The Future - An unregulated experiment in control
"As an artist, I believe I can voice the sentiment shared by many that the belief in our freedom and the assurance of our freedom is the greatest treasure we possess."
The COVID-19 pandemic had far-reaching effects on the world, not just in terms of public health, but also in terms of how governments operate and interact with their populations. In the face of a global crisis, governments were forced to act quickly to curb the spread of the virus, implementing measures such as lockdowns, travel restrictions, and contact tracing. These measures have been successful in many cases in slowing the spread of the virus, but they have also highlighted the potential for governments to use technology to manage and control their populations on a massive scale.
The rise of digital currencies and the increasing use of technology in the financial sector have played a significant role in this shift toward mass surveillance and control. The ability to track and monitor financial transactions in real time, combined with the power of big data analysis, means that governments can now have a much clearer picture of who is doing what, and where, in real-time.
This newfound power to monitor and control populations has led to privacy and civil liberties concerns. Critics argue that using technology to monitor and manage populations is a dangerous step toward a future where government control is absolute, and personal freedom is non-existent. The rise of mass surveillance and control also raises questions about the ethics of using technology in this way, and the long-term consequences for society.
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the pace of technological change and has brought many of these issues into sharp relief. The future of our world is likely to be shaped by the way we respond to these challenges, and it is up to us to ensure that the future is one that prioritizes personal freedom and privacy over mass surveillance and control. The rise of digital currencies and the increasing use of technology in the financial sector have put us on a path toward a future that is uncertain and potentially dangerous. It is up to us to determine the direction we take and to ensure that the future is one that is safe and secure for all."
We would like to think “We the people” have a say in how our lives will be impacted by government decisions and policies. Sadly it does not seem that way.? It feels like we are in one huge experiment of control.? We are now sitting with a two-point attack on our freedoms.? The implementation of “smart cities” or the “15 Minute City”.? The introduction of the programmable currency is the second attack.??
Who gave the government the authority to even consider changing a financial system?? Surely it comes from a democratic process, It is where the government is elected by the people to represent their interests and make decisions on their behalf. It is feared that with the shift to a digital currency system, governments may have the ability to monitor citizens' financial transactions on a massive scale, and use the information gathered to exercise greater control over their lives. Some argue that digital currencies could lead to increased government surveillance, which may infringe on people's privacy rights, restrict individual freedom, and even lead to the oppression of citizens who express dissent. In addition, critics argue that the ability to track financial transactions may also be used to monitor political activity, stifle free speech, and restrict human rights.
Here is a real-world scenario, Your medical records are owned by the government, and your doctor flags you as a potential type 2 diabetes candidate.? This is automatically put into your profile which is then connected to your programmable digital wallet.? You then go to the shops and you go try to buy a bar of chocolate and a cold fizzy drink.? You will not be able to ring them through.???
领英推荐
And here is a ChatGPT response, “Opponents of government-backed programmable digital currencies argue that it may lead to loss of privacy, as transactions can be monitored and tracked by the government. They also worry that it could lead to increased centralization, with governments having more control over the monetary system. Additionally, some believe that a digital currency could negatively impact traditional banking and financial services, potentially causing job losses and economic disruption. Overall, the concerns about government-backed programmable digital currencies mainly revolve around privacy, centralization, and potential economic consequences.”? “The idea of the government restricting what people can buy using a programmable digital currency is controversial and raises questions about financial freedom and privacy. Some argue that government restrictions would infringe on personal liberty and choice, while others believe that government intervention may be necessary to address issues such as illegal activities and money laundering.”? And let's not forget the politically correct responses by ChatGPT which is clearly a western populist response. “The idea of government restrictions on digital currency usage is still being discussed in the financial, technology, and regulatory sectors, and there is no consensus on the best approach yet. The outcome of this debate will likely depend on the balance between financial freedom and regulation, and how it aligns with the political and social values of the society.” “It is important to note that these are often unproven theories and that the reality of government involvement in programmable digital currencies is more complex and nuanced.“?
