[sudo-discuss] Dystopia News: No-Sex Apartments.

[GtwoG PublicOhOne]

No-Sex Apartments. 

(Creative commons, with attribution to "G.")

In cities across the USA, a new "solution" to affordable housing is
being promoted: micro-apartments of less than 200 square feet.  New
York's conrol-freak in chief, Mayor Bloomberg, is promoting them (New
Yorkers call them "Bloom Boxes").  A developer in San Francisco is
promoting them.  And developers in Seattle WA are building them by the
hundreds.

The Seattle apartments were recently covered in a CBS News article, here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57582327/tiny-apartments-are-creating-a-big-backlash-in-seattle/

If you look at the picture, something immediately stands out: a TWIN BED.

As the article says, "...(the) apartment comes with a small private
bathroom, a microwave and a mini-refrigerator. There's just enough room
for a twin bed, a neatly hung rack of clothes and shelves."  (There's
not even room for a desk, so forget about working from home: it's back
to the plantation for you, worker-bee.)

And therein lies the catch, or more accurately the "nudge," to use the
Newspeak word for "manipulation."

A twin bed is sufficient for sleeping, but not sufficient for a regular
sex life with others, much less a stable relationship. 

Sure, you can manage it occasionally, but for the long term it's right
out.  Squeezing two people into a bed meant for one is miserable,
particularly in the hot summer.

This is one form of "birth control" that won't be controversial with the
Vatican or other right-wing religious denominations.  I suppose that
also qualifies as a "feature."  (We won't mention the fact that you can
carry on a satisfactory solo sex life in a twin bed, lest the twin beds
be replaced with "stand-up beds" consisting of straps on the wall.)

There's no need for the Oligarchy to make an explicit No Sex rule.  They
don't have to, when they can just "nudge" the architecture to enforce
that outcome by "nudging" people who might think to disobey.

Best of all (from the Oligarchy's perspective), there's nothing to
revolt against.  A revolt against a type of architecture is like a
revolt against traffic jams or weather: there's no obvious evil-doer to
hurl ballots and tomatoes at. 

The Oligarchy likes micro-apartments because they are more profitable
per square foot of building, compared to apartments that let you have a
bed big enough for two people, and a fridge big enough to let you keep
enough food that you don't have to go shopping every day. 

The working masses (that would be us) who are being lined up to live in
these boxes would do well to recognize that they are also about the same
size as prison cells. 

The only difference is that you have the key to your cell, just like
inmates in "honor system prisons" for white collar criminals.  That, and
there isn't a guard staring at you whilst you poop, though I'd be
careful about the tiny apartments that come with internet and TV service
included (no choice of carriers either), as the "smart sensors" won't be
far behind.    

Smaller houses and apartments are of course part of a viable approach to
sustainability: primarily through lower energy consumption and proximity
to public transport.  Some years ago, a close friend and I came up with
various designs for micro-houses, from about 160 square feet, up to
about 400 - 500 square feet.  A building with a 500 square foot
"building footprint" was sufficient for a family of four.  We were
designing for the sake of sustainability, and for the ability of
individuals and communities to build these houses for themselves at low
cost. 

But as with eating bugs, it's one thing to do it by the choice of your
own free will, quite another to do it by way of getting mercilessly
milked by the Oligarchy.  Especially when the Oligarchs continue to live
in 12,000 square foot (and larger) mansions with sprawling lawns on all
sides.

What the world can't afford, is the Oligarchy.  Darwin, take note!

-G.