, there were times that I thought his views of human behavior were a little Pollyanna. For example, I would really like to hear a discussion of free ridership when we're talking about group solution/decision-making/rewarding behavior.
Still, I found it a thought-provoking read. Now on to Fligstein and McAdam's new book, A Theory of Fields, which I am hoping will add an additional layer to this discussion.
The author definitely reads in different areas than I usually do, which I found useful. At the same time, I would have loved to hear his take on/relate his theory to Social Worlds Theory (exemplified in the work of Anselm Strauss and his students), and Social Fields Theory (exemplified by the work of Kenneth Wilkinson and his students). Moreover, some of his discussion of the role of technology in progress could have been really informed by Herbert Blumer's work, Industrialization as an Agent of Social Change. Moreover, there were times that I thought his views of human behavior were a little Pollyanna. For example, I would really like to hear a discussion of free ridership when we're talking about group solution/decision-making/rewarding behavior.
Still, I found it a thought-provoking read. Now on to Fligstein and McAdam's new book, A Theory of Fields, which I am hoping will add an additional layer to this discussion.
January 11, 2015
Since I found out about Steven Johnson in his TED talk about Where good ideas come from I started reading his work. His book about the TED talk is great and his recent show in PBS "How we got to now" is great. I had great expectations about "Future Perfect". His core ideas are very interesting especially the value of networks (part of his work on how ideas come up) and how what is know as "peer-economy" is invigorating the power of networks.
However I found disappointing his misrepresentation of many "libertarian" ideas and the Austrian School of Economics. As many other political camps there are multiple flavors and variations however Johnson personifies it in a "scarecrow fallacy". His ideas of Peer-Progressive are closer to many libertarian thinkers than what he is willing to admit. One of the key authors of libertarianism is Murray Rothbard who in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, defines libertarianism in terms completely different from Johnson's misconception.
Some concepts that are misrepresented in "Future Perfect" are:
The Market itself. For Johnson the market is only about commercial transaction, however as Ludwing Von Mises defines it in his book Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, "The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the — continually changing — state of the market are the value judgements of these individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgements". What Johnson see as a market failures (peer to peer) are actually pure market transactions, people make value judgements to enter freely into these transactions. In a market individuals exchange values by values, money is just a mean to barter not the end in itself. Johnson mistakenly considered a non-monetary transaction a non-market exchange. There are no such thing as market failures because only people make mistakes. The idea of perfect markets are not part of the Austrian Tradition.
Role of Government. He as many libertarians are skeptical about big government and big corporations. What Johnson misses is that many times big corporations are the result of cronyism, a mercantilist protection of the incumbents by the governments, not capitalism and markets. On the flip side, he shows some examples of great achievements in the realm of government (i.e. ARPANet) but misses the fact that these developments were indeed exceptional given the nature of governments; power and control, force. The Lagrand Star model is what governments do best. Common Core, Obamacare, etc. are in the nature of Government. In the name of equality of results, governments try to eliminate diversity by evening out the differences by enforcing redistribution of wealth. The problem of campaign funding is caused by the epidemic growth of governments. If government plays a bigger and bigger role in the economy and the lives of the people, who doesn't want to fight for a piece of the pie? Libertarians reject any form of initiation of force and therefore are suspicious (from minarchism to anarchism) of any government intervention since its main tool is the use of force against individuals. Diversity is what makes social interaction rich, and all we need is sound institutions that provide common rules to everybody. We are not equal in the Net, as Johnson implies. Indeed, as he also points out, few people make lots of money from YouTube videos. What is even indeed are the rules of the game, we all play under the same rules and some succeed and some not.
The other subject that Johnson falls short is his understanding of the ideas of Frederick Hayek. When Hayek talked about the role of prices in his essay The Use of Knowledge in Society he was explaining how they are a spontaneous solution to the problem of knowledge in society as a counterargument against socialistic ideas of central planners of the economy. If Johnson goes further in Hayek's ideas he would find that in Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order he explains the difference of a Taxis, an order created by men, and Cosmos, an order that emerged spontaneously without the direction of anyone in specific. The problem of knowledge is superior than prices, the later are just one of the solutions that have emerge from human interaction. What Johnson value of peer networks is exactly what Hayek explained in these concepts.
Hayek didn't have a theory of the firm as Johnson attributes when he talks about big corporations. To understand a theory of the firm in the Austrian tradition check Ronald Coase "Nature of the Firm" essay and later contributions by other authors. Coase was puzzled by the same problem as Johnson. Why firms are inside centrally planned but interact in a spontaneous order? What defines the size of the firm? The examples presented by Johnson are instances of the same question. Why Whole Foods is more decentralize than WalMart?
Recent developments in peer-to-peer and shared economy are celebrated by libertarians (see Jeffrey Tucker book "Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World".) Companies like AirBNB or Uber that face opposition from the incumbents like medallion holders of taxi services and hotels, or the rejection from car dealers about Tesla's direct sales business model, are just some notorious examples of disruptive initiative that are changing the market process as Kickstarter does. These are not a market failure, but market expansions and shifts. Libertarians support with enthusiasm these pioneers as well as Bitcoins and other challenges of the State Force, while empowering the people.
In summary, Johnson book adds to the new era of entrepreneurship where networks and collaboration are giving form to new markets and new institutions. His ideas could be more powerful if he reconciliates his political framework with the Classical Liberal tradition and departs from the Progressives who see the government as an active player in the betterment of society.
However I found disappointing his misrepresentation of many "libertarian" ideas and the Austrian School of Economics. As many other political camps there are multiple flavors and variations however Johnson personifies it in a "scarecrow fallacy". His ideas of Peer-Progressive are closer to many libertarian thinkers than what he is willing to admit. One of the key authors of libertarianism is Murray Rothbard who in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, defines libertarianism in terms completely different from Johnson's misconception.
Some concepts that are misrepresented in "Future Perfect" are:
The Market itself. For Johnson the market is only about commercial transaction, however as Ludwing Von Mises defines it in his book Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, "The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the — continually changing — state of the market are the value judgements of these individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgements". What Johnson see as a market failures (peer to peer) are actually pure market transactions, people make value judgements to enter freely into these transactions. In a market individuals exchange values by values, money is just a mean to barter not the end in itself. Johnson mistakenly considered a non-monetary transaction a non-market exchange. There are no such thing as market failures because only people make mistakes. The idea of perfect markets are not part of the Austrian Tradition.
