I know this is for humor, not an actual indictment of 15 minute cities, but to play devil's advocate anyway:
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
They're commie blocks, dude. They are the bare minimum of living arrangements decided by state entities. If you're going through life with literally nothing over your head during the night, than it might be an upgrade. But for the vast majority of people? It's a substantial downgrade.
In theory, having everything you need close by (including work) so you don't have to drive everywhere isn't a bad idea. In theory, it could ease the stress and time pressures of commuting and ease the financial pressures of owning and maintaining a car. In theory, it could help foster a strong sense of community identity.
I do not trust the globalist cunts to deliver this version of 15 minutes cities. They will of course be introducing the commie blocks you mention, with the bare minimum of living arrangements that keep the peasants oppressed and the elite rich and powerful.
But it's not a terrible idea if it's strictly voluntary and it's implemented by people who are intelligent and good.
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
True communism 15 minute city has never been tried.
Nah, I get what you're saying though.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
It's never voluntary, though. And it can't be if you're turning existing cities into "15 minute cities."
It's not that literal of a translation. It's a game, not a simulation.
That being said, you are going to have common problems, because of common threads. Each 15 minute city has to be built with specifically allocated supplies for a specific demand in each district. In order for districts to not be overwhelmed by demand, you'll need to segregate the districts. In order to segregate the districts, you'll need a police state to control movement.
I don't see why it needs strict movement control and state allocated resources. I see it - the ideal version at least - as having everything within 15 minutes to eliminate the need for most inter-district travel. It doesn't have to involve the sort of hard control that these cunts want to take. Incentivize it, make it logistically convenient, and let people decide for themselves. I think it'd provide a lot of benefits.
Just because criminals and tyrants want to implement a warped and twisted version of something, doesn't mean a good version of that thing is impossible to achieve if it's voluntary and realistic in scale. And if it's built fresh instead of rammed into existing cities.
Because it's not possible to have voluntary system in a 15 minute city that won't get hit with scarcity from people who are outside of the 15 minute zone.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires. The moment they do this, they will cause further disruptions of the highly ordered system, and create a cascading failure.
They have to be stopped, normally with significant threat of force, otherwise they will create shortages in places which were never meant to accommodate them.
And all of that assumes perfectly competent organization. In reality, shit will be so broken that people will have to seek out the resources of other districts. This will not only do all of the same things, but will also show the incompetency of the government, which will necessitate a violent response in order for them to maintain legitimacy.
It's not an option. It's not because bad people exist. It's because the policies asked for are impossible without a level of control that demands tyrannical coercion to protect and enforce those very policies.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
I know this is for humor, not an actual indictment of 15 minute cities, but to play devil's advocate anyway:
A 15 minute city frankensteined together in a game that isn't designed or programmed to accommodate it says nothing about the validity of the real thing.
15 minute cities have downsides but they also have potential. They're a cool idea - if they're voluntary.
They're commie blocks, dude. They are the bare minimum of living arrangements decided by state entities. If you're going through life with literally nothing over your head during the night, than it might be an upgrade. But for the vast majority of people? It's a substantial downgrade.
In theory, having everything you need close by (including work) so you don't have to drive everywhere isn't a bad idea. In theory, it could ease the stress and time pressures of commuting and ease the financial pressures of owning and maintaining a car. In theory, it could help foster a strong sense of community identity.
I do not trust the globalist cunts to deliver this version of 15 minutes cities. They will of course be introducing the commie blocks you mention, with the bare minimum of living arrangements that keep the peasants oppressed and the elite rich and powerful.
But it's not a terrible idea if it's strictly voluntary and it's implemented by people who are intelligent and good.
True
communism15 minute city has never been tried.Nah, I get what you're saying though.
It's never voluntary, though. And it can't be if you're turning existing cities into "15 minute cities."
No, they would need to be built from the ground up and we all know these fucks can't or don't want to build anything, only subvert and destroy.
It's not that literal of a translation. It's a game, not a simulation.
That being said, you are going to have common problems, because of common threads. Each 15 minute city has to be built with specifically allocated supplies for a specific demand in each district. In order for districts to not be overwhelmed by demand, you'll need to segregate the districts. In order to segregate the districts, you'll need a police state to control movement.
I don't see why it needs strict movement control and state allocated resources. I see it - the ideal version at least - as having everything within 15 minutes to eliminate the need for most inter-district travel. It doesn't have to involve the sort of hard control that these cunts want to take. Incentivize it, make it logistically convenient, and let people decide for themselves. I think it'd provide a lot of benefits.
Just because criminals and tyrants want to implement a warped and twisted version of something, doesn't mean a good version of that thing is impossible to achieve if it's voluntary and realistic in scale. And if it's built fresh instead of rammed into existing cities.
Because it's not possible to have voluntary system in a 15 minute city that won't get hit with scarcity from people who are outside of the 15 minute zone.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires. The moment they do this, they will cause further disruptions of the highly ordered system, and create a cascading failure.
They have to be stopped, normally with significant threat of force, otherwise they will create shortages in places which were never meant to accommodate them.
And all of that assumes perfectly competent organization. In reality, shit will be so broken that people will have to seek out the resources of other districts. This will not only do all of the same things, but will also show the incompetency of the government, which will necessitate a violent response in order for them to maintain legitimacy.
It's not possible to have movement control without tyranny. It's not possible to have resource allocation without tyranny. It's not possible to have price controls without tyranny.
It's not an option. It's not because bad people exist. It's because the policies asked for are impossible without a level of control that demands tyrannical coercion to protect and enforce those very policies.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.