Uh, what ignores nature more than building a city in a straight fucking line cutting through the terrain like it's Minecraft.
e: oh, they pulled a sneaky, "travel end to end in 20 minutes," might make someone think "oh, you can get anywhere in 20 minutes" but that would have to be an express with no stops. So maybe add a stop in the middle then the express can get you within 26 miles of everywhere. Then take a slower line that can get you within 6 miles to anywhere so probably another 15 minutes. And then another 5 minutes to get within half a mile of anywhere and then another 10 minutes to walk. 50 minutes to anywhere doesn't sound as great, and to do it they're still building a hub and spoke model but flattened. It's almost as if it's designed so a good citizen with access to the trains can travel anywhere but a bad citizen whose access has been revoked is cut off from almost everywhere. In a hub and spoke if someone had to walk they could at least move in two dimensions and reach anywhere in a couple hours rather than a couple days.
Not to mention that a 500 meter tall 170 kilometer long mirrored finish is a bird murdering machine. What is with environmentalism and bird murder?
Mao killed the sparrows because he saw them as a threat to China's grain and fruit, not understanding that they were also eating the locusts and other insects which were a much bigger threat to China's grain.
Suggesting that this city is meant to kill birds to protect Saudi agriculture is nonsense, because it's not the birds that are threatening to destroy Saudi agriculture, it's water depletion.
The idea I'm going for is the lack of foresight and the inability to really understand what it is they are actually doing and instead going for grandiose gestures to show how powerful they are (don't think we didn't see the flying trees in that city or in Mao's case how insane it was to kill birds instead of just building enclosures or something). They're doing this to look cool
In this case, this city isn't even meant to help agriculture so that definitely wasn't the angle I was going for. The city is meant to preserve nature... even though it kills the birds... who are apart of nature. Kinda like how Mao killed the birds to preserve his agriculture... even though those birds were a net positive to his agriculture (and this is ignoring the egoism of the "smash sparrow" campaign which we shouldn't ignore because both the campaign and the city are very egotistical in presentation; the smash sparrow stuff was apart of a an extermination list of 3 other creatures, flies, rats, and mosquitoes but since it was hard to kill those, they just went for sparrows apparently)
Uh, what ignores nature more than building a city in a straight fucking line cutting through the terrain like it's Minecraft.
e: oh, they pulled a sneaky, "travel end to end in 20 minutes," might make someone think "oh, you can get anywhere in 20 minutes" but that would have to be an express with no stops. So maybe add a stop in the middle then the express can get you within 26 miles of everywhere. Then take a slower line that can get you within 6 miles to anywhere so probably another 15 minutes. And then another 5 minutes to get within half a mile of anywhere and then another 10 minutes to walk. 50 minutes to anywhere doesn't sound as great, and to do it they're still building a hub and spoke model but flattened. It's almost as if it's designed so a good citizen with access to the trains can travel anywhere but a bad citizen whose access has been revoked is cut off from almost everywhere. In a hub and spoke if someone had to walk they could at least move in two dimensions and reach anywhere in a couple hours rather than a couple days.
Not to mention that a 500 meter tall 170 kilometer long mirrored finish is a bird murdering machine. What is with environmentalism and bird murder?
Why did the mao regime kill all those birds? There are particular end goals and ideologies their philosophies have in common.
Mao killed the sparrows because he saw them as a threat to China's grain and fruit, not understanding that they were also eating the locusts and other insects which were a much bigger threat to China's grain.
Suggesting that this city is meant to kill birds to protect Saudi agriculture is nonsense, because it's not the birds that are threatening to destroy Saudi agriculture, it's water depletion.
The idea I'm going for is the lack of foresight and the inability to really understand what it is they are actually doing and instead going for grandiose gestures to show how powerful they are (don't think we didn't see the flying trees in that city or in Mao's case how insane it was to kill birds instead of just building enclosures or something). They're doing this to look cool
In this case, this city isn't even meant to help agriculture so that definitely wasn't the angle I was going for. The city is meant to preserve nature... even though it kills the birds... who are apart of nature. Kinda like how Mao killed the birds to preserve his agriculture... even though those birds were a net positive to his agriculture (and this is ignoring the egoism of the "smash sparrow" campaign which we shouldn't ignore because both the campaign and the city are very egotistical in presentation; the smash sparrow stuff was apart of a an extermination list of 3 other creatures, flies, rats, and mosquitoes but since it was hard to kill those, they just went for sparrows apparently)