For me it was the least plausible part. I think if the major obstacle to living where you want is the hassle of carting all your stuff around, the most efficient answer surely isn’t living in a shipping crate with special content-bracing furniture.
Makes more sense to me to just not bother with “owning” a lot of matter. If every kind of material object you need is available anywhere, all you need to bring with you when you move house is your information (books, music, family pictures, decor configuration for your living space). There’s no particular reason for that to exist in a physical form.
And if you are serious about making a long-term sustainably growing economy, you have to have most of that growth be information (knowledge, art) rather than ever-growing consumption of hard-limited resources.
Still trying to decide whether it would be more painful to learn macroeconomics than experiment with BDSM.
Makes more sense to me to just not bother with “owning” a lot of matter.
I agree, but, unfortunately, the world hasn’t been converted to secularized Presbyterianism yet—and getting on with that conversion, however worthwhile it would be, is even less realistic than building capsule towers.
(I’ll admit that I didn’t pay much attention to the specifics of that section, but instead pattern-matched it to capsule towers, which have the advantage of already existing. Well, there’s one that already exists. In Japan. And it’s probably going to be torn down soon, but it fell into the modernist failure-mode of designing specifically for the exact opposite of durability, so that’s both not surprising and easily fixed next time.)
If I haven’t made your case for you already, what’s unrealistic/inefficient about capsule towers?
For me it was the least plausible part. I think if the major obstacle to living where you want is the hassle of carting all your stuff around, the most efficient answer surely isn’t living in a shipping crate with special content-bracing furniture.
Makes more sense to me to just not bother with “owning” a lot of matter. If every kind of material object you need is available anywhere, all you need to bring with you when you move house is your information (books, music, family pictures, decor configuration for your living space). There’s no particular reason for that to exist in a physical form.
And if you are serious about making a long-term sustainably growing economy, you have to have most of that growth be information (knowledge, art) rather than ever-growing consumption of hard-limited resources.
Still trying to decide whether it would be more painful to learn macroeconomics than experiment with BDSM.
I agree, but, unfortunately, the world hasn’t been converted to secularized Presbyterianism yet—and getting on with that conversion, however worthwhile it would be, is even less realistic than building capsule towers.
(I’ll admit that I didn’t pay much attention to the specifics of that section, but instead pattern-matched it to capsule towers, which have the advantage of already existing. Well, there’s one that already exists. In Japan. And it’s probably going to be torn down soon, but it fell into the modernist failure-mode of designing specifically for the exact opposite of durability, so that’s both not surprising and easily fixed next time.)
If I haven’t made your case for you already, what’s unrealistic/inefficient about capsule towers?