I’m wondering if it might be better to design a long narrow city with a double tracked railroad running down the center. Say a city that is two miles wide. I’m trying to figure out someway people to get on an off the trains without having to stop. The obvious answer is multispeed slide walks, but I think would be too expensive.
Have you read any stories by Robert Heinlein? Because one of his stories envisioned a future America in which the main form of transportation was a series of moving sidewalks.
I’ve seen a design for a train where the upper deck detaches, stops at a station, then catches back up with the main train and reattaches itself. (Although really, just doing that with the tail end carriage would probably be simpler.
Obviously need clued-up passengers and a decent door system.
Minus the trains, it’s a naturally-happening phenomenon around roads as well as one that’s been used on purpose near big cities. I don’t know what are they called in English, but the Spanish is ciudad lineal (line town).
I think the English-language equivalent is transit-oriented development.
Close, yes, although that one seems to cover only the designed case. Most of the cases I know just happened to get buildings along the road, with no intent to design anything (look in googlemaps for “valtierra, spain” and check out both that one and neighboring Arguedas, collective and jokingly known as Valguedas). All the land in the area was equally valuable for agriculture, so building further from the road complicated your logistics without any evident compensation.
Actually, I’m familiar with Heinlein and several other authors that have slidewalks in their stories, but I notice that in the real world that they are short and move about 2 miles an move short distances. They just don’t strike me as practical with current technology.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_hive/2010/07/should_cities_install_moving_sidewalks.html
The closest story to what I’m talking about was Leo Frankowski’s Cross-Time Engineer. Conrad puts building on both side of the railroad track and then ends up roofing the whole thing over.
After thinking about it, it makes more sense to build the track in a circle, so you end up with a city shaped like doughnut. Imagine a city with a circumference of 10 miles with double tracked railroad, so no one is more than 5 miles from any other place and the trains never need to turn around. You would have a park in the hole of the doughnut.
The big variable is what kind of population density you are shooting for. If you are trying for 10,000 people per square mile, then you could put a typical family of 4 in a 2,000 sq ft 2 story town home and average 500 sq ft per person.
If you want 100,000 people per square mile then it is all high rise apartments and a lot more money per square feet, plus a lot more money for infrastructure in general.
Actually, you glazed over some issues and completely ignored others. The main focus (my concern) is that you are trying to convince us (the human race) that humans must accept the mindset that living in smaller quarters is “comfortable” (in your eyes) when you really haven’t addressed each humans’ comfort level and how widely it varies from town to city to metropolis, and culturally from nation to nation. Instead, you propose a certain type of living structure and merely assume that people will live in it without any ill-effects, especially in the psychological realm.
My concern is nowhere near “childish” in nature. It goes way beyond trying to sleep in a 6’ bed when your 6’-3". I have an autistic child who would do quite horribly in a 15’x15’ room, even if you doubled that room in square footage. Or the fact that my son jumps to control his anxiety much to the detriment of people trying to live below us. I don’t want to deal with angry neighbors in a crowded building who do probably have the right to complain, yet I would not be able to offer a viable solution…I feel like a better neighbor when there is space between us and our neighbors because of these issues.
I know you really don’t want to hear about the minutiae of each family, but these tiny flecks (issues) of metal add up to seize an engine (your acrology). Some people can deal, while others can’t. You should respect that fact…and not dismiss it as “childish”.
This is a clever way to get people onto and off of trains without stopping. I don’t know if it could really be applied to the real world, though.
Yesterday I realized something else which I’m not sure how well has been addressed. Even if we come up with a perfect design, good luck getting people to move.
In the 1960s and 70s, Spain saw a lot of barrios cooperativos (please note that in Spanish barrio simply means borough, it doesn’t have negative connotations), areas built by the people who were going to live in them, creating a cooperative to cover the financial aspects of the development.
The hardest part wasn’t getting the land: many of these, specially in the northern half of the country, were started by a priest who either set aside a tract of land belonging to his parish (if such an appropriate tract was available) or convinced a wealthy parishioner that a donation of a certain tract of land which was close to town and not very good for agriculture would please the Lord more than its monetary value, yes? Others (not built by coops) were wholly a government concern: when el Generalísimo wanted some people moved out of caves and into civilized housing, the houses materialized (the other part, see below). A third group (mostly in the south) were built by coops again, but these coops had been organized by a worker’s union - these had the worst problems getting land and materials.
