Welcome To 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy... And Life Has Never Been Better

Authored by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark; via The World Economic Forum"s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils,

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city.

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

“Environmental problems seem far away”

In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

The death of shopping

Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore.

It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues.

It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

“They live different kinds of lives outside of the city”

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.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.

Author’s note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Size Matters

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Recently, Doug Casey commented, in an essay, on the senselessness of giving to organized charities. I take a similar view. So, are we both heartless, having no concern for the well-being of others? Not at all.

Personal generosity is a laudable quality, but giving to a large organized charity is just plain foolish. At best, three-quarters of your donation will be gobbled up by the administration of the charity. If you genuinely wish to be of value to others, your generosity would be more effective on a local level, where you give directly to those who will benefit from it, and you’re more certain of the outcome. The larger the charity organization, the greater the certainty that much, if not all, of your donation will fail to reach those you hoped would benefit.

Similarly, the concept of community is that we surround ourselves with others, as this provides us with a better life. The concept originated before mankind even existed—lions hunting in a pride, monkeys shrieking at the approach of a predator, etc. Humans originally formed tribes for similar reasons. Then, the idea of community expanded as some individuals proved to be better at different tasks. One might have been a more proficient hunter, whilst another constructed a better shelter or made better tools.

This, in turn, developed into the idea of a fixed community, with some buildings being used as dwellings and others as places of business. The more people, the greater the diversity of skills and the greater the choice of whom to seek out, to fulfill tasks.

Hence, we develop the assumption that “bigger is better.” But, at some point, as a community grows larger, we find that depersonalisation occurs. We find that we have little personal relationship with the folks on the other side of town and our willingness to help them diminishes, as we come to realise that the favour is unlikely to be returned.

The effectiveness of “community” is based on the level of voluntary give-and-take.

This concept is reinforced in a situation where we live our entire lives in the same location, increasing the likelihood that we’ll be surrounded by family members, including in-laws and friends and associates with whom we develop symbiotic relationships over a period of years. The longer those relationships exist, the less immediacy we require on a return within the give-and-take.

The logical conclusion of “bigger is better” is city life, in which people come and go frequently and each individual becomes more solitary in his view as to what type of behaviour is most useful to him. The larger the population, the more the sense of “community” dries up.

Although a high-population community can function effectively, it tends to come apart in times of strife. If a riot occurs, your car is more likely to be senselessly burned by someone you don’t know and have never harmed. Likewise, during a food crisis, your neighbour is more likely to shoot you to gain the loaf of bread you’re taking home.  

So, somewhere between city living and “going it alone,” there’s an ideal size for a community, where neighbours are likely to help one another as needed, because they recognise the likelihood of a return on their “social investment.”

In the US, the Amish have arguably been more successful at this than anyone else. Whenever a community exceeds forty or so families, they begin the formation of another church district (community). This assures that each person benefits personally from the assistance of the others, even to the extent that the entire community gets together to raise a barn for a young married couple, without charging them. (At some point in everyone’s life, the favour has either been returned, or will be.)

The English country village has my personal endorsement as the most civilised form of community man has ever created, as it has one of every service that’s needed, but little more. But, although I’m British, I choose not to live in an English village, because they all fall under the aegis of a controlling and impersonal national government, within which I have no meaningful voice. Worse, at least for the present, that national government falls under the control of an even more dictatorial uber-government—the EU.

For a community to have an effective government, it would never grow beyond the level of the town hall—a meeting place in which each resident’s voice has a similar weight. (Even then, it would stand the risk of being more a democracy than a republic.)

But, as soon as a community grows beyond that size, the individual has an ever-decreasing say in managing his own affairs. In addition, he faces decreasing interplay between himself and his fellow citizens, leaving him ever more greatly exposed in those times when mutual respect and assistance may be essential.

Today, we’re approaching a period that will include the greatest level of social, economic and political change that we’ll ever face in our lifetimes. Whilst it will impact us all, the primary objective should be to minimize its impact on us so that we can come out the other side of it as undamaged as possible. (If we prepare ourselves well enough, we may even exit this period in a better position than we now have.)

In such a time, it would be wise to have the option to live in a small community, where we’re known and our involvement is respected. As conditions become more difficult, our voluntary participation in the survival and/or betterment of the community would be the glue that keeps its function ongoing. (And, here, I cannot stress the word, “voluntary” strongly enough. A community that has laws and regulations that demand contribution is a poor choice, regardless of its size.)  

For someone living in the UK, the odds of surviving well in, say, Winchcombe (population 4,500) are far better than in Manchester, a large, entitlement-conscious mill town of 2.6 million.

In the US, quiet, largely self-sufficient Jackson County, Florida (population 48,600) is a much better bet than Miami-Dade (population 2.7 million), a location that has considerable strife in the best of times and is only likely to worsen in a crisis.

But even a community that’s known to be peaceable may come under the control of a larger government. Central governments routinely regard small communities as being milk cows in the best of times and expendable in the worst of times.

