|
Water world as an opportunity    On the Rights of the futurological hypothesis.
"Everything is water." Thales of Miletus, founder of Greek philosophy and European science.
The motive for finding sufficient grounds for such hypotheses is their pre-investment value, when the main task in advancing them becomes a combination of the project component with the prediction.
Water hemisphere and water-land inversion of ideas about the spaces of life Six continents, five of them inhabited. Four oceans are predominantly transport zones and a predominant source of resources - mainly bioresources, and to a lesser extent - minerals. About 70% of the surface of the planet is water: sea and oceanic. In most periods of mass extinction, up to 80% of the land fauna and only 20% of the fauna of the world's oceans were exterminated. A significant part of terrestrial-type exoplanets discovered by astronomers in the near-Earth area of the Milky Way galaxy are large “super-earths” with a surface in the form of a global water ocean. There is a perspective of the planet Earth (clearly - on Google Earth), from which only one Pacific Ocean and not a single continent is visible. In this sense, the concept of “Water Hemisphere” is justified, although it is not used precisely because of the subjective uncertainty of the space, which is considered mostly as a medium of transport routes with seemingly insignificant in economic and resource relations islands planarly distributed in it. Such island clusters in a vast aquatic environment with small temperature differences represent all the intra-self-existing oecumene as closed linearity. However, the Water Hemisphere is not considered as a region with such a closure into something significant for its economic or political life. Most countries of the world have the most developed and richest cities along the coasts, of which the most developed are along the marine and oceanic. The largest port city in the world - New York on the Atlantic coast. The transit between them represents the basis of global commodity logistics. The further into the continents, the less logistics and the poorer the economic conditions are, as a rule. Logistics takes place deeper into the continents, but, as a rule, these distances from the water represent the localization of the raw materials or near- raw-materials production. And the farther away from the transport media (water remains the dominant one in terms of cargo transportation), the more sedentary is the way of life. That is, "sedentity" (if we consider it as an economic category relative to the economic category of the territorial distribution of population densities) may represent a relative or degree gradient (rather than an absolute discrete indicator) relative to proximity to moving or mobile presence environments. It is also important to note that residency, being the opposite of mobility, is not the antithesis of the demographic category of migration, in almost all contexts presented as “forced non-sedentary”( or “forced non-residency”) – that is, as a non-voluntarily chosen lifestyle not viewed from the point of view of its usefulness as a process; usually it is about “migration-to” and the total time of the “migration cycle”, but not about the increase of good received during it. Moreover, migration processes are often connotate by categories of humanitarian disasters and destruction. It is noteworthy that it is a sedentary type of existence that is considered to be a civilization in comparison with a nomadic one, irrespective of the interpretation of trade as a more or less complex pendulous nomadism (although the pendulum-flaning ratio can also be gradient), and is taught in such status in primary schools, setting a very sustainable preconditions of the world perception of the future generations of people from countries with completely different levels of welfare. Everything related to the understanding of the development processes of human communities, including socio-economic formations and civilizations, and therefore the economy itself as a science and as an aspect of social relations, is thought of as an attribute of an overland person - a “land creature”, which is obviously explained by its anatomical and physiological features that do not allow to relate it to the feathered, nor to the aquatic or amphibious creatures. Although the very essence of the development of society is invariably associated with a person’s use of a different environment in relation to him, where he finds himself in some respects (speed, volume of goods or directions), on the one hand, he is otherwise mobile, and on the other, more mobile. As for the nomadism itself, it is the land nomadism in its archaic forms that is usually associated with the latter (this is what the standard idea about it is gradually given as the essential definition of elementary school). Moreover, since economics itself as a science and consulting practice emerged with the development of capitalism, it is also thinkable (even in its most avant-garde versions like neoconomics) as an attitude of ecumenus with the presumption of stationarity, even if logistics, trade and money exchange are recognized as the essence of this relationship. Accordingly, capitalism itself is thinkable in emphasizing, presumption and centralizing a land-and-settled way of life, despite all slips of the tongue about great geographical discoveries, transport links with Spanish gold, transcontinental railways and intercontinental water and air routes. Economic life is, after all, for the most part imaginable to those who live “on land” associated with “real estate”, the best of which is in the city, the best of which is large, because communication is more intense in it (that is... again, localized mobility!) and more opportunities for self-realization. However, all this world order in the sum of all these (for today - still obvious and self-evident) ideas is undergoing a crisis today. And, by the way, all three reports to the Club of Rome about “limits to growth” – about this, seemingly never ceased to be a global, sedentary world with a resource-transport, service, status of rivers, seas and oceans. What about all this is supposed to be? Transformation of the world's oceans, not only into the transport environment of humanity, but also into massively residential, can reduce the load from the land part (resource, transport, exploitative in relation to the masses of the population), aligning the lifestyles on land and on water, creating not only the balance of transport and housing in different parts of the world, but also the balance of living standards. Changing the system of differences in lifestyles. Not to mention the solution of known problems with phobias of flooding coastal (and, by the way, the most developed - see above) settlements of the planet in connection with the elevation of the World Ocean level due to global warming. Neoconomics says that the difference in the standard of living is due to the difference in the level of development of economic oikumene, which creates a property imbalance through the introduction of a monetary factor. But this is an imbalance of fiat state money, which Oleg Grigoriev considers "the only real", and his statehood is tied to imperial originality, which, in its "classical form", is a social distribution hierarchy arising on the landscape-climatic uniformity of continental depth. In addition, what is considered an oikumena? The story of how vainly other pirates tried to divide the surface of the world ocean into “sovereign territories” is well known. And the question of the economy of "island territorial clusters" (both within them and among themselves) has not even been posed in general terms (including, for example ... for groups of planets). Today, ships are considered the territories of countries, but why can't a private floating vessel or a mobile platform be recognized as a sovereign non-state territory? In the current economic discourse, oicumene continue to be thought as oicumene of land associated with some state sovereignty that emit money, and international trade transport networks are seen as something separate, but tied to the tasks and needs of “hard” continents. That is, there is still the same land-water ratio with the dominance of land as a place of presence of the metropolia with “access to the sea” as an advantage of state (imperial) sovereignty. Both money and the economy itself are now being revised in the framework of several trends, if at all it would make sense to talk about the “economy” based on the results of such a review. Indeed, if, following other authors, to assert that capitalism systematically collapses, and to designate the opening of the history of economic doctrines by Grigoriev as the history of their degradation, while recognizing the economy itself as an activity caused by the tasks of the capitalism era, that is it not logical to assume that Is the end of the economy part of the natural end of capitalism? Indeed, using the history of the search for the neoconomics itself, it is clear that in vanity to solve the problems of the country and the world by economic means there is an appeal... to the theme of architecture in its more modern urban twist (although for some reason without resorting to the system-dynamic toolkit of working with complexities thanks to the efforts of the founding father of the most urbanism, Jay Forrester): indeed, architecture was precisely the sphere of activity and knowledge that was preceded in its applied tasks by the first economists-physiocrats (as is easily seen by opening the books of Vitruvius or Alberti, and the "second physiocrat" Vauban so in general was a specialist in public finance and methods of integration of landscape architecture in the environment). However, today there is an opportunity to go even further and start a conversation about new environmental integration, very carefully using the concept of macroeconomics. It turns out to be possible to talk about the creation of world development centers in coastal sea and ocean harbors, providing a wider range of transportation, logistics, and business opportunities. Actually, what I mentioned earlier regarding the spatial localization of lifestyle environments is considered here from the point of view of the broadest, global prerequisites and triggers. Inversion of land and water is also a globalistic aspect of the development of “logistic design” ideas presented in a separate article. The main such trigger here can assume the uniformity of comfortable settlement, taking into account water spaces. What is not only not contradict, but that is actively complemented by the ideas of resource saving and sufficiency of life benefits. Here too, there is a solution to the problem of non-uniformity of settlement as a significant (if not the main) condition for uneven distribution of wealth in the world, resulting from the stability (fixedness, immutability) of relations that make such unevenness beneficial for certain agents of trade-financial relations. On the one hand, it is impossible to talk about a certain violent or advertising nature of the “water” idea: it is about decentration, not about recentration. On the understanding of the planet as a global home and as a global "spaceship". There is nothing natural and healthy to move the meeting place from the living room to the bathroom (although, if we are talking about a sauna, there, by the way, many issues are resolved more successfully than at a hotel), and generally it’s nothing natural and healthy in assigning place or some corner in the house as "main place of action." On the other hand, we still have to talk about the land-water inversion - but precisely in order to carry out the decentration of those preconditions about the world order that still persists today. In any case, the effect of this inversion should be evaluated:
Here we should designate two approaches to demography:
The second is slyness, disguises itself in the clothes of the first and seeks to privatize it. It is important that such ultra-right things as the pathological limit of the politeconomy of capitalist society (with all its socialist salary-orientedness) be overcome systemically, that is, did not arise under similar conditions in the absence of a critical mass of carriers of historical memory of them. It seems possible to carry out it exactly in the sum of the prospects that we are talking about here. It is important to achieve mass awareness of the fact that the ultra-right position of de re represents the highest form of economic rationalization-in-itself as the historical self-reflection of the capitalist system, the reception of herding accompanying the exit of humanity into its evolutionary, associative-dissociative, planar state. And, due to well-known historical circumstances, not proper reflexed, including by those classics, who tried to do this within the framework of the first in the well-known historical retrospective of the integral social science – Marxist. The economy itself, as a mass consulting practice (including the practice of theorizing), is an organic component of capitalism and, in the event of a crisis of society concentrating on profits as a principle of social development, undergoes a crisis with it, demanding to go beyond itself (hence, there are confessions like "within the economy, there is no solution to these problems" or "let's create a new holistic science of society"). Meanwhile, even despite the return of this “holistic science of society” to its spatial-settlement originality, the Marxist political-economic dimension itself does not disappear – it is still not fully understood in its new forms with the new properties that are completely in line with the trivial dialectical idea of development, were unnoticed in their evolution: thus, instead of the proletariat, a prekariat with its interests arose; the idea of the International precisely as the "state of the human race" (quite in accordance with the authentic text of the song of the same name) embodies the Internet; the analogue of the labor movement is postcolonial Islamism with its ancient ideas of fair trade for all, which in the pre-colonial period gave rise to university “nations” on European soil; the ultimate Marxist "abolition of the state" [in sence of " hierarchical crown-like state"] has become the direct, if not the key, topic of liberal economism, as well as one of the dominant themes in the early years of post-Soviet Russia; no less than the Marxist idea of abolishing fiat state money in the framework of the same liberal economism is now viewed without a vulgar rejection of money itself as a tool and public good, but in the sense of their massification and democratization, taking into account the whole body of ideas about local and private money. And Marx and Marxism in today's world manifest as Romain Rolland and Rosa Luxemburg wrote about him, that is, in the sense that, firstly, the tasks of social well-being can be achieved not by one “decisive” revolution, but by a series of them, even with the seemingly “full” consideration of all the mistakes of the past and the like (since there are always factors of uncertainty, partial controllability and novelty), and suggest restoration periods with a rather harsh reaction. And secondly, in the sense that the necessary changes in the world can also be obtained by systematic work without simultaneous step-like revolutions with a constant structure of the process at the inter-eucumene level - by blocking spatial channels and areas with still unoccupied markets of cheap labor still inaccessible to global imperialist forces. It is for the latter case that the development of grassroots, "socio-plasmoid", planar-networking, integration of social processes as business communication processes is so important. The important news here is the recognition that “imperialist business” is not an evolutionary form of the grassroots, but rather a degenerate one. But we still have to come to an understanding of this, since very many consciousnesses representing the mixture from Marxism, Nietzscheanism and Freudianism are guided by the maxim “life is expansion”, and not “life is assistance”. Here it is important to understand that the nation itself, as a peculiar evolutionary form of human communities, overcomes the imperial expansionism that preceded it. Including its university or scientific originality, and today it is an aspect of being. Indeed, science as a social institution for the self-realization of the cognitive ambitions of its members does not care who it is to work for. But even if it works for the ultra-right or totalitarian regime (and works well, as the German and later Soviet experience showed), then