The 3rd Industrial Revolution: A Radical New Sharing Economy

[rokas]

I agree that the blockchain technology is a part of 3rd industrial revolution. It also includes such things as sharing economy, but the main invention is only to come - 100% renewable energy.

[1714194708]

1714194708

[1714194708]

1714194708

[1714194708]

1714194708

[SHBlizzard]

I agree that the blockchain technology is a part of 3rd industrial revolution. It also includes such things as sharing economy, but the main invention is only to come - 100% renewable energy.

I think a big part will be once we decentralize the internet (if that ever happens)

I was doing some basic research the other day and I stumbled upon this

https://nycmesh.net/ - NYC local mesh network

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x4y8a/net-neutrality-fcc-community-networks
https://www.coindesk.com/plan-b-ethereum-innovators-reviving-fight-net-neutrality/


If every local community started setting up their own MeshNetwork, we could essentially democratize and decentralize the internet - Doing this on a such a massive scale is the bigger problem, but if we start small and locally we could connect directly to IXPs for much cheaper than what ISPs charge for last mile customers (such as Open IX - who wants an open and free internet)

[IndzheborgC]

Renewable energy will not be a substitute for hydrocarbons until the source of energy storage appears reliable, cheap, efficient, durable.
https://www.siemens.com/customer-magazine/en/home/energy/renewable-energy/shaping-the-future.html
Example: not cheap, not effective.

[Hydrogen]

There might not have been a technological paradigm shift, but there definitely was a societal one. before the 2nd I.R. and cars, people had to get around in horse drawn carriages to get to the train station if they wanted to get out of town. Most farmers still had cattle or horses to pull carts. after the advent of cars and the combustion engine (different from steam) society changed A LOT. I think that is the paradigm shift, a shift in society caused by the technological advances

That is a good point. 

I think there also may have been a massive population boom after the petrol revolution where oil was found to be useful in pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, lubricants and a host of widespread innovations which allowed a larger population to be sustainable(which also fuels concerns over peak oil et al). Said population boom could represent many changes which validate the distinction between 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions.

I wish academic lexicon, jargon and terminology were more intuitive. Rather than introducing paradigms which further isolate the average person from understanding many of the buzzwords and abstracts utilized within. Lowering the learning curve might not be such a bad thing? Also would not mind more emphasis on terminology which help the average person to put historical events into context in a way which helps the public to recognize real issues society faced in the past and lessons which could be derived from them.

I think more emphasis on centralized versus decentralized markets and related phenomena could be more valuable an abstract than distinctions between 1st, 2nd or 3rd industrial revolutions. But hey I'm a supporter of bitcoin and crypto posting on a crypto forum so maybe I am a bit biased there?

[SHBlizzard]

the electrical grid should and eventually will be decentralized. It might not even use DLT whatsoever (it could tho - POWR token), but lets assume that as the price of solar goes down, its adoptability goes up. Residential areas and Commercially zoned areas with solar panels can sell excess electricity to each other or back to the grid (i.e. the utility company). Right now utility companies have centralized power and they sell for X amount per kilowatt hour. Eventually their power sources will be a decentralized grid of smart houses/businesses that sell excess back to the Utility company or to other homes and businesses directly. ---> this sort of thing is already happening, just on a small scale

interesting read: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204102637.htm

So what is someone will invent another super powerfull power source. Just like todays nuclear stations but safer, cleaner and more efficient. And everything becomes centralized again. Making a special comercial zones with solar  pannels imho seems like a waste of space, putting such pannels somewhere in residential areas also doesn't seem efficient, especially if you need to provide electricity to the whole city. Centralization of the power supply is not a problem. I haven't seen anyone arguing about it tbh.
The problem of hacking that was described in the article imho is taken from nowhere. Centralized power sources are working for many years and they hardly suffer from hack attacks. Meanwhile blockchain is barely tested in this field and may cause much more problems then we expect.

I think you misunderstood what I meant regarding commercial zones, Existing commercial zones (supermarkets, shopping malls, warehouses) can all have solar panels without it being a waste of space, it would in fact be and efficient use of space.
Creating a new zone just for solar, i agree, in most cases is not an effective way of using space/deploying solar panels

[SHBlizzard]

There might not have been a technological paradigm shift, but there definitely was a societal one. before the 2nd I.R. and cars, people had to get around in horse drawn carriages to get to the train station if they wanted to get out of town. Most farmers still had cattle or horses to pull carts. after the advent of cars and the combustion engine (different from steam) society changed A LOT. I think that is the paradigm shift, a shift in society caused by the technological advances

That is a good point.  

I think there also may have been a massive population boom after the petrol revolution where oil was found to be useful in pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, lubricants and a host of widespread innovations which allowed a larger population to be sustainable(which also fuels concerns over peak oil et al). Said population boom could represent many changes which validate the distinction between 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions.

I wish academic lexicon, jargon and terminology were more intuitive. Rather than introducing paradigms which further isolate the average person from understanding many of the buzzwords and abstracts utilized within. Lowering the learning curve might not be such a bad thing? Also would not mind more emphasis on terminology which help the average person to put historical events into context in a way which helps the public to recognize real issues society faced in the past and lessons which could be derived from them.

I think more emphasis on centralized versus decentralized markets and related phenomena could be more valuable an abstract than distinctions between 1st, 2nd or 3rd industrial revolutions. But hey I'm a supporter of bitcoin and crypto posting on a crypto forum so maybe I am a bit biased there?

Especially in this new age of big data where everyone is bombarded with new information all the time, it is hard to take a step back and look at the big picture that the past has painted for us. I think we might be potentially at a fork in the road where either we as a society become more individualistic and centered around self gratification OR we become a sharing circular economy, where knowledge, electricity, logistics, is shared at a fraction of the cost that it was previously. I am a firm believer that it'll be the 2nd scenario. And I inclined to agree with you, I am biased as well, nonetheless I am a firm believer that the cryptocurrency distribution model/smart contracts/Ledger can have a huge impact on the finances of future generations (at least IMHO)