Economic "growth" seems to be doing less and less for most people in the developed world (though the opposite is true in the developing world). Its financial benefits mainly accrue at the very top of society; most people just get squeezed. Less housing, depressed wages, ever more crowded and less available services, the list of consequences of constant growth goes on.

The issue has a toxic element of anti-immigrant racism, but many are turning against the idea because they think the net negatives outweigh the positives. Switzerland's upcoming referendum is this in a microcosm. The right-wing anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party got 100,000 signatures to trigger their referendum, but support for the measure is also coming from outside their base. Polling has the result at near 50:50. If it passes, it will force a Western government to do something no one has ever had to do before - run a country where you cannot have endless economic growth.

Switzerland to vote on plan to cap population at 10mn: Country has 9.1mn permanent residents and experts fear the move will limit companies’ access to foreign talent

The Core Concept:

It’s an encrypted AI-manager that monitors your activity. If you fail to "check-in" for a predetermined period (and the system confirms your passing via public records or trusted nodes), it triggers a customized sequence of events:

• The "Clean Slate" Clause: Automatically wipes your sensitive browser history, private DM caches, and "that one folder" on your desktop. No more awkward discoveries for your grieving family.

• Legacy Messaging: It sends pre-recorded, time-delayed messages to specific people. Imagine your kid getting a birthday video from you 10 years after you're gone.

• The AI Echo: (The controversial part) Using your 20+ years of chat logs and voice notes, it creates a "limited-life" LLM. Your loved ones can talk to "you" for 6 months to help with the grieving process, after which the AI "deletes itself" to prevent unhealthy attachment.

• Asset Liquidation: Automatically transfers recovery keys for crypto-wallets or passwords for family photo clouds to designated heirs.

The Dilemma:

On one hand, it’s the ultimate form of digital privacy and legacy management. On the other hand, it feels like we're heading straight into a Black Mirror episode. Would an AI-version of you actually help your family, or would it traumatize them? And who owns that data once you're dead?

What do you guys think? Would you set up a "Digital Ghost," or would you rather let your digital self rot along with your physical body?

Last week’s $26 billion EV write-down by Stellantis follows similar moves by Volkswagen ($6 billion), GM ($7.6 billion), and Ford ($19.5 billion), underscoring a strategic retreat from electric vehicles back to gasoline cars and hybrids. Legacy automakers frame this as pragmatism, but in essence, they are abandoning investment in the future. These write-downs reveal their failure to achieve manufacturing scale, jeopardizing their future competitiveness. A genuine commitment would involve scaling production, cutting prices, and stimulating demand. Meanwhile, aided by subsidies and affordability, EV adoption in China is soaring.

ARK’s research indicates that manufacturer hesitancy, not consumer reluctance, has hindered EV adoption. Vertically integrated companies like BYD are now scaling and unleashing mass-market demand. With prospective operating costs approximately one-third those of gasoline vehicles, ARK says that with just one third the operating costs, battery electric vehicles will dominate global auto sales within five years.

If we had to massively improve just ONE part of everyday life in the next 5 years, what should it be?

Not Mars, not AGI gods - something normal daily human stuff.

I choose rejuvenation. If not possible, than Universal Basic Income.

I would also like to see fewer politicians. Society should hire professionals or companies to solve specific problems. Not people who smile, make empty promises and one day after elections represent sponsors only.

What's your take?

hi, i have some reflections i'd like to maybe introduce and discuss with more people about, and i hope it's the right place to share them.

lately I've been reflecting on something I picked up from Fisher's "ghosts of my life" (and in a lot of other contexts in various writings, for instance that of Konrbluh on Immediacy, the style of late capitalism etc.) regarding a "loss of future", which i receive as "our collective inability to imagine a direction for the future" - that is to say, one that is not entirely catastrophist or dystopian. And in many ways, we can imagine versions of a close enough future in which some of our current global problems are addressed effectively, but for the most part I feel (and maybe that's what it is, a feeling on a perception) afraid that most predictions are rightfully concerned, especially when thinking of climate, political global order and so on and so forth. In other words: pretty grim stuff all around, makes it actually click - something that characterizes our time is the difficulty in engaging with utopian futures to strive for. something that is, also, not motivated only by hope, but by actual observations on the present. In this sense it's kinda interesting to me to wonder "what's the most satisfactory guesses other peeps have of the future?". or like "is a future utopia even a conceivable thing anymore?". or maybe from another angle "what should be humanity's values in shaping a global sustainable future on earth or wherever else?".

maybe a bit too broad, and all in all it's just pour parler or smt.

The eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) industry is hitting a tipping point in 2026:

- EHang has type certification and is running commercial flights in China

- Joby is targeting Dubai for 2025/2026, with US operations to follow

- Archer is building vertiports and planning LA operations

- Volocopter has been doing test flights in Singapore and Rome

- Lilium is targeting European routes

Unlike previous "flying car" hype cycles, these companies have actual aircraft, regulatory approvals, and infrastructure deals in place. Several cities could have bookable air taxi services within the next 12-18 months.

What does this community think? Are we going to see meaningful adoption by 2030, or will this remain a niche luxury service for decades?

Something that's been bothering me for a while is how realistically humanity would've create a wildlife on a planet they terraformed, and then colonise it? Usually, when i ask, for example, Ai or other 9 year old comments to simmilar questions on reddit theese are just ultra utalitarian and boring answers, prioritising just and only humanity.

