Imagine a solar system with a single star and many planets, each with its own orbit, rotation, and characteristics. Now imagine another solar system with multiple stars and fewer planets, each influenced by the gravitational forces of different stars. Which solar system is more stable, more diverse, and more conducive to life?
This is the metaphor that comes to my mind when I think about the vision of one versus the vision of many in the world of technology and innovation. Should we follow the lead of a single visionary who has a clear and ambitious plan for the future, or should we embrace the diversity and creativity of many visionaries who have different perspectives and goals?
A few years ago, if you had asked me this question, I would have told you that I believe in the vision of many. I would have argued that from chaos comes order, and that the vision of many creates chaos that fosters innovation and adaptation. I would have associated Jack Dorsey with the vision of many, not from his role as the CEO of Twitter, but from his involvement in Bitcoin, Nostr, and Primal, projects that aim to decentralize and democratize various aspects of society.
But lately, I have been conflicted by the impressive achievements of Elon Musk, who epitomizes the vision of one. He has a grand vision for humanity that spans across multiple domains, such as space exploration, electric vehicles, renewable energy, neural interfaces, and artificial intelligence. He has demonstrated his ability to execute his vision with remarkable speed and efficiency, creating companies that disrupt and dominate their respective industries.
Can the vision of one and the vision of many coexist and complement each other, or are they incompatible and competitive? While I have not lived long enough to witness the long-term outcomes of these two approaches, I can see from a distance that both have their merits and drawbacks. The vision of one can provide direction, focus, and scale, but it can also entail risk, rigidity, and monopoly. The vision of many can offer diversity, creativity, and resilience, but it can also result in fragmentation, confusion, and conflict.
What does this mean for the computing systems of the future? Which approach has more advantages over the other, or should we reframe the question and look at how each approach has been implemented? Does this mean that centralized systems are not all that bad, or that decentralized systems are not all that good? Time will tell.
Top comments (0)