Tak jsem to přečetla. Říkala jsem si, že by tahle věta mohla postačovat pro charakteristiku celého resetového blábolu, ale když už jsem si z téhle té satanské záležitosti vykopírovala 14 stran textu, použiju je, ať se vám to líbí nebo ne. Takže, vo čem to teda jako je. Obecně lze říci, že jsem se ani o píď nespletla, když jsem včera napsala, že to bude něco jako projektové žádosti pro Sorose. Je. Ve skutečnosti je to shrnutí „Green Deal“ programu, takové rádoby vědecké pojednání o mokrých snech všech ekologických aktivistů a liberálních levičáků. Popis utopické společnosti, kde se všichni budou mít rádi, všichni se budou chovat zodpovědně ke klimatu, zůstanou doma, nechají se sledovat, nebudou vůbec nic konzumovat, jen hrách a kroupy, a nebudou toužit po ničem spotřebním, žít budou ideálně jako Diogenés, a navrch si budou vžit všech Floydů na světě a uznají, že migrace z muslimských zemí je poznaná nutnost. Asi si ještě přečtu Korán (správněji celou trilogii), Kapitál (a přečetla bych si Mein Kampf, kdyby se dal stáhnout na Uložto) abych mohla kvalitu díla porovnat.
Můj základní poznatek: Lidi, je obrovská škoda, že jste řešili kravinu jako je The Great Reset a nevěnovali jste se opravdickému problému, a tím je schvalování Green Deal v rámci EU – tam je totiž zakopán pes, ne v knihovně Havlíčka.
Ale k obsahu knihy, o které se hodně mluví. Je rozdělena do jakýchsi podkapitol, ale je to neustálé omílání toho samého. Prostě autor baží po sociálně spravedlivé a drony kontrolované společnosti s klimaticky neutrální politikou. Citace vkládám v pořadí, v jaké mne v knize zaujaly (čímž současně oznamuju, že vás by tam možná zaujalo něco jiného a jde o můj subjektivní výběr).
V úvodu se zdůrazňuje, jak epidemie měly vždy zásadní vliv na společnost. To měly. Nepochybně. Zajímavé je, že při všech morových epidemiích, kupř., se na Evropu pokusil zaútočit islám. Ale o tom se v knize nepíše!
Because of their inherently disruptive nature, epidemics throughout history have proven to be a force for lasting and often radical change: sparking riots, causing population clashes and military defeats, but also triggering innovations, redrawing national boundaries and often paving the way for revolutions.
Důležité je, že podle Schwaba žádná, ale fakt žádná (ani mor se smrtností 60%) epidemie nebyla tak děsná, jako covid, který zabíjí staré a velmi nemocné a má smrtnost 0, 15%. No tak určitě!
In doing so, we look for precedents, with questions such as: Is the pandemic like the Spanish flu of 1918 (estimated to have killed more than 50 million people worldwide in three successive waves)? Could it look like the Great Depression that started in 1929? Is there any resemblance with the psychological shock inflicted by 9/11? Are there similarities with what happened with SARS in 2003 and H1N1 in 2009 (albeit on a different scale)? Could it be like the great financial crisis of 2008, but much bigger. The correct, albeit unwelcome, answer to all of these is: no! None fits the reach and pattern of the human suffering and economic destruction caused by the current pandemic. The economic fallout in particular bears no resemblance to any crisis in modern history. As pointed out by many headsof state and government in the midst of the pandemic, we are at war, butwith an enemy that is invisible, and of course metaphorically: “If what weare going through can indeed be called a war, it is certainly not a typical one. After all, today’s enemy is shared by all of humankind”.
Autor se už celý třese na změnu, kterou uměle vyvolaná situace přinese.
At the very least, as we will argue, the pandemic will accelerate systemic changes that were already apparent prior to the crisis: the partial retreat from globalization, the growing decoupling between the US and China, the acceleration of automation, concerns about heightened surveillance, the growing appeal of well-being policies, rising nationalism and the subsequent fear of immigration, the growing power of tech, the necessity for firms to have an even stronger online presence, among many others. But it could go beyond a mere acceleration by altering things that previously seemed unchangeable. It might thus provoke changes that would have seemed inconceivable before the pandemic struck, such as new forms of monetary policy like helicopter money (already a given), the reconsideration/recalibration of some of our social priorities and an augmented search for the common good as a policy objective, the notion of fairness acquiring political potency, radical welfare and taxation measures, and drastic geopolitical realignments.
Schwab na několika místech zdůrazňuje, jak je naprosto evidentní, že jedině šílené zničení společnosti vedoucí k záchraně pár životů, bylo akceptovatelným řešením „pandemie“. Nemohli jsme to jen tak nechat být, rpotože bla, bla bla a říkají to experti, podle kterých jedině záchrana životů zachrání životy. Logiku to tvrzení sice nemá, ale má každopádně švih.
The logical conclusion of these two points is this: governments must do whatever it takes and spend whatever it costs in the interests of our health and our collective wealth for the economy to recover sustainably. As both an economist and public-health specialist put it: “Only saving lives will save livelihoods”, making it clear that only policy measures that place people’s health at their core will enable an economic recovery, adding: “If governments fail to save lives, people afraid of the virus will not resume shopping, traveling, or dining out. This will hinder economic recovery, lockdown or no lockdown.” Only future data and subsequent analysis will provide incontrovertible proof that the trade-off between health and the economy does not exist. The simple conclusion: in countries afflicted with registered COVID-19 cases that, at the peak, were roughly doubling every two days, governments had no reasonable alternative but to impose rigorous lockdowns. Pretending otherwise is to ignore the power of exponential growth and the considerable damage it can inflict through a pandemic. Because of the extreme velocity of the COVID-19 progression, the timing and forcefulness of the intervention were of the essence.
Autor potvrzuje, že uzavření ekonomiky mělo a bude mít opravdu příšerné důsledky pro všechny (tj. vyvrací tvrzení, že lockdown bylo jeidné řešení – jak může být záchrana promile nebo pár procent lepší, než zničení naprosté většiny? To je přece z podstaty pakárna). Normálnímu soudnému člověku přece přijde všechno to, co popisuje jako dopad opatření mnohem, mnohem, ale mnohem horší než smrt pár starých a pár nemocných (a ano, ty 4 mio lidí, z nichž většina ani nezemřela na covid, prostě nejsou a nemohly nikdy být podstatné, když na světě je skoro 8 mld lidí).
The pandemic is confronting the economy with a labour market crisis of gigantic proportions. The devastation is such and so sudden as to leave even the most seasoned policy-makers almost speechless (and worse still, nigh on “policy-less”). In testimony before the US Senate Committee on Banking on 19 May, the Federal Reserve System’s chairman – Jerome “Jay” Powell – confessed: “This precipitous drop in economic activity has caused a level of pain that is hard to capture in words, as lives are upended amid great uncertainty about the future.”  In just the two months of March and April 2020, more than 36 million Americans lost their jobs, reversing 10 years of job gains. In the US, like elsewhere, temporary dismissals caused by the initial lockdowns may become permanent, inflicting intense social pain (that only robust social safety nets can alleviate) and profound structural damage on countries’ economies.
Po základním velmi rozvláčném a neustále se opakujícím popisu tragédie covidí smrti a zdůvodňování, že opatření a lockdowny a zničení společnosti byly jedinou možností, jak čelit chřipce, se Schwab dostává k tomu, co se má dít dál. Řešením je, že prostě lidi budou žít v noře a nic nebudou chtít a po ničem toužit a nebudou vůbec vycházet. Díky tomu se vyhneme všemu zlému.
Additionally, several institutions and organizations, ranging from cities to the European Commission, are reflecting on options that would sustain future economic activity at a level that matches the satisfaction of our material needs with the respect of our planetary boundaries. The municipality of Amsterdam is the first in the world to have formally committed to this framework as a starting point for public policy decisions in the post-pandemic world. The framework resembles a “doughnut” in which the inner ring represents the minimum we need to lead a good life (as enunciated by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals) and the outer ring the ecological ceiling defined by earth-system scientists (which highlights the boundaries not to be crossed by human activity to avoid environmentally negative impact on climate, soil, oceans, the ozone layer, freshwater and biodiversity). In between the two rings is the sweet spot (or “dough”) where our human needs and those of the planet are being met.
Jak jsem odkrajovala stránku po stránce nudného a fádního čtení, začínala jsem se bát, že se nedočtu nic o tyranii růstu a skvělém nerůstu. Uf, naštěstí to tam je. Nerůst nám přinese štěstí, protože štěstí je jen muška zlatá a jste šťatsni z nehmotných věcí a nikoli ze slepé spotřeby!
We do not know yet whether the “tyranny of GDP growth” will come to an end, but different signals suggest that the pandemic may accelerate changes in many of our well-entrenched social norms. If we collectively recognize that, beyond a certain level of wealth defined by GDP per capita, happiness depends more on intangible factors such as accessible healthcare and a robust social fabric than on material consumption, then values as different as the respect for the environment, responsible eating, empathy or generosity may gain ground and progressively come to characterize the new social norms.
Schwab je taky celý odvařený z toho, že opatření, která dřív nepřicházela do úvahy, jsou teď myslitelná a společnost, zamtená covidí tyranií, by je mohla uvítat. No, přesně toho se bojím a soudům to píšu víc než rok – každým opatřením proti lidským právům a svobodám, které posvětily, jsme se dostali o krůček blíž k „zelené diktatuře“. Děkujeme! Nyní je už totiž možné zavést cokoliv. Ale můžeme se dál babrat v rouškách a řešit, jestli jsou či nejsou čísla pro epidemii… ale beze mne.
These are unprecedented programmes for an unprecedented situation, something so new that the economist Carmen Reinhart has called it a “whatever-it-takes moment for large-scale, outside-the-box fiscal and monetary policies”. Measures that would have seemed inconceivable prior to the pandemic may well become standard around the world as governments try to prevent the economic recession from turning into a catastrophic depression. Increasingly, there will be calls for government to act as a “payer of last resort” to prevent or stem the spate of mass layoffs and business destruction triggered by the pandemic.
Kniha se nevyhýbá ani zavedení virtuální měny:
As for a global virtual currency, there is none in sight yet, but there are attempts to launch national digital currencies that may eventually dethrone the US dollar supremacy. The most significant one took place in China at the end of April 2020 with a test of a national digital currency in four large cities. The country is years ahead of the rest of the world in developing a digital currency combined with powerful electronic payment platforms; this experiment clearly shows that there are monetary systems that are trying to become independent from US intermediaries while moving towards greater digitization.
Dále se musí pořádně zostudit i individualismus a liberalismus. Ty totiž vedou k úmrtí chudáků ze zranitelné skupiny. Jen sobci myslí sami na sebe, slušní normies jsou odpovědní! Důkazem budiž US a UK, kde neoliberálové způsobili smrt mnoha cenných bytostí.
It is no coincidence that the two countries that over the past few years embraced the policies of neoliberalism with most fervour – the US and the UK – are among those that suffered the most casualties during the pandemic. These two concomitant forces – massive redistribution on the one hand and abandoning neoliberal policies on the other – will exert a defining impact on our societies’ organization, ranging from how inequalities could spur social unrest to the increasing role of governments and the redefinition of social contracts.
Samozřejmě bude třeba po skončení pandemie nadále bojovat se sociální nespravedlností:
One of the most profound dangers facing the post-pandemic era is social unrest. In some extreme cases, it could lead to societal disintegration and political collapse. Countless studies, articles and warnings have highlighting this particular risk, based on the obvious observation that when people have no jobs, no income and no prospects for a better life, they often resort to violence.
A zapotřebí je vyzdvihnout BLM a nebohého slušného a milého Floyda, toho něžného obra. Nikdy není zbytečné zabrnkat na rasistickou strunku.
At the time of writing this book, COVID-19 has already unleashed a global wave of social unrest. It started in the US with the Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd at the end of May 2020, but it rapidly spread around the world. COVID-19 was a determining element: George Floyd’s death was the spark that lit the fire of social unrest, but the underlying conditions created by the pandemic, in particular the racial inequalities that it laid bare and the rising level of unemployment, were the fuel that amplified the protests and kept them going.
Nebojte se, milí zlatí, o nezbytnosti posilování role státu se taky dočtete:
One of the great lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic. Historians point to the fact that the rising fiscal resources of capitalist countries from the 18th century onwards were always closely associated with the need to fight wars, particularly those that took place in distant countries and that required maritime capacities.
