Are zoos really that self-sufficient? No, without the humans feeding the animals that would all die, and if you allow them to mix-and-mingle, total chaos would ensue almost immediately. Would not you say that attempting to domesticate wild animals in this way is a lot like socialism, and after a while you can not return those animals to the wild, as they would not have the brain power, prowess, or hunting skills to survive or prevent themselves from becoming someone else's dinner? Okay so, let's talk about this, specifically about the concrete jungle we call mega-cities, you know where many of you humans live and work.

Now then, there was an interesting Futurist Report which came out at the end of February, 2012, actually on leap-day, which is something telling, as I believe it was a leap of faith more than anything else. DHL put out a paper titled; “The World in 2050,” and one of the 5-scenarios was the potential for “Mega-efficiency in Megacities,” and the press release for the paper stated that Mega-Cities;

“Are the main drivers and beneficiaries of a paradigm shift toward” green “growth. To overcome the challenges of expanding urban structures, such as congestion and emissions, megacities have become champions of collaboration. have changed their habits: Products are now usually rented, instead of purchased. High efficiency traffic concepts have relieved congestion. megacities of the world. The logistics industry has been entrusted to run city logistics, utilities, and system services for airports, hospitals, and shopping malls. ”

When I read that part of the multipage press-release, I thought to myself only a utopian communist or socialist futurist could have written it or rather the report it was excerpting from – and what they seem to be forgetting is that domesticing humans clearly does not ' t work, they are a rebellious species, and certainly not meant for a 1984 or Borg type existence. Those who've tried to create a utopia in history, well, their pet project and visions of a 1000 year civilization have all ended tragically for all concerned.

Further, all the recent attempts at a green utopia have ended in costly bankruptcies, failed projects, and / or increased costs, which I may add have made the natives more restless, not less. There is a reason for urban flight to the suburbs, and there is a reason that there is a higher standard of living in the suburbs as opposed to the degraded cities of our time. There is also a reason for mega-slums outside all the major cities, and often a cancer brewing from within, even as there is a constant push for renewal, and economic development.

This whole “build it and they will come attitude” and motif is not meant to be, because if you build it, most likely humans will destroy it. Is not that what usually happens, I mean let's be honest here. I am saying look at the statistics, scoreboard, or empirical evidence if you will, the numbers are in and it's clear, big cities are not quite as synergistic as they seem or are claiming to be. For the wealthy who live in cities, there is certainly abundance, but at which expense, a question that I am shocked these well to do socialist refuse to ask themselves in all of their hypocrisy. And yes, it is true for them at least there is a lot of cognitive surplus to dream up these utopian plans of minds, but I would submit to you that their level of cognition is blind to reality, so, what good is it?

Mega cities still require mega power, mega-resources, and quite a bit to sustain them, but in the end they are not “sustainable” to borrow a catch phrase and common term from the left-lending ramblings of socialism. Mega cities drain vast amounts of fresh water supplies from large amounts of land to funnel for their own usage, then these individuals claim to be concerned about the environment, interesting I say. Even with all their “recycling” efforts and then busy patting on the back they create mega-trash piles elsewhere. The air quality is bad, and then their air blows out to the rest of us. The traffic is a mess, destroying productivity and efficiency.

But now this report says that in the future they will fix all that, and all they need is the money to build the city perfect, into their utopia at last. Really, then who is paying for it? If the city is so great and so efficient, why not have them pay for it themselves, why should the tax dollars of everyone else be funneled into the city for them to run another dead end experiment with a human utopia project? They've been taking everyone else's money for years, they'll always need more, want more, and promise us that someday, you'll see. Really, because you see LA, only when the smog clears, and it's time for these folks with all their communist tendencies and academic accolades to get some fresh air, so they can think.