[lucumo]

> "You will own nothing and you will be happy."

This is not a goal and not a plan. It was a prediction, a possible scenario of where we could be headed. An extrapolation of current trends.

Using the full quote would make it far clearer that that's what it was: > “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. What you want you’ll rent, and it’ll be delivered by drone.”

From https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...

> Danish politician Ida Auken, who wrote the prediction in question (here), said it was not a “utopia or dream of the future” but “a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse.”

[fullshark]

Those crazy conspiracy theorists thinking "life has never been better" was a marker that this was a utopian vision.

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-ow...

[lucumo]

You should read past the headline. The article contains more quotes you can use!

It's also a pretty dumb over-simplistic extrapolation of some current trends. But not an evil plot to change the world into her utopia.

[fullshark]

Did you read it?

> All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.

[lucumo]

> Did you read it?

Obviously I did, or I wouldn't have said what I said.

I think that quote fits "a pretty dumb over-simplistic extrapolation of some current trends" pretty well. It's pretty dumb to select some trends to extrapolate, and ignore the ones that are not trending correctly. I'd call it "over-simplistic", but I already did...

What it doesn't describe is a plan to make the world this way. It's a prediction. A dumb prediction.

[fullshark]

Fair enough, I'd encourage anyone else reading this to read the original piece and not just her damage control as well. Cause to me it reads like a thought experiment, the express purpose of which is to make the case that the western world's problems (western world = capitalism via property rights) are due to said property rights and the freedom to use that property as one wishes. I know that might seem like a shocking conspiracy theory argument if you are westerner, but the idea that property rights don't exist is standard operating procedure in the eastern world, and a idealized view of such a scenario where property rights are no longer a hinderance to economic/state activity might not be considered an outlandish position in the World Economic Forum, where I believe Ida Auken was just trying to score clout, without realizing what exactly she was saying.

Once people noticed, the damage control spin started. That's my take, disagree all you like.

[pram]

To me it just comes off as apologetics for more extractive/rent-seeking arrangements. Of course capitalists would like you to pay a subscription for everything you use.

[tptacek]

I love the idea that the secret goal of the World Economic Forum is to subvert capitalism. Again, bringing us back to the question of whether the modal critic of the WEF knows what the WEF is in the first place.