[p2p-research] big does not necessarily innovate: the current VC model is broken

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> 
>> J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What outcome do you or J. Andrew want?
>>>>
>>> Speaking for myself, the outcome I want is a maximized rate of
>>> innovation, with an eye toward capital efficiency since that is a
>>> finite resource. Beyond that, I am pretty agnostic about how that
>>> happens.
>>>
>> Innovation towards what end? To whose benefit? Who pays the costs? At what
>> risk? With what social vision in mind? And how are the benefits divided up
>> socially? Etc.?
>>
> Exactly right, Paul.  I think we are saying quite similar things...except
> you are adding your futurism to the answers...outcomes you desire and
> anticipate others will.  I don't necessarily disagree with those...but the
> point is the same on the what question?  What do you want?  Innovation is
> not an answer.

Yes, I agree. Well said.

Personally, I want a self-replicating space habitat that can duplicate 
itself from sunlight and asteroidal ore, similar to the "Janus" one outlined 
in "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" by James P. Hogan (minus the homicidal AI 
that ran it :-). But, I'd settle for a basic income for everyone so we could 
design one ourselves. :-) See also:
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671878484/0671878484.htm
http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/13-662/The-Two-Faces-of-Tomorrow
"""
Midway through the Twenty-first century, an integrated global computer 
network manages much of the world’s affairs. A proposed major software 
upgrade—an artificial intelligence—will give the system an unprecedented 
degree of independent decision-making power, but serious questions are 
raised in regard to how much control can safely be given to a non-human 
intelligence. In order to more fully assess the system, a new space-station 
habitat—a world in miniature—is developed for deployment of the fully 
operational system, named Spartacus. This mini-world can then be “attacked” 
in a series of escalating tests to assess the system’s responses and 
capabilities. If Spartacus gets out of hand, the system can be shut down and 
the station destroyed . . . unless Spartacus decides to take matters into 
its own hands and take the fight to Earth.
"""

Much of the last twenty five years or so of my life has been bumbling 
towards that goal. :-) Example conference paper, where I propose designing 
one using p2p methods, which was a little too far out for the Space Studies 
Institute people back in 2001: :-)
"A Review of Licensing and Collaborative Development with Special Attention 
to the Design of Self-Replicating Space Habitat Systems  "
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
"The continued exponential growth of technological capacity since the 1970s 
has removed most technical limits to group collaborations on space 
settlement issues. To remove social limits, groups must be explicit about 
the licensing terms of individual contributions and the collected work, for 
example putting their contributions in the public domain, or under a license 
like the BSD license or GPL as a conscious act. The most successful space 
related collaborations in the future will be ones that make these principles 
part of their daily operations. One result of such collaborations will be a 
distributed library of simulations and knowledge including specific detailed 
designs for self-replicating space habitat systems."

But, I'll never get around to that unless we save the world first. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/