[ExI] Are Cities Dead? (was Re: moving bits, not butts)
kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Fri Mar 4 15:02:03 UTC 2011
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> ... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
> Subject: [ExI] Are Cities Dead? (was Re: moving bits, not butts)
>>...If telepresence becomes good enough, and convincing enough, does that
> obviate the need for large cities? ...-Kelly
> Kelly I will give you an answer that sounds like I am kidding, but not
> Our ability to obviate cities is entirely dependent on our working out the
> technology of remote copulation. I think someone here called it
Yes, I used that word recently...
> We can easily move enough information to do business over
> phone lines today, but if we can work out the social aspects of people
> crowding together (providing a red hot target for anyone waging economic
> war) then we can spread out more evenly over the surface of the planet.
> That voodoo sex thing isn't just a game, it's a need.
> A lot of people want
> or need (or think they do) a huge pool of potential mates. The city
> provides that, at a great cost. I think we can provide that for people
> living out in the boonies. I am betting on it in a sense: acquired property
> far from everything, in anticipation of fiber optics and satellites
> eventually obviating airplanes and cars.
I don't think we'll ever get to the point of avoiding travel entirely,
but I do think it will be reduced. If I can take a virtual trip to
Bali for $20 and have a virtual dinner in Paris the same night, then
that may be perceived as better than the real world.
More information about the extropy-chat