Personally, I don’t think that it is very complex or nuanced at all,? I think all governments all over the world want what China has in how they monitor their citizens.? The Chinese government is using a system of AI-enabled surveillance and data collection, known as the "Social Credit System," to control and manage its population. The system uses a variety of data sources, including cameras with facial recognition technology, to monitor and track individuals' behavior and activities. This information is then used to assign a "social credit score" to each person, which can be used to determine their eligibility for certain privileges, such as loans or travel. The government has stated that the goal of the system is to promote "trustworthiness" and "sincerity" among citizens, but critics have raised concerns about privacy and the potential for the system to be used to suppress dissent. While reducing people's movement could be one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
?“Western” countries are trying a different tactic and are touting the “15 Minute City”.? The idea behind the 15-minute city is to create walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods where people can live, work, shop, and access services, all within a short distance of their homes. This can include things like grocery stores, schools, parks, and medical facilities, as well as cultural and recreational opportunities. By reducing the need to travel long distances for basic needs, the concept aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, as well as improve air quality and public health. The concept was first proposed by the French urbanist, architect, and politician, Jean-Louis Missika, and is based on the idea that cities should be designed to prioritize the needs of residents over cars and other forms of motorized transportation.? I believe that this is one of those ideas that sound like an excellent idea in concept, but in reality, it is a load of nonsense based on politicians and councilors wanting more control over its citizens in order to generate taxes. What makes politicians think they can speak for the people?? Their job is to listen to the people.? Sadly these days it just does not seem so.? “They” will say that the 15-minute city concept also promotes social and economic equity, by making it possible for people from different backgrounds and income levels to access the same opportunities and services. Additionally, it is aimed to reduce social isolation and increase social cohesion and community belonging. Framing policies as necessary for public safety or national security: By emphasizing the potential dangers that citizens face and the need to protect them, governments could argue that certain surveillance or data collection policies are necessary to keep people safe. They would offer rewards or other incentives for citizens who comply with certain policies, such as discounts on services, access to exclusive benefits, or other perks. They will implement policies incrementally, starting with small, seemingly harmless measures and gradually expanding them over time. This could make it more difficult for citizens to resist or object to the policies, as they may not immediately see the full implications of the changes.? We are all being Bamboozled. Enter the behavioral scientist.? The best example of the manipulation of the public is not the Russian interference in the USA elections, but a good ole British company. Bell Pottinger.? I still believe the people that worked on certain campaigns in South Africa should be charged with crimes against humanity.? That is another subject, but it illustrates how governments could easily change people's mindsets armed with all this knowledge based on our movements and spending habits.
Now, what happens if you are technophobic or for whatever reason you do not want to adopt a digital way of life, what will happen to you then?? This new system of government that is completely reliant on digital is dangerous and will most likely cause a new massive criminal element and a lot more opportunity for human trafficking and exploitation. ? Without the ability to access online resources or participate in digital transactions, people may be unable to buy food, rent a home, or even take public transportation. This can leave them feeling marginalized and disconnected from the rest of society. For those who cannot participate in digital transactions, the black market may be their only option. However, this option comes with its own risks, including the possibility of being caught and punished by the authorities. Additionally, the prices for goods and services in the black market are often much higher than in the formal economy, making it difficult for people to make ends meet. Bartering and Community-Based Currencies may become normal In some communities, people may choose to trade goods and services using bartering or community-based currencies. While this option allows people to access the resources they need without relying on the government's financial system.? This can be seen in Oranje in South Africa.? I'm not sure how sustainable it is.? While some have suggested that precious metals and stones could serve as alternative forms of currency, others argue that these too could become illegal to trade. With no physical money, no access to digital transactions, and no alternative forms of currency, the question remains: how will these individuals survive?? Some experts have theorized that the government may need to introduce a socialist system to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. In such a system, food, housing, and other essential services would be provided by the state. This would ensure that everyone, regardless of their ability to participate in digital transactions, has access to the basic necessities of life.
While a socialist system may provide a safety net for those in need, it raises important questions about the role of the government in providing for its citizens and the impact it will have on individual freedom and independence. So, we now know that a completely socialist system does not really work, Democracy is not working either. All we are getting is a 50 percent split between a two-main-party system and that is a minority of potential voters.? Capitalism is our greed but also our ambitions.? We need a new system that is without doubt, but it has to incorporate all people.? If you ask most people, “What would you like to be doing?”? I’ll bet that most will say “not doing what I do now”.??
I think we need a new hybrid political system combining elements of socialism, democracy, and capitalism. “Sodecanism”, The goal is to create a fair and equitable society where everyone has equal opportunities and access to resources, while also promoting individual freedom and creativity. Under Sodecanism, companies that use technology and automation would be taxed at a much higher rate to support those who have lost their jobs and provide essential services to the community. At the same time, people would have the opportunity to earn more through their own efforts and hard work. Overall, Sodecanism strives to balance the benefits of capitalism with the principles of social justice and equality, creating a sustainable and harmonious society.
We can only wish!?