Looking to the future, governments will most likely, but with different degrees of intensity, decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role. As happened in the 1930s in the US when massive unemployment and economic insecurity were progressively addressed by a larger role for government, today a similar course of action is likely to characterize the foreseeable future.
Pandemie prý přepíše i společenské smlouvy, které máme uzavřeny se státem. Je to ale jedno, náš Ústavní soud tu starou dobrou stejně odmítl chránit, tak jakýpakcopak.
It is almost inevitable that the pandemic will prompt many societies around the world to reconsider and redefine the terms of their social contract. We have already alluded to the fact that COVID-19 has acted as an amplifier of pre-existing conditions, bringing to the fore long-standing issues that resulted from deep structural frailties that had never been properly addressed. This dissonance and an emergent questioning of the status quo is finding expression in a loudening call to revise the social contracts by which we are all more or less bound.
Novou dohodu smlouvu ale podepsat nehodlám. Závazky se mi vůbec nelíbí. Fuj. No jen se podívejte!
However, they could all share some common features and principles, the absolute necessity of which has been made ever-more obvious by the social and economic consequences of the pandemic crisis. Two in particular stand out:
– A broader, if not universal, provision of social assistance, social insurance, healthcare and basic quality services
– A move towards enhanced protection for workers and for those currently most vulnerable (like those employed in and fuelling the gig economy in which full-time employees are replaced by independent contractors and freelancers).
Už jsme si měli díky Gretě a Fridays for Future zvyknout, že my staří patříme do starého železa a vládu nad světem svěřujeme mladým, uvědomělým a tvárným a poslušným, kteří nemají trapné kecy o Listině záklandích práv a svobod. Schwab to potvrzuje. Mládí vpřed!
Youth activism is increasing worldwide, being revolutionized by social media that increases mobilization to an extent that would have been impossible before. It takes many different forms, ranging from noninstitutionalized political participation to demonstrations and protests, and addresses issues as diverse as climate change, economic reforms, gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The young generation is firmly at the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset.
Můžete se spolehnout na to, že Schwab jako správný progresivní levičák brojí proti globalizaci a Číně a vybuzuje zápas mezi ní a USA:
Even without pressure from the far right and the green activists, many governments will realize that some situations of trade dependency are no longer politically acceptable. How can the US administration, for example, accept that 97% of antibiotics supplied in the country come from China? This process of reversing globalization will not happen overnight; shortening supply chains will be both very challenging and very costly. For example, a thorough and all-encompassing decoupling from China would require from companies making such a move an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in newly located factories, and from governments equivalent amounts to fund new infrastructure, like airports, transportation links and housing, to serve the relocated supply chains. Notwithstanding that the political desire for decoupling may in some cases be stronger than the actual ability to do so, the direction of the trend is nonetheless clear. The Japanese government made this obvious when it set aside 243 billion of its 108 trillion Japanese yen rescue package to help Japanese companies pull their operations out of China. On multiple occasions, the US administration has hinted at similar measures.
A na řadu musí přijít i chudé země, za které my, odporní kapitalisti a taky potomci kolonialistů a vůbec rasisti, máme zodpovědnost. Jejich tragický osud se ale v novém světovém řádu změní a když zavřete oči, všechno bude fajn. Až na tu migraci, ale i ta je vlastně fajn. Přece nejste proti a podělíte se o svoje blaho, no ne?
Wealthier countries ignore the tragedy unfolding in fragile and failing countries at their peril. In one way or another, risks will reverberate through greater instability or even chaos. One of the most obvious knock-on effects for the richer parts of the world of economic misery, discontent and hunger in the most fragile and poorest states will consist in a new wave of mass migration in its direction, like those that occurred in Europe in 2016.
Klimatická změna rovněž nepřišla zkrátka (jak by mohla, když to je hlavní cíl celého snažení). V jejím jménu je třeba bojovat, a bojovat a bojovat:
In the case of environmental risks, it is much more difficult to attribute direct causality to a specific event. Often, scientists cannot point to a direct link of causation between climate change and a specific weather event (like a drought or the severity of a hurricane). Similarly, they don’t always agree about how a specific human activity affects particular species facing extinction. This makes it incredibly more difficult to mitigate climate change and nature loss risks. While for a pandemic, a majority of citizens will tend to agree with the necessity to impose coercive measures, they will resist constraining policies in the case of environmental risks where the evidence can be disputed. A more fundamental reason also exists: fighting a pandemic does not require a substantial change of the underlying socio-economic model and of our consumption habits. Fighting environmental risks does.