inside it still represents a democracy based on the institutionalized conflict of doubt. It is simply necessary for her to be effective, successful and, therefore, in demand from outside her own environment. The same principle of "sworn friendship" of departments and colleges, coming from the university environment of the national Europe, applies to the reproduction at "alienated-site" checks and balances of the political confederation of North America. It is important to remember that the devices of political and scientific communities, dating back to the epochs of Arab influence in Europe, are not only correlative, but also related. (Yes, the relationship with Plato and Popper here is partly become tricky "Santa Barbara", but not so dramatic.) With its product, science represents the generation of new monetary values [meanings], as well as the very format of the monetary system as the quintessence of the social contract. And this creates a decent groundwork for optimism: dictatorship needs science, but not science needs dictatorship. The same fact that the “first world” competitive environment was indifferent to the political regime as a source of economic benefits only means that it is necessary to revise this indifference in terms of the benefits and risks of the existence of this very environment. Then we can make a few fantasy hypotheses, some of which have external prerequisites for this text:
It is proposed to consider these hypotheses with respect to at least three, already launched as a political, state and interstate, sectoral and intersectoral corporate strategies of a radical change in the foundations of the subject-technological set that are global in nature, namely:
Prospects for the open start of these processes are scheduled for implementation over a decade since the end of 2018, and have already been presented in separate official publications on the network. All other trends, such as the "Internet of Things", various types of development a la Gartner, cluster specializations of national economies, and even "new money" (and, therefore, new trade and financial relations) are within the very framework of these trends, which can called infrastructural. This, once again, is not about anti-utopias or individual high-tech water settlements - this is about the possibility of macroeconomics based on new principles on the scale of a whole hemisphere that can influence lifestyle on a global scale. However, if we are talking about anti-utopias, it is important to understand that along with the universality of satellite access, the military satellite component will also be expanded. But precisely because space and becomes private, to avoid monopolization. In addition, the question is open about the mutual existence of confederative systems – that is, those for which the inherent high degree of autonomy and dissociativity of their collective members. But there is also hardly a significant problem in the actual consideration of the criteria of confederalizm: the possibility of unification is not news, the news is confederalization as a systemic de-unification. Start of astroengineering: how could it look? Mankind has already reached the state when it can begin to implement astroengineering of the “first type” – the question is how it will do it organizationally. The first and most obvious way is to increase the number of floors of residential surfaces when abandoning the high-rise residential terminals – increasing their privacy, mobility, functional versatility and blockability in a wide range of interfaces. What means the expansion of the area and the increase in the functionality of the bridge aboveground and underground structures, as well as the development of water spaces, again, the number of storeys of the surface and underwater parts of the structures. Floors should bear the environment, including biological - that is why in the trend "green skyscrapers", although the skyscrapers themselves are likely to quickly become history or rather narrow and, in any case, not at all mass, niche, rather dependent not on price land. It is also possible that they will become nothing more than a functional angle or frame complexes connected to other similar terminals. And their internal space will be correlated with horizontal girder-bridge structures, which, in turn, will most likely represent the preferred location of dwellings. But this, again, in the land conditions - in water conditions this will also be possible, but something else will most likely dominate there – most likely, all the same space-clustered, easily dissociated and reassociated. In other words, the concept of a floor here will refer not to a separate building, but to the organized landscape of the urban environment. In the same sense, the levels of the floors will be divided by function, and the problem of natural daylight should be solved; the boundary of the surface of the planet and the air is the value of the common good. What does rasterism mean, or ... yes, the rhizomatizm of bridges and floors – which is already observed in many implementations of various architectural projects. Systemic nomadism as a pre-monetary fundamental economy The economy is not only based on money, but also on something more fundamental than they are. Actually, the distributional hypothesis of the origin of money and its “identification” clarification just point to such a basis. It represents the provision of sedentary economic agents with all necessary from the side of agents moved, and getting the profit moved from the difference in living standards of sedentary. To