China's Forest City plan
Articlke in progress. Do not yet approve
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-covid-135579
(bring in expert discussion on the world after vovid)
Most who will read this have varying degrees of economic security, such that pretty near all the comforts we have taken for granted in our lives haven't yet been seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. I say, “not yet,” because... well, to be honest, what we now are experiencing with this virus describes only the tip of the iceberg to what the future holds. And that’s due to a huge set of issues directly related to the inertia of centuries of capitalistic socioeconomic development, which, with each stage, and especially since the Industrial Revolution, has absolutely ignored all uncomfortable externalities that now are threatening the planet’s life-support system, the biosphere.
A “negative externality” in economics is anything or anyone that did not agree with informed consent to participate in the equation of those who are capitalizing, with an end result that adversily impacts groups of people and/or the environment that originally generated the goods which are then produced and consumed. For example, it took the planet millions of years to metamorphose dead plants and animals into what we call fossil fuels. When we began to do that at a global level a couple of centuries ago, we didn’t understand its environmental impacts, but we did see its negative social impacts among many who were forced to work in mines or factories under horrid conditions. Conditions not unlike the feudal system, until the beginnings of workers’ rights and unions towards the end of the 19th century.
On the surface, a good argument against this thesis is that it was through that process that many rose out of poverty and into 21st century modern comforts. However, neither the planet itself nor huge population groups on the planet have agreed with informed consent to anything remotely related to anthrpogenic climate change, the Anthropocene Extinction Crisis, and a history of wars fed by our often religion-empowered predatory capitalizing, all of which is directly leading to the 2018 UN figure of 821 million people suffering from hunger. If one argues overpopulation, then one must also consider that it was through this socioeconomic history that it has occurred. That figure is growing substantially since the pandemic.
On the May 11, 2020 Danish TV2 morning news, for example, it was reported how CONEVAL, an autonomous and constitutionally based Mexican social development organization, estimates that currently 56% of its 126 million population has been driven into poverty, 8 million of them since the pandemic. There had been a short history of people coming out of poverty, but that gain has now been completely lost. And just about all of these people have no form for unemployment insurance or access to good medical services. According to the New York Times, CONEVAL suggests “introducing minimum universal pensions, unemployment insurance or universal basic incomes to help the most vulnerable.”
Again, the Mexican situation describes only the tip of the iceberg.
So what do we do about the coming chaos already in progress (hyperlink), which the preponderance of the scientific evidence is indicating? It’s simple in my mind, but all too complicated and uncomfortable for the policymakers in the deep pockets of that tiny population group (hyperlink to Master of the Universe doc)which for now can live in ivory towers. We take all the wealth currently extant through centuries of capitalism, and distribute it into an entirely new economic model, where value is not measured by money or resources under anyone’s control, but by a globalized solidarity of doing "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing."
Bucky paper: (https://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/Fall2013Papers/Purcell/bucky.html)
Various governments are dealing with the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in different ways. But the bottom line, wherever it is possible, has been to legislate emergency help packages to corporations, and to a lesser extent, the unemployed, to soften the blow and help them survive. So one of the planet’s most profound redistributions of wealth has already occurred, and is continuing.
In 1970, Buckminster Fuller, an architect and mathematical systems developer, had a dream – often memed -- that he described in a New York Magazine article: “We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. [Based on mathematical projections] it is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
[ expand on and deepen all of the above, with links and videos, and especially this new economic system into a 21st century model, concentrating on now its politics should not in the least be equated with communism, IE, everyone must be supported through the transition w/o coercion and only via informed consent. other issues to bring in but simplify: pandemic forces into public view, expose, for what they are policymaking/makers that are antithetical to life, ie, not taking evidence seriously. Brazil example, china example usa... issues with Russia, extremeism. Are we ready, as Homo sapien sapien... empathy (cognitive & emotional) dance with neuroscience]
Comments