Four plausible futures: 2050 scenarios - Arup

What will the world look like in 2050? Arup's Foresight, Research and Innovation team have developed four plausible futures.
These futures hinge on whether we prioritise social and economic development over environmental health, or vice versa. Find out more and read the report:
www.arup.com/p...

[@robinleow185]

Wow! This is brilliant documentation Arup! Truly amazing!

[@samueljohnson2795]

Excellent analysis, even in 2022.

[@staym925]

is this funded by the world economic forum?

[@rumfordc]

ok you do that on your own for a few decades and let the rest of us know how it goes.

[@your_2040]

there is no need to be rude.

[@rumfordc]

@@your_2040 i forgive me

[@teeth3396]

Dystopia

[@artismbyjoey779]

Or a Utopia.

[@rumfordc]

@@artismbyjoey779 if you're not allowed to leave, its a dystopia.

[@stephenmcgrail7661]

An interesting scenario set but it also stretches plausibility (to say the least!) at times - for instance, I was stunned to see imagery of the rich ("1%") living in enclosed domes that the poor only enter to work their jobs. Provocative - yes. But a "plausible future"? Doubtful.

[@hargibson18]

Is it? Do gated communities not exist?

[@solsnail4741]

In all scenarios, I see the same ugly skyscrapers for outsiders and non elites. That is the real plan, climate change or not.

[@marcv2648]

What nonsense. We are not one society. The world is made up of different societies with different futures.

[@leomaiante]

so far

[@your_2040]

there is no need to be rude.

[@pidde24]

Architects are lousy storytellers.

[@your_2040]

there is no need to be rude.

[@pidde24]

@@your_2040 It is a beautiful presentation - but tentative in its conclusion based on Dator's old scenario-thinking. Architects can be great urban developers but lacks depth, humor and trustworthiness when it comes to presenting a plausible narrative of the future. That is not rude - that is relevant critique.

[@your_2040]

@@pidde24 i can accept that. however architects did not create these. it is therefore an uninformed critique. have you read the report? do you understand the methods and rationality?