What is the value of unique?

Izabella Kaminska Share

In Star Trek: the Next Generation there is an episode in which Fajo, a member of the Stasius Trade Guild, kidnaps and imprisons the Enterprises Lieutenant Commander Data, a sentient android, due to his complete uniqueness in the galaxy. Fajo, it turns out, is an obsessive collector of all things one-of-a-kind. He values Data because there is only one of him in the universe. And unlike one-of-a-kind human beings, Datas android status in Fajos mind allows him to objectify him and treat him as private property. Its an interesting spin on how value evolves in a galaxy which boasts replicators, transporters and general material abundance due to such inventions as the holo-deck. It also builds on previous episodes in which Datas free will and right to self-determination are considered. But its the uniqueness factor which really is worth some consideration at this point, due to the break-neck speed at which the art of copying is now progressing. Tyler Cowen, for example, linked to a story this week about a new 3D copying technology which is being used by the Van Gogh museum. It suggests that the differentiating line between a reproduction and an original is getting ever smaller. The positive side-effect being the greater ubiquity of beautiful objects in the world: Each reproduction is priced 22,000 somewhat more than the cost of a postcard or poster. But the museum is hoping to increase access to pictures which, if they were sold, would go for tens of millions of pounds to Russian oligarchs or American billionaires. Cowen is skeptical that he can be fooled by the technology. Yet even if that is the casefor now, it does seem unlikely that the technology wont improve

with time. Some time soon it is highly likely that the naked eye will no longer be able to differentiate between reproductions and originals, and that the only way to know for sure which is which will be to carbon date or test the materials microscopically. But what are the economic and social consequences of a greater ability to copy rare goods and objects in this way really? Is it possible that we may be encountering one of the greatest threats to the capitalist value system yet? Weve already discussed the role that art and other scarce (and in some cases artificially scarce) objects are playing in the creation of new stores of value and collateral. This is, as we have a noted, somewhat of a shadow banking response to a world which increasingly lacks traditional forms of collateral. One irony is that these processes end up making these scarcities more ubiquitous, either by encouraging more forms of this new collateral to be produced, or encouraging their velocity through society. The other irony is that the lack of traditional collateral arguably stems from a resistance by the monied classes to expand the pool of safe sovereign assets so as to allow more people to participate in the equity and wealth of the land in the first place. This in some ways is propelled by a fear that there wont be enough to go around. Indeed, that debasing or adding debt to the system may only lead to lower living standards for all, rather than elevating all and closing the inequality gap in the process. All of which encourages traditional capital markets to make scarce assets ever scarcer. This, in turn, fans and encourages even more creativity from the shadow banking sector to fill the gap. In that sense, shadow banking by its nature undermines the scarcity values embedded in the capital system. And so, wed argue, does copying and replication.

If things are not scarce, there is no rivalrous consumption. If there is no rivalrous consumption, our perception of value is turned on its head. Certainly, the forces of creative destruction can still be unleashed, encouraging the creation of new unique objects. But uniqueness alone doesnt necessarily ensure value. Creative destruction at its heart depends on uniqueness and utility albeit sometimes utility weve never even imagined before. New unique/scarce objects that offer little utility (like, Bitcoin, fashion, art, gold) conversely depend on perception of need, fueled by marketing, hype, marketing, campaigning. The age-old art of convincing people they need things they dont necessarily need at all. Scarce functional objects, everything from resources to uniquely sentient androids, are easy to understand in value terms. Its clear Fajo would not find Data as valuable if a Data production line came into being. Yet its less clear how Fajos attitude towards his Mona Lisa original would respond to a production line of duplicates identical at the molecular level. Value then becomes entirely an eye of the beholder thing. In logical terms the value of the Mona Lisa should collapse, especially so if the clue to authenticity is lost or diluted entirely. If the painting stays valued its because a narrative, myth of belief system has been attached to that particular version of the object much as happens with sacred relics or superstitious charms. After all, functionally speaking, an molecularly perfect substitute provides exactly the same utility. To believe an original is worth more than a perfect clone is to fall for hype and propaganda. What does it matter if you have an original Leonardo or not? You may believe yours is the original or superior version due to an intangible and undetectable attribute, but so can everyone else.

Of course, if you can convince more people to agree that your version is the best version, this can give your object superior value. But, at its heart, this is an unstable sort of value, for its based on fad and cult-like, or even bubble-like, social responses and confidence tricks. Its value that can evaporate as soon as the will and belief of the crowd is distracted by something else, or as soon as someone can tell a better narrative. Which is why the value of objects and resources which hold little utility, such as gold, tulips and art, are entirely mood-related. Their value, at best, is best explained by the Emperors New Clothes effect as well as boom and bust behaviour. This leaves us with the proposition that the easier it becomes to replicate anything scarce for the masses, the more value will be directed to nonreplenishable source material as well as to the creators of objects fit for replication themselves. If you think of real value in those terms, its tempting to start classifying the world in terms of creatives, source material providers and, last and not least, copiers. And when it comes to copiers, theres one nation in particular that leads ahead of all others: China. Whether through blatant copyright infringement, the faking of luxury goods or the replication of quaint European towns and cities or perhaps even more poignantly by tempting usually disciplined luxury goods, whisky and wine makers into creating more goods than they probably should its a nation whose thirst for copying and mimicking is potentially beginning to undermine the core scarcity values of the capitalist system.