The hardest part wasn’t getting the architectural designs, specially given that cooperativists didn’t bother with such a thing. Blueprints, whazzat? You decide where you want a house, you make a hole in the ground, you fill the hole with something solid (concrete is easier to work with than stone), then you decide where you want the walls and your pipes and your cables and you build. Farmer style, yanow.
The hardest part was convincing people to move. Yes, convincing them to move from houses with crumbling roofs, two unused floors and no indoor plumbing or built-in heating (ok, most of the Old Town houses in the town where I grew up didn’t have collapsed roofs… some did, though, and none had indoor plumbing or heating) into houses with a large yard, indoor plumbing and built-in heating. Or, convincing them to move from a farm with the kitchen hearth for heating, again no indoor plumbing, no electricity or phone, and far enough from town that when it snowed the children couldn’t go to school, to a house in town with indoor plumbing and built-in heating, electricity and a phone.
You see, the old house was old, yes. It may have been crumbling. You needed to go out to the yard to do your thing or use a gazunder. In the winter, the pile of blankets was taller than the frame and mattress. But it was yours, and it had been in your family for generations. These houses the li’l young priest was talking about, eh, who knew how long would they last? And they weren’t yours, hah? They would be, but you’d have to take a loan!* And each one looked like the next, from the outside! How were you supposed to tell them apart?
Nowadays people are accustomed to the idea of developments, but I have a feeling that trying to convince us to move would, still, be the hardest part. The houses may be freaking palaces, we still do tend to hug the doorframes and say “no way!”
- Note that loan is a four-letter word. For Spanish farmers in the '60s, a worst cussword than taking the Lord’s Mother’s name in vain… plus, this second thing you can do on your own, for the first you need a bank - which is another four-letter word.
(I was recently talking to a neighbor about the woman in 1A of my house, who tracks everybody’s comings and goings - she’s better than any alarm system. Anyway, I said “but mind you, I like knowing that she’s a daring soul” “how do you mean?” “well, our house is the oldest one in the coop, right? And she’s been there from day one, which means she and her husband were among the first ones to join the priest’s strange proposal… freaking trend-setters, those two!” “HAH, you’re right!” An adventurer, our old lady in 1A :D)
Concur. Given that this is all about people you simply can’t ignore what people think of it.
That is a neat idea, but probably overkill for commuter rail. I guess you could have each car individually powered and have each add to the beginning of the train and drop off the end. Once the new car mated to the train then people could walk to their destination car. With a maximum riding time of 6 minutes you wouldn’t even need seats.
Your right about that, it is hard to make a one size fits all when it comes to people. sometimes it is too much, some time it is not enough.
It was a mistake I made to call other people’s opinions childish. It is difficult to deal with people puching holes in my idea. But, i can’t be mad because the more you tell me how it is not right, the better I can make it.
I can understant issues of privacy and space. I am an outdoors person and would rather take a sleeping bag and sleep in my tent some where very far away from the general poplulation.
There are a lot of issues to address with the way people live today. I only spend about a 3rd of my day at my house unless its the weekend. Why do I need a whole apartment, when I just use it to hold my stuff anyway. Some people are attached to personal belonging more than others. My sister is like that and I am her polor opposite. So again, I can understand that, and I know one size never fits all.
**The Future of Society **
** NOTE**
This is a document based on what I have encountered or learned over the years. I wanted to publish this paper then cite my sources later. I am sure, if there is a need for it, I will make many changes to this document in order to accommodate the new or corrected information. I will say that some of my idea’s come from or are based on current or past groups that want change in the world. Namely The Zeitgeist Movement and good mostly honest people like Ron Paul and the forth president of the United States of America, Andrew Jackson.
NOTE
Outline:
I The Physiological Readiness of Current Society
Why the transition would be difficult
What problems we can expect
why it is necessary
II The Physical Structure of the New Society
What we can do to begin building
How it will be managed
Transportation
Food development
Housing
Waste
III The New Government and Management of Resources
How the old government was good for its time
Why it is time for a new government
Resource management should be an active part of government
How the new government should be managed and limited
Why the power should no longer be given to just a few people
IV Accommodation and Resource Management
Why it is not necessary for people to have one of everything
How we could eliminate waste by building new things with recycling in mind
Centralized knowledge base accessible to people
V Criminal Activities
Why it is bad
What we could do about it
VI Conclusion
Part I: The Physiological Readiness of Current Society
Currently at this time I know that society does not possess the ability to support a society so radically different from what we know it to be. Before there was a name for it we have been setting up structures as a way to protect ourselves and others. As humans made progress so did the structures that surrounded them. It seems now that we are at a standstill in the progress of our developing structure. We have had the same societal structure for about two hundred years now and it seems that the current structure is being fortified. Yes, we need a strong society in order to thrive. As the needs of the people rise, so does the need for a structure that can support the needs.
