4 ms·

Few random notes to help me through a discussion (if happen) trying to form a coherent picture: - observation 1 :: it's nothing new we tend to work less, there

by kkfx 3y ago

Few random notes to help me through a discussion (if happen) trying to form a coherent picture: - observation 1 :: it's nothing new we tend to work less, there are studies divided by cohort of age for instance stating newer generations do work less, engage less than older ones for instances (sorry I do not have a link at hand) and it's not new the sentiment "we work to live, not live to work", I generally add that before people know they can get more working more, for the entire life, i.e. people know they can slowly improve their lives working hard. With the declared WEF agenda "in 2030 you'll own nothing", with evident push toward smart-cities populated of evident de-facto slaves who are bound in an assembly line, earning to live, consuming all they earn in services they need, no heritage, no ownership, anything is decided outside the smart-city/forced labor camp and those inside are just obedient slaves those who think this will happen feel NO REASON to work since their work can't improve their condition for their life and get passed to newer generations; - observation 2 :: despite a very obscene business-driven digital evolution against the civil society, tailored to reach the no-ownership, no-competence, no-future slaves model, a real Fordlandia, not Telosa, Arkadag, Prospera, Innopolis, tomorrow NY, SF, ... things start to be digital a little bit, meaning a gazillion of classic tasks that classically demand much work to be done now are quick or even automated, in other terms we need to work much less in various fields, and managers cray in tears that less enslaved workers start to care about their life as people not they work-life as life; - observation 3 :: there is a dichotomy in our society between "those from the old generation" who reject the digital world, generally oppressed by those who rightly push digitization BUT for their own economical and political agendas against all the others and those who feel the potential power of the digital model but cry against the "old generation" who fighting it allow it's evolution in a way AGAINST the most instead of unite and pretend a good evolution for all, this create an immense amount of stress between two cohort and as a result fatigue, those from "the old generation" are tired of the modern life, those from the "digital" one are tired of a slow and bad evolution due to a small cohort of kleptocrats and a large cohort of luddites, and both cohorts can't fight their enemies, giving up instead "in the end we will all be dead" or "pulvis sumus et in pulverem reverteris"; To solve this issue the recipe for me is clear: we need to envisage a good future. We need to own our life, so we need deurbanization not in the USA model of suburbs but in the "Riviera model" of the EU, meaning spread homes AND workspace intermixed, with a string push to the home office, meaning homes where most people work and live in the same place, NOT just from remote, meaning a dentist have a home at II floor and it's cabinet at I floor, customers came from one side, personal life on the other, laundry have the working area in the basement, the residential area upstairs and so on, for eligible professions, while small buildings at short distance do the rest and only few districts exists, heading as much as possible to the dark factory model for the rest we can't do otherwise so far. This model is a nightmare for the 1% because service and enslavement industry plunge on it, no one buy the sharing economy, no one choose Uber or JustEat in this model and so on, people understand the value of ownership and do not want to came back, while terrifies the most because they fear the change and the responsibility of ownership, being slaves means having nothing to think, not feeling the pressure of the commandment and most aren't really adult enough to self-organize their lives. But that's is. This is the best model, potentially very easy to adapt to a changing world IMVHO. Keeping up today trends we will end up in a broken dystopi than can't last longer.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
> we need deurbanization not in the USA model of suburbs but in the "Riviera model" of the EU, meaning spread homes AND workspace intermixed, with a string push to the home office, meaning homes where most people work and live in the same place I think you have something here. I'm not sure I agree with the "deurbanization" idea, and I'm not sure what this "Riviera" style would be, but I do note that some of what you're describing is also possible in urban environments, for example in Asian cities (or European cities a few generations back, the ancestral knowledge of which has been forgotten), where sole proprietors and family businesses operated in the way you describe. Moreover, it's possible in second and third tier American cities, where prices have not forced out ordinary people. Indeed, there are many semi-abandoned towns with good urban cores, ready to be revitalized, a la Strongtowns. Individual ownership is entirely achievable in such places, but it does also hinge on a degree of coordination with others, because no one person can single-handedly bring a Main Street back to life and make it desirable again; a critical mass is required. It is this failure of individuals and small businesses to coordinate that makes them easy prey for the megacorps creating our dystopia. Possibly a new mechanism for social organization in the vein of the joint stock corporation, HOA, traditional Chamber of Commerce, or even city government could solve the problem. Maybe that's what we need: Small-town mayors with the attitude of CEOs (let us not be led down the path of messiahs/fuhrers, however). Something requiring more active civic participation. (Perhaps the multiplication of university administrators can also be seen as symptomatic of students' abandonment of self-government. Is this because they are too diverse to form a democratic collective with a collective will? Or are the muscles just unexercised?) This requires more thought, or, better, more active experimentation. I do see an objection to over-urbanization, which is that a too-large city becomes divorced from its agricultural surrounds, becomes food-insecure, dependent on outside sources of food -- at which point the giant agricorps enter. A more permaculture-type vision is appealing, but it doesn't seem compatible with cities over a certain size. Smallish cities and largish towns, however, can be totally compatible with this style, and nearly all European cities fall into this category (they are all small). Stepping back just a little, I do also think you're onto something with your emphasis on defining a future. That's why this kind of musing may have some thing value: Perhaps it helps in the imagining of such a future. It must lead to action and experimentation, however, to really be valuable.

by kkfx 3y ago

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

> we need deurbanization not in the USA model of suburbs but in the "Riviera model" of the EU, meaning spread homes AND workspace intermixed, with a string push to the home office, meaning homes where most people work and live in the same place I think you have something here. I'm not sure I agree with the "deurbanization" idea, and I'm not sure what this "Riviera" style would be, but I do note that some of what you're describing is also possible in urban environments, for example in Asian cities (or European cities a few generations back, the ancestral knowledge of which has been forgotten), where sole proprietors and family businesses operated in the way you describe. Moreover, it's possible in second and third tier American cities, where prices have not forced out ordinary people. Indeed, there are many semi-abandoned towns with good urban cores, ready to be revitalized, a la Strongtowns. Individual ownership is entirely achievable in such places, but it does also hinge on a degree of coordination with others, because no one person can single-handedly bring a Main Street back to life and make it desirable again; a critical mass is required. It is this failure of individuals and small businesses to coordinate that makes them easy prey for the megacorps creating our dystopia. Possibly a new mechanism for social organization in the vein of the joint stock corporation, HOA, traditional Chamber of Commerce, or even city government could solve the problem. Maybe that's what we need: Small-town mayors with the attitude of CEOs (let us not be led down the path of messiahs/fuhrers, however). Something requiring more active civic participation. (Perhaps the multiplication of university administrators can also be seen as symptomatic of students' abandonment of self-government. Is this because they are too diverse to form a democratic collective with a collective will? Or are the muscles just unexercised?) This requires more thought, or, better, more active experimentation. I do see an objection to over-urbanization, which is that a too-large city becomes divorced from its agricultural surrounds, becomes food-insecure, dependent on outside sources of food -- at which point the giant agricorps enter. A more permaculture-type vision is appealing, but it doesn't seem compatible with cities over a certain size. Smallish cities and largish towns, however, can be totally compatible with this style, and nearly all European cities fall into this category (they are all small). Stepping back just a little, I do also think you're onto something with your emphasis on defining a future. That's why this kind of musing may have some thing value: Perhaps it helps in the imagining of such a future. It must lead to action and experimentation, however, to really be valuable.