when i first read the ida auken article/story "welcome to 2030: i own nothing, have no privacy and life has never been better," i was duly appalled. (ida is a wef young global leader like the rest of the current batch of villains)
i don't know where to even start about how unworkable this would be, unless somebody has secretly come up with some sort of green energy that can power a functional grid and replace all workers with robots. it's the "friends" economy writ large: nobody needs to work, we get to live in the big city and have interesting lives.
it's one of the dumbest ideas i've ever encountered. this is what the schwabian geniuses at the wef have planned for our star trek future.
not to mention that even though she owns nothing, she does mention riding "my bike." does she own nothing or not? can the wef not afford an editor?
however, there was a kernel of hope buried within:
"my biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. those we lost on the way. those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and ai took over big parts of our jobs. those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. they live different kind of lives outside of the city. some have formed little self-supplying communities. others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages."
so maybe they don't plan to kill the dissenters after all. we just need to stay on the fringe and make our own way, avoiding the killbots that patrol gates' farmland that feeds the urban utopia, and we can scrabble some way to survive. there is a potential parallel economy.
somebody a while back said people that want to be free of "the system" tend to pick marginally productive, or inefficient under the current paradigm, lands to live in. with effort, these areas can provide for both sustenance and defense. think someplace like afghanistan. they outlasted the empire, albeit at great cost to both sides.
dunbar's number might be something to think about, a bunch of small communities that allow people to vote with their feet might support a web of sustainable communities. put them 400 miles from the cities and the electric cars will run out of juice, hence little interaction with the cult of progress.
my 2 cents on how to deal with the mess we find ourselves in.
Re: NEW THREAD: HOW DO WE SPLIT OR SHARE THE WORLD?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=274b40e91735
i don't know where to even start about how unworkable this would be, unless somebody has secretly come up with some sort of green energy that can power a functional grid and replace all workers with robots. it's the "friends" economy writ large: nobody needs to work, we get to live in the big city and have interesting lives.
it's one of the dumbest ideas i've ever encountered. this is what the schwabian geniuses at the wef have planned for our star trek future.
not to mention that even though she owns nothing, she does mention riding "my bike." does she own nothing or not? can the wef not afford an editor?
however, there was a kernel of hope buried within:
"my biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. those we lost on the way. those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and ai took over big parts of our jobs. those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. they live different kind of lives outside of the city. some have formed little self-supplying communities. others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages."
so maybe they don't plan to kill the dissenters after all. we just need to stay on the fringe and make our own way, avoiding the killbots that patrol gates' farmland that feeds the urban utopia, and we can scrabble some way to survive. there is a potential parallel economy.
somebody a while back said people that want to be free of "the system" tend to pick marginally productive, or inefficient under the current paradigm, lands to live in. with effort, these areas can provide for both sustenance and defense. think someplace like afghanistan. they outlasted the empire, albeit at great cost to both sides.
dunbar's number might be something to think about, a bunch of small communities that allow people to vote with their feet might support a web of sustainable communities. put them 400 miles from the cities and the electric cars will run out of juice, hence little interaction with the cult of progress.
my 2 cents on how to deal with the mess we find ourselves in.