- As the President of Estonia, I represent the only truly digital society which actually has a state. And this position has made me question whether the state as we know it today is fit for the 21st century.
Traditionally nations have harnessed taxpayers to their territory by making almost everything people need from society dependent on working in one country, every day of the week, all months of the year and for at least three decades to receive these social guarantees. In creating free movement of people, the web has only got more complex, but never disappeared. The same old story of where you live, where you work and where you are entitled to get the social benefits.
The world around all these political debates is radically changing, industrial jobs are disappearing. They will continue to disappear, because of the productivity gains that come from choosing to invest in machinery and automation over people. Thus, social models that were created to fit industrial and early service economies will no longer be viable. It is only in Alice in Wonderland that the cat can leave while the grin lingers. In the real world when the cat is gone, the grin vanishes with it. Put simply, as the industrial workforce shrinks – just as we once saw happen in agriculture – the social model founded on it will go, too.
My son, an IT specialist, works for several companies at a same time. In some of them he is an owner, in others an employee. When he travels to others states for months at a time for work, he normally rents out his home assets – a flat, a car, sometimes even his dog (a well-trained Labrador who can keep lonely older people company).
Another man I know, a talented craftsman making world class bows and arrows, lives in rural Estonia. He came from South Africa. He did not lose any of his clients, even if he now makes his products at least 100 kilometres from his nearest customer.
And, of course, we all know how some people make a living posting on YouTube and other global broadcasting networks.
There are more and more people who work totally independently from any one company, any one country or any singular social model.
Old jobs are disappearing. New ones are emerging. Some are truly new, products of the digital age. Others are reformulations of the old: the craftsman with his bows and the jester on YouTube, who gain leverage from the global digital space. 100 years ago, the craftsmen needed to travel local fairs to trade their goods. In the 20th century, deals with a souvenir shop or a big retailer were struck. Now, they are able to reach all their global clients cheaply, efficiently and at low cost.
Most new jobs created by global digital opportunities are making people more independent than they were before. Fewer and fewer people will work for one company at a time or in the same country all the time. More and more people work remotely across borders.
This poses difficult questions for our joint liberal, democratic societies, accustomed to guaranteeing our people education, healthcare, security, and so on.
Which country's social and education system has to provide for a global worker? Where must it provide it? How can states tax these free spirits, our citizens? We have not yet figured out how to regulate and tax multinational companies, how on earth will we manage with our citizens going individually global?
Yet manage we must. We must figure out how to offer people the security that makes them want to remain taxpayers. We must overcome geography and ingrown habits of offering regular social support for regular tax payments – usually coming from a company with a local address.
If we fail, we will lose the attention of our citizens. For example: traditionally, governments have held a monopoly over the provision of safe identification by issuing passports. Today, with national governments having been late to cyberspace, there are alternatives. Google now offers a digital time-stamped identification to its users. There are very few countries who can provide the same service (Estonia is one of them).
Similarly, if governments cling to the old industrial model of social guarantees for too long, someone else will step in. We might lose our universal systems of redistribution, thus making states in many ways obsolete. To avoid this fate, we must think how to offer our global citizens a safe harbour, an opportunity to teach their children, and receive social services and healthcare wherever they chose to live or work.
Thinking from this 21st century perspective, Brexit loses its relevance. We are still all in it together. We must respond to our citizens' changing opportunities and habits. It must all become rather more flexible than we know it in the current common market. Yes, we must have intermediate solutions for this and maybe the next decade. But if we get stuck in hammering out those short-term perspectives, we might find ourselves in the situation where most services traditionally provided by the sovereign state have moved elsewhere, leaving the state all but obsolete for the majority of its citizens.
I get a feeling that the size of a country is inversely proportional to its capability and desire to embrace new technology.
I agree. My feeling is that the sudden rise of nationalism in the U.S. and parts of Europe is related to folks that recognize that they're behind the curve. They sense that things are changing, they don't like it, and therefore cling increasingly to all things nationalistic. Unfortunately they need to recognize the difference between their microseconds and nanoseconds and go with the flow.
Do you think the US, in particular, is behind the curve? Tesla alone is pushing the boundries of current public technology by making electric cars much more available to the consumer. Microsoft's OS is being used all around the world. And Google... don't even start: they're owning their game, as much as one stereolythic entity could own a game at such a scale. I see your point. The US may host some of the most powerful software engineers at Microsoft and Google etc., but an average citizen isn't doing that good with tech. Even the White House is pitching in on the problem. It may have something to do with the fact that people are getting "on defensive" — which is what nationalism is all about: "My tribe is good, the rest can go kiss a wall": less connectivity could lead to less exposure to the opposing opinions. That being said, some of the most popular online information and entertainment options — Facebook, YouTube — limit the user to the opinions which they have already expressed. You saw an Alex Jones video? Here's another one! — and a different one, saying what some other person thought of that, too! That way, you rarely get to see the other side speak — if there even is "the other side" to speak — unless you go out of your way to go looking for it.
I don’t believe that the U.S. tech sector is behind the curve, the typical public servants that make up our government are behind. Same with the many of the folks that are clinging to coal mines and other outmoded jobs who then rally behind Donald Trump’s pie-in-the-sky promises to foolishly return to the past. I agree that more of us need to realize that too many of us use technology to spend our time in online echo chambers. Instead, we can use our tech to connect with people that have an entirely different set of experiences and point of view. Maybe then we can see that we all want to feel connected and valued by other people. Do you think that this may change in time? Maybe we’ll become more tolerant by actually recognizing the limitations of online echo chambers and then get sick of them.
I'm certain it will change in time. Our desire to reaffirm our ideas may forever stay with us — nature is a powerful forms — but we may change our attitude to it and, with some work upon ourselves, allow it to affect us less. This would require a lot of introspection and the desire to change for a lot of people, and that would require a strong impulse. In fiction, it often comes when our view of the world crashes into something much different from our own: say, from an alien contact. I don't think it would take such an extreme measure in real life, but the human mind is very much a physical object, in the meaning that it complies with the laws of physics. It takes either a high application of force over a short period of time or low application over a long period to achieve the same result when changing minds. The human mind is also a pendulum by nature. A high force momentary will make a shift, but the pendulum will soon return to its resting point, with only a small deviation. The only way to ensure a long-term solution is to keep applying the pressure, however small, until the resting point is a satisfactory one. We know how bad echo-chambering is, and if you're unsure, there are plenty of examples to base research on currently. I think people are learning about it more and more nowadays. The more we do, the more pressure we can apply against it, even if it's contrary to our nature to do so.Do you think that this may change in time?
mk, did you edit the text for the quote? The first paragraph of the article now has a sentence that links to WIRED's piece of the Estonian e-citizenship.