In order to minimise such risk, there are two options.

The first is to find a small community in a country where the central government, however large it may be, is ineffectual—a community that largely ignores edicts delivered from the Capitol.

The second choice is to find a small country—a country too small to have a military and that has an appropriately small central government where the individual voice is easily heard.

Lastly, it’s important to note that, in the event of a global crisis, it will do little good to arrive in such a community after the crisis has already begun. This earns you a reputation as a refugee, running from a problem elsewhere.

Instead, it’s necessary to put down roots in such a community, even if it’s only part of each year; to gain acceptance during better times and to develop a genuine interplay between yourself and your community.

In choosing a community, size matters—especially during a crisis. A viable size dictates the opportunity of a good life during difficult times. The achievement of that good life is determined by how well you become a part of that community.

*  *  *

Doug Casey has spent more time and traveled to more countries than perhaps anyone else looking for the ideal place to live peacefully among like-minded individuals. Find out where your best chance at the good life is in Doug’s exclusive special report, Getting Out of Dodge. Click here to download your free PDF copy now.

Would You Quit Your Job to Build a School in Nepal?

Via The Daily Bell

After a nerve-racking, jam-packed five-hour bus ride on a careening mountain road in the Nepalese countryside, I was seriously doubting my life choices. I had quit my job, moved my stuff back home with Mom and Dad, budgeted my modest savings for the next five months, and now I was in the middle of a remote town by a river with an over-stuffed backpack.

It had all started with an application to help rebuild a school in Nepal that had been destroyed by the 2015 earthquake.

And now I was finding my way an hour up the road, across a suspension bridge, and on top of a farming terrace, where I discovered an international coalition of kind-hearted volunteers taking part in a ceremony. The village of Nagpuje was celebrating the anniversary of its school. I looked around and saw temporary learning centers and CGI structures. I was moved by the celebration, but it also struck me that this was the entire extent of the village’s development.

In the coming days, I would wake early, labor all day with my soon-to-be-family, and settle by the fire with a warm cup of tea, reflecting on our day’s work. We moved rocks, dirt, and cement, all of the necessary simple tasks. We soon learned and started trying our hand at carpentry, bending and cutting rebar, and manually mixing concrete. The project was lead by engineers, both domestic and foreign, who employed local masons from the village in which we were staying. It was clear that there was an efficient plan with effective measures; and I had the privilege of helping.

All Hands

The Internet is inundated with charitable causes to which you can donate. And while a donation is admirable, there is a slight visceral shortcoming in the satisfaction of helping. For some, a monthly subscription to a charity works. For others, myself included, there is a need to go somewhere and help in order to know for certain the effects of my individual contribution.

When you research different types of international volunteer organizations, two things become apparent. In order to be involved, you either need a specific skill or vocation, such as nursing or engineering, or you can pay money to be a part of a program.

I was discouraged. I was just a guy in his mid-20s with a film degree (read: broke) and arguably no valuable skills. But then I discovered All Hands Volunteers – a non-governmental organization specifically to do with natural disaster response and recovery; everything from tsunamis to earthquakes, and much more.

When their founder David Campbell created this organization, he had one simple goal: No matter the qualification or skill set, find average people who have a desire to make a difference in the world. All Hands Volunteers runs on grants, partnerships, and donations. They don’t charge incoming volunteers to participate. All they ask is that you set up a personal fundraising page. You work 6 days a week, and in return, All Hands provides you with:

– Room and board (meals provided 6 days, meal options always near).

– Insurance.

– Spontaneous entry and flexible length of stay.

– Genuine work that needs doing.

– Authentic cultural experiences (even and especially in state-side projects).

Generally speaking, it makes sense to charge incoming volunteers, especially if they’re spontaneous. It takes money to keep people fed, continue work on the project, make sure facilities are kept up, etc. But despite the cold hard logistics of this business model, All Hands breaks the mold. They instead rely on the raw power of human generosity.

Were it not for a steady stream of donations, this NGO might not have a place in the world. Behind each carefully selected mode of operation, there is a reliance on the decency of the average person. Not to mention, this past year All Hands spent over 84% of its budget directly on its programs, with administrative costs just under 8%. You can view their financials here.

So I decided to apply.

The Work

Soon I was leading teams of people in the day’s work, directing workflow and working in tandem with Nepali masons. We hardly shared a language, but through working together, we came to know our shared responsibilities, and how to help each other accomplish our goal: to build a school that could withstand an earthquake.

With each passing day, I became a little closer to the local community. From the shopkeepers to the farmers, to the children who would pass by our worksite every day, waving and shouting “Namaste!” at the top of their lungs. Little did they know that they were providing a boon of motivation of a spiritual scope. Whenever we got sore, or tired, or when manually mixing concrete in the hot midday heat became too difficult; whenever we felt our strength waning with the setting sun, there they were, doing nothing other than just being kids. That was always enough.