A následuje strašení: Bojte se změny klimatu, protože jejích důsledků se na rozdíl od covidu NIKDY nezbavíme. Přijdou tornáda, povodně, znečištění ovzduší a budete UMÍRAT! Když ale budete hodní a poslušní, nemuřete, to vám Schwab a EU slibuje! Přísahám. Na holej pupek.
Hopefully, the threat from COVID-19 won’t last. One day, it will be behind us. By contrast, the threat from climate change and its associated extreme weather events will be with us for the foreseeable future and beyond. The climate risk is unfolding more slowly than the pandemic did, but it will have even more severe consequences. To a great extent, its severity will depend on the policy response to the pandemic. Every measure destined to revive economic activity will have an immediate effect on how we live, but will also have an impact on carbon emissions that will in turn have an environmental impact across the globe and measured across generations. As we’ve argued in this book, these choices are ours to make.
Díky bohu a opatřením jste si během lockdonů zvykli na změnu v žití. A tak vám nebude vadit zůstat doma a žít online, ne? Ještě takových 14 dní… nebo 14 let. Nebo na doživotí.
During the lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely too heavily on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight: watching movies online instead of going to the cinema, having meals delivered instead of going out to restaurants, talking to friends remotely instead of meeting them in the flesh, talking to colleagues on a screen instead of chit-chatting at the coffee machine, exercising online instead of going to the gym, and so on. Thus, almost instantly, most things became “e-things”: e-learning, e-commerce, egaming, e-books, e-attendance. Some of the old habits will certainly return (the joy and pleasure of personal contacts can’t be matched – we are social animals after all!), but many of the tech behaviours that we were forced to adopt during confinement will through familiarity become more natural. As social and physical distancing persist, relying more on digital platforms to communicate, or work, or seek advice, or order something will, little by little, gain ground on formerly ingrained habits. In addition, the pros and cons of online versus offline will be under constant scrutiny through a variety of lenses. If health considerations become paramount, we may decide, for example, that a cycling class in front of a screen at home doesn’t match the conviviality and fun of doing it with a group in a live class but is in fact safer (and cheaper!). The same reasoning applies to many different domains like flying to a meeting (Zoom is safer, cheaper, greener and much more convenient), driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend (the WhatsApp family group is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener) or even attending an academic course (not as fulfilling, but cheaper and more convenient).
Kdybyste třeba nechtěli dobrovolně, vláda a strana vám pomůžou…
This transition towards more digital “of everything” in our professional and personal lives will also be supported and accelerated by regulators.
O změnu se zaslouží i korporace:
What was until recently unthinkable suddenly became possible, and we can be certain that neither those patients who experienced how easy and convenient telemedicine was nor the regulators who made it possible will want to see it go into reverse. New regulations will stay in place. In the same vein, a similar story is unfolding in the US with the Federal Aviation Authority, but also in other countries, related to fast-tracking regulation pertaining to drone delivery. The current imperative to propel, no matter what, the “contactless economy” and the subsequent willingness of regulators to speed it up means that there are no holds barred. What is true for until-recently sensitive domains like telemedicine and drone delivery is also true for more mundane and well-covered regulatory fields, like mobilepayments. Just to provide a banal example, in the midst of the lockdown (in April 2020), European banking regulators decided to increase the amount that shoppers could pay using their mobile devices while also reducing the authentication requirements that made it previously difficult to make payments using platforms like PayPal or Venmo. Such moves will only accelerate the digital “prevalence” in our daily lives, albeit not without contingent cybersecurity issues.