When you look at it from that perspective you can see that our current societal structure is not able to do that. My question to you as a reader is why keep this structure that is clearly due for a replacement, when there are so many other options available that can do everything that is needed.
There are many reasons why the majority of society is not ready for transition to a completely new society. The one most prevalent is simple, fear of change. Even when the grass is truly greener on the other side, most would be reluctant, even angry at the thought of sacrificing their security for others. It is to be expected in this society when a person is conditioned to covet material possessions over morals, love, accomplishment, friendship, community, and so on. Not to say they do not exist, but to say they usually exist between blood relatives or co-workers. The dramatic change from doing something because it is required for that one person to survive, to doing something because it benefits all of society is naïve or ludicrous to most. If we fear to let go of the past, we will never have the opportunity to grab hold of our future.
Clearly, the most obvious problem most people will point out is whether or not we can afford to build anything like this. Theoretically, yes we could… if it benefited big business or government. The trend has repeated it’s self for many years. When the people want anything, their voices go unheard. When big business or government wants things, they happen without the knowledge of the people they have sworn to protect. Equality will be another issue because we will not be able to give everyone the same necessities for life. Pride, anger, jealousy, and laziness will all be present in a transition as dramatic as this. There will be people not doing their part, people who feel they don’t get what they earned, and people who get knowingly miss treating others. If we as a society are to grow, we need to think about the one thing that can change everything for us, the children, because they are our future. We were once the bright future of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Now we are the very thing they fought to protect us from.
I believe the transition is necessary because we can’t carry on doing things the way we do for much longer. Fifty years, maybe one hundred before we complete this downward spiral. Anything that can do that to an entire planet must be a huge waste of time and talent.
I was originally wrong in my assumption that we would need to make this change all at once. After doing some more research I found one key issue that is manifesting the problems occurring in society. Large corporations take away resources from communities and as a result it makes them less economically sound. Not only do they take the resources from the people, they also can distribute them where ever they wish. Ultimately, allowing some countries to thrive while others fall into depression. If we were to abolish large corporations and allow only local businesses to thrive than we can give the power back to the people. In this world today networking and resource management would not be that difficult to achieve.
I fell this kind of step would be the equivalent of going backwards. If we are really to move forward, money and debt should not be allowed to set the standards for life. Andrew Jackson, the forth president of the United States saw how money and debt only benefited the rich. Why is it when we have houses, food, and work to be done that it is not handled accordingly and distributed among the people? It is because there is no money to be gained from it. I have food, shelter, and clothing while others just like me live on the street or die of starvation. Maybe you have never had to live on the streets. Maybe you have never gone without food. Maybe you have never gone without the necessities of life, but I will tell you that it is no fun when it happens to you. Why is it we allow ourselves to be put in this game of Russian roulette when the outcome is always bad news for someone?
Part II: The Physical Structure of the New Society
Trying to build a new society from the ground up is hard, but trying to build a new society on top of the old one is much more difficult. This difficulty is compounded when you add people that are resistant to change. So we must start at the bottom, always keeping the needs of the general population in mind.
We will need to train and provide food, housing, clothing, and shelter for all persons. We cannot expect that people will want to stand by while the future is being built up around them. Also we must be strong because there will be people who do not care or want to help. We must focus on the end goal, a better future for ourselves, our children, and our grand children. I am not promising a world devoid of fighting or wars, no not at all. What I am promising is that if we are successful, the world can be a better place for everyone.
First, we need to know what we have and what we need. The task will make some jobs irrelevant and many jobs a necessity. What we know is that we have housing, clothing, food, and water for most everyone. What we need is to divide up the area we have and establish effective communication between the areas. Next is to take into account what the environment is like in these areas and design an efficient city structure that can support the population. In many cases, we may be able to use the existing structures if only temporarily.
600sq to 800sq feet for 1 person
1000sq to 1200sq feet for 2 people
And so on, adding about 400sq to 600sq feet per person.
Building the structure will not be easy. Some new tools will need to be built, but many we already have. These megalithic buildings will range from huge underground cities and phenomenal sky scrapers to floating cities in the ocean. At first, I believe most people would not be accustomed to living in this way so if built they would be small and used for things like farming, schools, science, and other things associated with large buildings. As time passed these mega structures would be seen for the efficiency, elegance, and the synergistic properties they posses.
