8. Infrastructure

8.1 Software

In Chapter 3 (Limited Planet Earth), I already noted that capitalism is not particularly good at doing things that benefit society as a whole while offering only limited benefits to any single individual. That is precisely why the state exists: to centrally fund certain tasks for everyone.

In Chapter 4.3 (Digitalization), I also announced that many of my futurities would rely on software, because software opens up entirely new ways of organizing society. In line with that announcement, I outlined software for culturepoints, a health app for citizens and one for doctors, as well as an app for students to select modules. In this chapter, I will add software for train control and for a state-run parcel service.

These additional possibilities for social organization through software are not limited to areas centrally managed by the state (such as healthcare, education, and public infrastructure). Market-based or privately organized activities can benefit as well when software enables new forms of coordination. One existing example is websites that allow groups to vote on possible dates for a shared activity. In a WhatsApp or Signal group, this is just far more practical than everyone posting when they are available.

Scheduling software of this kind is technically very simple. As a result, there are many different websites today that offer this service. But there are other types of software that, while highly useful for social organization, would be significantly more complex. Such software often does not exist at all, because required effort and potential profit do not align.

Just as the state provides physical infrastructure that would be far too costly for any individual, but is affordable and worthwhile when financed collectively, it should also support software development that would be prohibitively expensive for one person yet highly beneficial for everyone. If such software helps society organize itself better, then this kind of digital infrastructure is valuable and worthy of public support.

Unlike physical infrastructure, the main problem here is not high costs. Paying a few developers to write software is far cheaper than building thousands of kilometers of roads. The real challenge is finding the right developers who can actually produce high-quality software, and identifying and supporting projects that deserve funding—without creating excessive bureaucracy.

I already described one initial approach in Chapter 5 (Economy): culturepoints. When a new software project wants to gain visibility in any way, it will write blog posts and start threads in relevant forums. People who become aware of developers through these channels then have an easy way to approve of their work and support it financially through culturepoints—without the higher hurdle of having to spend their own money. The money comes from the state and thus represents a first, small form of funding for projects that resonate with people.

This is not sufficient, though. Such projects are often too unknown at the beginning to attract many supporters. And not all projects of this kind can be brought to a truly usable level by a single person. Projects and developers should therefore be supported explicitly as well. To identify as many worthwhile targets as possible, multiple sources should contribute to the list of fundable projects.

I can think of the following sources:

•  Politicians and political parties can ensure that specific concrete projects and developers receive funding.

•  Politicians and political parties can announce that a certain type of software is to be funded. Projects or developers working in that area can then apply for funding (with as little bureaucracy as possible).

•  On a website for position papers (in this case: funding applications) with attention filters and vote delegation, proposals for projects or developers to be funded are voted on. The results are then actually financed by the state. Thanks to digital identities (as are also required, for example, for culturepoints), fraud becomes difficult to impossible.

The goal here is to identify as many good projects as possible. If, in exchange, some poor projects are funded as well, that is far less problematic than with physical infrastructure. What matters is that funding is reviewed regularly, so that such mistakes are noticed and corrected eventually, instead of weak projects accumulating over time. In a sense, this kind of project funding is state-provided venture capital—a Kickstarter-style funding. State-funded software and open APIs are also an effective way to prevent a small number of large corporations from determining how our digital communication works.

Naturally, software funded in this way must be released under an open-source license, to guarantee that the result remains usable for all citizens without licensing costs.

One example of such currently missing software whose creation we want to encourage is a well-functioning website for publicly discussing and voting on position papers or resolutions (or funding applications), with attention filters and vote delegation—for example, to select software worthy of funding.
This idea is described in more detail in Subchapter 10.4 using the example “Liquid Democracy”, and we will get a sense of the advantages such software can offer a society.

A second example is software designed to make the shared use of spaces easier, using image recognition and AI. I want to explain this example in more detail here, to give you a better sense of how much potential lies in the category of socially useful software.

The problem this software is intended to address is the following:

Sharing things with close friends works wonderfully. Sharing with strangers, by contrast, only works under certain conditions. Sharing books with strangers works—with the help of a library. Sharing a playground also works. Sharing a car with strangers, however, does not work at all. A shared room with consumables such as drinks and candles? It would quickly fall into disrepair, and all the drinks and candles would be gone.

For renting out cars and rooms to work, you need a car rental company with a security deposit, or hotel management, respectively—infrastructure that monitors lending and use, but also makes everything much more expensive.

This can be summed up quite simply: sharing with strangers works precisely when it is monitored. This is not primarily about punishing illegal behavior. If I leave cookie crumbs in a car or spill beer on the floor of a room, that is not a crime; it is merely careless—“it’s not my car / not my room”. And why should the car be refueled again, or the crate of drinks replenished? That costs money, takes effort, and the others are not going to do it either…

What is missing here, then, is not criminal enforcement, but social and financial oversight. If someone does not treat a shared resource with care, if they diminish its value, that needs to result in social disapproval and financial consequences. That is why libraries and playgrounds work. In a library, the librarian makes sure everyone behaves reasonably and keeps a record of every book that is lent out. On a playground, by contrast, there are always other children and parents present. And at most, one can steal some sand—everything else is firmly anchored in the ground and built to last.

So how can software help make spaces shareable with strangers? Software can take over the monitoring and logging function that the librarian fulfills in a library.

