What ‘The Matrix’ Was Wrong About The Cities Of The Future

In addition, the human well-being of shared groups involves more intangible and more complex than providing simple things. By providing the same, similarly, everywhere, traditional architecture opens up new areas — whether for business owners or technology developers or street vendors — where further testing and discovery is possible. Whether street grids or power grids, these building blocks are the ones that contribute to our global stability, resilience, and meaning. It makes the neighbors connect.

It is not the spread of construction and political neutrality that is at the peak of such possibilities. Once you are able to walk anywhere, you can just walk around anywhere. You see the whole city on your way, but you are, to all who do not know you, whoever you want to be. And by design, the space you find, empty but with essentials, is not as complex as culture and culture. Like tap water, the city’s architecture contributes to the stability, anonymity, and renewal of all the good that we can do – as well as to the city’s economic and social development.

This is where the three-year transformation of knowledge-driven architecture stands in stark contrast to the past – and where The Matrix, to the best of his knowledge, he certainly does not know the future.

In 1999, a the real world of computing is still something we consider to be very different from our actual bodies and cities. As in The Matrixits attractions – William Gibson’s cyberspace, Neal Stephenson‘s Metaverse — a digital reality, connected to the network was another realm, infinite as space and gravitational force and immovable from our real world. The Matrix, thus, rests on a clear division: between the realities, where terrorist ships pass through underground caves in the postapocalyptic desert, and the actual location of city streets and office buildings where most people live their imaginary lives. In the modern form of urban objects, in contrast, the technological effects that apply to every body, object, and environment have created a similar world that cannot be removed from reality – but, like the Matrix, still operates very differently.

This new world has our digital shades. They follow in our footsteps in reality and are born out of the way we leave when we post on TV, search on Google Maps, import items from Amazon, or leave a comment at the restaurant. Some companies now prefer the term “digital twin” to describe this doppelgänger – not even our spirit, but our constant illumination.

Yet the real city is a mirror that distorts the way it looks; our shared space remains very different from our physical environment. Without internet, our construction is well-known, our operations remain free and unchecked, and the rules govern what we do. On the Internet, we are in an unstable world with weak regimes, minority rights, and a business raison d’être. In order to find a better digital environment, we have allowed ourselves to become less and less intrigued – to follow and maintain every aspect of our online life – which we cannot accept what we still call “real.”

At the root of this problem is the idea of ​​lanostalgic 1990s, The Matrix, that our real and genuine people are different. But, as it should appear now, they are not. Of course, our seduction in the digital realm is what allows Google and Facebook to turn our data into a high-level economic power in government. While such companies are not governed by anything that looks like human batteries hidden in the dystopian film platforms, they do depend on our personality – the deducted value of our relationships, our thoughts, and our experiences.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *