Month: March 2020

Fictional portrayals of virtual worlds such as “Ready Player One” and “The Matrix” typically portray the physical and virtual worlds as distinct realms siloed from each other. Characters escape a dystopian, impoverished physical realm and enter a separate, utopian virtual realm in which they are wealthy and important.

Our non-fictional future won’t have that dichotomy. One main reason is money. Any virtual world has a virtual economy, and when that virtual economy gets really big, it integrates with our real-world economy. That is in equal parts due to market forces and government intervention.

This is part six of a seven-part series about “multiverse” virtual worlds. We will explore the dynamics of games’ virtual economies, the exchange of virtual assets for real money, challenges with money laundering and underage gambling, the compliance infrastructure needed for virtual economies, and the challenges in balancing a virtual economy’s monetary supply.

What separates virtual from “real” is the ability to make money

To many people, the idea of spending time in virtual worlds amassing in-game currency and trading goods still sounds like the geeky science fiction hobby of someone who needs to “get a real job.”

Our society gauges the worthiness of pursuits based on their social and economic productivity, and most people don’t view virtual worlds as productive places. As more people find enjoyment in virtual worlds and respect people with accomplishments in them, however, vying for accomplishment with those worlds will increasingly be viewed as socially productive. As more people start earning an income through work in virtual worlds, perception of economic productivity will quickly change, too.

Virtual worlds will be viewed as digital extensions of “the real world” and working a full-time job in a multiverse virtual world will become as normal as someone working in a social media marketing role today.

Source: Tech Crunch

It’s never a good sign when, in order to discuss the near future of technology, you first have to talk about epidemiology–but I’m afraid that’s where we’re at. A week ago I wrote “A pandemic is coming.” I am sorry to report, in case you hadn’t heard, events since have not exactly proved me wrong.

The best current estimates are that, absent draconian measures like China’s, the virus will infect 40-70% of the world’s adults over the next year or so. (To be extra clear, though, a very sizable majority of cases will be mild or asymptomatic.)

This obviously leads to many questions. The most important is not “can we stop it from spreading?” The answer to that is already, clearly, no. The most important is “will its spread be fast or slow?” The difference is hugely important. To re-up this tweet/graph from last week:

A curve which looks like a dramatic spike risks overloading health care systems, and making everything much worse, even though only a small percentage of the infected will need medical care. Fortunately, it seems likely (to me, at least) that nations with good health systems, strong social cohesion, and competent leadership will be able to push the curve down into a manageable “hill” distribution instead.

Unfortunately, if (like me) you happen to live in the richest country in the world, none of those three conditions apply. But let’s optimistically assume America’s sheer wealth helps it dodge the bad-case scenarios. What then?

Then we’re looking at a period measured in months during which the global supply chain is sputtering, and a significant fraction of the population is self-isolating. The former is already happening:

It’s hard to imagine us avoiding a recession in the face of simultaneous supply and demand shocks. (Furthermore, if the stock markets keep dropping a couple percent every time there’s another report of spreading Covid-19, we’ll be at Dow 300 and FTSE 75 in a month or two–I expect a steady, daily drip-feed of such news for some time. Presumably traders will eventually figure that out.) So what happens to technology, and the tech industry, then?

Some obvious conclusions: technology which aids and enables remote work / collaboration will see growth. Biotech and health tech will receive new attention. More generally, though, might this accelerate the pace of technological change around the world?

A little over a year ago I wrote a piece entitled “Here comes the downturn” (predicting “Late 2019 or early 2020, says the smart money.”) To quote, er, myself:

The theory goes: every industry is becoming a technology industry, and downturns only accelerate the process. It’s plausible. It’s uncomfortable, given how much real human suffering and dismay is implicit in the economic disruption from which we often benefit. And on the macro scale, in the long run, it’s even probably true. Every downturn is a meteor that hits the dinosaurs hardest, while we software-powered mammals escape the brunt.

Even if so, though, what’s good for the industry as a whole is going to be bad for a whole lot of individual companies. Enterprises will tighten their belts, and experimental initiatives with potential long-term value but no immediate bottom-line benefit will be among the first on the chopping block. Consumers will guard their wallets more carefully, and will be ever less likely to pay for your app and/or click on your ad. And everyone will deleverage and/or hoard their cash reserves like dragons, just in case.

None of that seems significantly less true of a recession caused by a physical shock rather than a mere economic one. My guess is it will be relatively short and sharp, and this time next year both pandemic and recession will essentially be behind us. In the interim, though, it seems very much as if we’re looking at one of the most disconcertingly interesting years in a very long time. Let’s hope it doesn’t get too much moreso.

Source: Tech Crunch