Paul Mason’s “post-capitalist guide to our future” points to emerging technology as a sort of savior, something that has the potential for great societal change. While this is certainly true, there are many concerns that make our new technology problematic. As pointed out by many, the leaders of our capitalist society will almost certainly claw and scratch at any semblance of their diminishing system in order for personal gain. This makes me incredibly weary of the feasibility of full automation without the exploitation of the working class. Whether the increased power of wage workers will be enough to create unity and squash the efforts of those clambering to fight against anti-capitalist movements, I do not know. Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams convincingly suggest that by accelerating the long and painful process of transition and implementing change that radically defines the structure of our society, we can circumvent this fear.
While I do long for this world characterized by universal basic income and full automation, I find my preconceived view of humanity and generally nihilistic outlook hindering my ability to actually see this succeeding. Peter Frase’s writings on our four potential futures further solidified our societal trajectory. By pointing out that the “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism”, he effectively lays our future in front of us. A future in which there are not all great options. I believe strongly that “the transition is not just about economics. It will have to be a human transition” (Mason 167) This quote really solidified my thoughts that this next stage is so much bigger than a new economic system and will take much more than policy change to bring about. The systematic change of how we as humans interact, what we value, and what drives us is integral to the transition into a new realm.
These readings remind me of the work done by Florian Idenburg (SO-IL) and Benjamin Prado (Knoll) in conjunction with Harvard’s Graduate School of Design –imagining the workplaces of a world without work. Their work illustrates the idea that designers will no longer would have to think of the trappings of an office as solely functional or performative but rather consider more social, atmospheric, and comfort related innovations. These workplaces are conducive to healthy community, leaving behind the often-uninspiring landscape of traditional offices for ones that are more apt for our potential post work environment. This seemingly utopian society where work is a lifestyle choice, and work and leisure are merged would lead to unbelievable amount of development in both innovation –further liberating us from labor, and societal change liberating us from our cultural shackles to neo-liberalism.
Current trends in co-working spaces and the growing amount of “cool” start-up offices with ping pong tables and beer taps are certainly pushing the agenda of a work-leisure combination but are largely missing the point. What would truly make a future “office” great is the freedom to work without ties to establishment and to work on what one is truly interested in rather than what feeds the capitalist machine. This trend is in many ways disguised as pushing the post-work ideals of combining leisure and work, when in reality it is doing quite the opposite. By tricking people into working more and solidifying shallow allegiances with companies, the work week is often further elongated and the machine chugs on.
The induction of a universal basic income, a world of “full” automation, governmental upheaval, societal change, I do believe could change the world –but not until we as the world change. Our future greatly lies in flux as we approach the fall of capitalism and can only be salvaged by a smooth transition into a world without work, a world that does not idolize money, and a world the champions the true potential of humans rather than their value in the form of labor capital.
Four futures had some gems in it that I found pretty interesting. Although I agree with a lot of his sentiments, I was a bit distracted by some of the of claims that were made without much statistics or facts other than direct quotes from Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s literary works. What I pulled from this text was Frase feels there is a paradoxical dilemma on the horizon, where two crises will begin to manifest in a way where we’ll see a shortage of natural resources and inhabitable land, yet major advances in technology to the point that the need or desire for human labor becomes non existent. Although I believe both of those predictions are very plausible, even simultaneously, I’d argue that they go more hand in hand than existing as contradictions. That naturally, once large corporations no longer have the need for human capital (bc of the advancements in robotic technology) they would no longer put any effort into a sustainable future for the mass majority—we would no longer be of any value or concern to them. I think his question of “will new technologies of production lead to greater free time for all, or will we remain locked into a cycle in which productivity gains only benefit the few, while the rest of us work longer than ever?” (Four Futures, pg. 18) is an important question that we can begin looking at through a different lens—the consumer rather than the employee. Ultimately, we dictate not only how much time and energy to invest to the “few” but what technologies are being developed because of what sells.
