One of my favorite Lennon tunes and he certainly nailed it with that haunting, as you say, hypnotic
string. And now, since you mentioned it, it's going
round and round in my head! Imagine that!!!!

I agree!

Absolutely for the evil cities and nothing more. Although, it is a tenet of agenda 2030 to shuffle everyone in crammed city states...over my dead body, I say!

Interesting blog but not attainable. Maybe for the northeast corridor such services could work or in major megalopolis.Outside of such area's in Arizona and rural states where there is large distances between cities, towns, villages would not work at all. If this planet got hit with a massive CME all that would be gone.

Agree

We have a lot of that unearned credit these days.

Oh, by the way...we should probably, in an effort to be as accurate as possible call the collective an: "Antilectual" ponzi scheme"...

Agree, think tanks are a collective, perhaps even an intellectual Ponzi scheme ;)
I want to add that unearned credit may also lead to the abandonment (and end) of property as we knew it. Look for the Feds to raise interest rates three times this year :D

True...lot's of imitators out there...

Excellent summery.
From another post, this article is Backward thinking from a perceived misunderstood consequence.

Interesting point: Think Tanks, by nature are a collective thinking the exact same things...no new or integrated information or knowledge.
A mentor once suggested, we call an integrated group or community be called: A meeting of the Minds in a mastery of each one's mind in a "Master Mind Session" each mind bringing additional knowledge, each his own puzzle piece to the whole.

Even Duct Tape is a "got to look closely" product, there is some real flimsy crap out there masquerading as Duck Tape...

The right to property: Whether its an island or a book or a subscription, someone has to own it. Pure service without ownership is an oxymoron. Somebody has to own the car, the food, or the clothes on his back.

You have to trade something to get something. You can't get a car ride for free, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You need money. Money is the distillation of trade. The fact of digital money does not make purchasing physical items with it impossible, exhibit A is: Amazon.com.

This article follows a familiar materialist fallacy. In the same way that materialists deny consciousness because it has no "substance" i.e. because it is not physical, the "think tank" denies ownership because that concept to them has no physicality. None, that is, except, "stuff" e.g. trash. I am certain that most of us will refuse to give up our property because someone else has terrible housekeeping habits! The article argues that ownership makes people lazy. No. Laziness just makes people poor owners. A junk heap is just a junk heap until someone has the idea to use that heap to build something better.

In summary, the article combines a socialist premise of non-ownership - which derives from non-consciousness, which derives from materialism - with the digital age in a kind of magic stew of circular reasoning. The scariest part of the article is the lack of consistent logic coming from - of all places - a "think tank".
I agree with Carl on the phrase "world without humans". That is, only in a world with human beings is non-ownership possible. This is just another anti-human viewpoint coming from people with degrees who are paid to think up ways to "blow" people's minds e.g. make contradictory statements.

Duct tape has become the universal fix all product! Even fixing one's car after a crash...see a lot of that on out-of-state cars out east.

Everyone needs a hammer, a screwdriver, and some duct tape. No one is exempt.

A city or something to big to fail, On Wheels!

It also has the side-effect that where once one could maintain one's own vehicles with little or no effort, now one can't even become a spontaneous mechanic - it simply requires too much training and expensive equipment. So when even something simple breaks, it takes down the whole system. And as systems get more and more complex by virtue of the expansive electronic systems and programming, there are more things which can break. It's a spiral into dependency.

Simply said.

I think electronics in cars has gone too far to the point that nothing is intuitive any more...to be a safe defensive driver things should be simple stupid.
I also do not like the idea of drive by wire systems. You have no control when something goes wrong. Steering, breaks and acceleration all should be direct connect mechanical.

The old saying about borrowing from your neighbor...if you have to borrow it more than once then you should get your own...laughing

I don't think it works even as a generalization, let alone 100%. I've been a renter for about half my lifetime to date and an owner the other half, an in neither case did my ownership status influence my personal morality. Nor do I see any "homeownership effect" on the morality of people I am acquainted with.

There is always that once in a lifetime tool worth having for the day you will desperately need it.

1,2,and 3, is what Maurice Strong proposed...he hated the masses...as if he was perfect, he was not, he was corrupt and evil. Rest in Chaos...for the evil bastard is dead now.

This, you might realize, was a generalized phrase. There are always exceptions to the rule, the observation or the ideal. Hardly anything is 100%.

No, it is not about the amount of stuff you own but acceptance and respect for the concept that you and others can and do own things, and to be personally responsible for those things.
(Note: the thing everyone owns is themselves)

I live in the untamed west, and to get anywhere but my city falls outside the range of most Uber trips and electric cars. For me, an autonomous vehicle is not an option I'm even going to entertain at the moment, though others are welcome to choose differently. I also have a problem with most vehicles made today because they can be hacked and remotely piloted (anything with an On-Star-type system). Autonomous cars are extremely vulnerable to this.

Oh I'm not denying that it is a choice everyone should have, I'm just pointing out the very nature of the relationship you are getting into with such services: in many cases you are betting your entire business on the other company's ability to provide a service upon which your livelihood rests. And the costs of changing systems are immense, in come cases being entirely prohibitive. I'm not arguing that one should not have the ability to make such contracts, I'm simply questioning the wisdom in so doing based on my own personal experience.