There are great expanses of oceans not owned or controlled by any nation, they are literally the open sea, free for anyone to fish in or sail across. It is an oddity in a world where even Antarctica has degrees of ownership.
I’m not going to bother with numbers, but the oceans are massively populated by beings who are not us. They are mostly undisturbed and barely notice our traverses. But our fishing and pollution cause immense harm and those species have no way of stopping us. Well, until now.
Introducing the newest nation on Earth, simply called Oceans. Its citizens are the birds, mammals, fish, molluscs, plants and anything else that is alive. Because they cannot speak for themselves (yet), we will nominate humans to speak for them – one reverse diplomat from every country.
A reverse diplomat advocates for the country they are allocated to, not the country they represent, but obviously there will be some allegiances.
In case of apathy, doing nothing to fix any oceanic issue is not an option, the only decision is how much do we help.
The good news is that container shipping is bad for the environment, so they can be taxed according to emissions x miles. Initially the numbers involved won’t matter much at all to each ship, but will add up to worthy amounts.
Fishing is much harder to police and tax, but there will be ways, including good nations voluntarily paying up.
As a nation, Oceans will have its own seat in the UN, it will have finances and a rudimentary navy, possibly using volunteers, or training exercises.
As a nation, Oceans will provide research grants. That would include great efforts to communicate with dolphins and whales.
Being an absurd idea, there will be pushback, and many poorer countries will decide not to recognise it as a state. Which means they do not get a reverse diplomat.
I would like to see a UN Ocean council, like the UN Security Council, with Oceans as a permanent member. It could resolve differences regarding, for example, who gets to have trade routes through the Arctic ocean. Something like this already exists, but it is more akin to COP
With time I would want the ocean perimeters of countries to be reduced, and seceded to Oceans. That would involve grandfathering in things like fishing rights.
I actually have a soft spot for some of Trump’s initiatives, but with caveats!
Trans children is so wrong. But soon Trump will be demonising gays.
Smaller government is good. But DOGE is outright lying about its wins
Getting rid of illegal immigrant gang members is good, if done correctly
But his tariffs and bullying are counter-productive, globally, frankly, at levels nobody has seen before. Both within the US and in other lands, Donald Trump is a disturbance that almost everyone would prefer no longer existed.
Unlike the UK, Australia and so on, there is no mechanism for ditching the president of the US, as long as he has the support of his party. And the Republican politicians are, almost everyone, scared of going against Trump because their precious jobs would be at risk. They are spineless.
His numerous current crimes, especially enriching himself and others, don’t matter, he has the immunity from SCOTUS. So prison cannot happen.
To my mind, that leaves three options:
Embarrassment – this is a stretch, but potentially something so bad emerges (perhaps Epstein related, or released by Putin), that he cannot continue.
Health – he is remarkably healthy considering his diet and age, and very on the ball, doing amazing hours of work. But he is old, and almost certainly on Viagra (can I say the word Loomer), and not necessarily going to stay alive for the full term.
Assassination – maybe that is why he is so cozy with Russia and Israel, the GOATs of murdering opponents. Of course he does have enemies overseas, but his murder would almost certainly come from within. A lone wolf (at least two have tried already), a rogue unit of the FBI or CIA, a disgruntled employee, or JD Vance – I wouldn’t put it past him. Trump is very careful with his food – he orders McDonalds for a reason – safer. But someone with Israel/Russia experience in the chain of food/drink custody could easily poison Trump.
Unfortunately, that would leave us with Vance, so he needs to go as well. That would make Mike Johnson president, which would be sane and tolerable
This is my prediction for the “western world” 10 years from now, politically.
Existentially it will still be left v right, woke v bigots. But the lefties will need to keep things fresh, become better defined, and have more fun.
The woke left already embrace the queerest of people, and the rainbow is pretty much their symbol. Meanwhile, especially with Trump, the direction is clearly Handmaid’s Tale, a lack of color. In South Africa (and the US), famously, non-whites have been called colored. It has been hard for woke whites and blacks/coloreds to join as one, but I reckon calling myself colorful (I am white) and giving them the opportunity to do the same, could work.
Meanwhile beige has long been a bit condescending, so that works well as a new insult.
We already know the left/right divides of opinion and policy. But there are some grey areas that the colorfuls can aim to claim.
Crypto – let the beige folk have NFTs and memecoins, while we claim the coins that do not waste electricity to create, and have at least a spirit of non-profit.
Climate Change – take active measures of preparation, and let the beiges feel inadequate when the worst comes. Same for taking vaccines and not getting sick.
Clothing – let’s make what you wear to be unambiguous, starkly so. Colorfuls can claim colors, given the rainbow precedent. Incorporating minor aspects of the rainbow, like a multi-colored stripe that is in the corner like a logo, can mean ownership of color. The beige folk could/should end up being afraid of wearing anything with multiple colors. We can have men wearing kilts, body piercing, dyed hair, and footy umpires wearing pink. They can retreat into the murk of boring.
Cash – Trump et al will want to control people. We can be the leaders of anti-surveillance and pro-cash.
New Age – lots of MAGAs are getting into natural therapies and yoga. We need to have our own varieties that are differentiated. It will at least confuse them, and disenfranchise them.
Vaccines – easy win. Colorful schools can simply require full vaccination.
Fossil Fuels – easy. Be 100% off them, be loud about it. Force the beiges to try and be different. See them give in, embarassed, when it costs more and is less fun.
