[stilley2]

The author states their intent at the bottom

> Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

[mindslight]

That disclaimer is completely disingenuous though. The piece is written in language that implies positivity and acceptance. You could take the same objective conditions and write a doomsday narrative - 'I am unable to ever truly relax, because at a moment's notice my living room might be commandeered for a business meeting. Technically I could take it off the market, but then I would have no way to make up for prime time real estate usage and would have to leave the city'.

> My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology

This is straight out of every sci fi dystopia where those at the privileged productive core are taught to fear and pity the outsiders. Complete with the straw men that the others chose to reject technology, rather than merely rejecting the invisible authoritarianism they're swimming in. Though usually the story is about waking up, rather than how good the dream is.

I don't think this piece helps the discussion at all, but is rather just more fuel for the populist-neoreactionary backlash. If this is the future "the elites" are grooming us to accept, then I can understand the desire to burn it all down.

The sustainable path forward involves making technology work for us as individuals, rather than abdicating our individual autonomy to opaque systems that are undoubtedly controlled by powerful overlords.