Ben Jao Ming

As a follow-up to this post featuring predictions by leading scientists from the year 1900, here are my predictions for the year 2107… or around that time:

1. Large parts of the earth have grown unpopulated due to starvation and war. The borders around rich countries have been totally shut.
2. Energy mainly comes from solar power, water and wind. Nuclear energy has been abandoned because it has grown too expensive and dangerous compared to the other technologies
3. Most people in the west speak English as their primary language
4. The old Internet has been replaced by a new technology, which is regulated by governments. The old Internet ceased to exist because of the need for more reliable protocols after it got totally hammered by way too much information flow. IPv6 finally got fully implemented in 2015, but it didn’t do the trick.
5. The U.S. has suffered so much economically that it had to give up being a superior military power. Instead it relies on co-operation with the rest of the rich countries
6. No-one will have gone to Mars since problems with limited resources, climate changes and desperate countries constantly battling out will be way too heavy for the rich countries to out-weigh.
7. A new great leader will arise. Probably he will be the president of the E.U., and he will have visions that bring most parts of the European countries together to battle their common issues
8. Wild life will be limited to special reserves where humans aren’t allowed
9. Fish is very rarely eaten since it is expensive to catch, since most fish are almost extinct
10. South America has finally gotten it’s act together and has become a wealthy part of the world because of its good natural resources and a union very similar to the E.U. People will remember Hugo Chavez as a hero after he got killed by some U.S.-funded assassin, but U.S. interference will not be an issue anymore.
11. Cars are banned in most big cities. Limited resources and a hard energy policy has forced cars out of the market. Chinese cities are among the first to embrace this, but soon after, the rest of the world follows
12. The Middle East and Africa has totally lost and have been shut out of the rest of the world. A brief but hard war has resulted in a very big Islamic state which has taken control of big parts of the poor world. The rest of the world keeps out, but there has been a major breakup, and a new cold war has emerged, where both parts are aware of the great dangers.
13. Free movement by plane has become very expensive, and the advancements in communication has removed the needs for flying.
14. GMO has become legalized, but it has ruined much of the eco-system. The eco-system in general is very monotone.

My general theory is that resources (not just oil, but also many metals) have become limited and some very violent but brief wars have changed the structure of the planet so that only a few big unions are in control. Climate changes have also made sure that the food reserves are very limited, and democracy has gotten really fake, but is still used as the main excuse for doing most things.

Danish arty-farty movie company Zentropa has made a movie called AFR. It features Anders Fogh Rasmussen having a love affair with a fictional character. He discovers the wonders of being gay and giving away money to Africa. Then unfortunately he gets murdered under mysterious circumstances.

Watch the trailer

Anyways, this movie has spawned some rather stupid reactions. So I guess it was worth the making. First in line to make a press comment: Pia K, who said she felt “abused” by the movie. Pia K, you weren’t abused. You’re just too stupid to get it. Other politicians from “both wings” of Danish politics have been out criticizing the movie. Nobody apparently gets it: All of you politicians appear like blond sluts in the media, vulnerable to such mocking attacks. Whether or not it’s your fault or the media, the broader perspective is, that this is just one big circus and we (the people) need serious political substance very badly…

Greenpeace is a kind of b/w thing for many people. They either dig it or they don’t. I just started working there. First task was to translate Green My Apple into Danish. That went down pretty well, I think. Now, this campaign probably triggers something quite common amongst the Greenpeace haters out there. Why bash Apple? Isn’t that just some media humping stunt as usual. Apple can’t possibly be the worst environmental issue – far from.

My answer to that: Yes, Apple isn’t the biggest issue, and yes, it’s a good target because of media attention. But that’s not the purpose of the campaign, and people saying that have completely misunderstood everything. Now, the big issue is: E-waste. Now THAT’S actually a big problem. And Greenpeace wants to help solve that problem, but that’s very difficult since the producers of E-waste are so numerous. We have to start somewhere.

One thing that could be done about this: Innovation. We need better products free from chemicals that make them dangerous when being disposed of. Secondly we need products with a long life cycle. That means iPods capable of upgrading.

But another part-solution to the problem is called producer responsibility. Since it’s not being legally enforced in more than a handful of European countries, it’s up to Greenpeace to push for more legislation and voluntary producer responsibility. We need manufacturers to implement full product take-back in order to have an economic incitement for making recyclable products.

Apple’s part in all this? They HAVE to push forward. E-waste is a giant problem. We need action, and since other companies are actually pushing forward, we want to stimulate Apple to join the competition. So far Greenpeace has come up with Guide To Clean Electronics. This creates some sort of economic incitement for becoming cleaner at least. But work will continue, and hopefully soon people will see the purpose of Green My Apple in more than just words of encouragement.

The word of God can often be confusing. And sometimes we forget that maybe the good book wasn’t narrated by a genious, but rather put together by pure chance – that somehow a lot of old Jewish texts got mixed together and incidentally ended up being the non-questionable manifest of the worlds biggest religion. But to handle all this: The Sceptic’s Annotated Bible – The whole book with comments, and make no mistake. Some of the critisism is very rough, but it really shows why we shouldn’t just go “hey… this verse is the key to a better understanding of life”. Here’s a hillarious example from Corinthians I:

1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

---

“I know not whether I baptized any other.”
Poor Paul is confused. First he says that he baptized no one. Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. And maybe Stephanus and his household. He can’t remember if he did it to anyone else.