Random socioeconomic thoughts
I was noticing recently that areas lower on the socioeconomic ladder tend to have much less information focus on non-local news and data. Well-off areas will have national and international focuses in their newspapers and other localised information sources. Poorer places will focus much harder on local events, providers, and services.
Part of this seems to be that the focus on local community is something of a defence against bored youth trashing the place because there's nothing to do, or disillusioned adults letting the place fall into disrepair because what's the point in keeping it looking nice?
Wealthy areas don't have many of these problems - the youth are in education, or have rooms full of entertaining gadgets, or are out on the town at expensive locations all over the city and sometimes in the city next door. The adults are gainfully employed or enjoying retirement, and may not even be in the area half of the year. The neighbourhood has expensive and discreet private security and local police, alarm systems, and a river of money going towards private and public beautification and quality improvements. They don't need a local focus in their information streams - they might occasionally pop in to a local deli or 24-hour store for when they run out of milk or have just arrived home from overseas and want something to eat that's a little more upscale than McDonalds, but most of their shopping will be done in other locations (and, for the larger items, delivered from elsewhere in the city or country).
The internet may change that a bit. Oh, it'll take a while for local papers to die out, and older adults to switch over to the Net as their primary information resource, but once you're there you have the world at your fingertips. The internet doesn't assume that you're stuck at home because you can't afford fuel, a car, or public transport. It doesn't assume that you're limited to only local stores when you want to buy something. People may start to get used to the idea that in some cases you can purchase an item on the other side of the country and have it be cheaper than the local stuff even with shipping factored in.
I wonder if the internet will be one of the slow-acting forces which makes people in general develop a slightly more global outlook on life?
Of course, me being me, I was also thinking of it in the context of teleportation. If the far side of the planet was as close as the corner shop, would people be as hung up about what's physically within two miles of their house?
As a thought experiment, take the city of New York (picked because it's large and well-known). It has an area of about two thousand square miles. Putting a teleporter every, oh, quarter-mile would give just over thirty thousand teleporters. The land area of Earth is a hair under sixty million square miles. You could actually carpet the planet with direct-link two-way teleporters so that you were never more than fourteen miles from New York city.
Image what that would do to culture and psychology.
Everywhere would be an outer suburb of New York. Everywhere. It wouldn't matter if you were in another major city, in a desert, at the top of Mount Everest or in the wilds of Antarctica, you would be within walking distance of New York, New York, USA. The entire planetary population would be surbanites to the one location. (Ignoring the fact that NYC would turn into the world's largest permanent traffic jam, of course. Assume some kind of traffic system was worked out.)
A bicycle or moped could get you to work - anywhere in the world. It could let you shop and sell your products and services anywhere in the world. It could let you sightsee anywhere in the world, visit friends and family anywhere in the world, and pretty much bring the planet to your doorstep. When the planet shrinks to thirty miles across, would people remain so focused on just their little patch?
Part of this seems to be that the focus on local community is something of a defence against bored youth trashing the place because there's nothing to do, or disillusioned adults letting the place fall into disrepair because what's the point in keeping it looking nice?
Wealthy areas don't have many of these problems - the youth are in education, or have rooms full of entertaining gadgets, or are out on the town at expensive locations all over the city and sometimes in the city next door. The adults are gainfully employed or enjoying retirement, and may not even be in the area half of the year. The neighbourhood has expensive and discreet private security and local police, alarm systems, and a river of money going towards private and public beautification and quality improvements. They don't need a local focus in their information streams - they might occasionally pop in to a local deli or 24-hour store for when they run out of milk or have just arrived home from overseas and want something to eat that's a little more upscale than McDonalds, but most of their shopping will be done in other locations (and, for the larger items, delivered from elsewhere in the city or country).
The internet may change that a bit. Oh, it'll take a while for local papers to die out, and older adults to switch over to the Net as their primary information resource, but once you're there you have the world at your fingertips. The internet doesn't assume that you're stuck at home because you can't afford fuel, a car, or public transport. It doesn't assume that you're limited to only local stores when you want to buy something. People may start to get used to the idea that in some cases you can purchase an item on the other side of the country and have it be cheaper than the local stuff even with shipping factored in.
I wonder if the internet will be one of the slow-acting forces which makes people in general develop a slightly more global outlook on life?
Of course, me being me, I was also thinking of it in the context of teleportation. If the far side of the planet was as close as the corner shop, would people be as hung up about what's physically within two miles of their house?
As a thought experiment, take the city of New York (picked because it's large and well-known). It has an area of about two thousand square miles. Putting a teleporter every, oh, quarter-mile would give just over thirty thousand teleporters. The land area of Earth is a hair under sixty million square miles. You could actually carpet the planet with direct-link two-way teleporters so that you were never more than fourteen miles from New York city.
Image what that would do to culture and psychology.
Everywhere would be an outer suburb of New York. Everywhere. It wouldn't matter if you were in another major city, in a desert, at the top of Mount Everest or in the wilds of Antarctica, you would be within walking distance of New York, New York, USA. The entire planetary population would be surbanites to the one location. (Ignoring the fact that NYC would turn into the world's largest permanent traffic jam, of course. Assume some kind of traffic system was worked out.)
A bicycle or moped could get you to work - anywhere in the world. It could let you shop and sell your products and services anywhere in the world. It could let you sightsee anywhere in the world, visit friends and family anywhere in the world, and pretty much bring the planet to your doorstep. When the planet shrinks to thirty miles across, would people remain so focused on just their little patch?