This thought is a segue into the next reading, Accelerate: A Manifesto for Accelerationist Politics by Nick Srnicek & Alex Williams, where they discuss in point #10 of their manifesto, new and more effectives ways of “protest”, “12. We do not believe that direct action is sufficient to achieve any of this. The habitual tactics of marching, holding signs, and establishing temporary autonomous zones risk becoming comforting substitutes for effective success. “At least we have done something” is the rallying cry of those who privilege self-esteem rather than effective action. The only criterion of a good tactic is whether it enables significant success or not. We must be done with fetishising particular modes of action. Politics must be treated as a set of dynamic systems, riven with conflict, adaptations and counter-adaptations, and strategic arms races. This means that each individual type of political action becomes blunted and ineffective over time as the other sides adapt. No given mode of political action is historically inviolable. Indeed, over time, there is an increasing need to discard familiar tactics as the forces and entities they are marshalled against learn to defend and counter-attack them effectively. It is in part the contemporary left’s inability to do so which lies close to the heart of the contemporary malaise.” (#ACCELERATE MANIFESTO for an Accelerationist Politics, Manifest on the Future #12)
It’d be a lie to say that I didn’t agree that tactics of the past do not carry with them the same amount of tenacity they once did. Is that really a reflection of the action/protest, or of the people themselves and the follow-through that is required? This is possibly the reason that Srnicek and Williams claim they do not believe that direct action is sufficient, and that the other side adapts over-used strategies. However, when it comes to the act of boycotting itself, I believe that could be the key to real change, ultimately relinquishing the decision-making power back to the collective, where it has really been all along. This idea reminds me of the previous reading we did of Speculative Everything “… Of course the idea of preferable is not so straightforward ; what does preferable mean, for whom, and who decides? Currently, it is determined by government and industry, and although we play a role as consumers and voters, it is a limited one. In ImaginaryFutures, Richard Barbrook explores futures as tools designed for organizing and justifying the present in the interests of a powerful minority. But , assuming it is possible to create more socially constructive imaginary futures, could design help people participate more actively as citizen-consumers? And if so, how?” (Speculative Everything, pg.6)
This ties in with “Post-Capitalism, “Project Zero”” by Paul Mason where he illustrates the idea that there is a neccessary shift to be made in the dynamic between the consumer/citizen and the state, “The next action the state could undertake is to reshape markets to favour sustainable, collaborative and socially just outcomes. If you set the feed-in tariff on solar panels high, people will install them on their roofs. But, if you don’t specify that they don’t have to come form a factory with high social standards, the panels will get made in China, generating fewer wider social benefits beyond the energy switch.” ( Post-Capitalism, “Project Zero, pg.274)
An article outside of the listed readings, titled, An Anti-Capitalist Approach to Fashion, at one point states, “Members of the audience wanted to know what they could do to address some of the issues raised – particularly with the Rana Plaza collapse being much discussed. Should they boycott certain stores? Should they stop consuming altogether? The resounding conclusion was none of the above. Boycotts were seen as outdated and numerous examples were given whereby garment workers had denounced the idea of boycotts, fearing for their jobs. Again and again the point was reiterated that we are citizens, rather than consumers. This means that we should think beyond our purse strings, beyond consumer power, looking to a more ethical and perhaps moral response, that departs from a compassionate form of consumption – as citizens we are not, and should not be defined by what we buy. At the same time, never before has it been so important for designers to think about what and how they design, a point that was also made during the evening’s discussion.”
Although it is a perspective that holds some integrity, I can’t say relying on people’s better moral judgement is sure enough to reverse the amount of conditioning we have experienced as consumer-citizens. I think boycotting has potential to serve as an effective catalyst for change; not only does it encourage one to practice restraint (usually from a luxury we enjoy or accustomed to, practicing a more minimal lifestyle) but it also encourages the demand for goods/services and practices that are sustainable and ideal for all.
“Workers who move symbols on a screen are as at risk as those moving goods around a warehouse.” (Strnicek & Williams, 111)
Oh dear, that sounds like us! …well, sort of!
