1. 3

    “Digitaal spijkert de nieuwe garde een manifest op het voorhoofd van de oude macht” bij zo’n kop denk ik eigenlijk alleen maar: “Het zal wel”.

    Voor deze keer zeg ik dat dan ook maar, doch uitsluitend omdat ik me een beetje zat te vervelen.

    Ik heb het niet gelezen, maar het is ongetwijfeld razend boeiend. Hahahahahaha. Sorry.

  2. 6

    Als dit manifesto bij keest inderdaad sterk andere gevoelens opwekt, dan ben ik wel reuzebenieuwd naar het hoe en waarom.

    Cpt.Iglo mag wel zwijgen.

  3. 8

    @6 vooral om de ‘generatie’ insteek, daar krijg ik per definitie de kriebels van. Het voert altijd tot een op niets gebaseerde zelfverheerlijking van zijn – volstrekt uit de lucht gegrepen – eigen groep, en andersom tot een collectieve demonisering (excusez) van de rest. Er wordt daarbij voortdurend een gemeenschappelijkheid verondersteld die er niet is. Met dat soort enormiteiten als “You wanted big, fat, lazy business.: Over wie heeft hij het? de meerderheid van de ‘ouderen’ heeft natuurlijk nooit iets te zeggen gehad over de economie. Of was daar (I say-Vietnam-generatie) falikant tegen en heeft de knuppel in de nek gehad.
    Maar dan ‘we’: ” We want small, responsive, micro-scale commerce.” says who? Als ik om me heen kijk zie ik de twintigers harder voor de carriere gaan dan ooit, en is er nog nooit zo zinloos geconsumeerd als nu. Het ‘generatie’spook werkt lekker want je hoeft geen politieke categorien meer te hanteren. Nog niks bereikt en daar dan je sterke punt van maken, dat is wat het is.

  4. 9

    tja, zo kan ik het ook:

    You wanted big cars – we want to drive around on bicycles.

    You elected Hitler – we opt for democracy.

  5. 10

    Zo te zien zou hij het goed met Prins Charles kunnen vinden:

    Toespraak Prins Charles

    Umair:
    * Everyday, I see a widening gap in how you and we understand the world — and what we want from it. I think we have irreconcilable differences.
    * You wanted financial fundamentalism. We want an economics that makes sense for people — not just banks.
    * You wanted growth — faster. We want to slow down — so we can become better.

    Prins Charles:
    Most would agree, I think, that the main result of progress should be less misery and more happiness. But in our modern situation these “ends” have become dangerously confused with the “means,” to the point where, now, wealth, innovation and growth have become the final goals. They have become the destination, when they were only ever at best a vehicle for getting there. It seems that through a drift of ethics, the direction of our economic system has ended up being an end in itself – an entity that must be grown, rather than directed and honed to reflect the aspirations of communities, human well-being and the limits of ecology.

    Umair:
    * You wanted big, fat, lazy “business.” We want small, responsive, micro-scale commerce.
    * You wanted shareholder value — built by tough-guy CEOs. We want real value, built by people with character, dignity, and courage.

    Prins Charles:
    There is little chance of such sympathy if what people need is provided through commercial structures that place an ever greater distance between the supplier and the consumer, because economies of scale can destroy the economics of localness. It has become, again, a purely mechanical process with no room for the complexity and multi-faceted dimensions of a proper local relationship between a community and the suppliers that serve it.

    Umair:
    * You wanted to biggie size life: McMansions, Hummers, and McFood. We want to humanize life.
    * You wanted exurbs, sprawl, and gated anti-communities. We want a society built on authentic community.
    * You wanted more money, credit and leverage — to consume ravenously. We want to be great at doing stuff that matters.
    * You sacrificed the meaningful for the material: you sold out the very things that made us great for trivial gewgaws, trinkets, and gadgets. We’re not for sale: we’re learning to once again do what is meaningful.

    Prins Charles:
    How could we better empower all sorts of communities to create a much more participative economic model that safeguards their identity, cohesion and diversity – one that makes a clear distinction between the maintenance of Nature’s capital reserves and the income it produces? That is the challenge we face, it seems to me – to see Nature’s capital and her processes as the very basis of a new form of economics and to engage communities at the grass roots to put those processes first. If we can do that, then we have an approach that acts locally by thinking globally, just as Nature does – all parts operating locally to establish the coherence of the whole.

    Umair:
    * The great crisis isn’t going away, changing, or “morphing.” It’s the same old crisis — and it’s growing.
    * You’ve failed to recognize it for what it really is. It is, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, in our institutions: the rules by which our economy is organized.
    * Every generation has a challenge, and this, I think, is ours: to foot the bill for yesterday’s profligacy — and to create, instead, an authentically, sustainably shared prosperity.

    Prins Charles:
    However, the starting point is to see things differently from the current, dominant world view which in so many ways is no longer relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves. The worst course would be to continue with “business as usual” as this will only compound the problem.

    We are, Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said at the beginning, at an historic moment – because we face a future where there is a real prospect that if we fail the Earth, we fail Humanity. To avoid such an outcome, which will comprehensively destroy our children’s future, we must urgently confront and then make choices which carry monumental implications. In this, we are the masters of our fate.

    On the one hand, we have every good reason to believe that carrying on as we are will lead to a depleted and divided planet incapable of meeting the needs of its nine billion citizens, let alone sustaining its other life forms. On the other hand, we can adopt the technologies, lifestyles and, crucially, a much more integrated way of thinking and perceiving the world that can transform our relationship with the Earth that sustains us. The choice is certainly clear to me.

  6. 12

    @11: cynisch? Misschien. Maar ik ga echt niet staan juichen bij dit soort ‘grote verhalen’. De schrijver ervan zou beter zelf een moestuintje beginnen en zijn auto de deur uit doen. Utopische manifesten waar niemand het mee oneens kan zijn, hebben we al genoeg en die veranderen niks aan de wereld.