Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/28/Brainfood_-_Can_You_Imagine_The_Next_60_Years
Dr. Chris Luebkeman outlines four different "plausible futures" for the planet the selfish bubble, carbon is crime, ecological age, and vortex of despair. He judges each of these potential futures in terms of human development and planetary health.
-----
What will the world be like in 60 years? Back in the 1950s, people speculated that by now we would be flying around in commuter-copters, striding rivers with man-made sea-legs, and living in climate-controlled bubble cities.
As visiting thinker Chris Luebkeman said to an audience at University of New South Wales, "the future is fundamentally fiction." However, it's still an interesting thing to consider, and here, delivering a lecture as part of the university's BrainFood series, Dr. Luebkeman indulged in some fascinating speculation. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Dr. Chris Luebkeman runs the Global Foresight + Innovation initiative at Arup, a global design and engineering firm and a leading creative force behind many of the world's most innovative projects and structures. In his role, he conceives new ways of building - recyclable buildings, reusable offices, and furniture that can decompose - and works with some of the world's largest companies to develop what he calls "plausible futures" to better understand the opportunities that change is creating for them in the built environment.
In his book, Drivers of Change 2009, Chris and the Foresight team at Arup look at 50 important factors that will affect our world, arranged in a framework known as STEEP (social, technological, economic, environmental and political). Designed as a collection of note cards, the book provides a tool for developing business strategy, brainstorming, education, or simply to think creatively and holistically. The cards are designed to encourage deeper consideration of the forces driving global change and the role that individuals can play in creating a more sustainable future.
@nester119 What is actually ruining this world are people like you.
Watchdawg 2 months ago
@nester119 stfu nazi
astroboirap 4 months ago
Totally facebook - /watch?v=XvwK-3cQ6gE
BiteTheBigOne2342 10 months ago
What are you gonna do about getting around to doing anything positive when the communities are overrun with ghetto rats and their violent and irresponsible offspring? With civil white societies being pushed off the earth by immigrants from Africa and the middle east? You won't get the help you need from these types! You poor professorial folks have your heads up your ass. We are DOOMED.
nester119 1 year ago
@shodashi108 Definitely, but but human nature would be hard to change after seeing the world the same way for thousands of years.
technodrgriffin 1 year ago
Gore 2.0 for the MIT crowd.
The root problem of our world — rampant self-interest— is not addressed. The alternative system we need to consider is one that protects ALL from the self interest of the few (or the many).
When we consider what is Best For All, we will initiate appropriate models.
shodashi108 2 years ago
applying pascal's gambit doesn't really imply the generation of an accurate world model, rather he lobbied for 10 minutes for the green businesses, I don't regard this as "scientific", rather as an advertorial in which he proposed that an "eco age" in which green business will flourish will be good for the average idiots
ssnakeydnb 2 years ago
@oiuoiu988
Maybe I jumped to conclusions when I commented. It seems maybe there are quite a few things we would agree on.
Valstein0 2 years ago
thank you for revealing your own ignorance. I believe in a free society, where corporations dont have a state to incorporate into and dont have a state to lobby for special priveleges, protections and barriers to entry that they could not otherwise achieve in a free society. minimum wage laws make it ILLEGAL to hire someone who's labor isnt worth the MW. that is why we have such a terrible labor market. you have no clue, i have nothing to do with the gop and you make yourself look ignorant.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
This speaker didn't really have any solid supportive information, or consistent reasoning. I would have liked to have seen exactly why his hypothesis' would have happened, rather than him just postulating that what he predicted was correct. I didn't really gain anything from this speech.
Valstein0 2 years ago