Role of Government. He as many libertarians are skeptical about big government and big corporations. What Johnson misses is that many times big corporations are the result of cronyism, a mercantilist protection of the incumbents by the governments, not capitalism and markets. On the flip side, he shows some examples of great achievements in the realm of government (i.e. ARPANet) but misses the fact that these developments were indeed exceptional given the nature of governments; power and control, force. The Lagrand Star model is what governments do best. Common Core, Obamacare, etc. are in the nature of Government. In the name of equality of results, governments try to eliminate diversity by evening out the differences by enforcing redistribution of wealth. The problem of campaign funding is caused by the epidemic growth of governments. If government plays a bigger and bigger role in the economy and the lives of the people, who doesn't want to fight for a piece of the pie? Libertarians reject any form of initiation of force and therefore are suspicious (from minarchism to anarchism) of any government intervention since its main tool is the use of force against individuals. Diversity is what makes social interaction rich, and all we need is sound institutions that provide common rules to everybody. We are not equal in the Net, as Johnson implies. Indeed, as he also points out, few people make lots of money from YouTube videos. What is even indeed are the rules of the game, we all play under the same rules and some succeed and some not.
The other subject that Johnson falls short is his understanding of the ideas of Frederick Hayek. When Hayek talked about the role of prices in his essay The Use of Knowledge in Society he was explaining how they are a spontaneous solution to the problem of knowledge in society as a counterargument against socialistic ideas of central planners of the economy. If Johnson goes further in Hayek's ideas he would find that in Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order he explains the difference of a Taxis, an order created by men, and Cosmos, an order that emerged spontaneously without the direction of anyone in specific. The problem of knowledge is superior than prices, the later are just one of the solutions that have emerge from human interaction. What Johnson value of peer networks is exactly what Hayek explained in these concepts.
Hayek didn't have a theory of the firm as Johnson attributes when he talks about big corporations. To understand a theory of the firm in the Austrian tradition check Ronald Coase "Nature of the Firm" essay and later contributions by other authors. Coase was puzzled by the same problem as Johnson. Why firms are inside centrally planned but interact in a spontaneous order? What defines the size of the firm? The examples presented by Johnson are instances of the same question. Why Whole Foods is more decentralize than WalMart?
Recent developments in peer-to-peer and shared economy are celebrated by libertarians (see Jeffrey Tucker book "Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World".) Companies like AirBNB or Uber that face opposition from the incumbents like medallion holders of taxi services and hotels, or the rejection from car dealers about Tesla's direct sales business model, are just some notorious examples of disruptive initiative that are changing the market process as Kickstarter does. These are not a market failure, but market expansions and shifts. Libertarians support with enthusiasm these pioneers as well as Bitcoins and other challenges of the State Force, while empowering the people.
In summary, Johnson book adds to the new era of entrepreneurship where networks and collaboration are giving form to new markets and new institutions. His ideas could be more powerful if he reconciliates his political framework with the Classical Liberal tradition and departs from the Progressives who see the government as an active player in the betterment of society.
December 4, 2012
In Future Perfect, bestselling author Steven Johnson (Everything Bad Is Good for You) declares himself a member of the new revolutionary party, the peer progressives. For the most part, it’s a quiet movement, steady, not inherently violent. The recent uprisings in Bahrain, Egypt, the Occupy Wall Street protests, and other well-covered clashes between Net-enabled citizens and truncheon-wielding cops do not embody this phenomenon, but are instead merely a symptom. Make no mistake, however: A revolution is afoot.
Peer progressivism is the social change that occurs outside of rigid government structures but in a way that isn’t guided by capitalistic self-interest, at least not exclusively. It’s spontaneous networks of free and equal agents, democratically intertwined. For instance, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter is nominally owned by a for-profit company but is powered by millions of selfless users seeking only to reward worthy creative projects. Wikipedia is peer progressive, as are employee-owned businesses.
The New York City 311 network is one of the most interesting examples. In times of public distress, as occurred in 2005 when a strange maple syrup smell descended upon the city, it served as an information distribution center to calm anxieties. The odor was not toxic, after all. But the 311 network also served as a listening mechanism, recording the time and location of each call until eventually the source of the odor could be triangulated. (Not surprisingly, it emanated from New Jersey.) The peer progressive network is the distributed, adaptive, message block switching protocols that make up the backbone of the Internet.
Peer progressivism stands in contrast to what postmodernist philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari might refer to as an arborescent: a system in which all information points toward—and all decisions radiate from—the center. Johnson makes a narrative parallel to the Legrand Star, the railway scheme put in place in France by Victor Legrand after the French Revolution. The Star was the quintessence of top-down efficiency, geometrical and symmetrical. It was beautiful—on paper. But it was a bit too perfect, too pretty, and, in the way it privileged central nodes at the expense of outlying and perhaps more defensible points, it proved to be a major liability to the French in the war with Prussia that broke out in 1870.
Today, we are in the midst of a historic sweep from Star formations to decentralized peer-progressive confederations, Johnson argues. The power to collect, process, and use information is moving away from institutions of authority toward the outlying nodes of more organic networks. This change is accelerated by the Internet.
Johnson brings up the case of orçamento participativo, or participatory budgeting, committees of Porto Alegre, Brazil, as a seminal example of what peer progressivism can do. In orçamento participativo systems, budget setting is not done by elected officials, but rather according to a transparent set of processes. City neighborhoods receive money based on the number of residents and the current state of the infrastructure in that neighborhood; in other words, to each according to her means. Elected officials work more like switches in a machine than like competitors for more money or legislative power for their districts or constituents. The system expanded water sanitation and paved roads throughout Porto Alegre at a rate that was orders of magnitude faster than the old top-down system that came before it.
“In the United States, the recent talk about reinventing government has focused on the potential breakthroughs that Internet-based engagement can produce,” says Johnson. “But the history of those Porto Alegre general assemblies suggests that the more radical advance could well come from the simple act of neighborhoods gathering in a meeting hall or a church or a living room, and drafting up a list of the community’s needs.”
Revolutions, it seems, haven’t changed much after all.
Originally published in the January-February, 2013 issue of THE FUTURIST magazine
Peer progressivism is the social change that occurs outside of rigid government structures but in a way that isn’t guided by capitalistic self-interest, at least not exclusively. It’s spontaneous networks of free and equal agents, democratically intertwined. For instance, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter is nominally owned by a for-profit company but is powered by millions of selfless users seeking only to reward worthy creative projects. Wikipedia is peer progressive, as are employee-owned businesses.
The New York City 311 network is one of the most interesting examples. In times of public distress, as occurred in 2005 when a strange maple syrup smell descended upon the city, it served as an information distribution center to calm anxieties. The odor was not toxic, after all. But the 311 network also served as a listening mechanism, recording the time and location of each call until eventually the source of the odor could be triangulated. (Not surprisingly, it emanated from New Jersey.) The peer progressive network is the distributed, adaptive, message block switching protocols that make up the backbone of the Internet.
