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?
Nick Fletcher, a Conservative member who represents part of Yorkshire, in northern England, called for a debate about “the international socialist concept” of 15-minute cities, which, he said, “would take away your personal freedoms.”
Yeah right, like the freedom to have people, places and stuff u need out of reach.
Nice read OP, thanks.
Everyone who is confused by why conservatives are opposed to 15-minute cities, there’s one simple thing to understand:
Conservatives think that city=scary ethnic people, and suburb=nice white people.
Anything that appears to disrupt the urban/suburban divide, they see as another attempt to de-segregate, which they hate.
Doesn’t seem like the author really offers any possible reasons for the rights reaction to responsible urban planning, so perhaps I will offer some.
Conservatism isn’t solely a political philosophy that a person decides to adopt. There are personally traits that feed into a person’s susceptibility to right wing thought. People who have low openness tend to be conservative. To paraphrase Buckley, their brains wired up to tell them to stand athwart history and yell STOP.
These people all grew up in a car centric world, where dad commuted in to the city from the suburbs and mom drove them to the school everyday. That, to them is the comfortable, natural order of things. Their psychology begs them to preserve that order at all costs.
Even though that model of planning is really new, only going back about 70 or 80 yrs, to them it is the natural way. Any alternative looks like change and progress, which they are psychologically predisposed to be suspicious of. All change to them, can be reduced to something that is being taken away from them. Something that disrespects their forefathers.
Not all change is good and some conservative thought is useful when a society is planning its future. But, it’s really dangerous when we have made mistakes.
In our modern political landscape, there are charlatans like Peterson and Jones who know how to pick at their audience’s psychology and pull dollars out of it. They cynically use the fears of their audience and package up any “new” ideas as existential threats.
The key when discussing progress with conservatives is to opening them up to the idea that we are going back. In this case specifically, 15min cities sounds scary but “returning to the urban planning ideas that motivated our great grandparents” might sound great. Same change different reaction.
Conservative cruelty cannot be accepted or forgiven but the psychology that drives it must be understood and accounted for when developing communication strategies.
as I’ve grown older, one of the things I’ve realized is that the primary driving force behind a lot of people’s beliefs is, as pratchett put it, ‘the overwhelming desire that tomorrow should be pretty much like yesterday was’. It takes a lot, like a lot Lot LOT, to get people to be willing to risk the unknown. people have this weird ability to look back at all of history, see how much things have grown and changed, and think to themselves “thank god that I live here and now, where things operate in the only possible correct way that was ordained by god. the past is nothing but barbarians dying of infections and the future is a dystopia that no one could possibly want or understand, but the way I grew up with is comfortable and makes sense. it’s the natural order.” this isn’t a terribly unique thought, but the ability to think it without realizing that every generation that came before you also believed that very same thing with as much conviction as you did is…let’s say it’s uniquely human.
When I was a kid, the future was supposed to be awesome and full of amazing technologies and solutions to all our present-day problems. Now I feel like these right-wingers have taken that all away, and now the future is, yeah, dystopian. I’m glad I don’t have any children…
But the present is full of amazing technologies: we have smartphones, and we have Facebook, and Wikipedia, and mass state surveillance, and toy quadcopters dropping bomblets… ok, so maybe all of that creates problems at the same pace as it solves others… but the tech is amazing!
Your wording here clarified some of this stuff for me. My brain works like…if anyone suffered preventably yesterday, and change can improve total well-being, put me on the change train. I read about people thinking that way, but it’s really hard for me to conceptualize. Thanks.
I’m glad you enjoyed it. One of my favorite philosophers/psychedelic enthusiasts/all-around crazy people, Robert Anton Wilson, gave me a bit of a gift in understanding this. He said that you can gain a lot of insight if you’re willing to sort people into two buckets: neophiles, who are excited and drawn to new things, and neophobes who are inherently afraid of new things and will reject them, often with violence. Of course this doesn’t work 100% of the time and it falls under what he would call a “useful fiction”, but it does seem to add value to the discussion even if it is imperfect.
These people all grew up in a car centric world, where dad commuted in to the city from the suburbs and mom drove them to the school everyday. That, to them is the comfortable, natural order of things. Their psychology begs them to preserve that order at all costs.
How are 15-minute cities a threat to them and their way of life? As far as I know, there’s nothing about a 15-minute city that precludes anyone from driving a car in it.
All change to them, can be reduced to something that is being taken away from them. Something that disrespects their forefathers.
What about the changes they themselves are causing? Women in their forefathers’ time had access to legal abortion, and now they have taken that away. That’s a change. A rather drastic and menacing change.
How are 15-minute cities a threat to them and their way of life?
More compact cities tend to have more people on the streets (stranger danger!), less space for the cars in which they feel safe, and often force them to park and leave (!) their car minutes (!!) away from their destination. Let’s not even speak of public transportation, where dozens (!!!) of strangers get crammed into the same box.
Women in their forefathers’ time had access to legal abortion
Ah, but what about their fore-forefathers’ time? Anyway, that’s not menacing… for those who can’t get pregnant (men, and celibate, post-menopausal, etc. women).
More compact cities tend to have more people on the streets (stranger danger!)
I thought that’s why they carry guns?
less space for the cars
Okay, that’s a problem if you need to drive somewhere.
often force them to park and leave (!) their car minutes (!!) away from their destination.
That’s a serious problem if you’ve got a bum knee or something. Not everyone who’s disabled can afford to get a diagnosis and placard, nor will they get one in a timely fashion even if they can afford it.
Let’s not even speak of public transportation, where dozens (!!!) of strangers get crammed into the same box.
That’s also a serious problem if there’s a deadly airborne disease going around. We just had one of those, and another one could happen at any time.
That didn’t stop people from flying during the pandemic, though…
Ah, but what about their fore-forefathers’ time? Anyway, that’s not menacing… for those who can’t get pregnant (men, and celibate, post-menopausal, etc. women).
That, however, I will not sympathize with. They are horrible people if they believe that.
They believe that the long-term intent is to force people to remain within their designated “15 minute” zones.
The key when discussing progress with conservatives is to opening them up to the idea that we are going back
Yesss, a kind of Positive Scripting, especially when tailored to a certain group of people,
One thing I noticed when travelling through the states is how many American cities have no city centre with just pedestrian traffic. Everything is made with cars in mind, everything is a thoroughfare. In the city where I live in the Netherlands, I can get on my bike and be in the city centre within fifteen minutes. It’s faster to get there by bike, than it is by car. and the city is better for it.
I like going to the market on foot, visiting the city centre on foot, going to pubs, and restaurants, and everything you want out of a city on foot, bike or public transit. You guys would like it too if you convinced city planners to give it a try.
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.