this end, the displaced people seek to transform their own flaning nomadism into pendulum (or regular) of varying complexity, thereby forming a system of markets as the basis of economic relations. But the economy that is based on providing sedentary by mobile and mobiles-above-sedentaries ceases to work. It is time to recognize this at the end of the second decade of the 21st century. We need an economy based on the provision by mobile people of mobiles-as-such, which are not in the hard categorical or anthropological-specific difference of the subject and object of provision or supply; when compulsory residency or sedentity of "instilled necessity" is considered enslavement or slavery. Sedentity can only be voluntary and temporary - it is then that the Earth can truly belong to all of humanity. Because it is then that humanity perceives itself in its true economic existence. But what then will be such an economy? Total mobility and the means to ensure it make maximum people free, carrying out a cultural revolution, similar to the spread of clothing and cutlery. And thus, they change the very basis of the world order, which is customary considering as economic. In a situation where everyone is super mobile, and commerce and the state are reduced to socially useful services with minimal costs, money continues to be the basis of final and urgent agreements, but they begin to work as a category of universal right. Even in the presumption of origin of a merchant from the state, it itself, and a profit-creating merchant, can, in the logic of its origin, be reduced (or euphemerized) to services. This means that the costs of both the merchant and the “instances of the public good services” are minimized, automated and reduced. That is, meaningful mobility means not only the neoconomic “producer and consumer are one person”, but also “merchant, producer and consumer are one person”. That today there is still a wildness, but the closest trend of tomorrow. For this we need to massify the ability and means of comfortable and unimpeded movement of an individual on the maximum scale (today - on the scale of the planet). It means that the means of his moving and the means of his dwelling must be one. But if so, then the ways and principles of consumption are changing - both at the individual level and at the macro-social global, if at all, it will make sense to call them macroeconomic. If monetary or quasi-monetary relations remain, then surely this meaning will be preserved, but this will most likely be the posteconomic phase of the existence of humanity, where the habitual-economic one will exist “in the removed form”. Money is only a logistic form of capital, which is the essence of the accumulation or acquisition of organizing, including the "organizing of memory". The usefulness of which organizing is acquired by its involvement, and the best option here is precisely exchange, or communicative, utility. For Marx, the communicative or media aspect of the existence of society was not a matter of careful consideration at all (as well as the media for him were no more than a medium of formation of "false values"), because he spoke about the exchange value or usefulness in sly casuistry, worthy of the best samples of scholasticism, demarcating it from the prime cost. He could not conceived that “exchangeability” (like any kind of communication) has its specific logic, since classical logic and Hegel’s dialectical logic were the most scientific foundations for him, representing the very logicality. The development of non-classical logics in the time of Marx was not conducted, the speech acts theory has not yet been created. And Collingwood has not yet said that the "logic of answers" without the "logic of questions" is meaningless. *** So, there are two principal circumstances: 1. the factor of money is the beginning of a right rather than legislative, dimension in the environment of economic realities; 2. neoconomic conversation itself is based on the presumption of profit extraction by “mobile” from the difference of welfare “immobile”, and this wealth and profit are thought of in monetary and humanicoresource forms, whereas the format of “logistic being” has a pre-monetary character, and money as an instrument here is used a certain cohort of trade and financial professionals (that is, a cohort of those who make-as-earn money). These circumstances, it seems, is what is now unsteady in terms of the fundamentals of the economic model (and already with some glimpses of trends), and without understanding these things, one cannot get the notorious novelty in talking about any development of terrestrial territories and spaces: always there is already an obvious slide into the imperial "now we will resettle all and, having made the new settled ones, we restart the peace system". But if we are talking about the citizens, and not about the "tax-paying class", then this will not work already. Cause the mobility of the firsts is right, and natural right (rather the second after "Aux armes, citoyens"). The question is, where is the fastest this process of massification of interconnected housing and transport will begin to work. The closest, where this can be assumed, is the region designated at the beginning of this material – the vast "water hemisphere" – the Pacific sphere of the planet Earth. And the centers for the development of relevant technologies and practices are likely to represent major land centers, as well as flotation platforms, some of which, after a short time, are likely to become deep-sea. |
Добавить комментарий