mfioretti: sharing*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

30 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. La tesi di fondo proposta dall’autore è che oggi l’uomo contemporaneo, per superare la crisi economica e sociale in cui è piombato, deve re-imparare a collaborare. Afferma significativamente: “Voglio mettere a fuoco una piccola porzione di ciò che si potrebbe fare per contrastare la collaborazione distruttiva del tipo “noi contro voi” nonché la collaborazione degradata in collusione. L’alternativa positiva è un tipo di collaborazione impegnativa e difficile: quella che cerca di mettere insieme persone che hanno interessi distinti o confliggenti, che non hanno una simpatia reciproca che non sono alla pari o che semplicemente non si capiscono tra loro. La sfida è quella di rispondere all’altro a partire dal suo punto di vista” (p. 16).

    Intervistato da Famiglia Cristiana nel giugno del 2012, tre mesi dopo l’uscita del suo libro in Italia, Sennett mette in risalto anche il ruolo che potrebbero giocare le grandi religioni per dare una spinta, in senso collaborativo, alla società attuale: “Nel cattolicesimo, nell’ebraismo e nell’islam la collaborazione non è una scelta personale, bensì un rituale che si dipana all’interno della comunità. La rivoluzione protestante ha creato un nuovo paradigma, proprio in ragione del fatto che essa è diventata una scelta e il rituale viene sostituito da una volontà individuale. (…). Ha qui inizio la modernità, per la quale le relazioni sociali vengono dall’io, non dall’esterno”.

    In sintesi il sociologo americano sostiene che la capacità di cooperare è “genetica” ma si può apprendere e perfezionare. Si tratta di un’abilità dell'uomo che può, con il suo operato, "riparare" la nostra società, come un artigiano fa con uno strumento danneggiato; utile in passato e potenzialmente ancor più utile una volta riparato.

    Non basta, però, condividere luoghi, oggetti, conoscenze, saperi, informazioni ma è necessario imparare a collaborare con tutti apprendendo la virtù della pazienza di curare, sviluppare e riparare continuamente relazioni e processi, come fa l’artigiano. Questa è l’unica via per costruire su basi nuove il futuro del lavoro, dell’economia, della politica, della società e dell’ambiente come indicato da Papa Francesco nella Laudato Si’. Questa è la sfida che ha davanti la sharing economy, il coworking e tutte quelle esperienze di condivisione che si stanno diffondendo.

    Insomma bisogna dare un senso alla condivisione orientandola in chiave collaborativa e tenendo ben presente la prospettiva del bene comune della famiglia umana. Ridurre questi processi di condivisione solo ad opportunità di business sarebbe gravissimo.
    Voting 0
  2. Control over information through restrictive patents and copyrights is one of the ways that wealthy countries have managed to keep the fruits of the carbon economy for themselves. Open knowledge policies, which have precedent in Catholic teaching, could allow for an economy of local production rather than carbon-intensive imports and exports. Ensuring the availability of essentials like seeds and medicines—both restricted under current trade regimes—will help prevent the poor from being left out of the emerging information economy.
    Voting 0
  3. the “sharing economy” allows Millennials to cope with downward mobility, and also makes them poorer.

    Millennials are loosely defined as the generation that came of age in the decades around the turn of the century. Demographers put the earliest birth years at either 1980 or 1982, with an end point of 2000 or 2002, which means that Millennials’ working lives will always be shaped by the Great Recession and its aftermath. Even for the oldest among us, the time before video games and computers is lost in the hazy memories of early childhood. We’re a generation in which children were empowered by promises that they could grow up to be anything they wanted to be. Born in October 1979, I’m technically part of Generation X, but socially I fit best with the Millennials. I graduated from high school with 1980s babies, and the phone number on my first resume in college was a cell phone rather than a landline. My friends, classmates, colleagues, and I are all used to mobility, Google searches, and texting. The cynicism and slactivism that characterized, or stereotyped, Gen X is something we’ve observed only when we watch clips of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on YouTube or Hulu, or shared on Facebook.

