Forum For The Future's Vision for "Better World"

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7rCAYkoMT0[/youtube]

Video isn't a parody, 100% serious and made by people with serious backers.(Target, Sony, Kraft Food just to name a few) Supposedly this is going to be shown to children but even I have a hard time believing it. The funniest part of the video is the whole "Cry Freedom Ghettos".

This isn't just one wackjob group, this is what essentially what UN Agenda 21 for "Sustainable Development" is and they are moving to implement certain aspects of this already in certain parts of the country.

These people are truly nutjobs, fascism is alive and well.

Last edited by Jacoby on 11 Apr 2012, 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Floating Cities? Either the idea is all wet or we can all live together in a Yellow Submarine.

Sea Sickness will become the leading illness of the nation. And the water around the third world islands will become brown and covered with scum.

ruveyn

Watch the video ruveyn, it gets a lot worse.

First, this is not fascism. It lacks the inherent nationalistic and aggressive mentality. Now that that's aside...

Some of the things mentioned here are good, to be honest. Banning cars in city centres, promoting electric bike use, urban planning, more virtual meetings, stuff like that. Obviously things like career assignments are not, nor is planning what people can eat on a given day. That said, we are going to have to eat less meat (this is coming from someone who loves eating meat and will dearly miss it). I believe one analysis showed that for global sustainability, on average people could each eat the equivalent of 1 chicken breast of meat a day.

The floating cities thing just seems downright weird. People will be displaced by climate change (although I don't think its projected to be a significant number by 2040), but plans can be drawn up well in advanced. I think I read that an area in my province is starting to develop a plan for dealing with rising sea levels--a combination of building levees and not approving new houses in low lying areas. Since we have ~100 years the migration can be very gradual. If massive amounts of people are displaced I'd have thought it would be cheaper to put them in the Midwest, the prairies, places like that. Although I suppose it would be harder in Europe--they don't have as much open land.

On another critical note, I don't see why, if everyone is packed so close together in these mega-cities, everyone is still using automobiles. At those densities, things like subway systems start becoming the cheapest (and certainly the least energy intensive) way to move people. You'd know doubt need some taxies for certain things, but it wouldn't have to be like what they show there.

Energy credits and allowances may also be necessary. But they would only be doing what economics would do otherwise. If energy is scarce then it will be expensive and we won't be able to afford to use much. This way is probably fairer, as (presumably) everyone would receive the same number of credits. I know that there are proposals for pricing carbon that way.

If we had started doing something about oil dependence and climate change 20 years ago, when we were first realizing what was going on, then these sorts of measures wouldn't be necessary. As is, we are going to have to have some forms of controls, I suspect. But if we start making changes now then they will be minimal, or perhaps we can even avoid them altogether.

My biggest critique of this is the very corporate nature of the society they show. It seems as though (and your mention of corporate sponsors strengthen my suspicions) corporations have a lot of power in this particular vision of the future. State planning and intervention would benefit them primarily. While I believe that at least some planning and regulation is necessary, it should be done openly and democratically with the populace at large in mind.

Packing people together and restricting their movement is suppose to save energy is my guess although I'm guessing the real purpose is actually much more nefarious.

This is already happening, many places they only zone multi-family units.

America is in a bad way. Government involvement will be needed to overcome future problems (well, I think it will--ruveyn will disagree). But you have a government which is questionably democratic and definitely corrupt (what with all of the corporate campaign contributions, the revolving door, the military industrial complex, and the like). People need to reclaim government as their own.

Also, I think you're crediting government and urban planners with too much intelligence when you suggest multi-family zoning is for nefarious purposes. Perhaps it will ultimately facilitate nefarious practices, but I rather doubt that that is the reason behind it at present.

I have not seen the video. I usually fail to get spoken language.
They talk too fast for my brain to cope. I can read easy English
but if it get too abstract or complicated then I fall by the wayside.

It reminds me of TransHumanism and their vision of a better world?

Or maybe the Utopia of Zeitgeist? Venus project? Don't they
have similar ideas?

Alas for Americans then. The government of the United States is run by congenital incompetent idiots who could not even run a lemonade stand at a profit. The quickest way to turn anything to sh*t is to let the government run or regulate it.

ruveyn

To be fair, there's very little that they've tried to run at a profit--the USA doesn't usually go in for state-owned enterprises. And when they do exist they are often for businesses which will always be unprofitable but which, for one reason or another, there is some pressure to keep operating. Amtrak is perhaps the best example. That's the whole point of state-owned enterprises in nearly every democracy (at least in today's economy)--to operate things that are unprofitable or where it's been decided that profit should not be the sole concern in running the business.

And I don't disagree with your statements that the US government is problematic. I think that we can both agree one of the main problems is the amount of power which corporations have to bend the government to their advantage (the "crony-capitalism" you've referred to). We simply disagree, for various reasons, on what the best course of action. In short, you believe in limiting the power of government, in part on the basis of freedom. Of course, also because you believe the government is incompetent (which it is, at present). I believe in limiting the power of corporations, based mostly on the idea of democracy (and the fact that I think with substantial reforms the effectiveness and competence of the government can be improved--my impression is, for instance, that the Canadian government is at least slightly better).

Oh, and people who remember the British Rail would disagree with your analysis. It is widely agreed (including such groups as the Economist Magazine, which is hardly full of raging leftists) that the Thatcherites' decision to privatise the rail system was a bad one; that quality of service has decreased and that prices are higher than they should be. I've heard one statistic stating that the vast majority of the British would support the renationalisation of the rail system, although I don't really trust it since it came from a fringe socialist political party.

The Great Northern Railroad which never received a single government subsidy, as did the Union Pacific ran at a profit until the Woodrow Wilson administration nationalized the U.S. Railroads in 1917. They were not returned to private operation until 1922.

What killed the railroads were government subsidized highways for trucks and motor cars.

ruveyn

I suppose there is a great deal of truth to that last statement. And I know that railroads used to be profitable. For freight they still are I think (they're operated privately in Canada anyway). In any case, I am not willing to see roads privatised. You disagree, I am sure. But let's let it rest--we're way off of the thread's topic.

Our political system is not fitted to co-exist with private roads and canals. So it looks like they will be funded by tax-payer dollars through the medium of bonds. If road contracts were honestly administered (which they are generally not) it would not be much better than private roads. However we need the power of eminent domain to secure the rights of way so the place of government is right there are the base.

I am not sure how private streets would work. How would they be funded? How would the funds be collected? How can a user fee be imposed for streets that is fair and reasonable?

Are roads are public and socialized. That is the reality. So the next time you blow a tire or break an axel on a pothole you can blame the government.

ruveyn