The new society will be managed in many of the same ways as we manage things today. The goal will be making sure every city can self sustain. If the city supports 1 million people, it should have food, water, shelter, and clothing that can support one and a half times the amount. What a revolutionary idea; a city that does not need outside resources to thrive.
Transportation will need to be looked at in a whole new way. Transporting a single person from place to place in a single automobile is idiotic and selfish. It wastes one of the most valuable resources on the planet. It is stable above room temperature, in a liquid form, and releases more energy than T.N.T.; yet we somehow forgot it is a non-replenishing substance. Yes, I am talking about Oil, specifically gasoline. Once it is gone, it will be gone forever. We must find alternative that will last as long as we are living.
I personally like the idea of a maglev train that can travel at 3000+ mile an hour that uses less energy in total than an air plane or a bus going half the distance. A maglev uses magnets to make a train float above the tracks so that the only resistance the train feels is from the air. If you put that train into a vacuum tube to protect it from outside elements it receives no resistance. That kind of transport should be reserved for city to city traveling, not inner city travel.
Inner city travel can use a similar type of transportation for the masses. Since the city will be designed to support mass transit and not single transit, most things will be within a 5 minute walk of a transit stop. Since everything will be in abundance once we establish ourselves, these transit routes could have a maglev train running by every 5 minutes. Once a central management building is erected, we can design a system similar to what we use to control traffic lights to manage the flow of public transit. It can possibly create an algorithm that is capable of coping with the day to day transportation needs of the people without having to make anybody take over the mundane task of driving a train.
Most of the transportation systems for inner city travel will be circular in design. There are many reasons why circular rings would be efficient for inner city mass transit. The trains will not have to turn around and they can be set up so that a person only needs to travel a maximum of five minutes once off the maglev.
Food Development can and will be handled locally by humans or automated mechanisms. Hydroponics and advance forms of hydroponics will be used to produce food for the population. Research into food and required nutrients will also be a priority. Mega structures that will act as production facilities can be built in a couple square miles that will be the equivalent or thousands, even hundreds of thousands of acres of land. The management system for the city will also be tied into the production of food. The reason being is so that we do not under produce and that we over produce within a certain margin of error. Any extra can be sent to neighboring cities that are in need.
As it stands most of the arable land cannot be used to grow crops anymore. Farming is a dying industry struggling to keep up with the demands of to growing population. We are over using the land causing it to be a non-sustainable resource. To keep doing that would be foolish and ignorant because when it fails or degrades to a point that it can no longer feed the population, people will die. Then people will turn on each other when corporations start charging a premium fee for food that could have been grown locally and cheap in almost every city in the world.
Housing is a major issue in all population groups. It is important to remember that people can adapt to change and put up with most anything for a reasonable amount of time. It is also important to remember that everyone has different space and life style requirements. I can lump sum the types of people into four categories. We have the Gathers, Adventurers, Watchers, and Hybrids. Gathers are people who base their accomplishment in life on how many things of value they can surround themselves with. Adventurers constantly look for a way to get out of the normal and
Base their accomplishments on how many things they have done. Watchers live their lives to gather information and are always pressing the limits of what they know. Hybrids are a mixture or any of those three and are the most common, but most people will have the majority of traits from one main category.
It is childish to assume those are the only categories, and it is naive to do so without conclusive evidence to support it. So please be polite and understand they are just my observations of people and how they live. If somehow I am able to provide solid evidence from scheduled scientific surveys, I will be sure to provide a link to it.
Once you can generally describe most people, you can go about setting a standard of what type of environments they may need to be content. So my suggestion would be to not build static shelled buildings, but to make them modular so that they may accommodate multiple sized houses. There is also enough room on the planet to give everyone a house or something similar. Of course a house may be too much for one person or a small group of people and ultimately would be a waste of resources. So the needs of the people would need to be addressed before a structure to house them would be erected. If the needs are within reason and not a selfish request, each person will be accommodated as best as possible. If most people see smaller individual houses as the most educated decision to make for the environment they live in, then that is what will be done. If larger structures are required because the environment then that is what will be happen. Making a decision solely on your gut feeling or emotion has gotten many people in trouble. As a society that makes decisions on factual information, we must make the most educated decision.
The smaller the house, the more likely that once the residences decide to leave that it will not be used again. Most small structures should be built to be recyclable once no longer in use. Wasting resource by not using them may not be a negative thing in the society, but recycling these resources will save them so they can be used in other places. Larger structure should be built to last as long as safely possible. If it can stand for 100 years with minimum regular maintenance, we should make sure that it last at least until we build something to replace it. Building these larger buildings to be recyclable is important but not the priority.
