Welcome to 2030, I Own Nothing...

[Chippy]

...Have no Privacy, and Life has Never Been Better.

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/

 

Author:

Ida Auken Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

 

Ummm...I've been researching this article for a bit, aaaannd .... is she for real? This isn't satire, or an attempt at trolling?.  This person is an actual grown-up, with a job as a politician, in a developed country, wearing grown up clothes (without safety gear of any kind on any part of her anatomy), and this is an.actual.future.she.wants...?

 

I realize you all have an actual opportunity to take the pee out of me here, but I really need this verified.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"Robots are going to take care of all the work and post-scarcity combined with durable or reusable things means we don't have to deal with constantly buying ****." - summary of idealistic opinion

[pmp10]

Sound like typical naive futuro-techno-utopianism.

Not sure why you see that as a problem.

We regularly elect far bigger nut-cases in Poland.

[Chippy]

Wow. And I thought I knew about most personality types.  At the risk of my own faith in the human race being destroyed mentioning all that is beyond comprehension with this article and the person behind it, it just strikes me as amazing that she can talk about taking her soul along for a bike ride, while only devoting a small paragraph of admission to the loss of it towards the end of the article.

 

From a practical point of view, I expect the author is letting the powers-that-be become fully aware that she is prepared to devote herself entirely to their politics.  And the question would be whether she actually believes this form of state control would be seen in her well-paid lifetime.

 

Ironically I see this type of politics to be a form of extremism - in the face of government policies that are increasingly making the raising of concerns over the way countries are run as an actual form of extremism and promoting hate/speech.

[213374U]

Who knows. Apparently she's big on the whole circular economy thing.

 

Regarding the loss of privacy that scandalises you so much, I hope you don't own a smartphone, don't buy anything on the internet, pay for everything using cash (which is itself on its way out), use a browser like Epic by default, etc. Because ironically enough, the "no privacy" thing is actually the most verisimilar thing in the entire piece. Some stuff is unavoidable, for instance, newer electricity meters log your power consumption habits.

 

Post-scarcity future? I don't know about that. Post-privacy? You bet.

Edited December 17, 2016 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

Wow. And I thought I knew about most personality types.  At the risk of my own faith in the human race being destroyed mentioning all that is beyond comprehension with this article and the person behind it, it just strikes me as amazing that she can talk about taking her soul along for a bike ride, while only devoting a small paragraph of admission to the loss of it towards the end of the article.

 

From a practical point of view, I expect the author is letting the powers-that-be become fully aware that she is prepared to devote herself entirely to their politics.  And the question would be whether she actually believes this form of state control would be seen in her well-paid lifetime.

 

Ironically I see this type of politics to be a form of extremism - in the face of government policies that are increasingly making the raising of concerns over the way countries are run as an actual form of extremism and promoting hate/speech.

The article is at least thought provoking, in my experience only people living in first world countries would think assets and owning resources dont matter 

 

I understand the article is just a theoretical view of a future but I think the idea sounds awful and I reject it unequivocally 

[Rosbjerg]

Heh, I've actually met Ida Auken on a few occassions.. Her father singlehandedly pulled Denmark into wind energy research in the 90s, despite massive criticism from the right wing, by granting extensive government subsidies. Ironically they now tribute our pretty solid green economic adventure to his foresight..

 

So she grew up in a political environment and ideology of a state that should do its best to push norms and innovations.

 

She seems to be falling for the old techno-communism fallacy though, that when technology will be sufficiently advanced, capitalism and private ownership becomes obsolete 'on its own'.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Who knows. Apparently she's big on the whole circular economy thing.

 

Regarding the loss of privacy that scandalises you so much, I hope you don't own a smartphone, don't buy anything on the internet, pay for everything using cash (which is itself on its way out), use a browser like Epic by default, etc. Because ironically enough, the "no privacy" thing is actually the most verisimilar thing in the entire piece. Some stuff is unavoidable, for instance, newer electricity meters log your power consumption habits.

 

Post-scarcity future? I don't know about that. Post-privacy? You bet.

Post-privacy is the present, unless you're behind seven proxies at all times or don't use the internet (I feel comfortable saying these are very small groups) your data is constantly being collected by various entities and being used to sell you **** or advertise to you. I suppose some will argue it's ok because it's not the government doing it, but personally I'm just as creeped out with google looking at my porn history as I am the NSA.

[Blarghagh]

I suppose some will argue it's ok because it's not the government doing it, but personally I'm just as creeped out with google looking at my porn history as I am the NSA.

