Another great thought-piece. What concerns me most about this is that the average person will have little if any input into determining what is acceptable or not. This will instead be led by corporations and championed by technovangelists in public sector roles who lack knowledge about impact outside their interests. Basically geeks will set the standards for everyone else, without thought for how it may impact society beyond economic benefit and convenience. You can see why the nutters concerned about 15 minute cities are getting as paranoid as they are. They can see the panopticon being constructed around them and are starting to draw conclusions that are in reality part-truths, but nonetheless concerning enough that they start to argue against outcomes which are actually beneficial on a range of levels (lower emissions, walkability, better mental health outcomes, more affordable etc). The futurologists grifters have a lot of explaining to do. Public policy people need to grow their understanding and help bring the public along for the ride, and ideally help them set some of the boundaries before 1984 beds itself in. Even in a rule of law society like Aotearoa, it could be very easy to slip into a state where surveillance is accepted as a necessary evil to protect us. E.g. if the perpetrator and victim communities of the Christchurch attack had been flipped, I could imagine a lot more kiwis being accepting of increased surveillance. I hope something like this doesn't become the flashpoint you're alluding to. Kiwis were so willing to chastise returnees to home during Covid-19 by labelling quarantined people as "other". This mass acceptance of othering came about very quickly.
Another great thought-piece. What concerns me most about this is that the average person will have little if any input into determining what is acceptable or not. This will instead be led by corporations and championed by technovangelists in public sector roles who lack knowledge about impact outside their interests. Basically geeks will set the standards for everyone else, without thought for how it may impact society beyond economic benefit and convenience. You can see why the nutters concerned about 15 minute cities are getting as paranoid as they are. They can see the panopticon being constructed around them and are starting to draw conclusions that are in reality part-truths, but nonetheless concerning enough that they start to argue against outcomes which are actually beneficial on a range of levels (lower emissions, walkability, better mental health outcomes, more affordable etc). The futurologists grifters have a lot of explaining to do. Public policy people need to grow their understanding and help bring the public along for the ride, and ideally help them set some of the boundaries before 1984 beds itself in. Even in a rule of law society like Aotearoa, it could be very easy to slip into a state where surveillance is accepted as a necessary evil to protect us. E.g. if the perpetrator and victim communities of the Christchurch attack had been flipped, I could imagine a lot more kiwis being accepting of increased surveillance. I hope something like this doesn't become the flashpoint you're alluding to. Kiwis were so willing to chastise returnees to home during Covid-19 by labelling quarantined people as "other". This mass acceptance of othering came about very quickly.
Thanks for this article!
It's well-balanced and fact-based. There's plenty of information in here to get me thinking and talking with others.
A super-important topic!
"...when it comes to smart cities, I can see no clear line between what we might consider acceptable and unacceptable use of this technology..."
DEFINITELY, society must continue the discussion. And your thoughts on it make so much sense.
Thanks Jesse, glad you enjoyed reading it!