3 ms·
The social control might be present in the movie, but in reality it mostly doesn't exist. In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and p
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
The social control might be present in the movie, but in reality it mostly doesn't exist.
In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere. The NYC and SF elites occasionally try to feel good by pointless throwing $100M at local problems that money can't fix [1], but mostly they ignore Newark. The Mumbai elite don't impose social control on the rural hinterlands, they just don't go there.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-million-donation-to-newark-public-schools-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-m...
- maxerickson 10y agoperhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere This is wandering dangerously close to the definition of social control. It might be efficient, disinterested social control, but it's control nonetheless.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoIt's social control to ensure that people from Newark act according to NYC behavioral standards when they take the PATH in? In any case, this is very different from what you postulated happened: Why didn't the people on [Newark] start their own farms? Because the [NYPD] came and killed them if they tried.
- maxerickson 10y agoNYPD doesn't have cheap robots yet, so it's hard to say what New York elites would do given the chance (and some time to convince themselves that what they were doing was just). But I agree, your scenario doesn't match up well with my interpretation of the movie.