Tyhlety korporace, ti vaši roztomilí chlebodárci, vás budou i pěkně sledovat. Co kdybyste projevili vlastní rozum a úsudek a třeba chtěli SAMOSTATNĚ PŘEMÝŠLET? Navíc už jste ztrátu soukromí zkousli po 11. září, tak o co vám jako jde? Ve jménu obecného blaha…
As the coronavirus crisis recedes and people start returning to the workplace, the corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does. The trend could take many different forms, from measuring body temperatures with thermal cameras to monitoring via an app how employees comply with social distancing. This is bound to raise profound regulatory and privacy issues, which many companies will reject by arguing that, unless they increase digital surveillance, they won’t be able to reopen and function without risking new infections (and being, in some cases, liable). They will cite health and safety as justification for increased surveillance. The perennial concern expressed by legislators, academics and trade unionists is that the surveillance tools are likely to remain in place after the crisis and even when a vaccine is finally found, simply because employers don’t have any incentive to remove a surveillance system once it’s been installed, particularly if one of the indirect benefits of surveillance is to check on employees’ productivity. This is what happened after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. All around the world, new security measures like employing widespread cameras, requiring electronic ID cards and logging employees or visitors in and out became the norm. At that time, these measures were deemed extreme, but today they are used everywhere and considered “normal”. An increasing number of analysts, policy-makers and security specialists fear the same will now happen with the tech solutions put into place to contain the pandemic. They foresee a dystopian world ahead of us.
U korporací ještě zůstaneme, Schwabovi se fakt líbí. Má pro každého radu – buďte s nimi raději za dobře, časem to budou jediní zaměstnavatelé. Malí totiž nepřežijí:
Take restaurants. This sector of activity has been hit by the pandemic to such a dramatic extent that it is not even sure how the restaurant business will ever come back. As one restaurateur put it: “I, like hundreds of other chefs across the city and thousands around the country, am now staring down the question of what our restaurants, our careers, our lives, might look like if we can even get them back.” In France and the UK, several industry voices estimate that up to 75% of independent restaurants might not survive the lockdowns and subsequent socialdistancing measures. The large chains and fast-food giants will. This in turn suggests that big businesses will get bigger while the smallest shrink or disappear. A large restaurant chain, for example, has a better chance of staying operational as it benefits from more resources and, ultimately, less competition in the wake of bankruptcies among smaller outfits. The small restaurants that survive the crisis will have to reinvent themselves entirely. In the meantime, in the cases of those that close their doors forever, the closure will impact not only the restaurant and its immediate staff but also all the businesses that operate in its orbit: the suppliers, the farmers and the truck drivers. At the other end of the size spectrum, some very large companies will fall victim to the same predicament as the very small ones. Airline companies, in particular, will face similar constraints in terms of consumer demand and social-distancing rules… However, as discussed in the next section, consumption habits may change permanently. If many businesses decide to travel less to reduce costs and to replace physical meetings by virtual ones whenever possible, the impact on the recovery and ultimate profitability of airlines may be dramatic and lasting. Prior to the pandemic, corporate travel accounted for 30% of airline volumes but 50% of revenues (thanks to higher priced seats and last-minute bookings). In the future, this is set to change, making the profitability outcome of some individual airlines highly uncertain, and forcing the entire industry to reconsider the long-term structure of the global aviation market.
Konečně k nemovitostem a jejich vlastnictví. Stejně to nebudete chtít, tak se klidně může regulovat. Bát by se prý měli i developeři. To zírám.
The pandemic will do to commercial real estate what it has done to so many other issues (both macro and micro): it will accelerate and amplify the pre-existing trend. The combination of an increase in the number of “zombie” companies (those that use debt to finance more debt and that have not generated enough cash over the past few years to cover their interest costs) going bankrupt and an increase in the number of people working remotely means that there will be far fewer tenants to rent empty office buildings. Property developers (for the most part highly leveraged themselves) will then start experiencing a wave of bankruptcies, with the largest and systemically important ones having to be bailed out by their respective governments. In many prime cities around the world, property prices will therefore fall over a long period of time, puncturing the global real estate bubble that had been years in the making. To some extent, the same logic applies to residential real estate in large cities. If the trend of working remotely takes off, the combination of commuting not being a consideration any longer and the absence of job growth means that the younger generation will no longer chose to afford residential renting or buying in expensive cities. Inevitably, prices will then fall. In addition, many will have realized that working from home is more climate-friendly and less stressful than having to commute to an office.
Pokud se vám to zdá děsivé, tak se uklidněte. Ostatně brzy bude na vaše blaho dohlížet armáda dronů.
