Two notes: if you try to summarize G8/"World Government" [1]/McKinsey [2] public reports it's not there but essentially implied that "smart cities" residents wi

Two notes: if you try to summarize G8/"World Government" [1]/McKinsey [2] public reports it's not there but essentially implied that "smart cities" residents will be just slaves while some "wealthy" people profit from their work living outside. McKinsey goes further [3] probably imaging without telling a world with far less ground infrastructures, mostly dedicated only for commercial transports, with people living essentially where they born or get relocated Chine's style, while only those who can afford flying vehicles can travel. From the distopic scenario to a practical one the second note: dense urban areas are not sustainable just because they can't evolve. Let's say you construct a new skyscraper "A class" in energy saving terms (hard to achieve for a skyscraper but anyway), it's the best of the tech today. In 50 years is probably a hard to maintain dinosaur. You can't really rebuild it in practical terms since there are too many people inside, too many conflicting interests. On contrary with modern logistic you can made "rivieras alike suburbs" where people live and work from home or at a short distance range in small buildings, single family homes. Something CAN evolve practically for instance when the owner change, where there is physical space to evolve etc. A bit of density because we are social animals, but not too much. Long story short: in cities the only SHORT term evolution is nearly-only public transport systems with the city as a single complex building (not that different than the classic "the datacenter as a computer" in scale design principles), no matter if the future will be distopic or not. In the long terms cities can only be wiped and rebuilt as we have always done in history, with the important difference in space and time scale and tech terms (cities with buildings made of rocks and wood source much of the needed raw material from ruins of the old city itself, concrete and steel are another story), something we can say confidently it's not sustainable. Suburbs USA style never really work. Far spread people never lift themselves to a civilization so we need something in between. IMO that's a riviera where people live in single family homes with a bit of land around but not in residential-only areas, instead in mixed residential and commercials areas where they can live and work at a short range, few districts for things can't be done differently (like mining, various manufacturing industries, but also high schools/campus, military stuff etc) that being single-purpose can be rebuilt as tech change. Seen the actual state of things... Well... Probably we can't evolve like that due partially to the reactionary ideas of most and mere overpopulation. So it's easy to predict even outside of a distopic scenario that some people, most of humans actually, will suffer much the change while few will benefit from the start. [1] https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org [2] you can start with https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-we-help-clients/capital-excellence/cities https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/how-w... [3] https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-...