But that’s okay, as long as we have full automation, a reduced work week, UBI, and a significantly diminished social value of the work ethic. That’s the point Srnicek and Williams drive home in the excerpt from ‘Inventing the Future’ — one of my favorite readings so far. A lot of what’s described in there is almost exactly what I’ve been advocating for in my own little ways since the good ol’ days of high school debates and such. Full automation is bound to result in human liberation from this phenomenon called ‘work’ that is as celebrated culturally as it is dreaded on an individual basis. It’d be hard to find someone who doesn’t want a three-day weekend every week. Automating tasks and reducing human labor costs is already a strong capitalist tendency; why not put Accelerationism to the test and push it to an extreme to get rid of the necessity to work altogether? This can only work for the ‘greater good’, however, in the presence of a universal/unconditional basic income — an all-things-considered baseline income for everyone, regardless of financial status. Implement that, and you suddenly have a society with unprecedented levels of equality not only between those of differing financial strata, but also across genders. Finally, garnish all of this with a cultural mindset transformation from being one that rewards overworking and looks down upon ‘under’employment, to one that encourages a more balanced lifestyle without the necessity to contribute directly to the economy, which is fine since the machines are running most of it anyway.
Mason advocates for similar usage of automation in order to move towards what he labels the ‘automated economy’, where work is voluntary and everyone received a basic income regardless of status or level of direct contribution. Per his view of the ideal way forward, advancement of technology is central to healthier economic progress. Responding to the potential shock and skepticism that his ideas are bound to produce, he says, “It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000-year-old system of gender oppression (i.e. patriarchy) begin to dissolve before our eyes and yet still seeing the abolition of a 200-year-old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.” Overall, Mason also paves a path forward that is inherently optimistic and sounds idyllic.
I am curious to know what these authors imagine this path to full automation would look like. Given it’s not a switch that will just be turned on one day, this path would naturally involve tumultuous phases of mass unemployment as a result of considerable but not complete automation. A UBI would help, but this transition period is bound to be rough for
Finally, Frase chimes in with the most neutral, most balanced take. Truly following the ideals of speculative design, he describes four possiblefutures (namely communism, rentism, socialism, and exterminism) instead of focusing on one and asserting that it’s better or more likely than the rest. He goes one step further and considers how it could go wrong in addition to speculating the ideal results based on one overarching assertion that capitalism is going to end, and the choice the bourgeois will be the “transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.”
Further, in all this discussion about ultra-accelerated automation and how it’s probably the solution to capitalism, I can’t help but worry a little about those responsible for making it happen at the core level: computer scientists and engineers. Actually, I simultaneously worry about the amount of pressure on them as well as the amount of power this relatively small group of individuals is going to inevitably hold. Project managers are in serious trouble.
To me it seems that there are somewhat conflicting views on what is in store pertaining to automation of work. Firstly, there are different ideas of the degree of automation, be it the ideal scenario discussed by Srnicek and Williams total automation and full unemployment or a Keynesian example of a reduced work weeks. The First of these visions is possibly the most negative and nihilistic, since it is the current view that ‘robots are taking over our jobs’ and is going to lead to exponential levels of unemployment for the benefit of the financial elite. But Srnicek and Williams argue that automation should be embraced, Robot labor is cheaper in the long run and produces the things needed and wanted by human society and “frees us from the effort of producing them.” (107)
John Maynard Keynes, an economist who worked in the 1930’s around the time of the Great Depression, theorized that by the time his grandson was an adult, we would be working 15-hour weeks split into 3-hour day. His argument for the 15-hour work week was that over time, thanks to machines and technology and new ideas, people get more productive. The reality of the situation is not that, but a sustained average of 40-hour weeks. This is not to say that the current state of tech, robotics and automation can’t get us to that 15 number, but seemingly political conflicts seem to be the halting factor for this goal. Gradual automation of labor can be the answer to the heavy weight of capitalism on the worker, and alleviated from the economic pressures of the capitalist workplace, can lead to a boom in creativity, increased happiness and lower rates of depression and mental illness, and innovations that can take society in a new and exciting direction.
Current moves to increase automation in the workforce have lead to unexpected shifts in the human parts of many industries. For example, in the chapter by Peter Frase, the example of breweries and wineries is given to show the recent rise of industries where exceptional service heightens the buying experience and brings more value to the labor procured. Similarly, in an article from Vox, the example used is Starbucks, the world’s favorite coffee chain to hate on. But Starbucks has been so successful for a sustained period of time that they must be doing something right? The article states that ‘Inefficiency is a mark of luxury’ and in this case, Starbucks chooses to allow their baristas to take longer than needed to make drinks, creating the appearance that higher effort was put into making it. Although they know there are cheaper and faster ways of obtaining coffee, customers keep coming back because of a certain degree of sophistication and attention.