As much as I grew to understand Nepali culture in an authentic way, I also learned so much about the world through other international volunteers. I’ve worked with people whose religious and political views are diametrically opposed to my own. We were able to learn from each other, entertain debates both serious and capricious, and learn about each other’s cultures. They were engineers, yoga teachers, travelers, students, and business owners. They were young, old, experienced, wide-eyed and determined. They were, and are, truly brilliant.

Our mission in Nagpuje, Sindhupalchowk is complete. We built two schoolhouses, a functioning bathroom, a DIY no-budget playground, and a community water tap, complete with a partition wall so women can bathe in privacy. Our goals were made manifest by the strangest group of misfits we’d ever have the pleasure of being a part.

In Nepal, it’s common to refer to everyone by a family name. Everyone is either a sister or brother, father or mother, aunt or uncle. It was this passive reinforcement that these relationships became real for me. Even though our hearts soared seeing these massive structures we built with our own bare hands, we were sad. We knew we had to leave, that’s just the nature of it.

After bidding farewell to many a volunteer, it was finally our turn. We celebrated a final night with many families in the village. We ate, sang, danced, drank, played with the kids late into the night. The following day was surreal for everyone. Our base was deconstructed. The villagers had to get used to our absence just as they got used to our presence.

But as we walked down the mountain, we could see from the far end of the path a bright, beautiful school. No matter where the road lay ahead of us, we all knew precisely what we left behind. Through nothing other than our own determination and willingness to help, we made lives measurably better. The feeling of accomplishment was so rewarding; the finest thing for which to live.

The results are fascinating. This organization attracts people from all around the world who fulfill a singular goal with a team of people. Not for pay, but for the intangible value that comes with making a genuine difference. Volunteering is only the illusion of selfless activity; the volunteer ends up receiving not just a broadened perspective, but also a changed life. In giving freely, you can reach out and hold a universal purpose: to aid the safety, growth, and development of the human race.

It’s very easy to be cynical in a 24-hour media cycle, where we are barraged by the conflict and turmoil at home and abroad. It’s even easier to make a positive change as an individual. It’s legitimately at our fingertips. If you are curious about doing something like this for yourself: this is your invitation.

The world is waiting to become a better place thanks to you.

Thomas Frank: America In The Age Of Hypocrisy, Hubris, And Greed

Via Jesse"s Cafe Americain blog,

In 2012 I said that such unsustainable social arrangements as we have now are backed by force and fraud. And as the fraud loses its power over time, force must increase, until there is a correction of the system in genuine reform, or an eventual reset.

"The whole world wants to know about what the hell is happening with us. So let"s talk about it. I live in Washington now, and the people I live among have no idea how people live here in the Midwest, not the faintest idea...

The last couple of years here in America have been a time of brisk prosperity according to official measurements, with unemployment down and the stock market up.

For Americans who work for a living however, nothing ever seems to improve. Wages do not grow, median household income is still well below where it was in 2007. Economists have a way of measuring this, they call it the "labor share of the Gross National Product" as opposed to the share taken by stockholders. The labor share of Gross National Product" hit its lowest point since records were started in 2011, and then it stayed there right for the next couple of years.

In the fall of 2014, with the stock market hitting an all time high, a poll showed that nearly 3/4 of the American public believed that the economy was still in recession, because for them it was.

There was time when average Americans could be counted upon to know correctly whether the country was going up or down, because in those days when America prospered, the American people prospered as well. These days things are different.

Let"s look at it in a statistical sense. If you look at it from the middle of the 1930"s (the Depression) up until the year 1980, the lower 90 percent of the population of this country, what you might call the American people, that group took home 70 percent of the growth in the country"s income. If you look at the same numbers from 1997 up until now, from the height of the great Dot Com bubble up to the present, you will find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of this country"s income growth at all.

Our share of these great good times was zero, folks. The upper ten percent of the population, by which we mean our country"s financiers and managers and professionals, consumed the entire thing. To be a young person in America these days is to understand instinctively the downward slope that so many of us are on."

Thomas Frank, Kansas City Missouri, 6 April 2017

What shall we blame for the manner in which our economic system has gone wrong? Or will any with a public podium even admit it has gone wrong? After all, what is truth?

Is it a problem of "fakes news sites" running contrary opinions to the established narrative?

Is it the failure of working people to rise to the occasion and elevate the "lesser of two evils" to power so that she might further enrich herself and her supporters, whose disappointment and outrage at a missed payday knows no bounds?

Is it the impersonal forces of technology, and trade, and all of the superficially structured but high sounding economic laws that have served to promote almost every abuse of the public good that has been suffered for the past thirty years?

Or perhaps it is time for people of conscience to stop standing idly by while a powerful few are serving themselves the most of our gains, at great cost to others, and to break the silence about where we have gone wrong, and what is needed to be done to correct it.

"And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak.  We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."

-Martin Luther King, 4 April 1967

"The problem of the last three decades is not the "vicissitudes of the marketplace," but rather deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent. This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."

-Dean Baker

"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise — to deny the political character of the modern corporation — is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error."

-John Kenneth Galbraith