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?
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.
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.
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.