Like for any other industry, digital will play a significant role in shaping the future of wellness. The combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being. They will monitor how we are and feel, and will progressively blur the boundaries between public healthcare systems and personalized health creation systems – a distinction that will eventually break down. Streams of data in many separate domains ranging from our environments to our personal conditions will give us much greater control over our own health and well-being. In the post-COVID-19 world, precise information on our carbon footprints, our impact on biodiversity, on the toxicity of all the ingredients we consume and the environments or spatial contexts in which we evolve will generate significant progress in terms of our awareness of collective and individual well-being. Industries will have to take note.
Tak dál. Reset se netýká jen ekonomiky jako takové, ale i mikrosvěta a jednotlivce. Jen přizpůsobiví a resetovaní ale přežijí:
The micro reset will force every company in every industry to experiment new ways of doing business, working and operating. Those tempted to revert to the old way of doing things will fail. Those that adapt with agility and imagination will eventually turn the COVID-19 crisis to their advantage.
A dobře se povede těm, kdo mají správnou morálku a společensky odpovědný pohled na zahalování obličejů. Nikoli podle nosa, ale podle roušky poznáš kosa.
Just one simple example to illustrate the point: the WHO and most national health authorities recommend that we wear a mask in public. What has been framed as an epidemiological necessity and an easy risk-mitigating measure has turned into a political battlefield. In the US and, also, but less so, in a few other countries, the decision to wear a mask or not has become politically charged since it is considered as an infringement to personal freedom. But behind the political declaration, refusing to wear a mask in public is a moral choice, as indeed is the decision to wear one. Does this tell us something about the moral principles that underpin our choices and decisions? Probably yes.
V knize nechybí ani ponaučení o tom, že dobří a slušní lidé viděli v covidu nikoli hrozbu pro svobody (tak to vnímali jen sobci a zlí lidi), ale naopak ocenili čas k usebrání a meditaci a celkové změně své již prakticky dokonalé a zodpovědné osobnosti.
In times of adversity, innovation often thrives – necessity has long been recognized as the mother of invention. This may prove to be particularly true for the COVID-19 pandemic that forced many of us to slow down and gave us more time to reflect, away from the pace and frenzy of our “normal” world (with the very significant exception, of course, of the dozens of millions of heroic workers in healthcare, grocery stores and supermarkets, and parents with young children or people caring for elderly or handicapped relatives needing constant attention). Offering as it did the gifts of more time, greater stillness, more solitude (even if an excess of the latter sometimes resulted in loneliness), the pandemic provided an opportunity to think more deeply about who we are, what really matters and what we want, both as individuals and as a society. This period of enforced collective reflection could give rise to a change in behaviour that will in turn trigger a more profound reconsideration of our beliefs and convictions. This could result in a shift in our priorities that would in turn affect our approach to many aspects of our everyday lives: how we socialize, take care of our family members and friends, exercise, manage our health, shop, educate our children, and even how we see our position in the world. Increasingly, obvious questions may come to the fore, like: Do we know what is important? Are we too selfish and overfocused on ourselves? Do we give too great a priority and excessive time to our career? Are we slaves to consumerism? In the post-pandemic era, thanks to the pause for thought it offered some of us, our responses may well have evolved as compared to what our pre-pandemic selves might have answered.
A na úplný závěr k onomu proflánkutému sdělení knihy, že prý nebudeme nic vlastnit a budeme šťastni. Ono to tam fakt je, ale jen v takové hloupouké filozofické rovině. Prostě tak, jak to propagoval již zmíněný Diogenés ze sudu:
As psychologists and behavioural economists keep reminding us, overconsumption does not equate to happiness. This might be another personal reset: the understanding that conspicuous consumption or excessive consumption of any kind is neither good for us nor for our planet, and the subsequent realization that a sense of personal fulfilment and satisfaction need not be reliant on relentless consumption – perhaps quite the opposite.
Tož tak to je se slavným The Great Reset. Věnujme se opravdu raději reálné politice, která se pod pláštíkem covidu odehrává ve světě. Green Deal je nespočetněkrát nebezpečnější, protože to není jen kniha plná tisíckrát omletých pindů. Je EU schválený a už teď sakra silně ovlivňuje naše životy.