Peer progressivism stands in contrast to what postmodernist philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari might refer to as an arborescent: a system in which all information points toward—and all decisions radiate from—the center. Johnson makes a narrative parallel to the Legrand Star, the railway scheme put in place in France by Victor Legrand after the French Revolution. The Star was the quintessence of top-down efficiency, geometrical and symmetrical. It was beautiful—on paper. But it was a bit too perfect, too pretty, and, in the way it privileged central nodes at the expense of outlying and perhaps more defensible points, it proved to be a major liability to the French in the war with Prussia that broke out in 1870.
Today, we are in the midst of a historic sweep from Star formations to decentralized peer-progressive confederations, Johnson argues. The power to collect, process, and use information is moving away from institutions of authority toward the outlying nodes of more organic networks. This change is accelerated by the Internet.
Johnson brings up the case of orçamento participativo, or participatory budgeting, committees of Porto Alegre, Brazil, as a seminal example of what peer progressivism can do. In orçamento participativo systems, budget setting is not done by elected officials, but rather according to a transparent set of processes. City neighborhoods receive money based on the number of residents and the current state of the infrastructure in that neighborhood; in other words, to each according to her means. Elected officials work more like switches in a machine than like competitors for more money or legislative power for their districts or constituents. The system expanded water sanitation and paved roads throughout Porto Alegre at a rate that was orders of magnitude faster than the old top-down system that came before it.
“In the United States, the recent talk about reinventing government has focused on the potential breakthroughs that Internet-based engagement can produce,” says Johnson. “But the history of those Porto Alegre general assemblies suggests that the more radical advance could well come from the simple act of neighborhoods gathering in a meeting hall or a church or a living room, and drafting up a list of the community’s needs.”
Revolutions, it seems, haven’t changed much after all.
Originally published in the January-February, 2013 issue of THE FUTURIST magazine
October 14, 2012
Steven Johnson has been one of my authors for a while. Besides his topics, I think it's the fact that he is more than a writer - he goes beyond synthesizing information to forming clear and new theories and ideas.
In this book, he talks about a world-view called the "peer progressive" which I found resonated with me, because it described where I've moved in my point of view politically and culturally. The peer progressive is someone who believes that the free market is an incredible driver for innovation and positive change, but that it there is a role for government and others to set goals also. They believe in the power of business, but not in the steep hierarchy of most corporate structure. And the distributed power of many individuals to make their own contributions to solving problems large and national down to small and local.
It's a worldview that isn't Republican and Democrat, but borrows and rejects elements of both of those rather polarized views.
If you are someone who feels like more of a netizen (and I'm not talking about the tech aspect - the culturally networked aspect) than a member of a political party, then Johnson does a wonderful job of clearly putting that into words.
If you aren't, this book is a good read to understand the growing number of people (and increasing numbers of young people) who are finding that this worldview shapes their opinions and their actions. Even if you don't find yourself buying this point of view, you'll probably want to understand it, because it will affect the way your organization, business and government (local and beyond) will function in the future.
In this book, he talks about a world-view called the "peer progressive" which I found resonated with me, because it described where I've moved in my point of view politically and culturally. The peer progressive is someone who believes that the free market is an incredible driver for innovation and positive change, but that it there is a role for government and others to set goals also. They believe in the power of business, but not in the steep hierarchy of most corporate structure. And the distributed power of many individuals to make their own contributions to solving problems large and national down to small and local.
It's a worldview that isn't Republican and Democrat, but borrows and rejects elements of both of those rather polarized views.
If you are someone who feels like more of a netizen (and I'm not talking about the tech aspect - the culturally networked aspect) than a member of a political party, then Johnson does a wonderful job of clearly putting that into words.
If you aren't, this book is a good read to understand the growing number of people (and increasing numbers of young people) who are finding that this worldview shapes their opinions and their actions. Even if you don't find yourself buying this point of view, you'll probably want to understand it, because it will affect the way your organization, business and government (local and beyond) will function in the future.
September 9, 2014
El libro se centra en un tema: comparar las estructuras sociales que se basan en una jerarquía de arriba a abajo, en la que hay unos puntos o estructuras básicas (llamadas estrellas de Legrand) o en una red donde no hay una jerarquía definida (llamadas redes de Baran).
A partir de aquí, entra la historia de Internet gracias a la cual, la sociedad ha pasado mayoritariamente de ser una estrella de Legrand a una red de Baran y cómo podemos y debemos contribuir, cómo afecta a nuestro desarrollo como sociedad y cómo nos afecta en la organización política y el funcionamiento en si de la democracia.
Es un libro que te hace pensar mucho en estos temas y he encontrado un punto de vista muy interesante. Recomendado para todos los públicos.
A partir de aquí, entra la historia de Internet gracias a la cual, la sociedad ha pasado mayoritariamente de ser una estrella de Legrand a una red de Baran y cómo podemos y debemos contribuir, cómo afecta a nuestro desarrollo como sociedad y cómo nos afecta en la organización política y el funcionamiento en si de la democracia.
Es un libro que te hace pensar mucho en estos temas y he encontrado un punto de vista muy interesante. Recomendado para todos los públicos.
March 2, 2015
This is my first time reading for Steven Johnson, very thought insightful book about the age of networking and how it's changing the world around us. I came about reading this book for my " Media and politics" class. The amount of information and how it was presented in the online world is beyond us, there's everything and everyone is sharing thoughts ideas and it dependance on the individuals network and what type of information he wants to intake search and know about. The online world has so much to offer plus is changing rapidly the age of seeking information is multi from news papers radio tv and social media.... I came across asking my self ... Okay with all this info/access is it helping our communities or hurting them ?
October 28, 2015
Entra pra lista dos bons livros sobre temas atuais. Na mesma linha dos livros do Clay Shirky e similares. Com noções bem recentes e bem situadas de como interagimos pela internet e do que isso tem possibilitado. Achei especialmente boa a parte sobre a relevância de problemas locais: o que mais próximo de nós tem mais importância imediata, como filho machucado, mas o que acontece logo do lado nem tanto, filho da vizinha machucado. E como a internet tem possibilitado eventos de nicho relevantes localmente. Também deu uma noção bem sóbria de como não temos exatamente uma crise da mídia e do jornalismo, visto que podemos saber muito mais sobre assuntos especializados, por exemplo.
March 4, 2017
Very disappointing. There are lots of things wrong with this book. First, the author doesn't understand economics, and then he talks about economics a lot in the book. Same goes for management and politics, two nearly-as-frequently-mentioned topics. Third, he's a naive utopian. The funniest thing is that he talks about the book Utopia without realizing that even Sir Thomas More's Utopia is a DYStopian fantasy. I probably should have stopped reading when I got to that part.
January 24, 2022
hard to describe as anything other than “written by a rich white guy with kids in a charter school, before whole foods was consumed by amazon.” the ridiculous section on “liquid democracy” reeks to high heaven of an obsession with “influencer” culture. would be zero stars, if that was an option.
December 5, 2012
Finally someone who gets it. I thought I was taking crazy pills for the past 5 or so years. Steven Johnson lays out what it means to be a "Peer Progressive". This is something I believe I am. Johnson tells us "...we underestimate the amount of steady progress that continues around us, and we misunderstand where that progress comes from" Amen.
Johnson goes on to say that progress "is not just a question of choosing between individuals and the state. Increasingly, we are choosing another path, one predicted on the power of networks. Not digital networks, necessarily, but instead the more general sense of the word: webs of human collaboration and exchange." This idea of progress is the new black. By understanding trends and data analysis we can make better decisions on society and business.
Johnson then anchors of the subject of peer networks and the impact they have had and can have. He believes the open exchange of ideas flowing through peer networks leads to more innovation and innovation on top of innovations. "Ideas improved the more they were allowed to flow through the community; building proprietary walls around those ideas would only retard the march of progress". He calls out companies like Apple and pharmaceutical companies that hold so tightly to patents saying "If you can prevent anyone else from applying your solution, or improving it, then you as an individual may benefit, but society may suffer because the solution, in its isolated state, stagnates or remains too expensive for most people to enjoy its benefits." For us (society) to progress and become more whole we need to stop locking up innovation, new drugs and other inventions for the betterment of society.
Johnson believes that peer progressive values require society to question long-standing institutions and demand rethinking and restructuring. He recalls the transformation of Porto Alegre with their radical new way of budgeting the state dollars. They started to use Participatory Budgeting. If this doesn't sound like progress I don't know what does: "The transparency of the process meant that corruption and waste vanished almost overnight. As the Brazilian political scientist Rebecca Abers writes, "It was impossible for money to disappear, for contracts to be overpriced, for promises to be ignored, and for unnecessary investments to be made." Allocating the funds to the neediest communities meant that the favelas saw a tremendous improvement in quality of life. But it also had a more subtle but equally important effect: it demonstrated that civic engagement in those communities could lead to tangible results."
I believe my generation will lead to a reconstruction that is badly need in the US. Johnson describes a Liquid Democracy as the ability to give your voting power to someone you believe understands the subject at hand, basically a proxy strategy. "When we make cultural decisions, we often offload those choices to the local experts in our network. Liquid democracies simply apply the same principle to political decisions."
I could on but hopefully those tidbits will entice you to read the book.
Johnson goes on to say that progress "is not just a question of choosing between individuals and the state. Increasingly, we are choosing another path, one predicted on the power of networks. Not digital networks, necessarily, but instead the more general sense of the word: webs of human collaboration and exchange." This idea of progress is the new black. By understanding trends and data analysis we can make better decisions on society and business.
Johnson then anchors of the subject of peer networks and the impact they have had and can have. He believes the open exchange of ideas flowing through peer networks leads to more innovation and innovation on top of innovations. "Ideas improved the more they were allowed to flow through the community; building proprietary walls around those ideas would only retard the march of progress". He calls out companies like Apple and pharmaceutical companies that hold so tightly to patents saying "If you can prevent anyone else from applying your solution, or improving it, then you as an individual may benefit, but society may suffer because the solution, in its isolated state, stagnates or remains too expensive for most people to enjoy its benefits." For us (society) to progress and become more whole we need to stop locking up innovation, new drugs and other inventions for the betterment of society.
Johnson believes that peer progressive values require society to question long-standing institutions and demand rethinking and restructuring. He recalls the transformation of Porto Alegre with their radical new way of budgeting the state dollars. They started to use Participatory Budgeting. If this doesn't sound like progress I don't know what does: "The transparency of the process meant that corruption and waste vanished almost overnight. As the Brazilian political scientist Rebecca Abers writes, "It was impossible for money to disappear, for contracts to be overpriced, for promises to be ignored, and for unnecessary investments to be made." Allocating the funds to the neediest communities meant that the favelas saw a tremendous improvement in quality of life. But it also had a more subtle but equally important effect: it demonstrated that civic engagement in those communities could lead to tangible results."
I believe my generation will lead to a reconstruction that is badly need in the US. Johnson describes a Liquid Democracy as the ability to give your voting power to someone you believe understands the subject at hand, basically a proxy strategy. "When we make cultural decisions, we often offload those choices to the local experts in our network. Liquid democracies simply apply the same principle to political decisions."
I could on but hopefully those tidbits will entice you to read the book.
November 1, 2012
Future Perfect is an optimistic book about technology, society, and the future. That’s remarkable in itself, since pessimistic (or at least cautionary) books tend to outnumber optimistic ones, but what’s even more remarkable is the care and precision with which Johnson makes his case. The new communications technologies, he argues, are significant less for what they do than for what their capabilities enable us to do, if we choose to do it.
The first of the book’s two sections lays out its central premise: that distributed “peer networks” allowing the free flow of information between diverse individuals are a powerful force for social progress. decentralized networks are a powerful tool for facilitating interaction between individuals, and thus for social progress. It concludes: “We have a theory of peer networks. We have the practice of building them. And we have results. We know that peer networks can work in the real world. The task now is to discover how far they can take us.” The second, longer section – a series of thematic chapters on subjects like journalism, technology, and government – makes good on that promise. It presents case studies that show what peer networks have already accomplished, and contemplates what they might accomplish in the future.
Johnson’s goal, in Future Perfect is not to write a primer on the theory of networks, an analysis of how distributed networks function, or a history of distributed networks (though he touches, expertly but wearing his expertise lightly, on all those subjects). Nor is his goal to predict the future: The potential applications he describes for peer networks are presented as possibilities, not certainties. His evident goal is, rather, to encourage readers raised in a world (largely) defined by centralized networks to think seriously about one (more) defined by peer networks. It is a manifesto, but an intellectual rather than a political one. In the spirit of Apple Computer (the subject of one of Johnson’s case studies), it urges: “Think different.”
Future Perfect is, in this sense, a spiritual sequel to Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good for You. Like the earlier work, it takes a proposition that, at first glance, seems completely absurd -- the height of fuzzy headed wishful thinking -- and patiently shows that the “absurd” idea is a more useful tool than the received wisdom that “everybody knows.” Future Perfect improves on Everything Bad, however, by its carefully delineated internal structure and its layering of case study on case study, thematic chapter on thematic chapter. Johnson’s central idea is breathtakingly simple. His development of it, at length and in detail, is what gives the book its power.
