|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2023 19:45:40 GMT
What is the downside of 15 minute neighbourhoods?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 7, 2023 20:17:55 GMT
It wont be long before they are planning miles of barbed wires fences so the inhabitants can't escape At this rate it wont be long before we see a public backlash, people are getting sick of authoritarian left wing local authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 7, 2023 20:19:33 GMT
What is the downside of 15 minute neighbourhoods? Choice, or the lack of. People are not asked how they want to live, they are being told how to live, and the majority of them don't like it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 20:29:49 GMT
What is the downside of 15 minute neighbourhoods? They are 25% worse than 20 minute neighbourhoods? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 20:31:06 GMT
I prefer 24/7/365 neighbourhoods
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2023 20:34:45 GMT
I see a lot of anxiety but no one has put forward any actual problems .
Afaik they are a proposal to have all the necessities within easy reach .
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 7, 2023 21:11:07 GMT
I see a lot of anxiety but no one has put forward any actual problems . Afaik they are a proposal to have all the necessities within easy reach . It is the possibilities, and realistically the probabilities, behind the proposals and the implementation of these neighbourhoods and cities. The idea is to restrict car use by the general populace. The idea on the face of it is a sound and pragmatic idea, however we can see from the proposals in some areas that if you drive the car out of your area more than 100 times per year you could be subject to a fine. So the end game is restriction by authoritarian means and once that Rubicon is crossed then further restrictions can be, and probably will be, enforced and the advantages within the system will soon become impositions and disadvantages. The 100 times per year will become 75 to save the planet, then 50. It is starting off from a straight proposal to limit by law your car use and will use digital technology to enforce that. It is how authoritarian systems start, from small beginnings etc. All the time there will be those who will not be subject to localism and their cars will have clearer roads and their private jets will have clearer skies. Covid was not the inspiration, it seems to have been the test bed. We succumbed because we were led to believe it was our safety and wellbeing that were the issues. So the new restrictions within the zones, and be of little doubt the system will come with ever more severe restrictions, will all be for our own good to save the planet. It will end in tears. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2023 21:34:06 GMT
I see a lot of anxiety but no one has put forward any actual problems . Afaik they are a proposal to have all the necessities within easy reach . It is the possibilities, and realistically the probabilities, behind the proposals and the implementation of these neighbourhoods and cities. The idea is to restrict car use by the general populace. The idea on the face of it is a sound and pragmatic idea, however we can see from the proposals in some areas that if you drive the car out of your area more than 100 times per year you could be subject to a fine. So the end game is restriction by authoritarian means and once that Rubicon is crossed then further restrictions can be, and probably will be, enforced and the advantages within the system will soon become impositions and disadvantages. The 100 times per year will become 75 to save the planet, then 50. It is starting off from a straight proposal to limit by law your car use and will use digital technology to enforce that. It is how authoritarian systems start, from small beginnings etc. All the time there will be those who will not be subject to localism and their cars will have clearer roads and their private jets will have clearer skies. Covid was not the inspiration, it seems to have been the test bed. We succumbed because we were led to believe it was our safety and wellbeing that were the issues. So the new restrictions within the zones, and be of little doubt the system will come with ever more severe restrictions, will all be for our own good to save the planet. It will end in tears. The one thing that is constantly alluded to in the media is that the world will radically change in this century . The biggest and most obvious change will be restricted travel. This is going to happen one way or the other. For urban communities localism is already here but for rural communities it might take a generation to facilitate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 7, 2023 22:03:05 GMT
It is the possibilities, and realistically the probabilities, behind the proposals and the implementation of these neighbourhoods and cities. The idea is to restrict car use by the general populace. The idea on the face of it is a sound and pragmatic idea, however we can see from the proposals in some areas that if you drive the car out of your area more than 100 times per year you could be subject to a fine. So the end game is restriction by authoritarian means and once that Rubicon is crossed then further restrictions can be, and probably will be, enforced and the advantages within the system will soon become impositions and disadvantages. The 100 times per year will become 75 to save the planet, then 50. It is starting off from a straight proposal to limit by law your car use and will use digital technology to enforce that. It is how authoritarian systems start, from small beginnings etc. All the time there will be those who will not be subject to localism and their cars will have clearer roads and their private jets will have clearer skies. Covid was not the inspiration, it seems to have been the test bed. We succumbed because we were led to believe it was our safety and wellbeing that were the issues. So the new restrictions within the zones, and be of little doubt the system will come with ever more severe restrictions, will all be for our own good to save the planet. It will end in tears. The one thing that is constantly alluded to in the media is that the world will radically change in this century . The biggest and most obvious change will be restricted travel. This is going to happen one way or the other. For urban communities localism is already here but for rural communities it might take a generation to facilitate. Restricted travel for whom and restricted travel is only alluded to in terms of climate change, which is a question all on its own. If we are in a situation that requires action then it requires action on each and every citizen in equal proportion. If that cannot be met then we cannot have one group travelling at will and another group restricted by the group who are free to travel. One thing is very clear saving the planet will be a responsibility incumbent on our betters to oversee and those betters to implement upon the rest of us. 20 minute neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities are a step to that end. The problem the world faces is population and we can be leaders to that end if we wished but it seems that many would rather see population go untreated whilst CO2 is tackled with alacrity and with severity against transgressors. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 22:07:36 GMT
