Another Great Reset
Okay, you probably heard about that Great Reset story, or, at least, have seen some memes about it (or about Klaus Schwab's appearance).
And if you’re a kind of politically active person with a good memory, you would’ve remembered one more WEF-related story, which left a big legacy on the internet.
Well, okay. Since it’s quite a hot theme, I would like to propose my own Great Reset plan — well, uh, because I can. And because in my opinion, the WEF agenda don’t actually answer the problems. Yes, a greener way of life, smarter growth, and other pretty buzzwords are full of good intentions, but it’s not addressing the root of the problem and it’s not really “greatly” “reset” anything.
So, what real “Great Reset” should be about? What are real actions and proposals?
My approach is based on one huge idea — we must return to the big water (big navigable rivers, big navigable lakes, seas, and oceans). Why? Here are few reasons:
- First of all, it’s a source of vital liquid for agriculture, industry, and everyday life. Yes, to get drinking water from seawater, you need desalinization plant(s) — but it’s surmountable challenges, unlike, you know, getting enough water for hundreds of people right in the middle of the desert;
- Shipping routes and waterways are essential for passengers and cargo;
- Leisure, recreational and tourism possibilities are quite huge — from simple fishing to submarine safari;
- Aquaculture can provide enough food to the growing population of cities and the outside world.
Let's talk more precisely.
We must re-think the location of our homes. Cities without access to the big water should be abandoned. For example, it was quite common in the Soviet era to build cities right in the middle of the steppe— just for serving the giant coal mine and no less giant power station (and today you don’t need a whole city for that, I believe). Cities like those can’t be sustainable no matter the cost. Of course, military bases, mines, and a few other specific categories of inhabited locations with rotational\shift work character would stay — but again, we must not let such places grow too much. Locations, that are no more inhabited after the exodus, should be turned into forests, parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, maybe even hunting grounds or giant grasslands or pastures. Or it can be transformed into natives' lands.
So, people should migrate to cities, which can become sustainable, and thus must grow bigger, stronger, and higher. The big city must become a megapolis, a megapolis must grow into a megalopolis, and a few megalopolises, located nearby must unite as megaregion. And if there are no cities, but the location meets our requirements — new cities should arise from shores, islands, and even right on the water surface. Let’s made up a general rule — the city should exist as a stripe along the body of water (multiple stripes, if the city has multiple bodies of water nearby). It’s a bit different for island or ocean\sea habitats, naturally.
Economical and cultural ties should prevail over unnatural borders. Some cities are better as city-states. Some cities are better to unite with neighborhoods. And some states are way too artificial and cannot unite such different cities and people together so they’re better to break up. For example, this is a big map of the world’s megaregions. If you look at that map you’ll find out, that, for example, there are megaregions in the USA for whom ties with Canadian megaregions are way more vital, than ties with the USA.
New architecture. Arcologies and mega-towers. Buildings should be constructed using as many local materials (especially recycled\reused), as possible. We must be not afraid to build new forms, pretty, cost-effective, and sustainable. There is nothing wrong with “commie blocks”, as long as they’re made from proper materials, good looking, and correctly maintained. We shouldn’t forbid the possibility of having a nice very own house, no. On the contrary, we must ensure that life in high-rise apartment buildings is as good as possible.
New workplaces, green economy, and blue economy. It’s quite straightforward — cities of the new era would require new or upgraded old connections: airports, railroads, and of course, ports. Moving the population closer to the coast would create a better situation for logistics and an increased density of population means new opportunities for business. And both the green and blue economies can offer whole new sectors of jobs, research, and possibilities.
New food. We must enlarge our range of daily consumable plants and sea products. Fewer monocultures, more biodiversity.
“Seventy-five per cent of the global food supply comes from only 12 plant and five animal species. Just three (rice, maize and wheat) make up nearly 60 per cent of calories from plants in the entire human diet”, the report states.
Other important products among the 12 include palm, fruit, oil, potatoes, soybeans, sugar beets, sugar cane, and tomatoes.
The diversity on the plate and on farm lands globally has reduced as only these 12 crops are focused on in terms of cultivation. The cost of this has reflected on both, human health and environment. Since 1900, a staggering 75 per cent of the genetic plant diversity in agriculture has been lost, says the report.
More recycling, reusing and reducing. Plastic is an amazing product, and we should use it only in very special use-cases. Bio-degradable waste can be used in bio-reactors to generate methane for gas-fired power stations and fertilizers for agriculture. Many other types of waste can be either reused or recycled. Conscious consumption should become the norm.
New ways of manufacturing. In many cases, for example, it’s better, cheaper, and more sustainable not to import cars from overseas, but to build them locally in a small factory, using as many local materials (especially recycled\reused), as possible. Modern CNC, 3D printers, and many other smart tools and machines can produce almost everything, almost everywhere.
Sounds cool! But there are always pros and cons. And here are our flaws:
- For many countries, that change of habitats may result in war — a civil one or plain old battle with neighbors. Artificial borders, created by imperialists after WW1 and WW2 are already causing unrest in many parts of the world. And despite the fact that new borders could be seen as more fair, logical, and pragmatical, not all people (and especially, governments) would be ready for that.
- International bureaucratic obstacles. One of the most bright examples — the creation of independent states on artificial islands is pretty much prohibited by the UN. That’s just ridiculous!
- Ecology. More people at the shore, more ships nearby, and bigger catches of fish and seafood. Yes, there would be plenty of fish and seafood farms, and there would be artificial reefs for the biodiversity, but still, the impact is pretty much inevitable.
- Technological problems. One of the most obvious — the closer you live to the shore, the more likely your car is to have saltwater sprayed on it each day. This consistent salt wash can lead to more rapid rust formations. There are also problems with buildings.
- Climate change and sea-level rise. Yesterday shore — shallow water tomorrow. Usually, it could be solved just by building your city a bit higher foundation and using various sea\ocean protection, like seawalls.
- Some places, which could be sustainable cities, are already over-populated. It could be solved by relocating people into new districts and\or building more high-rise housing.
- Tsunami and rogue waves danger. It’s a serious danger for the sea and ocean coasts. We can reduce it using various sea\ocean protection, like seawalls and breakwaters.
Well, thanks for reading! Please, share your opinion in the comments and follow me for more. And don’t be afraid to ask questions, if something is not clear.