Steven Johnson is both an insightful thinker and an exceptionally graceful writer. If you haven’t encountered his work before, this is an excellent place to begin.
The first of the book’s two sections lays out its central premise: that distributed “peer networks” allowing the free flow of information between diverse individuals are a powerful force for social progress. decentralized networks are a powerful tool for facilitating interaction between individuals, and thus for social progress. It concludes: “We have a theory of peer networks. We have the practice of building them. And we have results. We know that peer networks can work in the real world. The task now is to discover how far they can take us.” The second, longer section – a series of thematic chapters on subjects like journalism, technology, and government – makes good on that promise. It presents case studies that show what peer networks have already accomplished, and contemplates what they might accomplish in the future.
Johnson’s goal, in Future Perfect is not to write a primer on the theory of networks, an analysis of how distributed networks function, or a history of distributed networks (though he touches, expertly but wearing his expertise lightly, on all those subjects). Nor is his goal to predict the future: The potential applications he describes for peer networks are presented as possibilities, not certainties. His evident goal is, rather, to encourage readers raised in a world (largely) defined by centralized networks to think seriously about one (more) defined by peer networks. It is a manifesto, but an intellectual rather than a political one. In the spirit of Apple Computer (the subject of one of Johnson’s case studies), it urges: “Think different.”
Future Perfect is, in this sense, a spiritual sequel to Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good for You. Like the earlier work, it takes a proposition that, at first glance, seems completely absurd -- the height of fuzzy headed wishful thinking -- and patiently shows that the “absurd” idea is a more useful tool than the received wisdom that “everybody knows.” Future Perfect improves on Everything Bad, however, by its carefully delineated internal structure and its layering of case study on case study, thematic chapter on thematic chapter. Johnson’s central idea is breathtakingly simple. His development of it, at length and in detail, is what gives the book its power.
Steven Johnson is both an insightful thinker and an exceptionally graceful writer. If you haven’t encountered his work before, this is an excellent place to begin.
December 31, 2012
Future Perfect by Steven Johnson is a book about a big idea. And Johnson is a good person to guide you through the big idea, he has dealt with big ideas and he is quite adapt at presenting the cross coupled and complex ideas adroitly.
In this case, the idea has to do with peer-to-peer networks. While the name itself sound like it has something to do computer and communication technology, it is a very interesting concept which can be implemented without the help of technology, although it surely could help. The gist of the idea is that in a peer-to-peer network there is no top or bottom, the network just is. There is no centralized command and control, the network exists to pass information efficiently amongst those who need information to thrive and survive. This concept, when extrapolated to other networks, for example: communities, journalism, technology, labor, governance, and corporate structures, can redefine and revolutionize the way these networks work or not work.
Very importantly, Johnson is careful in trying to divorce the reader’s mind from the status quo views of the society. He emphasizes that most people distrust both big corporations and big government equally since both entities have demonstrated their incompetence in dealing with our problems. Having our system of thought be strictly dictated by this dichotomous structure is what is hindering our progress towards solving problems. John son then gives examples in various networks and presents ground breaking cases where the peer-to-peer networks in various forms are implemented.
The structure of the book gives the impression that these implementations are organic outgrowths of independent thought, and that the author is the one who vaguely recognized the structures, which is how the book is born. I am not sure if that is the case, I do not doubt the author and it seems plausible. The author actually does a very good job of telling the stories in great detail as well as explaining the intricate comings and goings of the networks. I truly enjoyed reading the book, it will take me a long time to revisit and re-think the premise and the evidence presented. This is not a book that will leave you once you are done reading it. The echoes of the big idea will resonate and haunt my thoughts for a while yet.
The one thing that was kind of an anomaly within the book is the attacks that the author launches against teachers unions, and he does this without any apparently reason nor any basis for introducing the subject into the discussion. It is an odd and jarring broadside which surfaces time and time again.
Overall I would say this is an excellent and thoughtful introduction to a big idea. The book was well conceived and well presented. It does require some original thought on the part of the reader to absorb the concept and be able to accept the premise of the idea.
In this case, the idea has to do with peer-to-peer networks. While the name itself sound like it has something to do computer and communication technology, it is a very interesting concept which can be implemented without the help of technology, although it surely could help. The gist of the idea is that in a peer-to-peer network there is no top or bottom, the network just is. There is no centralized command and control, the network exists to pass information efficiently amongst those who need information to thrive and survive. This concept, when extrapolated to other networks, for example: communities, journalism, technology, labor, governance, and corporate structures, can redefine and revolutionize the way these networks work or not work.
Very importantly, Johnson is careful in trying to divorce the reader’s mind from the status quo views of the society. He emphasizes that most people distrust both big corporations and big government equally since both entities have demonstrated their incompetence in dealing with our problems. Having our system of thought be strictly dictated by this dichotomous structure is what is hindering our progress towards solving problems. John son then gives examples in various networks and presents ground breaking cases where the peer-to-peer networks in various forms are implemented.
The structure of the book gives the impression that these implementations are organic outgrowths of independent thought, and that the author is the one who vaguely recognized the structures, which is how the book is born. I am not sure if that is the case, I do not doubt the author and it seems plausible. The author actually does a very good job of telling the stories in great detail as well as explaining the intricate comings and goings of the networks. I truly enjoyed reading the book, it will take me a long time to revisit and re-think the premise and the evidence presented. This is not a book that will leave you once you are done reading it. The echoes of the big idea will resonate and haunt my thoughts for a while yet.
The one thing that was kind of an anomaly within the book is the attacks that the author launches against teachers unions, and he does this without any apparently reason nor any basis for introducing the subject into the discussion. It is an odd and jarring broadside which surfaces time and time again.
Overall I would say this is an excellent and thoughtful introduction to a big idea. The book was well conceived and well presented. It does require some original thought on the part of the reader to absorb the concept and be able to accept the premise of the idea.
July 6, 2013
A 5-star book. Provides the examples and the language to describe the possibilities created by the recent ease of publishing, sharing, and connecting.
So many great quotes on the power of being a "peer progressive".
“To be a peer progressive, then, is to believe that the key to continued progress lies in building peer networks in as many regions of modern life as possible: in education, health care, city neighborhoods, private corporations, and government agencies.
What peer progressives want to see is fundamental change in the social architecture of those institutions, not just a Web strategy.”
He describes a wide range of current examples and future possibilities – from finding and fixing problems to funding innovation; from reducing traffic to reinventing elections. And he purposefully chose such a broad array of examples to show just how many areas of our lives could be rethought and reworked.