Waste management is the nasty ting most people avoid talking about. Some scientists in Germany made a way to use a form of thermal transfer to create energy from sewage. At present it is difficult to separate the liquid from the gray matter (poop and other stuff), but it can be done. We do it now and there is many ways to go about doing it. To add insult to injury, we have to worry about other things beside bodily waste. This problem can be addressed simple by using materials that are at least 95% recyclable. Glass bottles for drinks maybe a hassle because of weight, but it is a nonporous, recyclable, and durable. There are many other clever ways to address other issues. If there is not a way to solve the issue, then we will soon find a way to solve that issue.
As for things that cannot be recycled. Most of which are toxic or radioactive substances. Another group of scientist devised a clever way of using super heated gas and electricity to create plasma hot enough to break down these substances into other non toxic or non radioactive base elements(usually in a gaseous form). The byproducts can be collected and used to create energy, I personally think is unnecessary, and that the byproduct should be harvested and used elsewhere. The process is extremely expensive because of the amount of energy required to do this. The only way most of these technologies that can better the world, can only be implemented in world where energy is in abundance. Personally, I think geothermal is the clear winner, but only in the short term. Solar energy has the potential to be a more potent power source, simply because it is everywhere and is easy to get access to.
Part III: The New Government and Management of Resources
Government is a useful tool and can do many great things. The main problem with it is that it tries to manage such a large area of unstable economies. At any given moment if a large part or the economy collapses, the government will have little power over the events that would follow a catastrophe like that. Something like this would put hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives at risk. Anything that has such a high possibility of failing is obviously out of date and due for a replacement. Besides the most prevalent problems with the government’s ability to support the people, there are the numerous issues and conspiracy surrounding the operation of governments and federal facilities. Most people choose to ignore these problems for many reasons, but the main reason is that we as people participating in society feel as though we have no power to change what these organizations do.
Money is a huge problem when it comes to these organizations because whoever has the money makes the rules. Laws that should have never been passed were passed. Crimes go unpunished simple because a person can afford to pay for the problem with money. Our government is no longer for the greater good of people in this country. Every action they take can be traced to one undeniable fact, to make more money. That does not benefit me or the people around me. So I can honestly say that this empire built on money and lies does not benefit the majority, but only the wealthy. If we change the priority from the few to the many, things will become more stable and safer for all.
Government can remain for the most part the same. I know that decisions should no longer be based on money or politics, but be intelligently made by people for the people. People should be at least required to have a ballet and all current relevant information on the subject sent to a registered mail or email box. Also, no decisions beyond the scope of a city should be allowed to happen unless everyone votes, because we are all involved in the future of our society. If a change to the way things operate cannot be summed up and put into a bulleted presentation that all can understand then it should not be allowed to pass. Simply, lies or a play on words can mislead the people into believing something false.
When it comes to the resources we use, since people will be the new government, they should actively participate or have knowledge of what raw materials are in the city, where it is being used, what is being sent out or coming in, and a basic understanding of all facilities present in the city. Including, but not limited to: waste management, recycling, and food production. The more educated the citizens, the easier it will be far all to make educated decisions.
I am not against laws, but I am against what they do to the people. They make people fear doing things in everyday life. I know that if we focused more on fixing what is causing the problem or the type of behavior that is causing an issue, we can build a safer more sustainable life style. Making a law that prevent a person from drinking a driving only makes people fear doing it, but does not stop it from happening. If you build cars that can detect drunk driving, build in radar for collision avoidance, or get rid of single person vehicles, then you solve the problem. We can build planes, boats, and submarines with collision avoidance technology, yet the somehow can’t figure out how to get it into a car. That is because there is more money to be made if you crash your car, and survive… that’s why they build them with so many safety features, just not the one that fixes this problem. So, again I say I am not against some laws. Laws are needed so that people understand what boundaries society has collectively selected for all people to oblige. But many laws are a quick fix to a serious problem. From personal experience I know a quick fix never fixes anything.
As I said above, vaguely, the power of the government should be divided and given to the people because as a human being they are responsible for the decisions we make as a society. No longer should one person or group of people be allowed to control the fate of the people. Every city should manage its self separately from other cities. They should be self sustainable so they are never at the mercy of another. Strong people and strong cities equal’s a strong society that is managed individually, but works towards a collective goal.
Not once have I had my congress person called me and asked me what my opinion was on a pending bill. I have never received a letter in the mail asking me what I think of proposition 9. These things should a mandatory requirement, and once the material has arrived then the person can decide what to do with it. And yes, I am a register voter with a mail address and email. So why have I not been included in these decision that affect my life. I say there is evidence saying a decision to keep oil as our number one energy source will eventually make the United States vulnerable, weak, and at the mercy of anybody capable of providing. My congress person and my government ignore me and all others who can see where this trend will lead the United States. Furthermore, there is a strong history of many people who have attempted to change these trends and ending up dead.
The government has a strong history as well. People taking advantage and misusing power, Invasion of privacy, wrongfully convicted innocent people, cover-up stories, antagonizing wars, Invading other countries for very little reason, and so on and so forth, the list goes on for quite a while. It is truly sad how many things the government has done behind the public’s back and then later apologized for their mistakes. Some of the allegations against the government are just speculation, others are possible but really sound too unreal, but many are just plain straight proven facts. If you want to support something that has been proven on many occasions to support something other than the people, continue, but I urge you to look at the bigger picture here. The futures of all people’s in the world are on line when these governments play games, lie, and feed us a steady diet of BS.
Part IV: Accommodation and Resource Management
As a society trying to be more responsible with our resources brings a question about personal belongings. What exactly does a person identify as something that is theirs? What does a person identify as a tool or something they only use when the occasion arises? It varies from person to person, but many of these things are consistent and should be acknowledged as tools. Not everyone needs to have one of everything, but should have everything available for temporary use. If It is something a person uses on a daily bases, then it should be considered a personal possession. If an item carries personal information about a person, such as: A computer, cell phone, picture, journal, sentimental possession, clothing, hygiene products, and so on, it should also be considered personal as long as it is within reason. Possession such as this will be at the discretion of the owner when it comes to decisions of ownership. As the owner of an item, that person is responsible for the disposal and/or recycling of that item if the need occurs.
As our society builds its self up, we should always strive to make thing recyclable and reusable in as many situations as safely possible. Many of the resources we have may be abundant, but are static in the amount that is available to us. If we arrogantly think that they will continue to be available for ever, we may find ourselves short changed and fighting over the remaining resources. It is simple in theory, but will be hard to implement with the mind set we have today. When we are capable of this, things will remain in abundance for much longer.
As participants in the society, we should always have easy access to all known resources and where they are being kept. Very rare or dangerous elements should be kept under surveillance at all times and distrusted where needed. To be naive and think that no one would want to take advantage of dangerous substance could be the downfall of a peaceful society, but every day we take a chance when we step out the front door. It is not unreasonable to fear the power of these dangerous substances and to keep them at arm’s length. As for all other resources, a comprehensive easily accessible management system should keep track of these things. At least one should be placed in every city and should occasionally send its data to a central management system.
Part V: Criminal Activities
Criminal activity is a huge crippling force that stands before us. These types of activities govern more of society than should be allowed. Most of these people who participate in these acts are just people getting by in life best they can. They resort to this type of activity because they do not have the necessities of life available to them. This is amplified with the use of drugs or having to support other people which can lead to people who are beyond the point of understanding. This of course leads to organized crime that causes fear, panic, confusion, hate, distrust, murder, and other negative things. I have no idea on how to handle this kind of activity. An eye for an eye just leads to more problems than solutions. Jails create hate and foster evil things into society. I can honestly say I have no idea on how to incorporate truly dangerous people into a peaceful society. My only suggestion is exile, but even that does not solve the problem.
Part VI: Conclusion
Placing the blame for all the wrong is society on the government is an ill placed accusation. We are responsible for what happens in this world. Standing back and letting people run us over because of fear or whatever your reason will eventually lead us to a world where nobody will want to live. Many technologies are capable of handling this kind of change in society. Others are still in development but will soon be available. It is not that we cannot do it; it is that we have many obstacles before we get there. New things must be constructed, old things must be replaced, and problems must be fixed. This is exactly what life should be. Money, government, politics, and crime should be removed from this society before it can really begin growing again.
Fire away people 
You think I’m actually going to read all that? I have things to do.
A lot of what you’ve written Is sort of a rant about everything being wrong. What you havent said enough about is why and how your proposals are going to make anything better.
Don’t assume your audience has anything other than language in common with you.
yeah, it needs polish. I will see if i can add that in for you mangeout. thank you for reading it, it is a mess right now.
any tips on how I can turn this rant into something worth reading?