Green Real Estate Case Study - Environmental Futurists Argument for Mega Cities

As the founder for a think tank which happens to operate online, I generally have the final say in who gets to join, and who doesn't. I've been rather alarmed in recent years by the number of folks attempting to join who had taken environmentalism almost as some sort of religion without having all their facts straight. Further, far too many of them have been brainwashed by academia to the point that they don't even really know the true definition of capitalism, and have in mind this nonsense that money is evil, and free markets aren't fair.

Additionally, I am concerned with what happens when groups of like-minded people that do not understand reality get together in group-think designing what they believe to be the future utopia and epitome of human civilizations. They fail to realize their history, or how the real world works, rather they are more interested in talking about some sort of fantasyland, that someone else is going to pay for, and everyone is going to live happily ever after enjoying a heavenly existence. Okay so, let's talk and let me give you a case study and example here.

There was an interesting research paper put out by Deutsche Post DHL, a Futurist type Report on logistics titled; "The World in 2050," the press release appeared on February 27, 2012.
Anyway, the piece had an overview of 5-potential scenarios and in scenario one which is depicted as an; "Untamed Economy," with "Impending Collapse" the article stated;

"The world is characterized by unchecked materialism and mass consumption. This non-sustainable way of life is fed by the relentless exploitation of resources, a development that stokes climate change and causes natural disasters to mount. In a world characterized by tumultuous growth, demand for logistics and transport services climbs sharply. A global transportation supergrid ensures a rapid exchange of goods between centers of consumption. But as climate change advances, supply chains are increasingly disrupted, a development causing additional challenges for logistics companies."

Now then, I am not sure what type of fantasyland these folks are living in but I have some harsh and critical words for all this nonsense and global warming alarmism. You see, when I first heard about this report I was very excited in reading it, because I consider myself a Futurist in many regards, although I am not the type of Futurist who leans towards Plato utopian communistic theory. Further, to criticize consumption, is also to criticize capitalism, abundance, and all that the free-market can deliver.

It seems these utopians want to be free from want, and they want to make sure no one else can have what they want. That everyone should have only what they need to barely to survive, and nothing more, but that isn't what the human animal is about, nor does it take into consideration the innate characteristics of the species. We can't go around predicting the future without understanding the human animal. And we aren't going to be able to change the brain structure or the foundational genetics within to make people happy as minimalists by wishful thinking.

Now then, that's not saying we can't use genetic manipulation, drugs, pharmaceuticals, or future modification of the species to do it. But in that future aren't we really talking about turning human beings into a giant collective or Borg? Oh my gosh, 1984 here we come. As if all this nonsensical thinking wasn't enough, these futurist have to throw in the whole global warming religion issue, claiming there will be dystopia, or we can never reach our goals unless we do it their way, which happens to be destroying our energy infrastructure, changing the economic flows of civilization globally, changing the way we consume, the way we live, and submitting to the ultimate authority, namely their's.

It is interesting that the folks who were involved in this project, and this collaborative futurist work have played their hand, and now we see what they want to do, they want to control every aspect of our lives, tell us what we can and cannot have, hijack our energy infrastructure, and then promise us they will deliver what we need, which is what we will in the future agree to if we adopt their global warming religion. You only have to read between the lines just a little bit to see what's going on here, and it should scare you. If it doesn't scare you, I would submit to you that you are not paying attention.

In fact, most of the challenges we have in our economy, supply chain, and free-market system have to do with the same sorts of folks with their left leaning thinking trying to manipulate the flows of money, labor, production, and capital. It is obvious they want to do this well into the future, and if they aren't allowed to, they claim that we are all going to die because of global warming, that we will live some sort of a terrible existence. Well, I have news for you, all those folks who have promoted a utopian society in the past, trying to create something that will last for 1000 years - well, we've all seen what has happened, and mankind is not the better for their exploits, and exploratory projects with human civilization.

The reality is that when you look at the United States and the free-market system, and as we practice capitalism to our best ability, although we do fall down at times, we have created massive abundance, and it's worked quite well. This is the model we should follow, and anything to destroy this model is a threat to America's future. If those folks want to run their little game plan, and create their little communist nation state, or the folks in Belgium want to create a unified Europe, then let them go try, but as I look out around the world now, I see their projects have failed time and time again. And personally I don't think the United States should be bailing them out, or joining in cahoots with a nonsensical dream, or a new environmental religion.

It is obvious what works, and what hasn't worked. Capitalism has worked, socialism and communism haven't, and therefore we should all take notice and move forward into the future of humankind with that knowledge. We should not dismiss it, deny it, or trample on that truth. The problem with goody-two-shoed environmentalist futurism is that all their theories are flawed, and their foundation is baseless nonsense - it's all a house of cards, and if you fall for it, the Joker of dystopia wins. Please consider all this and think on it.

Are There Really Mega-Efficiencies in Mega Cities - Really, Where Is the Empirical Evidence?

Are zoos really that self-sufficient? No, without the humans feeding the animals they would all die, and if you allow them to mix-and-mingle, total chaos would ensue almost immediately. Wouldn't you say that attempting to domesticate wild animals in this way is a lot like socialism, and after a while you can't return those animals to the wild, as they wouldn't have the brain power, prowess, or hunting skills to survive or prevent themselves from becoming someone else's dinner? Okay so, let's talk about this, specifically about the concrete jungle we call mega-cities, you know where many of you humans live and work.

Now then, there was an interesting Futurist Report which came out at the end of February, 2012, actually on leap-day, which is somewhat telling, as I believe it was a leap of faith more than anything else. DHL put out a paper titled; "The World in 2050," and one of the 5-scenarios was the potential for "Mega-efficiency in Megacities," and the press release for the paper stated that Mega-Cities;

"Are the main drivers and beneficiaries of a paradigm shift toward "green" growth. To overcome the challenges of expanding urban structures, such as congestion and emissions, megacities have become champions of collaboration. Robotics has revolutionized the world of production and services. Consumers have changed their habits: Products are now usually rented, instead of purchased. Highly efficient traffic concepts have relieved congestion. A global supergrid with mega transporters, including trucks, ships and aircraft, as well as space transporters, has opened important trade connections between the megacities of the world. The logistics industry has been entrusted to run city logistics, utilities, and system services for airports, hospitals, and shopping malls."

When I read that part of the multipage press-release, I thought to myself only a utopian communist or socialist futurist could have written it or rather the report it was excerpting from - and what they seem to be forgetting is that domesticating humans clearly doesn't work, they are a rebellious species, and certainly not meant for a 1984 or Borg type existence. Those who've tried to create a utopia in history, well, their pet project and visions of a 1000 year civilization have all ended tragically for all concerned.

Further, all the recent attempts at a green utopia have ended in costly bankruptcies, failed projects, and/or increased costs, which I might add have made the natives more restless, not less. There is a reason for urban flight to the suburbs, and there is a reason that there is a higher standard of living in the suburbs as opposed to the degraded cities of our time. There is also a reason for mega-slums outside all the major cities, and often a cancer brewing from within, even as there is a constant push for renewal, and economic development.

This whole "build it and they will come attitude" and motif is not meant to be, because if you build it, most likely humans will destroy it. Isn't that what usually happens, I mean let's be honest here. I am saying look at the statistics, scoreboard, or empirical evidence if you will, the numbers are in and it's clear, big cities are not quite as synergistic as they seem or are claiming to be. For the wealthy who live in cities, there is certainly abundance, but at whose expense, a question that I am shocked these well to do socialist refuse to ask themselves in all of their hypocrisy. And yes, it is true for them at least there is a lot of cognitive surplus to dream up these utopian plans of theirs, but I would submit to you that their level of cognition is blind to reality, thus, what good is it?

Mega cities still require mega power, mega-resources, and quite a bit to sustain them, but in the end they are not "sustainable" to borrow a catch phrase and common term from the left-leaning ramblings of socialism. Mega cities drain vast amounts of fresh water supplies from large amounts of land to funnel for their own usage, then these folks claim to be concerned about the environment, interesting I say. Even with all their "recycling" efforts and then busy patting on the back they create mega-trash piles elsewhere. The air quality is bad, and then their air blows out to the rest of us. The traffic is a mess, destroying productivity and efficiency.

But now this report says that in the future they will fix all that, and all they need is the money to build the city perfect, into their utopia at last. Really, then who is paying for it? If the city is so great and so efficient, why not have them pay for it themselves, why should the tax dollars of everyone else be funneled into the city for them to run another dead end experiment with a human utopia project? They've been taking everyone else's money for years, they'll always need more, want more, and promise us that someday, you'll see. Really, because you see LA, only when the smog clears, and it's time for these folks with all their communist tendencies and academic accolades to get some fresh air, so they can think.