I am amazed to find a reason to have respect for Nixon, learning that both he and president Carter tried passing legislation for a Universal Basic Income back in the 1970s. Our lives would be drastically different had we passed UBI instead of the legislation for the War On Drugs. I don’t have much to elaborate there, but I felt it necessary to share what blew my mind.
The interesting point of conversation that stood out to me throughout these readings was the continual plea for adjusting our mental approach/perception of daily work ethic and decreasing the length of the work week. I appreciate that Inventing the Future mentioned a starting point of universally cutting the work week from 5 days to 4. This on top of the UBI is able to further the growth of the leisure market, in which I assume has exponentially grown with the advent of mobile apps (hard to find justification here).
The conversation about the work opens the comparison between the American work day versus the European work day, more specifically countries like Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands. The work ethic in those countries has a greater focus on socialization, personal use of time, and managing your health and stress. A simple example is Italy and espresso, how Americans drink their coffee on-the-go for the caffeine, where Italians sit down to drink espresso slowly, as part of a leisure morning and afternoon.
In Sweden, there is a daily ritual that happens 1-3 times a day called Fika, which is a 15-30 minute coffee break that is intended to be shared with another person or group. Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and others in the region all make up the top nine coffee drinkers in the world, which can only come from a societal encouragement to drink coffee throughout the day, often at coffee shops. We could learn a lot from Northern Europe’s rituals and ideologies, since there is a common pursuit of Hygge, which embodies “the Goldilocks scenario,” not too much or not too little, in all aspects of their life. Combining Hygge and Fika means that Swedes work for productivity, create a work and life separation, and are able to bring focus, time and love to their personal relationships and friendships.
We don’t have to start from nothing, luckily other countries have already been running their own case studies on some of these ideals we’re considering. But much like my first hyperlink, there’s still a lot of research and experimentation to do.
Reading Response #4
I wrote response for this Monday night and then deleted it soon after. These readings provided some sort of catalyst for both political and personal reckonings, causing me to wordvomit an reactionary and genuinely uninteresting response. Even in my second attempt at coherency, I still find myself so wrapped up (emotionally/logically/philosophically) in these readings. They voiced a possibility for my often philosophical and vague interpretations of our political future. I felt empowered by seeing some sort of plan for my infatuation with Universal Basic Income.
The automation seems only natural, and now an edge to propel us into a political situation in which capitalism is forced to grow. Automation beyond just replacing degrading labor, but also to replace skills that appear to be so inhuman to possess. Humans should not be driving cars. We’re terrible at it. In 2016 alone, 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions. Driving requires an analysis at a speed our brains can’t compute, we’re not cut out for this shit. Not to mention the fact that AI can’t get drunk. We should be utilizing automation for it’s full potential, to allow humanity to allocate it’s time and energy to fulfillment, whatever that phrase means to you
I don’t want to break things, or a massive collapse of the system, but agree that we must be forward-facing. Anytime spent supporting the Capital on our backs and praying for it’s success on bent knees is a waste. We have to LIVE ideologically, not just speak it.
I at least felt like that before reading Nick Land. I loved his schizoid prose, his mangling of references, and garbled language. I can see how he lived his philosophies. He lived at the speed of Accelerationism, but it’s also painfully clear how this broke him. He went all the way up into the Machine and came out melted. The fear of being a lonely white man, drugged up and thinking too quickly with all his privilege flying behind him like a cape, is tangible. His transition to the Alt-right comes at no surprise. Even shrouded in the most brilliant context of irony or humor or discourse, saying “Meltdown has a place for you as a schizophrenic HIV+ transsexual chinese-latino stim-addicted LA hooker with implanted mirrorshades and a bad attitude” comes across as a bad take. His vision of a future so degenerate and defiled by our own hubris is one long dark joke, where the punchline is being insane enough to believe in it. This is the type of person that finds Nietzsche’s collapse— crying, arms hanging around the neck of the Turin Horse, relapsing into compassion— as a grand gesture of comedic irony. It’s terrifying to stand at the cliff of Capitalism’s collapse, and see Nick Land safely on the other side, in a straight jacket laughing maniacally to himself.