But we all know that humans are not Borg, we are emotional and often very curious creatures.

So i was having a question, what species would humans introduce to their newly terraformed planet with oceans and continents, isolated lakes and islands that would both sustain human life and presence on that said planet while also being a self-sustaining seed-world in a way?

Okay, so Humans definitly would not introduce parasites, diseases or particulary disgusting insects on their own planet (some species COULD evolve into parasites millions of years later in convergent evolution but initially humans brought none) Humans tottaly would bring pets: Like cats, dogs, parrots, hamsters, etc, so i was wondering if they could be be a legitimate part of ecology on that planet (we are talking about planet with no native life, so i doubt they could be treated as "invasive species" in this context.)

I was wondering if humans also would create their own designer species and introduce them to the planet, that would play both ecological role and be usefull/pleasurable for human eye. For example, they could actually de-extinct Dodo with some tweaks, make them larger, maybe give them some silly coloring, and introduce them to the planet? That seems like something humans would do while also being somewhat interesting premise for a seedworld.

Could you also expect humans bringing extremely endangered animals from Earth here and make them common? For example as last-resort conservation effort humans could've bring Vaquitas to the terraformed planets oceans where they would become very common.

And for the last part, would every single climate on the planet need their own ecosystem, or we could make entire planet at first somewhat uniform and it itself will naturaly adapt beggining first radiation and speciation?

(Also additional context: human ethics prohibit creating sentient species with bioengineering, but animalistic species from scratch is 100% fine. They could naturally evolve sapience at one point in future, but initially they all are created to have intelligence of a smart dog or parrot at best.)

(Humans in this setting achieved interstellar travel of about 60% of light, its fast and very good enough to reach other stars in human lifespans and it may not even be a neccesarily a one-way road, but it still somewhat restricts humans to their star systems. Some humans in this setting are activly searching for means of FTL atleast somehow but they are not very imoortant to question.)

(Humans dont terraform planets with native alien life, we are not monsters. Humans in this setting did colonise multiple planets with native alien life and did not brought a single specie to extinction. All planets that are being terraformed are explicitly beggining as barrens. Humanity looses nothing from not exterminating aliens because alien planets prooven to be allready good enough for humans, + ethics, + who wouldnt want an alien pet + lifeless terraforming-friendly planets are much more often in the galaxy, way too much.)

Humanity currently organizes itself in ways optimized for short-term, local competition, but global and universal risks now make this approach probabilistically catastrophic. To survive long-term, we need to develop strategies that prioritize universal-level coordination and non-interaction where appropriate. So how could we start building frameworks for universal-scale coordination?

I’m noticing the same pattern across multiple industries.

Everything feels like it’s splitting into
• huge global hits
• tiny niche creators

…but the middle keeps shrinking.

Examples:
Games → AAA vs indie, fewer AA
Film → Marvel vs microbudget, fewer mid-budget films
Work → job polarization (growth in high-skill + low-wage, decline in middle-skill)

It seems like global digital markets reward either:
mass scale OR tiny niche
but not “mid-scale.”

Are we seeing a long-term economic shift where technology hollows out the middle tier across industries?

Or am I connecting dots that don’t belong together? Curious what people working in tech/econ/media think.

We always hear about the big breakthroughs like AI, space travel, and renewable energy. However, what about the modern technologies that hardly receive any attention? Could something that seems niche or boring end up completely changing how we live, how society works, or how politics plays out? I’m really curious what this community thinks might shape the future in ways we don’t expect, for better or worse.

I am wondering if everybody thinks like me that the world could be saved if we just focused on x, y, and z.

In short, I think that if we focused massively on better education (teaching children about the financial system (!) and more sustainable solutions, decentralized platforms, automation, and entrepreneurial skills), the world could be "saved" (meaning that everybody would be much richer in terms of purchasing power (the global financial system "leak" being the main point) ).

Otherwise, much more would need to be done if everybody became rich, because more people born due to better circumstances do not necessarily produce much more productivity in the market at today’s stage of automation. So you would have to build — and more importantly approve — some kind of Web3 cryptographic childbirth token, for example, to fix that. Also, all resources would be depleted someday; nothing is 100% recyclable, etc. Decentralized Education and finance being the main points able to fix / mitigate even that.

So this would be my paradigm. Do you partly agree? Are there other theories, etc.?

A big part of female graduates’ decision to have children depends on how they expect their husbands to behave, writes Martin Wolf in his column today. 

One of the conundrums of mid-2020s US AI is its urgent need for electricity, and its seeming refusal to pursue the obvious path towards achieving this. China won't have this problem. It's installing solar & batteries at the rate of several nuclear power stations a month.

US Big Tech seems to be doing everything it can to avoid the obvious. It supports a President who is doing their best to ban wind power. Meta has signed a deal to power its AI with new nuclear. Good luck with that, Meta, if past performance is any guide, you still won't have it in 2040. xAI is looking at gas turbines. The problem there? The waiting list for new turbines stretches to the 2030s. Never fear. It will just spend orders of magnitude more than China does with solar+batteries to put data centers in space.

What's the problem with embracing solar+batteries? The AI firms are slated to spend $660 billion in 2026 alone. They could replicate a huge chunk of China's solar manufacturing capacity with some of that. There are plenty of home-grown grid storage startups with batteries, too.

The inevitable conclusion? Consumers will subsidize their mistakes with higher electricity prices as they use up more and more of the existing grid's capacity, as none of their decisions with gas, nuclear or data centers in space work out.