This is why I try to make sure whoever's watching is creeped out too.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I suppose some will argue it's ok because it's not the government doing it, but personally I'm just as creeped out with google looking at my porn history as I am the NSA.

This is why I try to make sure whoever's watching is creeped out too.

That's disgusting and I do the same thing.

[Orogun01]

...Have no Privacy, and Life has Never Been Better.

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/

 

Author:

Ida Auken Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

 

Ummm...I've been researching this article for a bit, aaaannd .... is she for real? This isn't satire, or an attempt at trolling?.  This person is an actual grown-up, with a job as a politician, in a developed country, wearing grown up clothes (without safety gear of any kind on any part of her anatomy), and this is an.actual.future.she.wants...?

 

I realize you all have an actual opportunity to take the pee out of me here, but I really need this verified.

The stupidity of that article is astounding.

[Meshugger]

Pure thought and no understanding - the article.

[Chippy]

It's not just about privacy and the amount we are willing to give up to the government in the hopes that there's a relation between the ratio of privacy vs threats we face to our lives.  What struck me most about this article is that the person (apologies to Rosbjerg if they know the author) is willing to entirely give up her freedom and individuality to the state. 

To whatever she percieves the state to be.  It seems that she is saying that we can all only ever be free if we all live in an open prison.

 

Take TrueNeutral and KhaineParker: It's obvious that these two are total sexual deviants that engage in destructive and horrendous pornography.  So when the government start tracking their habits and profiling them by storing their internet data and building up a risk assessments (just beginning here in the UK) - how long will it be before it's classified a jail time offence because TrueNeutral has a thing for tennis balls big, 20" long ****-swinging-blue-skinned Liara the asari, and KahineParker a thing for vampires of Caine and all...that stuff.   

 

It's the small steps that erode freedom, and Ida Auken is happy to give it all up in one go.  Except for the deviants, who I notice she is happy to relegate to the outskirts of her Utopia.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Chippy

[Gfted1]

I find England's surveillance and weapons laws interesting and I'm a little on the fence about it. I don't really have a problem with there being cameras in public places but I don't have any real world knowledge of living in that type of society. I mean, it sounds like a good idea. People are on their best behavior when they know they are being watched. The internet stuff seems over the top. Don't you guys have to "opt in" for porn or something like that? That ticks a box in some database somewhere. And cant carry a pocket knife? Thats why brick-in-a-sock crimes are up!

[213374U]

It's not just about privacy and the amount we are willing to give up to the government in the hopes that there's a relation between the ratio of privacy vs threats we face to our lives.  What struck me most about this article is that the person (apologies to Rosbjerg if they know the author) is willing to entirely give up her freedom and individuality to the state. 

To whatever she percieves the state to be.  It seems that she is saying that we can all only ever be free if we all live in an open prison.

 

Take TrueNeutral and KhaineParker: It's obvious that these two are total sexual deviants that engage in destructive and horrendous pornography.  So when the government start tracking their habits and profiling them by storing their internet data and building up a risk assessments (just beginning here in the UK) - how long will it be before it's classified a jail time offence because TrueNeutral has a thing for tennis balls big, 20" long ****-swinging-blue-skinned Liara the asari, and KahineParker a thing for vampires of Caine and all...that stuff.   

 

It's the small steps that erode freedom, and Ida Auken is happy to give it all up in one go.  Except for the deviants, who I notice she is happy to relegate to the outskirts of her Utopia.

 

Must have missed the part where she explicitly says she's willing to give anything up to the state. A circular economy is not necessarily a command economy. If you see any form of social participation as "the state", then the problem is with your definition, not her ideas.

 

Also, in order to give up your freedom or individuality, you must have either. Do you?

[HoonDing]

shes cute

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's not just about privacy and the amount we are willing to give up to the government in the hopes that there's a relation between the ratio of privacy vs threats we face to our lives.  What struck me most about this article is that the person (apologies to Rosbjerg if they know the author) is willing to entirely give up her freedom and individuality to the state. 

To whatever she percieves the state to be.  It seems that she is saying that we can all only ever be free if we all live in an open prison.

 

Take TrueNeutral and KhaineParker: It's obvious that these two are total sexual deviants that engage in destructive and horrendous pornography.  So when the government start tracking their habits and profiling them by storing their internet data and building up a risk assessments (just beginning here in the UK) - how long will it be before it's classified a jail time offence because TrueNeutral has a thing for tennis balls big, 20" long ****-swinging-blue-skinned Liara the asari, and KahineParker a thing for vampires of Caine and all...that stuff.   

 

It's the small steps that erode freedom, and Ida Auken is happy to give it all up in one go.  Except for the deviants, who I notice she is happy to relegate to the outskirts of her Utopia.

But don't we already give up our freedom and individuality to private entities as is? Think about it, in America(and much of the West, I assume) it's likely everything you own was purchased by loan of some sort and can be confiscated and you already give up most freedom by signing agreements to use an ipod or get spied on using the internet. We don't start being more free when you swap the state with Google or your bank or whoever does the same thing we're freaking out about the state potentially doing. As I stated previously, post-privacy is the present and I don't really see much of a difference between google harvesting my information and the state doing it, if anything google is worse because the US government is so inept they'd probably raid my ex's house while Google would make sure my bank account gets drained and I get hit with a **** load of fines because I did something illegal once.

 

And my porn history is much worse and you should apologise to TN for saying he likes Mass Effect.

[Tigranes]

Writing of this kind has been a staple of our technological optimism for over a century. You had people talk about the death of space and time and instant, ethereal communication across the universe.... back in the late 19th century. This is just bog standard stuff that you'll find with a slight more sophistication in the latest Silicon Valley shoutout about the future, and probably was written in 15 minutes by one of her aides.

 

Actually, what should alarm you is that the way she treats privacy - i.e. zero brain cells, just 'huh i guess whatever lol' - is not that different from what you'll find in, say, a Wired article about the future of self-tracking devices, where they'd just say "oh privacy's important of course but there's pros and cons and somebody will have to think hard about the right balance, anyway the new gadget is so cool!!! And this isn't about privacy, whatever that word means anymore; it's about how the future is thought of purely as technological progress and its political / economic consequences, and how the question of what happens to civil rights, or collective psychologies and emotional lives, or patterns of social interaction and collectivities, etc. is basically blanked out as afterthoughts, side effects, etc. 

[Tigranes]

People are on their best behavior when they know they are being watched.

 

I'm sure you're perfectly confident that nothing you do will ever be misunderstood, that evidence will never be used against you in unexpected ways, that governments never abuse excessive power, etc. They should probably also watch you have sex with your wife, to make sure you aren't domestically abusing her. We're sure you don't do anything of the sort, but we can only be really sure if we watch you, right? 

 

(I'm just saying. It's a very ill-thought out cliche people just dump on the table, as if it answers all the questions.) 

[Lexx]

So a few days back there was this story with that man kicking a woman in the back down some stairs in Berlin. You folks probably heard about it. I thought it was really awesome and lol how the first response from politics was "we need more surveillance cameras!" ... As if the cameras would have prevented the crime. Hell, he even was already recorded and didnt gave a single shait about it.

 

Just saying.

[kirottu]

So a few days back there was this story with that man kicking a woman in the back down some stairs in Berlin. You folks probably heard about it. I thought it was really awesome and lol how the first response from politics was "we need more surveillance cameras!" ... As if the cameras would have prevented the crime. Hell, he even was already recorded and didnt gave a single shait about it.

 

Just saying.

 

That's the reason why I say "no" to security cameras and "yes" to Eye of Sauron. When it's watching you, you ****ing know it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by kirottu

[Gfted1]

I'm sure you're perfectly confident that nothing you do will ever be misunderstood, that evidence will never be used against you in unexpected ways, that governments never abuse excessive power, etc. They should probably also watch you have sex with your wife, to make sure you aren't domestically abusing her. We're sure you don't do anything of the sort, but we can only be really sure if we watch you, right? 

 

(I'm just saying. It's a very ill-thought out cliche people just dump on the table, as if it answers all the questions.)

Oh noes! You "mistakenly" left out the "public places" part of my post. That surely explains the misunderstanding. Also, yes the world is an imperfect construct where things are sometimes misunderstood and excesses of power exist everywhere. We should probably just switch over to the honor system where people self police.

[Rosbjerg]

We should probably just switch over to the honor system where people self police.

 

Why do we steal?

Because we are inherently bad/genetically dishonest? Or do we steal in any given case, because we feel we need to, irregardless of how rational or not that feeling may be?

[Gfted1]

Why do we steal?

Because we are inherently bad? Are we simply genetically dishonest? Or do we steal in any given case, because we feel we need to, irregardless of how rational that feeling is?

IMO, sometimes for need but mostly for greed.

[Rosbjerg]

IMO, sometimes for need but mostly for greed.

 

I agree, but is greed not simply a fancy world for a very subjective perception of need?