That being said he is a hugely entertaining read. He exhibits a lot of my Pynchon-triggered paranoia, and wraps it into an intensely disorienting view of the future. He voiced several of my hypothetical traffic jams, most specifically the relationship between a massive amount of free time and super synthetic drug soups. It seems obvious how the anxiety-ridden reptile brain side of humanity will react.
Moving at this rate of speed is terrifying.
The excerpts of this reading assignment seem idealistic at best and tyrannical at worst. In Paul Mason’s “postcapitalist guide to our future” he idolizes new and emerging technology, such as open sourced information and the Internet of Things, to assert that these would be implemented transparently with the assumption that every person in the world would adhere to these idealistic policies.
Technology in Mason’s world existed in the “technocratic utopianism” that Peter Frase described as typical post-work proposals; a place where people would not abuse the powers of open information and connected devices for personal gain and general evil. As we have learned from our own history of corruption, mental illness, and social instability, this is not realistic. People will exploit every resource and opportunity they have, not just for capital gain, but sometimes just for the sake of corruption and terror. Not only is citizen and rogue exploitation a concern, but also the state. A society that is tracking every transaction, communication, and movement of its citizens is unlikely to remain uninvolved with the manipulation or exploitation of this data for state means of tracking and punishment.
The solution to exploitation, according to Accelerationists, is to reform the abilities for people to commit these actions through wide scale media reform and societal change. Mason asserts that the state should be responsible for ending this through the control and criminalization of exploitive actions of companies and individuals. All of these “solutions” sound highly controlling and societally detrimental in nature. Whether by social manipulation or capital punishment, people are being highly constrained and even this is unlikely to catch the sneaky systemic issues that arise from exploitive measures.
Additionally, Mason, Srnicek, and Williams presume that this technology will not only be all encompassing but act as a savior. They assume that this newfound leisure time would feed into the building of anticapitalist movements, but as we have seen it would more likely be used for subversive or useless activities to the good of the state. Areas and groups where free time outweighs time of purposeful work rarely leads people to begin entrepreneurial journeys, as it takes a certain type of person to pursue these ventures, but more often ends in hours spent on cheap entertainment being unproductive.
Mason’s solution to idleness and reduction of large company control is essentially “startups will save us!” While startups rely on large company infrastructure to implement their technology, reliance on highly volatile startup culture and technology is an unreliable solution to the issue of innovation and societal reform. Instead, I find proposals of longterm groups created to lead the thought and implementation of post-capitalism more realistic. This would be a place where large companies and banks are not negated but used as catalysts for smaller, faster efforts – not dissimilar to today’s models, just with less red tape limiting innovation and non-profit growth.
Overall, I think that Peter Frase gave a good summary of the possible outcomes without asserting the details or claiming which would occur. He accounted for not only the good but also the terrible with his consideration of the quote “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” This could not be more true of our necessity for policy supporting the public good in a post-capitalist future, yet the human inclination to exploit that good has high potential to lead to the barbarism he also envisions.
“The goal of the future is full unemployment.”
(Arthur C. Clarke)
I am so impressed by the simplicity and power of this quote. These few words quickly encompass idea(s) so complex and contested that we may not even begin discussing them for 10-15 years. Upon first read, I wondered: how could a future with full unemployment possibly mean we have progressed forward? This question, of course, was answered in the text to follow.
Out of all the readings for this response, I have to say the excerpt from Inventing the Future (Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams) was the most compelling / informative to me. It was simple yet articulate– highly structured, yet still engaged my imagination as a reader. It was through reading this passage that I realized how the concepts of automation, reduction of the work week, UBI, and reimagining work ethic are all intertwined and all interdepend on each other to some extent. In my head I was able to see how improvement in one (if not all) of these areas would result in chain reactions for the remaining…
Simply put– this increased my excitement for imagining potential futures. It gave me more, highly useful rhetoric tools and ideas to work with moving forward. I went crazy with Acrobat’s highlight feature.
“None of the proposals presented will be radically new, but this is part of their strength: it is not a free-floating project, since frameworks and movements already exist and have traction in the world.” (107)
I think this quote is very important to consider moving forward with imagined futures within Speculative City. As mentioned in prior readings (I can’t remember which one!) good speculative design falls within the realm of imaginative– yet holds roots in what is possible (reality).
