Hehe, I get that. However, if adopted properly, it would be a practical language skill, as it would be a language officially in use. Besides, if those studies described above are to be trusted (not sure if they are), it would facilitate additional language learning. But that argument is what you are getting at with your comment on Latin?
That is what sounds so inefficient to me. It probably works fine at the bigger assemblies, but within smaller agencies located around Europe? I don’t know, but my guess is that they adopt a small subset of official languages as the working language (do you know?) which I think becomes a barrier to participation for citizens of member states who do not speak those languages natively.
Languages are tied to people and is a very important part of culture which is why fabricated languages would never even make it, but even if one made it, someone would have advantage in learning it and it’s a powerful tool.
I kinda think this kind of usage is the only way a fabricated language would make it beyond a small niche language, but it would have to be actively implemented (which is really my question in the opening post: is that a good idea?). And it could be constructed in such a way that it becomes close to equally learnable for everyone that is intended to use it. I think Esperanto, while having some slavic influences as well, lies a bit too close to the romance languages that it might well lead to the situation you describe, but I am far from a linguistic expert and couldn’t say for certain.
Since the UK left (and Ireland and Malta being the only ones left speaking English natively I think) this problem got less problematic. If it is a foreign language almost for all, the differences are not that big.
Good point, but I am not so sure the UK (or even England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately at some point) won’t rejoin in the future.
Artificial languages have the problem that they will end up being spoken only by an elite, which would be highly problematic for the EU, which is already seen as an elite project by all too many people in the EU.
Yes, that is definitely a danger, but of course - the easier it is to learn, the more likely anyone could pick it up. However, I do think it would have to be learned in schools across the entire Union for it to work. Learning Esperanto first allegedly increases a student’s ability to learn other foreign languages, so it would not necessarily come at the expense of other foreign languages. I suspect that has to do with getting used to learning a language, and if that is true, than any sufficiently easy language could serve the same purpose. And something that could strengthen multilingualism in Europe in general (more language-savvy people = more people picking up additional European languages and to a higher proficiency).
I’m curious, what language would you consider being easy to learn
A language with no grammatical irregularities for starters. And one where the phonetics are consistent. Constructed languages can offer this. Whether any existing ones are sufficiently easy, I’m not sure.
And then some mechanisms that facilitates vocabulary building. For instance, I like the affixes in Esperanto, as understanding the root word and then the affixes allows you to pick up all kinds of words you never explicitly learned. And example is -ejo, which indicates a place, could be combined with a root word such as the verb forĝas (to forge, root: forĝ-), yielding forĝejo = place where one forges. Or monero (money, root: moner-) + -ejo yields monerejo = place where one stores money (= monero).
I’m sure with modern linguistic knowledge a much easier language than Esperanto could be constructed.
However, it’s not that you can dictate a language
The question was whether an auxillary language would be a good idea. It would necessarily be dictated. Every citizen would learn it in school. The proposed benefit having a a common language easily learned and spoken equally well by all member state citizens, that could be used to cross language barriers (like English is today), and that could be used within EU (i.e. all institutions) as an official language.
For the record, I am intrigued by the idea, but I am very open to this being a bad idea, which is why I made the thread to hear people’s opinions.
Are there live translators between all pairs of languages?
Interesting point that I did not consider, and not sure I fully understand. How would it lead to discrimination do you think?
How does this work? Is everything live translated?
Hehe, that one is often suitable, and I think it fits nicely here.
I don’t count English as a particularly easy language to master. Do you not think there are some problems that arise from assymetry in ability to learn English? Not just thinking about legal documents, but debates, discussions, negotiations etc.
And is this massive amount of translation not just very inefficient? Although I suspect at best a new language would come in addition, so we’re back to the xkcd-strip and nothing was solved there.
What is the main reason this is a poor idea to you?
Does translators not just lead to inefficient communication?
“1kW within 1hr” isn’t power. That’s energy.
The watt is always power, not energy. I’m assuming OP here got some prepositions mixed up and meant 1 kW delivered for 1 hr. That amounts to an energy of 1 kWh.
The second is like hell hole, tons of energy but still only a little bit of power.” No. They are both precisely the same energy.
No, they are the same power. The energy in the case where 1 kW of power is delivered for 1 hour is 1 kWh. The energy in the case of 1 kW delivered for 1 s is about 0.28 Wh.
If instead 1 kWh was transferred over the course of 1 hour, that is an average power of 1 kW (but does not have to be uniform, without more information we can’t know the power profile). If 1 kWh is transferred over the course of 1 s, that is an average power of 3.6 MW which is the example I think OP was getting at (ref. hell hole comment).