    The oldest of us are now reaching our mid-thirties. A couple of years ago, it seemed as if I woke up one day and suddenly felt like an adult. Nothing had changed materially about my life, but my experiences and responsibilities totaled up in a way that equaled grownup. And yet, I still lived in a tiny apartment with an Ikea dining table, a bookshelf I scored from my curb, and a couch I carted home when it was discarded from my office. I never expected to be rich, but I did expect to someday have real furniture and maybe even a house. Achieving those things was always in the future, at some relatively well-moneyed point that I was expecting would roll around— until I realized the future had dawned and the financial stability hadn’t appeared.
    Voting 0
  4. Whatever my reservations about Uber as a driver, it really, really is better for riders. I'm actually a staunch defender of Philly cabbies — I've never met a bad one, though many vocal people have. But Uber is just ... better. The current medallion system sucks. Without getting too into the regulatory weeds, it creates an environment that screws over drivers and has no financial incentive to provide a pleasant experience for passengers. Uber can provide better service at cheaper prices with UberX because, by refusing to work within the medallion system, it has far fewer costs than a regulated taxi company — the cost of medallions, owning and maintaining a fleet of cars and paying for full commercial insurance.

    It's not surprising that taxi medallion systems in cities all over the world are losing customers to Uber like crazy. I speak with cabbies who say they try to only do airport runs now — they can't make a profit anywhere else.

    I run into one driver, "Muhammad," who bought a new car to drive for UberX nine months ago and understands the math behind the cuts perfectly. He says it's still worth it to him to drive on weekends when there's surge pricing, but not at other, non-surge times:


    Uber, the concept is very, very good. But the people who are running the show is very greedy. (Laughs.) If you really analyze what Uber has done in last six months, to make more and more profit, they have killed the drivers. I give you a practical example:

    If there's a $10 ride, $1 Uber will keep it, for insurance or safety or whatever they want to call it. This dollar is technically called the "safe rides fee," but yeah. » And then from $9, they will take 20 percent, that would be $1.80. So after, the driver will take home $7.20.

    If they cut the rate in half, the same ride is now $5. Just example, OK? So Uber takes $1, and then out of $4, Uber takes 80 cents, so the driver will make $3.20. And if the demand is double, then another driver will also make $3.20. So the total driver pay is $6.40 vs. $7.20 before, but customer paid same $10 — means Uber's taking extra money.

    Overall, demand has increased. But as a human being, we can only drive maybe three trips in one hour. If you give me 300 trips, that won't do me any good. That demand is for other people, not for me. So cutting the rate is increasing the total business, but the driver is worse off than before.
    Voting 0
  5. This alarming-and-yet-cute picture became an internet meme spawning altered versions in which the woodpecker is lugging all sorts of passengers from elephants and giraffes to Vladimir Putin and John Terry. Journalists and bloggers around the globe used it freely; Le-May politely asked mainstream media to donate their usual fee to charity.

    Two months on, Le-May has no regrets he gave it away. “I take photographs for a hobby. I was lucky enough to see something that no one had been lucky enough to take a photograph of before. I hope this doesn’t sound too cringey, but if I’d been that lucky, I felt I should share it.”
    The week in wildlife – in pictures
    View gallery

    This generosity might make the big beasts of wildlife photography roar with frustration. Earnings for this glamorous breed, who were once handsomely rewarded for spending months staking out snow leopards for National Geographic, have vanished in an era where everyone is a photographer. So, is the hard-pressed professional the woodpecker, and social media the weasel on its back? Or has new technology locked professionals and amateurs in a mutually beneficial embrace? And as technology changes what we can see, is it also changing our vision of the wild?

    Photographers are experimenting with time-lapse and multiple exposures, which create amazing, impressionistic effects. Chris Gomersall, another award-winning photographer who started out, like many traditional wildlife photographers, in nature conservation (working for the RSPB), deploys a CamRanger, which enables him to wirelessly connect his camera to his phone and adjust exposures and other settings via his phone, in what amounts to a sophisticated camera trap. But Gomersall draws the line at drones. “It might be a good boy’s toy, but I can’t be everything – an underwater photographer and the drone photographer.” Drones are complicated – commercial users require an annual licence and a qualification that costs several thousand pounds and is rubber-stamped by the Civil Aviation Authority.

    Such advances have opened up the once-exclusive worlds of aerial and underwater photography to the masses. With so many good photos around, do magazines need to pay for images? “We definitely do,”

    Rosamund Kidman Cox was a judge for the Wildlife photographer of the year competition from 1981 to 2012, and still edits the book of the Natural History Museum exhibition each year. It wasn’t until 2004 that a digital picture won the prestigious contest. With so much amazing technology, can everyone take great wildlife shots now? “No,” says Kidman Cox. “The ability to take a good wildlife photograph requires background knowledge and perseverance, and an eye and sense of composition. Some photographers go on expensive safaris, take decent pictures and sell them. There’s a lot more of those now, which is why stock photography is so cheap.” But Kidman Cox wants more: “Truthful reflections of nature that are more than records, and have an aesthetic quality are in the next league, and the number of photographers who get that point are far fewer. But it doesn’t mean they can earn much of a living.”

    It’s supply and demand,” he shrugs. He’s less phlegmatic about the rise of sub-agency deals, whereby one agency sell his pictures to another, and who sell to another, vastly reducing the photographer’s initial cut (50% at best). “It’s a murky world, and something that photographers never really challenge – they are all worried about upsetting the apple cart.” Despite that, however, Tipling stays positive: photos are much cheaper, but he sells far more because there are more outlets – more than 100 agencies sell his photos.
    Camera club Dulux competition: William Richardson
    View gallery

    “Lots of people call themselves a professional wildlife photographer, but I’m not even sure I’m a full-time professional anymore,” says Gomersall. “Like the music business, people have tried to diversify and find other revenue streams.” Despite the flood of free images produced by amateurs, Gomersall and Tipling are not critical of these hobbyists: they are now their clients. “I write articles and books about how to photograph wildlife and I’m taking people out for photographic workshops,” says Tipling. “As far as I’m concerned, the more the merrier.” Like most professionals, Gomersall survives by running wildlife tours and workshops, as well as training sessions for institutions and corporations. “You have to be quite hard-nosed. You can’t think of what’s enjoyable for you, but what the amateur photographic community requires – what’s the service you can provide that appeals to their vanity or love of gadgets? Setting up photographic competitions is a good one.”