I can’t help but relate discussions regarding this with those held in my Communication Theory class this semester. We often discuss the qualities/merits of objectivist vs. interpretivist theory. With the aide of my Communication Theory notes, allow me to attempt to bring speculative design into the discussion of the dichotomy between these two perspectives.
To each camp, a question is proposed: What is the nature of human beings?
OBJECTIVISTS seek to explain an event in the real world by recourse to a general law. They believe that communication behavior is governed by forces that are predictable and generalizable.They contend that the psychical and social worlds exist “out there” and are independent of individual perception. Through a speculative design lens, an objective theorist might posit that there are definite, concrete solutions for imagined futures “out there” just waiting for human discovery. They would see [automation, reduction of the work week, UBI, reimagining work ethic] as testable (and potentially falsifiable) solutions to the issues presented by capitalism.
INTERPRETIVISTS contend that much of human behavior is a result of free choice. People pick the social rules that govern their interactions– not necessarily due to prior conditions of cause/effect laws. Interpretivists admit that people are free to change their minds– to behave irrationally, and for the rules to be altered. Interpretivism is interesting to consider through the lens of Inventing the Future. One might posit that the current economic climate is somewhat due to people “choosing” to participate in the chaotic cycle of capitalism of their own volition (free-will).
This idea in particular gets me riled up!!! Because: How much of capitalism IS OUR CHOICE?
Does the hegemonic nature of Capitalism mean it is an inherent system for us all to accept? Consider: is it not also our choice to become divergent within that norm? One might say that the level of participation/engagement with capitalism varies depending on your level of privilege in society. I realize I am spiraling off into a tangent. I can FEEL the short circuits where I lack the connective tissue to synthesize these two courses I so desperately want to!!!
Ref: Introduction To Communication Theory (COMM 3007), Prof Evan R. Griffin
We have so much work to do, but we’re too busy working.
After reading these pieces I’ve come to the conclusion that a future utopia could only be born from revolution. There would need to be a detox within the current system and also a huge shift in what people find valuable (money vs. self). As Mason puts it “the transition is not just about economics. It will have to be a human transition” (167). It would take societal acceptance of an issue as well as acceptance of the means of moving forward.
“What is needed — what has always been needed — is an ecology of organizations, a pluralism of forces, resonating and feeding back on their comparative strengths” (Williams and Srnicek).
I found the utopian visions created from embracing automation and universal basic income an interesting connecting point between the readings. These lives of leisure that breed a more productive human – encouraging the discovery of self rather than the worry of survival. The option to live financially comfortable, to not be bound by 40 hours of labor a week, would take away any pressure people feel to work/provide labor for capital. I really do believe that if a majority of our time was spent doing things we cared about rather than working for someone else’s profit, we would advance exponentially as humans.***In my head I’m picturing some genius out there who is three epiphanies way from solving one of the world’s biggest problems… but rather than being able to focus on anything that would move them towards those epiphanies they are stuck working a 60 hour week at two minimum wage jobs so that her kids can go to school and her bills can get paid.*** This utopia still provides an option to work for capital, but the important thing is that unemployment is no longer a burden. I like what Mason says about the advantages of not working, “You can look after your kids, write poetry, go back to college, manage your chronic illness or peer-educate others like you” (285).
We find meaning in growth and sharing with others, cultivating community. This is how we progress as a collective.
All of this takes a LOT of groundwork. I find some hope in this idea that Accelerationism provides to use Capitalism as “springboard towards post-capitalism,” of repurposing the framework that exists and launching into a future that promotes the relationship between technological development and socio-political action. (If we’re going to put energy into developing our tech + machines then we should be balancing that with focus on how to support the people who will be left jobless by automation of manual labor.) This way we don’t start from scratch, but rather reclaim what’s salvageable and create something better.
Here is an informational animation by Jackie Lay (animator and designer) and Annie Lowrey (political and economic reporter) that does a nice job of explaining the economic state of our country, what it would mean to implement universal basic income, how it works out financially for the country, the positive things that can come from this economic shift. This type of informational media is extremely accessible to a wider public. This video and others like it are able to inform and engage an audience through creative and critical thinking all the while keeping it open to spreading and sharing the information easily on the internet.