We live in an age when the most unobjectionable and necessary ideas for progress can give rise to paranoia and fear. If the most innocuous, unoriginal possible idea can fuel paranoia, how can we hope to have a sensible discussion about the future of our places?

  • Bellatired@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is the first time I’ve heard of this concept. lemme check

    EDIT: I’m confused, this sounds like a normal city? Like, there’s a school, residential areas, convenience stores, a mall, a hospital, a forest, and green grocers just surrounding my workplace right now.

    EDIT2: Browsing the thread made me realize that this is about US cities. Now it makes sense. But it’s still confusing why this is a debate, life is much more fulfilling, more eventful with this kind of city.

    • Souvlaki@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This definitely to be a US problem as anywhere i’ve been in Europe every city has reachable necessities within 15 minutes. I assume it’s the same in Asia. I also don’t understand why would anyone except automotive company CEOs be against having everything necessary in close reach.

      • esty
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        except automotive CEOs

        There’s your answer

    • whelmer@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My understanding is that reactionary lunatics of the Q type have gotten hold of the idea and are convinced that it is part of a plan to limit people within particular zones, enforced by digital surveillance, as part of some grand Orwellian plot. I believe that is how the weird right-wing reaction to this started, anyways.