I doubt anything will look different, except for more sprawl. If I look at my home town 30 years ago, it's essentially the same. In 30 years we just widened the freeway and added a bunch of new housing developments and some shopping centers.
Thirty years isn't enough time to effect major changes.
Did you guys read the James Altucher piece "NYC is dead forever -- here's why"? It sheds light on the most adverse impacts of the Covid pandemic on NYC. It is difficult to argue against his points as well. With so many restaurants and businesses being permanently closed down, coupled with the mass exodus of people, NYC might just cease to be the throbbing city it was until March 2020. An unimaginably large number of office buildings have remained empty, and companies have no incentive to phase out remote work, especially since it saves them money that would otherwise be spent on essential physical infra spending and maintenance. Employees have reported more productivity, thanks to improved bandwidths. So: really no incentive for companies to eliminate remote work. If anything, they're getting more out of employees for the same pay (or reduced pay--depending on the industry you're in).
In sum, the piece argues that cities that were until now Tier 2 may become Tier 1 -- financially and culturally. Work is definitely going to change further. Remote work is highly likely to become the norm, with the exception of brick and mortar industries. For a while now sociologists have also been suggesting that the nature of work would gradually change as we progress further into the 21st century. Homes will be reimagined; home offices will not be an elite thing only. A significant number of people would work remotely. Yet, this is not all rosy. The inability to separate work from home will also mean employers will regulate more than just our "work hours." We are likely to be subjected to increased monitoring. The pandemic, they argue, has only accelerated this process.
I think the world will become more technological and automated. Maybe some service professions will disappear because they will be replaced by computer systems that will do the job much faster.
I also think that there will be almost no uninhabited areas, reduced forests and parks, because more and more new buildings will be built.
But personally, I would like people, and their attitude to the environment, to change, not the environment. So that everyone can finally start thinking about nature, so that they treat the place where they live with respect, do not scatter garbage, do not paint stupid graffiti on houses and do not break public property.
Having little to no wilderness would be an extremely bad thing in my opinion because all it would prove is how humans have disrupted the ecosystem to the point of extincting numerous other life forms to get there.
Moreover the destruction of rainforests and the plankton in the sea would have a fatal long term consequence for animal life on the planet including us.
This is what happens when people live beyond their means and give birth to too many children, it's bad enough that poor parents ended up bringing kids into the world when they couldn't afford to provide for them and then charity and welfare/social services cleaned up after their mess, (this is a comment about parents who both made the willful decision to not use contraception, I'm not making a criticism about women who were raped or had abusive boyfriends) but I wished they would listen for once what people were trying to tell them, it isn't just politics or conservatism, it is very important that people pay attention to the consequences decisions have on the world around them.
Environmentalism and economics are linked, and if people don't take responsibility for their actions then this species is finished. While I doubt humans would become extinct by the year 2050, I do think more hardships are coming our way if this is the best we can do.
Will there still be as many office buildings/skyscrapers since most people work from home? Will transportation be different?
It will be more advanced and we'll in technology age where all thing will be done by apps in which we can see techno science.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI doubt anything will look different, except for more sprawl. If I look at my home town 30 years ago, it's essentially the same. In 30 years we just widened the freeway and added a bunch of new housing developments and some shopping centers.
Thirty years isn't enough time to effect major changes.
Did you guys read the James Altucher piece "NYC is dead forever -- here's why"? It sheds light on the most adverse impacts of the Covid pandemic on NYC. It is difficult to argue against his points as well. With so many restaurants and businesses being permanently closed down, coupled with the mass exodus of people, NYC might just cease to be the throbbing city it was until March 2020. An unimaginably large number of office buildings have remained empty, and companies have no incentive to phase out remote work, especially since it saves them money that would otherwise be spent on essential physical infra spending and maintenance. Employees have reported more productivity, thanks to improved bandwidths. So: really no incentive for companies to eliminate remote work. If anything, they're getting more out of employees for the same pay (or reduced pay--depending on the industry you're in).
In sum, the piece argues that cities that were until now Tier 2 may become Tier 1 -- financially and culturally. Work is definitely going to change further. Remote work is highly likely to become the norm, with the exception of brick and mortar industries. For a while now sociologists have also been suggesting that the nature of work would gradually change as we progress further into the 21st century. Homes will be reimagined; home offices will not be an elite thing only. A significant number of people would work remotely. Yet, this is not all rosy. The inability to separate work from home will also mean employers will regulate more than just our "work hours." We are likely to be subjected to increased monitoring. The pandemic, they argue, has only accelerated this process.
That's assuming we'd even be alive to see it by then
I'd probably be dead before that time.
and it is hard to predict what cities would be like decades in advance,
unless you know people in high places or have vast knowledge on engineering I think.
I don't have qualifications in anything like this
but I'd like cities to be far less polluted, as well as more slum clearance.
It's not nice that people are homeless and having to beg for what they need to survive.
Between future pandemics, climate change, and rising income/wealth inequality, I presume many will be hanging on for dear life.
Having little to no wilderness would be an extremely bad thing in my opinion because all it would prove is how humans have disrupted the ecosystem to the point of extincting numerous other life forms to get there.
Moreover the destruction of rainforests and the plankton in the sea would have a fatal long term consequence for animal life on the planet including us.
This is what happens when people live beyond their means and give birth to too many children, it's bad enough that poor parents ended up bringing kids into the world when they couldn't afford to provide for them and then charity and welfare/social services cleaned up after their mess, (this is a comment about parents who both made the willful decision to not use contraception, I'm not making a criticism about women who were raped or had abusive boyfriends) but I wished they would listen for once what people were trying to tell them, it isn't just politics or conservatism, it is very important that people pay attention to the consequences decisions have on the world around them.
Environmentalism and economics are linked, and if people don't take responsibility for their actions then this species is finished. While I doubt humans would become extinct by the year 2050, I do think more hardships are coming our way if this is the best we can do.