And he ultimately gives me great hope on what these changes can unleash:
“And that is ultimately what being a peer progressive is all about: the belief that new institutions and new social architectures are now available to us in a way that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, and that our continued progress as a society will come from adopting those institutions in as many facets of modern life as possible.”
“This is why it is such an interesting and encouraging time to build on these values. We have a theory of peer networks. We have the practice of building them. And we have results. We know that peer networks can work in the real world. The task now is to discover how far they can take us.”
More here: http://johnstepper.com/2013/06/15/the...
So many great quotes on the power of being a "peer progressive".
“To be a peer progressive, then, is to believe that the key to continued progress lies in building peer networks in as many regions of modern life as possible: in education, health care, city neighborhoods, private corporations, and government agencies.
What peer progressives want to see is fundamental change in the social architecture of those institutions, not just a Web strategy.”
He describes a wide range of current examples and future possibilities – from finding and fixing problems to funding innovation; from reducing traffic to reinventing elections. And he purposefully chose such a broad array of examples to show just how many areas of our lives could be rethought and reworked.
And he ultimately gives me great hope on what these changes can unleash:
“And that is ultimately what being a peer progressive is all about: the belief that new institutions and new social architectures are now available to us in a way that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, and that our continued progress as a society will come from adopting those institutions in as many facets of modern life as possible.”
“This is why it is such an interesting and encouraging time to build on these values. We have a theory of peer networks. We have the practice of building them. And we have results. We know that peer networks can work in the real world. The task now is to discover how far they can take us.”
More here: http://johnstepper.com/2013/06/15/the...
October 12, 2013
Despite the annoying cover design (I get it, kinda retro but also very Wired circa 1990s, but really, must you shout?), this is a very well written essay on peer progressives, which Johnson puts forth as a new type of political slant that is inspired by the peer-to-peer model of the internet while taking some elements from libertarians, democrats, republicans, and socialists. It's kind of a common-sense, egalitarian approach to problems both old and new (wealth distribution, education, communication, politics, etc.) but with a different perspective of truly allowing peer-to-peer opportunities for solutions, with positive examples being NYC's 311 call center to both identify and fix common problems in the city, and negative being the growth and strength of Al Qaeda. And some seemed ethically bothersome, as in giving your own votes to someone else to act as your proxy in public elections Johnson is an excellent writer and he makes it easy to learn the history of this newish approach, and he builds his argument logically and thoroughly. For some reason though, when I finished I thought, meh... okay, I get it. Perhaps it's because he put into words something that seemed so obvious, which I recognize can be much harder than it seems. But it just didn't get me excited like I'd expected. Maybe this will change as the content sinks in and I start seeing if it is more applicable than I realize at the moment.
February 20, 2017
In this book Johnson attempts to do a few things: 1. Understand networks in general, how they form, how they are used, and how they affect the members of a society. 2. Understand what our political culture looks like. 3. Offer a suggestion as to how we might change our political culture in a significant way, using networks.
Unfortunately for me, there was not enough discussion of the science of networks by Johnson to even imagine he understands them well enough to use them in any effective way that would create significant social change. That is not to say it's not a worthy thing for which to strive. His "peer progressive" political (and social) party certainly provides food for thought. Our political system has flaws and it would be great if we could fine tune it to be more effective for everyone. I say more power to Johnson and the peer progressives. We are certainly in a new age of technology. If our networks can be understood and used in a way that can overhaul our political system (through an understanding of how private and public sectors can work optimally together) to achieve a net benefit for our citizens, then great.
Unfortunately for me, there was not enough discussion of the science of networks by Johnson to even imagine he understands them well enough to use them in any effective way that would create significant social change. That is not to say it's not a worthy thing for which to strive. His "peer progressive" political (and social) party certainly provides food for thought. Our political system has flaws and it would be great if we could fine tune it to be more effective for everyone. I say more power to Johnson and the peer progressives. We are certainly in a new age of technology. If our networks can be understood and used in a way that can overhaul our political system (through an understanding of how private and public sectors can work optimally together) to achieve a net benefit for our citizens, then great.
November 11, 2012
Feeling glum about the state of man and about the future? This book will turn you around. A fact filled trip into the reality of progress and a very analytical look at peer to peer evolution in technology, communications, human relationships and social interactions of all sorts.
Steven Johnson has written for Wired, NY Times, Time etc. He is a journalist and one thing about journalists is that they usually know how to create a great read. Johnson is one of the best.
I can’t recommend this book highly enough. I am on to read his other books, this was my first. I heard him interviewed on PBS and decided to take a dip. Great decision. I read it in about 8 hours so it is a quick read.
Steven Johnson has written for Wired, NY Times, Time etc. He is a journalist and one thing about journalists is that they usually know how to create a great read. Johnson is one of the best.
I can’t recommend this book highly enough. I am on to read his other books, this was my first. I heard him interviewed on PBS and decided to take a dip. Great decision. I read it in about 8 hours so it is a quick read.
January 13, 2015
There is much to admire about this book. As well as much to doubt. But what can't be denied is that the worldview of the 'peer progressive' is fresh and contagious. Above all it is optimistic. But not in a naive way as some would point out, but in a way that is in the realm of the 'adjacent possible' :)
Steven Johnson's essays on 'communities,' 'education,' liquid democracies' and conscious capitalism' present a blueprint for all of us to solve problems differently. There are moments in the book where I felt that Johnson's hypothesis could be better argued and that perhaps he misses a step in between.
Recommended.
Steven Johnson's essays on 'communities,' 'education,' liquid democracies' and conscious capitalism' present a blueprint for all of us to solve problems differently. There are moments in the book where I felt that Johnson's hypothesis could be better argued and that perhaps he misses a step in between.
Recommended.
November 8, 2014
Despite Johnson never using the term 'New World Order', he highlights very well some of the scenarios where networking and social technologies have revolutionised how society has now learned to organise in the face of new challenges. He also sketches out an interesting future we could enter if we continue to embrace some of the best organising principles that he brings from fascinating success stories. 'Future Perfect' successfully shows that there is a large current of change possible if we embrace the benefits that could come from seeing and living a new world order. I'm in!
January 23, 2013
This doesn't break as much ground as his great "Where Good Ideas Coem From" but is rather a manifesto for what he calls a "peer progressive" movement, a decentralized movement to change society, politics, and more. Good, but you have to already be invested in the idea, I think. Still recommend "Where Good Ideas Coem From."
September 8, 2020
The central idea of this book is that it would be better if society made the ultimate shift from top down, centralized governance(s) to a system that makes everyone in the society on a par with everyone else: the peer-progressive system.
