We have examples of community-run, open-source projects that span decades. Linux being probably the most layman-friendly... and the one I know. Do we have similar examples for municipal...
We have examples of community-run, open-source projects that span decades. Linux being probably the most layman-friendly... and the one I know.
Do we have similar examples for municipal infrastructure?
I can think of one solid reason why this could prove challenging. It could well be that cities get away with that stuff 'cause they're not run by a bunch of out-of-time power-grabbing corrupt...
I don't see any particularly difficult challenges in a city setting aside a budget to fund open source maintenance, through a foundation.
I can think of onesolidreason why this could prove challenging.
It could well be that cities get away with that stuff 'cause they're not run by a bunch of out-of-time power-grabbing corrupt politicians. Or, maybe they are, but those politicians happened to be okay with technology.
We could have someone like you – with the competence and the drive to make these things happen – on the committee overseeing such things, but that would mean you dealing with a lot of political bullshit. I imagine this alone is something that drives a lot of competent people away.
Which isn't to say it's impossible – just difficult.
I agree with this approach to urban planning completely. New technology is often a solution looking for a problem and we should look for simpler, more sustainable ways of doing things first....
I agree with this approach to urban planning completely. New technology is often a solution looking for a problem and we should look for simpler, more sustainable ways of doing things first. Technology is often insecure and often depends on outside software to function.
I want to emphasize this part too:
The idea of smart cities is born of what Watson describes as “the same human superiority-complex that thinks nature should be controlled”. What’s missing is symbiosis. “Life on Earth is based upon symbiosis,” Watson says.
We can't survive without nature. We are not above it, and though we have a lot of power to change it it's not ours to do whatever we want with. We have the ability to make an environment in with both us and all other life can live in and it's our responsibility to do that.
We have examples of community-run, open-source projects that span decades. Linux being probably the most layman-friendly... and the one I know.
Do we have similar examples for municipal infrastructure?
I can think of one solid reason why this could prove challenging.
It could well be that cities get away with that stuff 'cause they're not run by a bunch of out-of-time power-grabbing corrupt politicians. Or, maybe they are, but those politicians happened to be okay with technology.
We could have someone like you – with the competence and the drive to make these things happen – on the committee overseeing such things, but that would mean you dealing with a lot of political bullshit. I imagine this alone is something that drives a lot of competent people away.
Which isn't to say it's impossible – just difficult.
I agree with this approach to urban planning completely. New technology is often a solution looking for a problem and we should look for simpler, more sustainable ways of doing things first. Technology is often insecure and often depends on outside software to function.
I want to emphasize this part too:
We can't survive without nature. We are not above it, and though we have a lot of power to change it it's not ours to do whatever we want with. We have the ability to make an environment in with both us and all other life can live in and it's our responsibility to do that.