In California, a group of technology and finance people are working on a secret project to build a city in Solano County, near San Francisco. They face local opposition and criticism for the usual reasons: unpleasant tactics, heavy-handed actions, and utopian thinking that opponents say will do more harm than good. The group leading this incident is called “California Forever,” a fact that should in itself invite criticism. Especially since it sounds like something out of a James Bond movie, which has a 64 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
In Honduras, a group known as Prospera, Inc. reason as a “radical experiment in civil governance”. As Zach Weismuller reports in the magazine, Eric Bremen, the company's co-founder and CEO, said the city, called Prospera Village, is not a “place,” but rather a “place.” It is a platform that works with host governments to deliver governance-as-a-service, and a legal framework that enables public-private partnerships.”
Taken together, these extravagant ventures by the wealthy resemble the plot of a James Bond movie.they are a bit similar quantum of comfort, the antagonist is injected with a bit of Ayn Rand influence. However, this comparison arises only because the project looks cartoonish and eccentric. At its best, it's reminiscent of the shenanigans of Bond villains. But at their worst, they remind me of the dystopias of Matt Damon vehicles. ElysiumThe elite retreat to luxurious space habitats, leaving the rest of humanity toiling and perishing on a polluted and devastated Earth..
In Toronto, the battle over Sidewalk Labs' attempt to develop a “smart city” on the city's lakefront has pitted public consciousness and data privacy concerns on the one hand, and its leading company Google on the other. It was a battle between the company and its peers. On the other hand, the libertarian technology spear. Journalist Josh O'Kane details the rise and fall of the project: Landscape: The city Google couldn't buy. That's outrageous.
These new initiatives are part of a trend in which the wealthy embark on large-scale projects, building enclaves and outposts, through which they advance radical agendas framed in terms of development and the greater good. Department. Paseo Cayala in Guatemala is another example, and while this is not new, the urge to leave public spaces and realize utopian dreams of quasi-public, virtually private is surprising. Unsurprisingly, it is becoming more prominent, characterized by an inordinate focus on technologies such as sensors and artificial intelligence. , algorithms, smart this and smart that.
Whether they are libertarians, progressive techno-financial fraternities, or those in between, conservative statists who are liberal until the scope of government exceeds the scope of permissible taxation and regulation. Dreams tend to take on frightening forms. Their brochures and slide decks often tout good deeds through innovation, public spirit, and better behavior, but these visions have almost always turned into giant hybrids that look like a cross between Golds Gulch and Company Town. ing.
Since Thomas More (Sir Thomas or St. Thomas, depending on your preference) wrote: utopia, Dreams of a perfect city on the horizon ignite hope that something beyond the ordinary can be achieved.Not just something Better. It's kind of idyllic. it is perfect. Who wouldn't want that?
In reality, the realization of the promise of utopia depends on humans. Anyone who prefers “Saint” to “Sir” Thomas has fallen from grace. And we are fallen. Today, it is the wealthy who have the means to pursue utopian visions. And their vision of Arcadia is not a collective egalitarian vision. Rich people dream of better things, but that dream doesn't apply to all of us.
There are differences between the Prospera Village project and the California Forever project. The former seems more unpleasant, more exclusive, and more driven by Rand's gospel. But the fundamental problem is the same. There are efforts that we collectively undertake as a public for the public, bound by broadly conceived and democratically applied rules. These account for the public riches that we still enjoy. And then there are efforts undertaken individually, for the benefit of a few, unfettered by collective will and indifferent to the constraints that come with democratic autonomy. These projects are consistent with the historical lineage of enclosure in 16th-century England, in which common assets were appropriated for private gain.
The fundamental problem with Prospera Village, the city of California Forever, and Toronto's stillborn waterfront smart city is that it separates the public element from the city, transforming what is essentially public space into private and quasi-private spaces. This means that the space has been transformed into a Therefore, these inefficient and exclusive efforts are little different from private education or healthcare. Moreover, they imply shifts in power and how we think about living together.
The more private a city becomes, the more power is concentrated and the more interests are divorced from the broader common good. After all, why bother creating these enclaves unless you have a purpose? run away – to do here and it's not There. The very definition of “enclave” requires that there be two realms of him: the inner and the outer. The inside is separate and isolated from the outside. The former is good, desirable, and safe.the Elysium. The latter is bad, undesirable, and dangerous. That's what the enclave is trying to run away from and keep out. Therefore, enclaves need the power to set their own rules, police their borders, and above all decide who goes in and out.
If the enclave approach is accepted, all bets are off. There will be winners and losers. Insiders and outsiders. And the latter will be much more than the former. Consistent with the libertarian vision and the short-tempered, stingy logic of Rand and his ilk, wealthy residents within these enclaves take away their resources, robbing the collective of money and, in some cases, expertise. right. Thus, utopian projects conceived in the private mold serve to siphon resources from and drain the public purse. Certain examples, such as Google's smart cities, set costs for proximity, turning them into quasi-public spaces with price tags in dollars, data, privacy, or a combination thereof.
As our collective problems, such as climate change, worsen, the wealthy are increasingly tempted to flee. And as wealth becomes more concentrated, so too does the tendency for wealthy people to seek direction in how shared and semi-shared spaces are designed. These two phenomena combine to create twin pressures that limit public space and resources, further separating the many from the few, the wealthy from the workers.
We should draw a hard line now. Rather than allowing those in power to carve out enclaves or flee to their own utopias, we must make clear that public works remain a collective effort. As we look to climate change and other challenges in the coming decades, building solidarity and addressing public programs and infrastructure will be more important than ever. After all, a resource-rich and egalitarian public space constitutes a utopia in itself. Above all, they are achievable if we are willing to work together.