The author starts his book talking about how the news, its mission being satisfying the brain's hunger for thrill and excitement, is oblivious to the incremental progress that's been happening in the world. He brings up safety in the flight industry, and particularly talks about how one plane crash accident that the media zoomed in on was the very accident that made us aware of how the efforts and decisions made by a large number of engineers over the years helped the pilot saved lives on the plane,implying thus how much things have progressed.
To support his thesis of how Peer-to-peer netwoork could unleash society's potential, the author draws from Hayek's market theories, Legrand Star, and then compares those systems to the peer to peer networks and points out the differences amongst them. Following that, the author summons the help of the internet to show you how its being based on a peer to peer netwoork made manifest the power of freeing information, facilitating its transfer bidirectionally between people of all backgrounds, and rewarding them, as far exceeding in efficiency amd results compared to hiding info behind walls of proprietary laws, amd patents. Adopting the new peer to peer system made better solutions emerge to problems that would have been unsolvable by a centralized system.
The author emphasizes the power of diversity in expertises amongst a group of people(In one study, a group of low IQ, diverse people produced better results than that of a smart, unified_one field of expertise_ group) in an egalitarian system where, through rewarding "positive deviants"( benign outer nodes of the network), better solutions could emerge and the net positive would benefit all parts of the network, which,in turn, makes all parts of the network work to advance the whole system. The author talks abt other recent examples of the success of peer networks and the change it affected: Kickstarter: a for profit corporation where its internâl goal is to free the artists/engineers from having to depend on a centeralized system to produce work(big coprorations, deep pocketed investors..); money is now donated by the collective(crowdsourcing). And it works because of the "gift economy", people want to contribute to feel good or help some work they love see the light of day, without wanting anything in return. The author also talks about other forms of p2p structures like liquid democracy where u can outsource your expert proxy to vote for who he thinks is the right candidate. Other examples included silicon valley where innovation prospered because employees had a share and options in the company, so the company became owned by the employees themselves, all working toward the goal of its success. Education too has seen some success through this p2p system through rewarding teachers to produce results for the benefit of the whole school. Most important example was wikipidea,sighted as the epitomy of what a peer netwoork is capable of achieving.
After all this excitement for the p2p plan, the author still acknowledged that we might never get rid of our old habits of doing things for solving certain problems,and that the infrastructure of the old world is embedded in our organizations, but notwithstanding that, the author wants society to give the peer netwoork a try and apply it on a wider range, across many areas to see what it is really capable of...
The author starts his book talking about how the news, its mission being satisfying the brain's hunger for thrill and excitement, is oblivious to the incremental progress that's been happening in the world. He brings up safety in the flight industry, and particularly talks about how one plane crash accident that the media zoomed in on was the very accident that made us aware of how the efforts and decisions made by a large number of engineers over the years helped the pilot saved lives on the plane,implying thus how much things have progressed.
To support his thesis of how Peer-to-peer netwoork could unleash society's potential, the author draws from Hayek's market theories, Legrand Star, and then compares those systems to the peer to peer networks and points out the differences amongst them. Following that, the author summons the help of the internet to show you how its being based on a peer to peer netwoork made manifest the power of freeing information, facilitating its transfer bidirectionally between people of all backgrounds, and rewarding them, as far exceeding in efficiency amd results compared to hiding info behind walls of proprietary laws, amd patents. Adopting the new peer to peer system made better solutions emerge to problems that would have been unsolvable by a centralized system.
The author emphasizes the power of diversity in expertises amongst a group of people(In one study, a group of low IQ, diverse people produced better results than that of a smart, unified_one field of expertise_ group) in an egalitarian system where, through rewarding "positive deviants"( benign outer nodes of the network), better solutions could emerge and the net positive would benefit all parts of the network, which,in turn, makes all parts of the network work to advance the whole system. The author talks abt other recent examples of the success of peer networks and the change it affected: Kickstarter: a for profit corporation where its internâl goal is to free the artists/engineers from having to depend on a centeralized system to produce work(big coprorations, deep pocketed investors..); money is now donated by the collective(crowdsourcing). And it works because of the "gift economy", people want to contribute to feel good or help some work they love see the light of day, without wanting anything in return. The author also talks about other forms of p2p structures like liquid democracy where u can outsource your expert proxy to vote for who he thinks is the right candidate. Other examples included silicon valley where innovation prospered because employees had a share and options in the company, so the company became owned by the employees themselves, all working toward the goal of its success. Education too has seen some success through this p2p system through rewarding teachers to produce results for the benefit of the whole school. Most important example was wikipidea,sighted as the epitomy of what a peer netwoork is capable of achieving.
After all this excitement for the p2p plan, the author still acknowledged that we might never get rid of our old habits of doing things for solving certain problems,and that the infrastructure of the old world is embedded in our organizations, but notwithstanding that, the author wants society to give the peer netwoork a try and apply it on a wider range, across many areas to see what it is really capable of...
June 9, 2023
Interesante y convincente alegato a favor de la descentralización (estatal, pero también en el mercado o en otras actividades sociales) usando la nueva tecnología y el progreso para que redes informales de pares trabajen coordinadamente aportando sus fragmentos de información imperfecta en una red de información más ajustada que la jerárquica. Esto se aplicaría a la gobernanza, los incentivos, la construcción de redes para objetivos concretos...en definitiva, una sociedad civil conectada y proactiva.
Reconozco que el argumento es absolutamente sugestivo para mí y coincido en que en ciertas ocasiones conllevaría un progreso real, indiscutible. También defiendo una idea de progreso real indiscutible en el mundo, que puede ir a más fácilmente. Dudo que, salvo en la percepción más publicitada hoy, haya algún aspecto de una vida personal o social en el que se esté peor que hace un siglo o dos. Mi crítica sería que, aunque aún no vislumbramos todas las oportunidades de la tecnología, podemos argüir que la técnica no otorga poderes. Vemos las cámaras de eco en las redes sociales, la desinformación y el control de internet por parte de usuarios poderosos... No, creo que hay cierta ingenuidad en el punto de vista del poder taumatúrgico de Internet y sus derivados. También es cierto que pasa con todo: ni la democracia ni el mercado sanan o mejoran per se a los ciudadanos: son los ciudadanos que tratan de mejorar quienes los impulsan.
Pero en fin, que me voy de la reseña. Tremendamente interesante, por sus sugerencias y por las dudas que plantea al lector. Muy recomendable.