Awesome! If you’d like any suggestions for story ideas, let me know what other stories and general themes you like and I’d be happy to see if anything pops to mind.
Cheers! For now, what listed above is what I am most interested in reading up on :)
Also: can I give you a piece of writing advice related to your post above?
Sure, go ahead!
The main geopolitical change is that oil is not going to be anymore a king-maker. I would expect a second Arab Spring (though the Arab world is more than just the Arabian peninsula) with more success. I would expect a lower influence of Russia as well.
Yes, the decline in power of the petrostates would need to be handled well, and would definitely be important in figuring out how the overall landscape looks.
There are two possible flavors of future and really, both are credible, it depends on the stories you want to tell: more integration in supra-national entities or more independent states.
I think perhaps both could work at the same time (which I upon rereading see that you mentioned further down!)? More autonomy to regional entities within countries, but more collaboration on larger issues inside unions such as EU and AU (it would be difficult to avoid centralized power being forced down on local communities though). Maybe instead of seeing the EU moving towards a federal state, maybe we see the US moving towards something like the EU? There are several nations in Europe that would only be mid-sized states in the US, so I always found comparing single European countries to the US makes less sense than comparing the US and EU directly.
Also, do not forget the UN. It could consolidate in a form of government. It already has a de facto minister of trade (WTO), of labor (ILO), of health (WHO), of education (UNESCO). It is a slow process but solving the climate crisis could have given it the political credit it is currently lacking.
Interesting, I never thought of these bodies in that light before. I think the source of the lack of political credit is largely due to the ineffectiveness of the Security Council and the veto vote. I think a big change to this would be paramount for UN to work as some kind of “world government”. And there is a fine line between such an organization being a force for good or a force for evil.
I’ve been doing a worldbuilding exercise for awhile, where I photobash together an image of a solarpunk scene and write some commentary about it. Maybe it’ll help? https://jacobcoffinwrites.wordpress.com/postcards-from-a-solarpunk-future/
Cool, I’m bookmarking this! You seem to have put a lot of thought into this, so it will definitely be an interesting read.
I tend to write with the expectation that things will get worse before they get better. I have a couple reasons for this: 1, I think there are likely some hard times ahead and I want the folks there to have optimistic fiction that makes concrete suggestions for improving things. 2, it’s a useful way to make changes in the setting.
Yeah, I anticipate that this will be the case for me as well. I find it unlikely that we all wake up tomorrow and agree to do everything differently. Too much is at stake for too many people who are well off today. So something big needs to happen that turns a lot of things upside down. And as you say, it is useful as a literary tool: rebuilding from a destroyed state gives a lot of freedom when the new is to be defined, as inertia is taken out of the picture. Not that I don’t hope for the former being possible still…
I tend to be a bit more concerned with day to day life, but I’ve been doing a fair bit of research, so if you find yourself looking for ideas on what a solarpunk apartment building, city street, rural homestead, or other location might look like, feel free to reach out, I’ve got tons of ideas.
The story I have in mind is really something that could be set in a lot of different settings. It is not something that occurs because of the Solarpunk world, but merely inside it. I have a fairly clear picture of what things look like, but would always be interested to see what others have imagined. As I said, I’ve bookmarked your page, so I will make sure to reach out when the details will be chiseled out. I imagine the research for the transition from here to then will take up much time before then.
Wow, this is really cool - thanks for sharing! I’ll take a closer look at this, I am loving the idea. I have just recently started with some traditional TTRPG (DnD), so this is really good timing in that sense as well :)
Nice, thank you! I’ve only read non-fiction by Doctorow so far (Chokepoint Capitalism and The Internet Con) - I think many of the things he advocates for are definitely part of a Solarpunk future, so I imagine his fictional works would be worth a read in that regard. I’ll add it to my reading list, and I’ll make sure to get the humble bundle that I recently saw advertised!
Until your system does anything useful with third party votes or couch-sitting, you go out and vote every time for whatever does the least damage to democracy. But don’t disengage from the political world after the election. Between elections, you work to change the system. Find groups that tries to do this and volunteer. If you really care about it, you will need to dedicate your time to the cause, even though it might seem hopeless and may very well be.
I understand your situation sucks and you are tempted to say “Fuck the status quo” and desperately do something different in hopes that something will somehow change. But you know who do go out and vote, every fucking time? The racist assholes who would love to see Trump and his fascists cronies in power. And if that happens, it is game over. You will never get any chance to change anything, except from after a big traumatic event such as a big war (“civil” or otherwise).
Great read, thank you for that! I’ve written down some of my thoughts. Feel free to point out if I’ve misunderstood you, or if there is something you think I am wrong about.
On 3D-printing
I believe you are onto something in terms of creating more things ourselves on-demand, and I do think local additive manufacturing will be more common in households down the line, and not reserved for hobbyists. I am in the process of selecting a 3D-printer for myself, and in that process I have also begun envisioning many use cases for it. However, I have some concerns over how this will actually play out:
While I am fairly tech savvy, and I have no doubts I can learn what I need to learn in order to design and produce what I need, I wonder what it would take for e.g. my mom to be comfortable with, and get utility from, 3D-printers. We have lived in a specialized society for so long that the vast majority of people are almost exclusively consumers, and do not create anything anymore and even the thought of doing things yourself can be daunting. You mention open source designs and being able to build further upon it, and while I love the idea, I think (for now and at least the short-term) that most people would be fully dependent on a large repository of available designs that can be printed as-is. This smells like yet another area where we would see the emergence of a tech behemoth with a firm monopolistic grip offering a fancy platform with all the bells and whistles, with the ensuing enshittification that is sure to follow: tech lock-in to certain brands and “ecosystems”, limitations to design inspection and modification, algorithmic manipulation to buy/print things we don’t really need, etc. How would we guard ourselves against this and make sure that people would be free to use it to their own benefit, and not end up in the same kind of platform hellscape that we’ve seen for social media platforms, online retailers etc. already?
On-demand printing would certainly reduce overproduction of certain goods, as big retailers wouldn’t need to keep large stocks to ensure availability. In certain industries, this overproduction is massive, and if it could be removed, it would be great. But do we not risk local overproduction? Say that 3D-printing of fabrics becomes viable do to at home, and at a low cost (comparable or lower to those horrible ultrafast fashion brands). What is to stop us from continuing the gross overconsumption that the average consumer engages with today? Especially if the dystopic vision of a tech behemoth running the show presented above comes into fruition. A new dress for every occasion, can’t be seen to wear the same outfit more than once, or else your status takes a hit. Failed prints could also generate a lot of unusable scrap. There would in any case need to be in place robust recycling procedures, preferably local. This would need to account for different materials, plastics, metals (and sorting by alloy), and it would need to handle removal of any contaminants that could affect the quality of the recycled product (dirt or other foreign material that has come from use, this is at least easier with scrap material from a failed print as it should not be dirty).
As you point out, this can’t work for everything. There are quite a lot of goods that require specialty production methods that cannot be replicated at home. I think manufacturing at some levels of complexity higher than what can be achieved with a home printer could probably be handled by community facilities with larger scale equipment and perhaps maintenance and operations staff. But more high-tech things, which my understanding of a solarpunk vision requires, such as photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, batteries and semiconductor components, requires large scale manufacturing. So that won’t disappear, but by their own use of additive manufacturing, their own supply chains could be shortened quite a lot by producing more components in-house. If your assumption that we remove the concern for profit, than there wouldn’t be any barrier to doing this, and I think that would be very beneficial.
Consequences for overproduction
What do you think can be done in regards to overproduction of goods? Should there be consequences for producing more than can be consumed? Do you think capitalism can be tamed in such a way?
I think yes, of course there should be consequences for producing more than can be consumed. The fact that there is none, other than whatever monetary losses they are impacted with from this wastefulness, which obviously is not enough to keep them from doing it, highlights one of the main problems with how capitalism works in our world: the real cost of transactions are seldom accounted for, which results in wastefulness and other poor choices from a sustainability point of view. Large-scale production often yields enormous economies of scale benefits, to the point where the marginal cost of production is barely anything. Doesn’t matter to them if they produce way more than they can sell, because it doesn’t cost them anything anyway. However, with high margins on sales, they might get a huge profit benefit from producing more in case it sells well. Leftovers we just dump in a river somewhere, not our problem anymore.
Can it be tamed however? In principle, more and smarter regulations would help. They would need to be widely agreed upon by several nations, as otherwise corporations could avoid the regulations by flagging out. In practice? I think we’re a long way from this being straight-forward. Corporate interests have way too much to say in politics, especially in the US, and before that problem is solved I think there is a limit to how efficient regulations can be. I also believe that it is difficult to get the required corporation across several countries for the kind of regulation that would be needed. I think EU does some good things here, although they sometimes miss the mark completely for the sake of compromise, and in some areas are chasing the completely wrong types of regulation that are detrimental and not beneficial to our society.
The idea being that eventually (though that would need to be far in the future) you would not need to translate as it is a common language among all member states.
Because it is a difficult language to master and it puts many non-native speakers at a disadvantage. As pointed out above, there are only two countries who do speak English natively now, but depending on your native language, some citizens still have an substantial easier time learning English.