pochekailov

I agree, I have the same observation. I am also working solo and I am struggling to find new meaningful connections.

Would you go to a pub with me?

Would you listen to me ranting about evil nimbyists preventing any form of urban development and thus blocking economic growth?

Would you call me asking me to help you with an unexpected problem?

Can I stop by your place just to hang out a bit, without any particular reason?

Would you pick me up from an airport tomorrow if I ask you to?

Will I come to you if I have a wild business idea? Or will you come to me to brag about your recent promotion?

No, we are not friends. We don't even know each other. You need to spend some time with a person for at least couple of hours a day for about half a year to become friends.

I am commenting in support of optimism and to counterweight pessimistic outlook.

Humanity indeed faces a lot of problems. Each of them have many possible solutions (The only one unsolvable is a heat death of the universe).

Thing is, the solutions usually may be divided into two categories: technical and societal.

For example, for the horse manure problem in big cities there were two possible solutions: invent a car, or limit the number of horses in the city.

The thing is: technical solutions are always cool. They open up new possibilities, the one which could not be foreseen. Technical solution also creates new problems, that require solutions of their own. Societal solutions always suck. Societal solution is to make people do less of the thing that causes trouble. The problem therefore kind of resolves, but the life become more boring and less free. Such solution does not bring new possibilities, does not advance life, but there is no risks of unforeseen new problems.

Examples of the problems and possible solutions:

Global worming: limit consumption and consumerism - or - perform climate engineering (spray high albedo particles in stratosphere, send controllable aluminum foil mirrors to the orbit, install more solar cells and wind turbines

Cancer, Alzheimers, heart diseases, obesity, etc.: live "healthy life", eat boring non-tasty grass, die 5 times a week at the gym, don't eat most awesome sugar, don't dring amazing coke, don't smoke, don't enjoy, don't ... - OR - Concentrate on solving the cause of those illnesses, that is the ageing. Treat ageing as a disease and fund anti-ageing research.

"Overpopulation": Make people believe that earth is dying and they shouldn't have children - OR - Build habitat (O'Neil cylinders) on the orbit thus opening virtually endless living space

Nuclear war: Pacify a horrible dictator, leave him "ways to retreat" - OR - build habitats on the orbit; atomic explosions in space won't do much damage at all (there is a constant atomic explosion already there, called Sun).

Hunger: Not a problem, earth agriculture is overproducing; the real problem is horrible dictators and the lack of new land that people can escape to from that dictator.

I am proud to be an infantile person, I want a lot of convenience and efficiency, and I want a lot of big, shiny toys.

I think the modern doom and gloom era is very depressing. I am a technocrat and a futuristic optimist.

For me, the modern popular vision of future is not worth living for.

Yes, in my experience, the naïve interpretation is right 80% of time and it is always best to start from a naïve explanation of a process.

US politicians serve the rich only because they think that donations will help them win. Make the donations irrelevant - "rich" will loose the political power. How to make the donations irrelevant - go to vote, especially if you are poor and powerless. Convince your friends to vote. And not for a president, but for a local mayor, city council, judge etc.

We probably need some service (an app or a site) that gives clear instructions on how, where and when to register.

Yes, it is harder for renters, but it is designed to be harder. This is to prevent renters from having political power and making homeowner's houses more expensive. One more reason to fight, from my point of view.

I totally agree with you. I only think that you should be the one to decide how many is too many opportunities for you, not a bunch of NIMBYists.

Only one question: why are they unwilling? Is it that hard? They won't be killed or tortured, like in Belarus or Russia, then why not?

The longer I live the more I am finding the universe is working on extremely simple few principles; their relations create complexity.

Aspiring homeowners will never become homeowners if the price is exclusionary.

Take SF: with average salary of 75-79K, the apartment cost starts from 1.1M. Only 8% has salary > than 100K, that makes the remaining 92% the "aspiring" homeowners.

They will stay "aspiring" for the rest of their life. The only think they (or rather, "we") can do - make sure that post-zoomer generation don't have to be "aspiring" for their entire lives.

I find it easier in the bigger city; but I might be biased as I lived in a big city most of my life.

What I meant is an ability to be within the reach of any other person within an hour.

Using zoom for 3 years now (for obvious reasons) - I find it inferior to the private in-person communication. Problem that you need to schedule a meeting, which adds some formality and is usually harder, while you can have a pleasant chat with even a rich and powerful person while accidentally meeting them in a hall. For scheduling a zoom call, you need to find an excuse. To chat in a hall with someone - you don't need and excuse.

Rejuvenation and life-extending technologies to keep labor energetic forever.

Industrial and maintenance automation for needing less labor.

Relying on next generation to fund your retirement is ok if you live modestly; but not ok if you live luxuriously.

Working person should not be doing worse than a non-working person; otherwise you have an extractive economy and social instability.

I'm an immigrant :).

Banking on your family dying - this is like saying "I am a worthless loser". I want old generation to live eternally, and still afford housing.

Q1: Yes, there is. Once a professional politician sees more activity from renters, they will include the renter's interests into their agenda

Q2: Yes, obviously there is a positive correlation. This is exactly why renters need to fight: stakes are against them. Current status quo is in favor of homeowners; it will not be possible to change it while being passive. Renters and homeowners have conflict of interests, there is inevitable fight.

Q3: I think blaming is the call for fight. If renters want better deal, they need to fight. Is it most constructive? I don't know, this is the best I can come up with. Does it reinforces the status quo? No, I think inactivity reinforces it.

Have more futuristic optimism. We are doing quite well on the climate. We will prevent it once we get fully to solar and then build CO2 scrubbers using solar energy. Energy percentage that come from renewables is more than 10x higher than anticipated 10 years ago.

And don't call it a "collapse": a change is not necessary to the worse, sometimes it is to the better.