Typically, as technology has advanced, people's ability to travel has increased. It's odd to project that this (very) long term trend must inevitably reverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2023 22:07:54 GMT
The one thing that is constantly alluded to in the media is that the world will radically change in this century . The biggest and most obvious change will be restricted travel. This is going to happen one way or the other. For urban communities localism is already here but for rural communities it might take a generation to facilitate. Restricted travel for whom and restricted travel is only alluded to in terms of climate change, which is a question all on its own. If we are in a situation that requires action then it requires action on each and every citizen in equal proportion. If that cannot be met then we cannot have one group travelling at will and another group restricted by the group who are free to travel. One thing is very clear saving the planet will be a responsibility incumbent on our betters to oversee and those betters to implement upon the rest of us. 20 minute neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities are a step to that end. The problem the world faces is population and we can be leaders to that end if we wished but it seems that many would rather see population go untreated whilst CO2 is tackled with alacrity and with severity against transgressors. Travel will be restricted by cost anyway. The more it costs , the less we travel. That isn’t going to work if your GP is 10 miles away ,hospital is 30 miles away , dentist is 30 miles away and the supermarket is 12 miles away . The rich will be for all intents and purposes exempt because they are rich . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2023 22:09:43 GMT
Typically, as technology has advanced, people's ability to travel has increased. It's odd to project that this (very) long term trend must inevitably reverse. Technology will reduce the need to travel when it’s applied to the internet. People are being groomed towards virtual experience as we speak. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 22:24:29 GMT
Typically, as technology has advanced, people's ability to travel has increased. It's odd to project that this (very) long term trend must inevitably reverse. The "Sunday drive" seems to have already been reduced by the cost of fuel and cost of living. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 8, 2023 16:23:43 GMT
Restricted travel for whom and restricted travel is only alluded to in terms of climate change, which is a question all on its own. If we are in a situation that requires action then it requires action on each and every citizen in equal proportion. If that cannot be met then we cannot have one group travelling at will and another group restricted by the group who are free to travel. One thing is very clear saving the planet will be a responsibility incumbent on our betters to oversee and those betters to implement upon the rest of us. 20 minute neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities are a step to that end. The problem the world faces is population and we can be leaders to that end if we wished but it seems that many would rather see population go untreated whilst CO2 is tackled with alacrity and with severity against transgressors. Travel will be restricted by cost anyway. The more it costs , the less we travel. That isn’t going to work if your GP is 10 miles away ,hospital is 30 miles away , dentist is 30 miles away and the supermarket is 12 miles away . The rich will be for all intents and purposes exempt because they are rich . It depends how the cost is increased. If it is by way of taxes to stop travel then that needs a democratic mandate to be enacted or maintained. If the cost is due to shortages then currently those shortages are artificially induced due to restricting oil licences, that again needs a democratic mandate. That mandate will be harder to maintain if the 'rich' are free to purchase as much as they wish. The price of a commodity is a good way to control items that are in short supply, it is not so good if its aim is to restrict use even if supply is unlimited. It has worked for the likes of tobacco but then using tobacco was largely a choice, using fuel is for many, certainly for the foreseeable future, a necessity. Hospitals will always be some distance away as the process of centralisation reduces the cost of supplying hospital services. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 8, 2023 16:32:24 GMT
Travel will be restricted by cost anyway. The more it costs , the less we travel. That isn’t going to work if your GP is 10 miles away ,hospital is 30 miles away , dentist is 30 miles away and the supermarket is 12 miles away . The rich will be for all intents and purposes exempt because they are rich . It depends how the cost is increased. If it is by way of taxes to stop travel then that needs a democratic mandate to be enacted or maintained. If the cost is due to shortages then currently those shortages are artificially induced due to restricting oil licences, that again needs a democratic mandate. That mandate will be harder to maintain if the 'rich' are free to purchase as much as they wish. The price of a commodity is a good way to control items that are in short supply, it is not so good if its aim is to restrict use even if supply is unlimited. It has worked for the likes of tobacco but then using tobacco was largely a choice, using fuel is for many, certainly for the foreseeable future, a necessity. Hospitals will always be some distance away as the process of centralisation reduces the cost of supplying hospital services. I assume that 20 minute neighbourhoods will be designed to make travel outside the neighbourhood a choice. |
|