    Now I have to do what’s popular. A lot of subjects, such as reptiles and invertebrates, don’t get the attention. We’re in danger of neglecting biodiversity.
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2015-05-16)
    Voting 0
  6. Chiamato a palliare le conseguenze di un sistema in crisi, il modello sembra invece favorire le stesse logiche speculative che hanno trasformato la città postindustriale, dietro le accattivanti suggestioni della Creative e della Smart City, in un generatore di rendite. La Sharing City di Airbnb non fa altro che spingere, dietro la retorica comunitaria, verso un’ulteriore deregolamentazione del mercato immobiliare in un momento storico dove la questione abitativa è tornata di drammatica attualità. Una proposta nella migliore tradizione neoliberista che, se da un lato consente effettivamente di ampliare il numero di attori all’interno del mercato turistico, dall’altro beneficia soprattutto i soliti noti: il settore immobiliare e il capitale finanziario internazionale. Ciò a discapito di chi non può o semplicemente non vuole entrare nella community ma è tenuto a confrontarsi con l’iniqua concorrenza del mercato turistico, rendendo così ancor più netta la geografia della diseguaglianza socio-economica della città. Insomma, l’idea di un modello win-win dove tutti hanno da guadagnarci, del “welfare gestito dall’iniziativa privata”, non convince anche perché ad esserne escluse sarebbero proprio le fasce più bisognose, quelle che una o più rendite da far fruttare non hanno. Se l’intenzione rimane quella di ridistribuire la ricchezza prodotta dal turismo e gestirne le esternalità, allora la fiscalizzazione e la pianificazione delle attività turistiche diventano il vero strumento in mano alla comunità. Bisogna pensarci bene, una volta accolto e legittimato il modello Airbnb, non si torna più indietro.
    Voting 0
  7. DG CONNECT è la prima analisi sistematica dell’ecosistema relativo alle innovazioni sociali digitali in Europa ed è stato presentato martedì, in occasione dell’evento Shaping the Future of Digital Social Innovation in Europe. Redatto dall’italiana Francesca Bria, il rapporto ha identificato oltre 1000 esempi concreti, dall’utilizzo di sistemi di trasporto alternativi (carsharing, car pooling e bike sharing), al consumo collaborativo, fino alle iniziative di artigianato digitale e all’utilizzo degli open data per facilitare il rapporto con le pubbliche amministrazioni. Il campo più diffuso riguarda open hardware e open networks. Mentre il primo si focalizza su progetti ispirati al movimento degli artigiani digitali e alla diffusione dei fablab ( laboratori in cui lavorano i maker), gli open networks descrivono la tendenza dei cittadini a sviluppare reti e infrastrutture per condividere risorse e risolvere problemi. Un esempio è, creato in risposta alla mancanza di copertura internet da parte dei provider commerciali, nelle zone rurali della Catalogna.
    Voting 0
  8. Through hands-on, peer-to-peer organizing, the local sharing community in Nijmegen has grown into a large network of people who share not only their knowledge, but their stuff, their time, their workspace—whatever they have excess of. As Roemen explains, they started sharing everything and exploring more of the area's abundant resources.

    “Now that Nijmegen is a sharing city,” he says, “Let’s see what can be of use to live in a certain state of welfare and happiness. The basic assumption is that there is enough, it’s just not evenly spread out.”

    Acknowledging the ongoing tension between good ideas and money, Roemen posed a question: What if you stop asking for money and start asking for what you need? The approach has proven transformative and Roemen and other sharing and abundance enthusiasts have created numerous no-money, sharing projects in Nijmegen. Here are some of the standouts.
    Voting 0
  9. * A much broader definition of the sharing economy is needed

    Existing definitions of the sharing economy tend to focus on personal, local and business approaches to sharing, even when those involved in the sharing movement profess to care deeply about climate change and other global issues. But these definitions present a very limited and superficial understanding of what the sharing economy is, which disconnects the sharing economy movement from serious attempts to address social injustice or environmental degradation. For instance, national systems of sharing are arguably the most established, important and fundamental examples of sharing economies that exist in the modern world, as alluded to above. Through systems of progressive taxation and the provision of essential public services and social protection for all, the vast majority of people in most developed countries are involved in and benefit from these broad-based sharing systems. Why aren’t these crucial examples of sharing part of the discourse and evolving definition of the sharing economy?

    there is little doubt that through the time-honoured act of sharing we can strengthen communities, reduce consumption and facilitate the non-monetary distribution of goods and services – and this can potentially help rebalance an economic system that is increasingly dependent on greed and hyper-consumerism for its continued success. But interpersonal sharing is not enough at a time when humanity is facing what can only be described as a global emergency that includes massive poverty and rising levels of inequality, climate change and the wider ecological crisis, as well as ongoing conflicts over the world’s dwindling natural resources.
    Voting 0
  10. All’interno del Laboratorio, istituire lo Sharing Council per la regolamentazione e la facilitazione dell’economia collaborativa nelle città, coinvolgendo tutti i capoluoghi di regione italiani sui principali temi di interesse (Mobilità alternativa e condivisa; Agricoltura e Produzione in ambito Urbano; Recupero produttivo degli Spazi, Housing collaborativo e Coliving; Coworking e futuro del lavoro urbano; Economia Informale e Welfare cittadino partecipativo; Economia e moneta locale per la creazione di Lavoro; Affitti di breve termine tra privati e nuove forme di turismo collaborativo e promozione turistica tra privati).
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 3 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: sharing

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle