Post Pandemic Future Planning
Post Pandemic Future Planning
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
How should we plan for our future after the pandemic of the coronavirus? After all, it is the end of the world as we know it. I feel fine because I have a plan. If you don't have a plan then perhaps you don't feel fine. Allow me.
What's next after the pandemic passes? This coronavirus could take three years for a complete burn out just as it did with the Spanish flu. How fast can this country vaccinate 300 million people? Realize that seasonal flu vaccines are only recommended for the elderly over 60.
I'm a futurist. Irreni World Scale is a two-hundred year project plan so I kinda have to be. This means I read other futurists and devise what I think are meaningful planning predictions.
For example, futurists might ask themselves something like, "how are we going to know if someone has been vaccinated against the coronavirus?" Tracking, of course. But tracking how? Are we going to create a Federal database? Will Google and Apple track us?
Predicting the future is on one hand very uncertain and prone to low probability, especially if one is just considering existing technology as a means to predict possible technological futures. On the other hand humans are boring and repetitive. Behaviors we humans display today such as say with obesity can be easily predicted to exist twenty years from now. Humans are very a much a herd animal in their inclination to just go along with whatever.
You can break down futurists into one of two types. One is planning around existing conditions, let's call these political futurists. . The second is planning around new conditions of improvement, lets call these idealist futurists. I am of the latter type. Irreni World Scale is a future plan of new conditions for improvement.
You may not be aware of this but political futurists are right now working with existing city planners and state governments. They are planning new communities around the highest population density possible that is allowed by technology. I'm not making this up. The future is being planned out for increasing large city size to the max. What? This seems like a disaster of pandemic proportions!
Why are political futurists recommending high population densities? Well, mostly to solve logistic problems. For example, last year in the United States over two-hundred hospitals closed in rural areas due to lack of business. Modern high-tech services are very expensive and require a minimum population density to support them. Somehow all the high-tech gadgets such as MRI machines, x-ray machines, and lab equipment have to be paid for. Logistical delivery of expensive high-tech services to low density population is not practical.
Another argument for high-density is climate change response. Transportation consumes much of the world's energy on a daily basis. High-density population means that goods have the least distance to travel from point of origin, to point of sale, to customer. A company like Amazon just needs to set up warehouses in large cities if all the world's population lives in large cities.
Another argument for high-density population is quality of life. I recently moved to Maine and can attest to a lack of dining experiences relative to the San Francisco Bay Area where I lived for over thirty years. Even entertainment costs will be reduced where high-tech entertainment costs will be optimized with high-density populations.
This is the state of future planning today. The United States is planning for ever increasing population density. This is alarming after a pandemic.
Increasing population density is a bad idea for future planning after a pandemic. We have to realize though that in any society there are trade-offs in risk. Pandemic risk may be higher with high-density planning but overall health care risk is higher in low density because services in low density population areas are less and this can also lead to more death. Choose your death risk.
Hmmmm. Should we continue with wild abandon our existing future plans for ever more high-density living? How do we even know the risk? We don't. This is why we need Irreni World Scale.
What separates the idealist from the political futurist? On a historical level an idealist is an ideologue planning for ideology. For example, the existing American ideal is an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ideology is idealist future planing. However, ideology is not the only future ideal plan. The ideal for Irreni is systemic ideal. This systemic ideal is one of experimentation and science. Irreni is targeting constant political improvement using constant experimentation. In this regard Irreni is not targeting a specific ideological benchmark of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Irreni ideal is an ongoing conversation between all people constantly in real-time about new life ideals and then realizing agreed upon ones using experiments by collecting empirical data that proves improvement. Irreni then is an ideal system of government, not an ideal of ideology like improving an individual's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Irreni does require certain society ideals that overlap with ideology of life as part of its laboratory. For example, we must all agree to participate in collecting empirical data about our lives. This data is then used to prove out expectations of any political experiment. This collection of empirical data requires a few things for our future planning. There are three important laboratory ideals for empirical data used in Irreni. First, we need the best public education possible for all humans. Second, we need all humans to have maximum information availability. Secrets are anathema to Irreni's ideals. Third we need technology to deliver empirical data. These three ideals are expressed as the right to education, the right to information, and the device of loving life (DOLL). The DOLL is what we think of today as a smart phone. The technology is used to collect and disseminate the empirical data of our lives that is then used to support claims of political experimentation. The right to education and information are not in place as an ideological statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Instead they form the laboratory for which we conduct political experiments.
Irreni includes a refereeing system in the future planning. This is in opposition to a rule of law. Rule of law is an ideology system. Irreni is an experimental system. As such referees are free to ignore rules and consider one-time circumstances when ruling.
Irreni then is an ideal laboratory of political experimentation that enables proving life ideals on a per idea basis to be tested. Political experiments are the end game.
Experiments and laboratories require isolation and segmentation. We don't run experiments first on whole populations like we did with the ACA or Obamacare. We sample. Irreni breaks up human population into a single, test-tube size called MGOs. MGOs are micro-modular governing organizations of fixed size thirty people. Political experiments then are built modular using MGOs and not individuals. Why? Because the subjects of the experiment are also running the experiment by collecting data via the DOLL. A good way think of this is with clinical trials for drugs. A patient needs to take a schedule of the drug under test. One way to ensure the schedule is adhered too is to have a buddy check in, a spouse or child. Another way to ensure the schedule is adhered too would be a device such as the DOLL that can monitor precisely if the schedule is met. The MGO provides a community to act as a buddy system for that community which is running multiple parallel political experiments on an ongoing basis, permanently. In the future every waking moment from cradle-to-grave will be part of political experimentation because society is never static or finished.
So Irreni does have laboratory ideals that do overlap with society ideals. But beyond that anything goes. For example, theocracy is allowed in Irreni where it is discouraged today. As long as a theocracy works within the Irreni system and improves life based upon the political experiments and existing political standards of the day then theocracy is allowed. This is called freedom. Irreni is superior in providing freedom to the US today because empirical data can prove out if tyranny and oppression has increased over what came before. As long as a theocracy is not oppressing its people then theocracy is viable.
Irreni experimentation requires freedom to be a responsibility platform. As long as people can show they are being responsible empirically to each other then they are free. If MGO people are being irresponsible and bringing about misery, death, and destruction more so than in the past then these people will have their MGO disbanded.
So our first future planning after the pandemic is to adopt Irreni because it is a political laboratory. We need a political laboratory because it is the end of the world as we know it. Irreni creates a laboratory for proving whatever political experiments are soon to come our way. Right now we have no such experimental system and failure is to be expected with whatever new comes our way.
And should we put our current future planning on hold? Should we put a halt to current political futurist plans to increase population density because of pandemic risk? Not necessarily. We need proof. Irreni provides a way to prove whether any changes with higher density are risk manageable. So that means we put our current higher-density plan that is not being tested to the test. We always start small and then scale big as experiments continue to prove successful. This is the same thing Irreni says about any future political plan.
On a personal note that is not part of the Irreni plan then I'm not for high-density population exclusively as political futurists are advocating for today. Primarily because of what Mark Twain once advised, "Put all your eggs in one basket, but then WATCH THAT BASKET." How do you watch the basket? There are so many unique risks with high-density living such as weapons of mass destruction and pandemics. I think it is way too early in human development to plan for increasing high-density living the way futurists are pushing it today. We lack the technology to watch the basket.
I also think that a personal sense of self-worth comes from doing things for yourself and the higher the density of population the less we can do for ourselves. What do I mean by that? Well, when I lived in an apartment I wanted to buy a 3D printer for plastics. Everything was going well until I read that the printers produce noxious fumes and its probably not a good idea to have them in an apartment. Well crap. In other words, as population density increases then while some opportunities increase such as with culinary delights, others decrease. So there should always be an option for ubiquitous low-density living and the unique opportunities they provide, especially when it comes to being self-reliant. High-population densities make people more dependent on each other.
The population density experiment that I want to run with Irreni is modular living. What do I mean by that? Well, MGOs are fixed sized thirty people. This implies we can easily swap campuses. One MGO can swap living spaces with another. Over the course of our lives we could all enjoy the opportunities of both living in high-density population zones and low-density population zones. In other words we take advantage of Irreni's modular laboratory as a way to move around living conditions. Now this freedom will defeat political experiments that require us to stay in one place. But that's a conversation for a different day.
What's next after the pandemic passes? We should immediately adopt Irreni World Scale first. Second, we should pause increasing population density until Irreni is online and then we should experiment with higher density using Irreni. We can also add experiments to expand on hardening every population density against pandemics by experiments. Further experiments must start small. We must not roll out experiments at a national level first like we did with Obamacare. We must sample and scale to ever larger populations as experiments succeed.
Join an MGO today!
You can learn more about Irreni World Scale by visiting:
Cheers!
Benefit of cooperation replaces rule of law!
Freethinkers unite!
Freedom!
Party On!
Let's get cracking!
Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
How should we plan for our future after the pandemic of the coronavirus? After all, it is the end of the world as we know it. I feel fine because I have a plan. If you don't have a plan then perhaps you don't feel fine. Allow me.
What's next after the pandemic passes? This coronavirus could take three years for a complete burn out just as it did with the Spanish flu. How fast can this country vaccinate 300 million people? Realize that seasonal flu vaccines are only recommended for the elderly over 60.
I'm a futurist. Irreni World Scale is a two-hundred year project plan so I kinda have to be. This means I read other futurists and devise what I think are meaningful planning predictions.
For example, futurists might ask themselves something like, "how are we going to know if someone has been vaccinated against the coronavirus?" Tracking, of course. But tracking how? Are we going to create a Federal database? Will Google and Apple track us?
Predicting the future is on one hand very uncertain and prone to low probability, especially if one is just considering existing technology as a means to predict possible technological futures. On the other hand humans are boring and repetitive. Behaviors we humans display today such as say with obesity can be easily predicted to exist twenty years from now. Humans are very a much a herd animal in their inclination to just go along with whatever.
You can break down futurists into one of two types. One is planning around existing conditions, let's call these political futurists. . The second is planning around new conditions of improvement, lets call these idealist futurists. I am of the latter type. Irreni World Scale is a future plan of new conditions for improvement.
You may not be aware of this but political futurists are right now working with existing city planners and state governments. They are planning new communities around the highest population density possible that is allowed by technology. I'm not making this up. The future is being planned out for increasing large city size to the max. What? This seems like a disaster of pandemic proportions!
Why are political futurists recommending high population densities? Well, mostly to solve logistic problems. For example, last year in the United States over two-hundred hospitals closed in rural areas due to lack of business. Modern high-tech services are very expensive and require a minimum population density to support them. Somehow all the high-tech gadgets such as MRI machines, x-ray machines, and lab equipment have to be paid for. Logistical delivery of expensive high-tech services to low density population is not practical.
Another argument for high-density is climate change response. Transportation consumes much of the world's energy on a daily basis. High-density population means that goods have the least distance to travel from point of origin, to point of sale, to customer. A company like Amazon just needs to set up warehouses in large cities if all the world's population lives in large cities.
Another argument for high-density population is quality of life. I recently moved to Maine and can attest to a lack of dining experiences relative to the San Francisco Bay Area where I lived for over thirty years. Even entertainment costs will be reduced where high-tech entertainment costs will be optimized with high-density populations.
This is the state of future planning today. The United States is planning for ever increasing population density. This is alarming after a pandemic.
Increasing population density is a bad idea for future planning after a pandemic. We have to realize though that in any society there are trade-offs in risk. Pandemic risk may be higher with high-density planning but overall health care risk is higher in low density because services in low density population areas are less and this can also lead to more death. Choose your death risk.
Hmmmm. Should we continue with wild abandon our existing future plans for ever more high-density living? How do we even know the risk? We don't. This is why we need Irreni World Scale.
What separates the idealist from the political futurist? On a historical level an idealist is an ideologue planning for ideology. For example, the existing American ideal is an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ideology is idealist future planing. However, ideology is not the only future ideal plan. The ideal for Irreni is systemic ideal. This systemic ideal is one of experimentation and science. Irreni is targeting constant political improvement using constant experimentation. In this regard Irreni is not targeting a specific ideological benchmark of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Irreni ideal is an ongoing conversation between all people constantly in real-time about new life ideals and then realizing agreed upon ones using experiments by collecting empirical data that proves improvement. Irreni then is an ideal system of government, not an ideal of ideology like improving an individual's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Irreni does require certain society ideals that overlap with ideology of life as part of its laboratory. For example, we must all agree to participate in collecting empirical data about our lives. This data is then used to prove out expectations of any political experiment. This collection of empirical data requires a few things for our future planning. There are three important laboratory ideals for empirical data used in Irreni. First, we need the best public education possible for all humans. Second, we need all humans to have maximum information availability. Secrets are anathema to Irreni's ideals. Third we need technology to deliver empirical data. These three ideals are expressed as the right to education, the right to information, and the device of loving life (DOLL). The DOLL is what we think of today as a smart phone. The technology is used to collect and disseminate the empirical data of our lives that is then used to support claims of political experimentation. The right to education and information are not in place as an ideological statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Instead they form the laboratory for which we conduct political experiments.
Irreni includes a refereeing system in the future planning. This is in opposition to a rule of law. Rule of law is an ideology system. Irreni is an experimental system. As such referees are free to ignore rules and consider one-time circumstances when ruling.
Irreni then is an ideal laboratory of political experimentation that enables proving life ideals on a per idea basis to be tested. Political experiments are the end game.
Experiments and laboratories require isolation and segmentation. We don't run experiments first on whole populations like we did with the ACA or Obamacare. We sample. Irreni breaks up human population into a single, test-tube size called MGOs. MGOs are micro-modular governing organizations of fixed size thirty people. Political experiments then are built modular using MGOs and not individuals. Why? Because the subjects of the experiment are also running the experiment by collecting data via the DOLL. A good way think of this is with clinical trials for drugs. A patient needs to take a schedule of the drug under test. One way to ensure the schedule is adhered too is to have a buddy check in, a spouse or child. Another way to ensure the schedule is adhered too would be a device such as the DOLL that can monitor precisely if the schedule is met. The MGO provides a community to act as a buddy system for that community which is running multiple parallel political experiments on an ongoing basis, permanently. In the future every waking moment from cradle-to-grave will be part of political experimentation because society is never static or finished.
So Irreni does have laboratory ideals that do overlap with society ideals. But beyond that anything goes. For example, theocracy is allowed in Irreni where it is discouraged today. As long as a theocracy works within the Irreni system and improves life based upon the political experiments and existing political standards of the day then theocracy is allowed. This is called freedom. Irreni is superior in providing freedom to the US today because empirical data can prove out if tyranny and oppression has increased over what came before. As long as a theocracy is not oppressing its people then theocracy is viable.
Irreni experimentation requires freedom to be a responsibility platform. As long as people can show they are being responsible empirically to each other then they are free. If MGO people are being irresponsible and bringing about misery, death, and destruction more so than in the past then these people will have their MGO disbanded.
So our first future planning after the pandemic is to adopt Irreni because it is a political laboratory. We need a political laboratory because it is the end of the world as we know it. Irreni creates a laboratory for proving whatever political experiments are soon to come our way. Right now we have no such experimental system and failure is to be expected with whatever new comes our way.
And should we put our current future planning on hold? Should we put a halt to current political futurist plans to increase population density because of pandemic risk? Not necessarily. We need proof. Irreni provides a way to prove whether any changes with higher density are risk manageable. So that means we put our current higher-density plan that is not being tested to the test. We always start small and then scale big as experiments continue to prove successful. This is the same thing Irreni says about any future political plan.
On a personal note that is not part of the Irreni plan then I'm not for high-density population exclusively as political futurists are advocating for today. Primarily because of what Mark Twain once advised, "Put all your eggs in one basket, but then WATCH THAT BASKET." How do you watch the basket? There are so many unique risks with high-density living such as weapons of mass destruction and pandemics. I think it is way too early in human development to plan for increasing high-density living the way futurists are pushing it today. We lack the technology to watch the basket.
I also think that a personal sense of self-worth comes from doing things for yourself and the higher the density of population the less we can do for ourselves. What do I mean by that? Well, when I lived in an apartment I wanted to buy a 3D printer for plastics. Everything was going well until I read that the printers produce noxious fumes and its probably not a good idea to have them in an apartment. Well crap. In other words, as population density increases then while some opportunities increase such as with culinary delights, others decrease. So there should always be an option for ubiquitous low-density living and the unique opportunities they provide, especially when it comes to being self-reliant. High-population densities make people more dependent on each other.
The population density experiment that I want to run with Irreni is modular living. What do I mean by that? Well, MGOs are fixed sized thirty people. This implies we can easily swap campuses. One MGO can swap living spaces with another. Over the course of our lives we could all enjoy the opportunities of both living in high-density population zones and low-density population zones. In other words we take advantage of Irreni's modular laboratory as a way to move around living conditions. Now this freedom will defeat political experiments that require us to stay in one place. But that's a conversation for a different day.
What's next after the pandemic passes? We should immediately adopt Irreni World Scale first. Second, we should pause increasing population density until Irreni is online and then we should experiment with higher density using Irreni. We can also add experiments to expand on hardening every population density against pandemics by experiments. Further experiments must start small. We must not roll out experiments at a national level first like we did with Obamacare. We must sample and scale to ever larger populations as experiments succeed.
Join an MGO today!
You can learn more about Irreni World Scale by visiting:
https://irreni.blogspot.com/p/join.html
Cheers!
Benefit of cooperation replaces rule of law!
Freethinkers unite!
Freedom!
Party On!
Let's get cracking!
Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment