>Danish politician Ida Auken, who wrote the prediction in question (here), said it was not a “utopia or dream of the future” but “a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse.”

>In a written update, she clarified that the piece aimed to “start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.”

The "starting a discussion" is bullshit rhetoric under the guise of innocence, and you should be wiser than to believe these people don't have an agenda. No one "starts a discussion" without an agenda.

An 'agenda' is just a want for either change or preservation - we should be evaluating based on the societal consequences of those agendas, not that the agendas exist. 'Start a discussion' is just a way of saying that we should be talking about said thing.

What would be the societal consequences?

Ownership is an integral part of free societies and is immensely important for our economic system, which doesn't work any other way. People are not motivated to do their jobs properly without incentives, that's basic human nature and systems that tried going against this have failed every time in history.

In a capitalist system, you can have more central authority and planning, but it will lead to inefficiencies and corruption by design. The only way you can sustain such a system then is by increased oppression and censorship of the ill effects. China is a perfect model for this. It works well, granted, at the price of freedom. This is basically what they're steering western countries too as well, only with the billionaires in charge instead of the CCP.

Would be curious to know if the book the parent posted authored by Klaus Schwab talks about that at all.