Enclosing and accomplishing the various transport, energy, utilities, and communications in a secure and controlled environment. Suggest itself as being an evolutionary step.

Enclosure does pose itself as being the most ecologically and environmentally sound way to achieve them. However it also appears to be by far the cheapest, most efficient and capable way these processes could ever hope to be achieved as well.

In a secure and controlled environment and opened to the ability to begin employing that full array of existing abilities.

Its seems that most if not nearly all of thier current consumptions in time, energy, and resources can become reliably removed. All through the new found ability to begin reliably applying these numbers of existing abilities.

Surprisingly. My own attempt to understand what kind of values of cost and benefits may be at work in such a practical change in structure. Shows that the cost is not only a few Percents of what exists today. But the values of the other efficiencies and enhanced abilities will truely dwarf the cost in accomplishment.

Is my modern society? And indeed in time, that all of our humanity standing at the edge of taking its most revolutionary step EVER.

And it amounts to little more than modernizing its infrastructures into those vastly more efficient and capable processes that they so need to be and can so reasonably may become.

Its not a structural, technological, or financial problem.

The cost of enclosure and the values of benefits are very discernable.

Its not the disruptive innovation it seems. As the physical accomplishment in the enclosing network of connected structure cannot be reasonably achieved in any short period of time. Its merely a vastly more efficient replacement for the very antiquated processes of today. Whose beginning incremental and ever increasing achievement will truly revolutionize the populations abilities. So much so that it seems we could then begin getting beyond most if not nearly all of today’s social, economic, environmental and ecological problems.

Care to consider that accomplishment of a more acurate feasibility analysis study.

According to a 2010 Federal highway study. 200B was spent on highways. But we incurred 300B in just accidents on highways. Failed to mention the 1.7T spent on energy in order to get the 200B in fuel tax revenues.

Non of which do we want. Not the short lived high energy and resource consuming highways, accidents, or energy dependency.
Transport can be achieved with out all these things.

The question is how to fund the development and accomplishment that will allow it to become that reality it so needs to become.

There are plenty of incentives.

Spot on

“– fooling nobody.”

Oh! If only that was true…

Of course, an additional problem is who funds research. Most research funding comes from the EU, the UK government funding bodies, and big business. Occasionally the EU funds innovative and critical research, while the other two sources are clearly politicised and promote the interests of neoliberal ideology and big business. So, judging research “quality” by how much money is collected is obviously going to marginalise any challenges to neoliberal thinking. I didn’t see any of the UK academics twigging onto this and complaining when the RAE was set up, and I didn’t see any organised complaints from the overpaid university heads since. Basically, it’s structurally promoted propaganda dressed up as academic “scholarship” — fooling nobody. The UK academic sector is now a joke.

I strongly contend that economics should be more logically and scientifically based and that our present unfortunate intuitive methods are able to result in selecting different policies at the same time. These confusing methods began with John Bates Clark, when he claimed (for political and commercial reasons) that capitalists are also landlords when it is perfectly clear that the dynamics of value of the durable capital goods (capital) and of the useful sites (land) are driven by completely different forces. From that time in about 1900, there has been confusion in logical thinking about macroeconomics from which we have never recovered.

Although this critical view for more science is wide-spread among many hetero-economists, they are doing very little to change it. To make a step in the right direction seems to throw them into a panic, because the thinking processes are different. Their minds are insufficiently open despite their fine words! The reason that I became interested in the openDemocracy is because I was hoping to find some broader minded thinkers here who might appreciate my original way of making macroeconomics into a true science. My recent book “Consequential Macroeconomics–Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works” presents the sensible, logical and analytic way for getting down to a better representation about our society. I offer an e-copy for free to anybody who is academically honest enough to be concerned and share the claim that by this kind of thinking we can better learn about good government, when logic is applied with analysis to common sense.

Write to me for a free copy: chesterdh@hotmail.com