Sponsored Events – because most actors/musicians/artists are colorful, then they can flaunt that, and make the beige folk feel unwelcome at their displays of artistry. Sponsorship from a prominent colorful brand should be enough, you know, like Bud Light.
Clubs and Themes and Identity and DEI – laws forbid exclusion based on race, gender, sexuality. The Beige will adjust laws so they can get around this. To go the other way, exclude the Beige, is already legal, if you are clever. You can have a private “smokers club” to get around laws regarding smoking in a bar. A gym can be only for anyone without a penis, instead of “women”. (Freebie for the Beige). You can have a school where scholarships are given to people who demonstrate a passion for queer culture, or black culture, or writing about feminist history. That is not discrimination. But nearly is.
Simply Being Us – a cinema (for example) with overtly colorful staff will scare away beiges. They don’t want to be infected. But a colorful won’t care as much going to a beige cinema, and having popcorn from a beige container. We can make them, here and there, feel like the oppressed.
Democracy – even if the federal democracy becomes one-party, there are other levels, especially in the US. States and counties can bring in new ideas like mixed-member-proportional voting, and anything else progressive.
Drugs – all psychedelics are cool, and marijuana. Own them. Flaunt them. Let MAGA do coke and oxy.
Media – presume that the authoritarian government will try to shut down consenting voices. And fight it ahead of time. That will scare them off and let the colorfuls feel empowered.
Have numerous methods of accessing the liberal media. For example, hosted in overseas territories beyond the control of your government. Launch a satellite service that bypasses terrestrial interceptions. Make it possible to 3D print receivers. Start a culture of peer-to-peer offline data sharing (basically copying thumbdrives and distributing)
Ultimately this is counter-culture and hippies, 50-60 years later, a new cycle of rebellion.
Businesses offer 5% off for cash for anyone carrying the Cash5 card. That person also gets points and bragging rights.
The business itself saves 0.5-2.5% in transaction fees, but incurs cash handling costs.
Plenty of businesses are happy to pay a 5% reward fee for anything that gets customers in the door. But also, regular customers might take advantage of it.
All Cash5 transactions are recorded, so no tax dodging is possible. However individual businesses could offer it “off card”.
Why it works:
Doing so makes a statement against the digital now
Keeps cash alive
Like-minded people will frequent the same businesses
The last point is pertinent. Such businesses become venues where counter-culture folk can meet. A lawyer offering Cash5 is perhaps more likely to understand your situation.
It has real world value but ultimately is a way of connecting people, not unlike the African-American barber shops.
Australia has a luxury car tax. Once a car (not a truck or commercial vehicle) costs over $80K (or $90K if they are fuel efficient), then a 33% tax applies. So you can’t really buy a car for $100K or $110K, there is a big gap.
People still buy those cars.
It should be consider for more items, in countries around the world. Luxury, by definition, in an unnecessary splurge. It is hard to argue that those people are being treated unfairly, as they already pay way more for the product that its functional value. They are paying for exclusivity.
So:
handbags
clothing + shoes
furniture
art
whisky + wine
and travel!
We have many cities now trying to reduce the number of tourists that are visiting. Tax can help that easily. We leave alone public transport and regular hotels. We tax 1st class, business class, tours costing more than $x per night, and expensive hotels. At the least, the rich keep spending and the state or local government gets income. Or better still, we get fewer travellers and a saner and greener world.
First of all, there needs to be a fork, where we have social media that verifies the users (photo ID or the like) and socials that don’t. The verified one will automatically be a safer place, because there are laws against bullying, doxxing, slander and so on.
For the unverified, community notes is doing fine, but it needs to be able to respond faster.
For the verified, aside from the general law, we can greatly reduce misinformation with one extra step when posting – source URL. The network you are on will prompt you to add a source URL – where you got the info from. You can also select offline options like print media or radio. The network will point out that if you do not share the source, then you will legally be considered to originator, and any repercussions come beck to you. Nobody will be punished (socials or legally) if they share the source, we are allowed to be morons.
But it comes from thinking about what stops people from letting the homeless take shelter in unused rooms, spaces and buildings. A key concern is that they will steal or do damage. So naturally you provide the barest of minimums. Potentially just a foam mattress on the floor.
There are other concerns obviously, so this is just the beginning of an idea…
In reality, few homeless people would bite the hand that feeds them, with the strong exception of drug addicts. So while the fear of theft or damage is real, it won’t happen very often.
The idea: participants are covered by an insurance of sorts – if the person you provide shelter for does such a thing, you get fully compensated.
The cost of covering such events will be minuscule compared to other solutions.
I cannot find any reason why this is not a widespread thing. It comes down to the simple premise that nobody sets fire to or otherwise deliberately damage their own home. All insurance does is return it to its prior state, but with lots of paperwork, delays and annoyances.
Those that do not get house insurance, typically it is because they cannot afford it versus other things like food and electricity, so they take a gamble. They need help. Everyone else, well the value of the house is probably vaguely connected to what you earn, so increasing taxes by 0.05% would cover everyone’s insurance. Whatever the figure, it will be low. The net result will be the same – what you save from insurance you pay for in tax – but we cut out the middlemen and “loss adjusters”.
Hand in hand with this comes preventive measures, like making sure roofs are well attached. This interesting paper goes in depth about how housing resilience agencies (HRAs) would work. The state will spend on fixing up homes proportional to the risk and cost of bailing them out. Everybody wins. And it is a great election bribe.