Which rooms could a landlord in a large apartment building make available to tenants for shared use? Where would this be interesting in principle? I have quite a few ideas for that! Large common rooms where one could host a party. Guest rooms for when someone comes to visit. A relaxation room, a whirlpool, a sauna. In general, spaces where having them close to one's apartment adds significant value, but which are only used a small fraction of the time.

In all of these cases, it initially sounds unrealistic to offer such a room as a shared space. Maintaining the room, restocking consumables, watering plants, or replacing cleaning filters—all of that costs money and labor. A custodian would have to take care of it, and even then the rooms would rarely be in really good condition. This is doable in a hotel, but not in an apartment building.

Let us now imagine an AI that evaluates images and sensor data and can use them to determine how much the condition of a room has improved or deteriorated. On this basis, software can be built that enables the management of shared spaces, including social and financial sanctions or rewards when the condition of a room worsens or improves.

A room managed in this way requires a 360-degree camera to provide the necessary images. To protect privacy, I would wire the camera so that it only receives power while the room’s door is open. An LED on the camera should be lit whenever it has power. In this way, the camera provides snapshots whenever someone enters or leaves the room. The room door is opened using a card that contains a chip. The door lock can therefore be programmed to determine who is allowed to enter and who is not (that is, who may use the room and when). The owner of the room can manage this usage via the app we are designing here. The room can be reserved in the app for a specific period if it is intended for exclusive use (for example, a guest room).

Whoever enters the room inserts their card into a card slot inside. Only while a card is inserted does the room have power. Responsibility for the condition of the room lies with the person whose card is in the slot. If no card is inserted, responsibility falls to the first person who entered the room (the door lock and the card slot report the person’s identity to the software).

The software evaluates how the condition of the room changed between when it was entered and when it was left (or the responsible person changed). To help the AI with this evaluation, the software can also ask users questions. How important is a particular feature to the user? By how much has a new object made the room more attractive or more usable? Based on the AI’s assessment, the software credits a user’s account for improvements to the room or deducts credit for deterioration. These changes may include the cleanliness and tidiness of the room, the addition or removal of a permanent object, a change in the quantity of a consumable, or the replacement of a water filter as reported by a sensor.

Using the images and sensor data, the software will document its decisions and justify them with an explanation.
At a minimum, this documentation should be visible to the person whose account is credited or charged. If something looks odd to them, or if they believe the AI has misinterpreted an image, they can have the decision reviewed by a human. This not only corrects errors, but also allows the AI to be trained more effectively over time.

This, then, is the financial incentive. The social incentive comes from the ability to publish general information in the app about how individual users treat the rooms. Not exact figures and not timestamps—but perhaps statements such as “On average, X leaves room Y cleaner than it was before.” It will be configurable in the app whether such information is published, and in what form. Of course this only makes sense when the number of room users is relatively manageable. For rooms used only by the tenants of a building, for example, this should be quite effective.

Via the app, users (and administrators) can set up alerts if the condition of a room becomes too poor, consumables are used up, or a sensor reports a maintenance need. A custodian can then step in and restore things to order. A tenant might enable such an alert just as well, though, restock the drinks, and then receive credit for doing so (and social recognition).

In the case of tenants, the security deposit can serve as collateral. In other cases, money will initially have to be deposited before one receives a card that opens the room’s lock. Any credit earned can be paid out.

Depending on how the software is configured, this system is either cost-neutral for the owner of the room (as long as the room’s condition at the beginning and at the end is the same, debits and credits balance out) or provides them with a usage fee. That fee can however remain far below what it would cost the owner to maintain the room themselves. These substantial savings in money and effort make the use of the software—and the installation of the required hardware—attractive for them.

All in all, the hardware involved is quite modest: a 360-degree camera mounted on the ceiling; a power cut-off for the camera built into the room door; an electronic door lock with a chip reader and logic that determines which cards open the door and when; a card slot that closes the room’s power circuit; and possibly sensors (which are mostly already built-in at the relevant places). These components (camera, door lock, card slot, sensors) send their data to the software.

Everything else is software—software that is quite complex and will be continuously improved. As open-source software, the source code is viewable by anyone. In principle, it is therefore always possible to verify whether the software behaves fairly. And suggestions for improvement can be submitted in the form of code changes. No one is forced by the state to use this app. But the state ensures, through financial support, the creation and ongoing improvement of this app, thereby providing digital infrastructure and making the functioning of society as a whole more efficient.

 

These two software projects are by no means everything that should be supported in this way. But the two examples should suffice to show that such software projects do exist, and that for a good government it is just as worthwhile to promote this kind of digital infrastructure as it is to fund physical power grids and water lines.

Review of Requirements

Requirement

Features of this Futurity

low demands on people’s character

•  multiple sources for software to be funded; regular review of funding

•  in the example: There are financial and social incentives to leave the room in better condition

no world government

no problem for open-source software

costs considered

•  Funding software development is inexpensive

automatic adaptation to a changing world

•  Open-source software development is good at adapting to change

help citizens keep up with change

•  Funding will lead to more mature and thus more user-friendly software.

•  in the example: Shared use of rooms distributes the burden of adapting spaces to change

promote technological development

This is exactly what this futurity does

resilience to withstand adversity

•  Thanks to open source, there will regularly be new developers that look for flaws in the software