Reconozco que el argumento es absolutamente sugestivo para mí y coincido en que en ciertas ocasiones conllevaría un progreso real, indiscutible. También defiendo una idea de progreso real indiscutible en el mundo, que puede ir a más fácilmente. Dudo que, salvo en la percepción más publicitada hoy, haya algún aspecto de una vida personal o social en el que se esté peor que hace un siglo o dos. Mi crítica sería que, aunque aún no vislumbramos todas las oportunidades de la tecnología, podemos argüir que la técnica no otorga poderes. Vemos las cámaras de eco en las redes sociales, la desinformación y el control de internet por parte de usuarios poderosos... No, creo que hay cierta ingenuidad en el punto de vista del poder taumatúrgico de Internet y sus derivados. También es cierto que pasa con todo: ni la democracia ni el mercado sanan o mejoran per se a los ciudadanos: son los ciudadanos que tratan de mejorar quienes los impulsan.
Pero en fin, que me voy de la reseña. Tremendamente interesante, por sus sugerencias y por las dudas que plantea al lector. Muy recomendable.
December 26, 2019
Jakis czas temu zainteresowalem sie tematem innowacyjnosci. Na youtubie znalazlem sporo wykladow Stevena Johnsona na ten temat. W dosc madry sposob bada on temat innowacyjnosci i stad postanowilem siegnac po jego ksiazke.
Moge sie osobiscie podpisac pod tym co Steven Johnson pisze o innowacyjnosci i postepie w ksiazce "Future Pertfect". Postep i innowacyjnosc sa mozliwe dzieki temu, ze ludzie pozostaja otwarci i nawzajem wymieniaja sie pomyslami i osiagnieciami. Bez tej otwartosci i wymiany postep jest zahamowywany. W ciekawy sposob autor na przyklad porusza temat patentowania wynalazkow i pomyslow. W zasadzie obala koncepcje patentowania jako sposobu na wspieranie postepu i innowacyjnosci. Twierdzi, ze postep jest tylko mozliwy, kiedy naukowcy, firmy i generalnie rzecz biorac ludzie graja w "otwarte karty" i nawzajem wymieniaja sie pomyslami, osiagnieciami. Drogie badania naukowe moga byc finansowane na wiele roznych sposobow. Na przyklad "crowsourcing". Koncepcja Stevena Johnsona oparta jest w pewnym sensie na koncepcji Open Source jaka znamy z branzy komputerowej.
Steven Johnson idealizuje pewne sprawy, ale mysle, ze wskazuje kierunek w ktorym swiat sie bedzie dalej rozwijal a raczej powinien sie dalej rozwijac.
Moge sie osobiscie podpisac pod tym co Steven Johnson pisze o innowacyjnosci i postepie w ksiazce "Future Pertfect". Postep i innowacyjnosc sa mozliwe dzieki temu, ze ludzie pozostaja otwarci i nawzajem wymieniaja sie pomyslami i osiagnieciami. Bez tej otwartosci i wymiany postep jest zahamowywany. W ciekawy sposob autor na przyklad porusza temat patentowania wynalazkow i pomyslow. W zasadzie obala koncepcje patentowania jako sposobu na wspieranie postepu i innowacyjnosci. Twierdzi, ze postep jest tylko mozliwy, kiedy naukowcy, firmy i generalnie rzecz biorac ludzie graja w "otwarte karty" i nawzajem wymieniaja sie pomyslami, osiagnieciami. Drogie badania naukowe moga byc finansowane na wiele roznych sposobow. Na przyklad "crowsourcing". Koncepcja Stevena Johnsona oparta jest w pewnym sensie na koncepcji Open Source jaka znamy z branzy komputerowej.
Steven Johnson idealizuje pewne sprawy, ale mysle, ze wskazuje kierunek w ktorym swiat sie bedzie dalej rozwijal a raczej powinien sie dalej rozwijac.
November 25, 2022
Highly enjoyable, but this rehashes a lot of points that I've seen in other books explained better. If you're not familiar with Richard Wolfe, Larry Lessig, and other authors who have critiqued different aspects of our political and economic systems, you might get more out of this.
One thing that is frustrating about this book is despite the fact that it is less than 10 years old, it seems to have almost unchecked optimism about networked solutions. This is really naive considering the current state of online discourse on Youtube, Twitter, etc. And even more galling is how the Johnson totally ignores issues of privacy on such platforms.
One thing that is frustrating about this book is despite the fact that it is less than 10 years old, it seems to have almost unchecked optimism about networked solutions. This is really naive considering the current state of online discourse on Youtube, Twitter, etc. And even more galling is how the Johnson totally ignores issues of privacy on such platforms.
June 4, 2021
A counter perspective to centralize management and focus on the worst news. In the authors concept- a peer progressive.
The author has collected a narrative of use cases based off peer-to-peer network that highlights benefits of a non centralized model system.
These cases include a French train system, 311, Kickstarter, race to the top, prize back challenges, participatory budgeting, occupy Wall Street, and others.
A good collection of use cases towards the bias of the concept and a healthy counter perspective.
The author has collected a narrative of use cases based off peer-to-peer network that highlights benefits of a non centralized model system.
These cases include a French train system, 311, Kickstarter, race to the top, prize back challenges, participatory budgeting, occupy Wall Street, and others.
A good collection of use cases towards the bias of the concept and a healthy counter perspective.
July 19, 2021
Johnson doesn't like to be labelled as a tech-utopian, but that's a pretty good summary of his position.
He believes in peer-to-peer systems with collaboration among peers, rather than in top-down hierarchies. It does not necessarily have to be on-line, but that's by far the easiest way to organize.
The two archetypes he highlights is the 'Legrand star', the French 19th century railway map, with all lines going to Paris, and the Internet, with redundant nodes and links, capable of routing anywhere. But even in the internet, there's the need for a DNS to handle name resolution...
He believes in peer-to-peer systems with collaboration among peers, rather than in top-down hierarchies. It does not necessarily have to be on-line, but that's by far the easiest way to organize.
The two archetypes he highlights is the 'Legrand star', the French 19th century railway map, with all lines going to Paris, and the Internet, with redundant nodes and links, capable of routing anywhere. But even in the internet, there's the need for a DNS to handle name resolution...
September 16, 2020
Liquid democracy, P2P, Hayek, Longditude prize, Open 311, Wikipedia etc all with an attempt to define a political philosophy. Well written and strong on anecdotes promoting flat structures, distributed networks, diversity and emergence. Many of these will be familiar stories to those in the field, but value in having them collected together.
May 10, 2020
Johnson proposes some intuitive thinking here but the end product is rather dull. Short books are too long to be simple presentations of ideas and too short to examine them with any sense of importance.
June 1, 2017
Amazing book about long term trends that almost never make the news. Loved this book
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews