Conference noted::sf

A large part of the "feel" of Oath of Fealty is due to it's being set in an
arcology.  Who's going to build it - a 100000 person arcology qualifies as
"mega-engineering".  Anybody know what happened to Paolo Soleri's effort to
build a small arcology in Arizona?  Last I heard of it was when I bought one
of Soleri's bells.

We already pay public workers' salaries - it's called taxation.  Why would
an arcology change the effectiveness of this?

I recall that the arcology in Oath of Fealty had somewhat of an adversary
relationship with its environs (the book opens with a botched sabotage
attempt resulting in the death - perhaps unwarranted - of its perpetrators).
What about this aspect of life in an arcology?

Arcologies and 'corporate cities' also figure in William Gibson's future
world.  Mostly I get the impression these writers are saying this kind of
closed social structure results in replicating the nation-state notion in
the small - i.e., we've got ours and the hell with everybody else.

If I sound cynical, I guess I am - I think the last thing we need to do is
"commune-ize" the world.

len.

I haven't actually read "Oath of Fealty", but the 
tower-surrounded-by-parkland idea was actually very popular in 
architecture circles a while ago.  I believe it was first brought out 
by Le Corbusier in "The Radiant City".  The appeal lay in the way it 
balances density of habitation with the need for green space.  You 
want to have a fairly high density of people in an area because land 
is scarce and expensive, and because the cultural and social life of 
a city needs a lot of people.  However, you also want to have parks 
as a place to relax and play.  The answer was to crowd people into 
apartment blocks and use the extra space for parks.

Many developments have been built that way, and they haven't been too 
successful.  Some, in fact, have been disasters.  The most infamous 
was Pruitt-Igoe, a low-cost housing project in St. Louis.  It was 
built according to the best urban planning precepts of the Fifties: 
blocks of about ten stories surrounded by parks, with shopping and 
lounge areas built into the blocks.  However, the hallways were 
narrow and dark, and the rooms were small.  A mother up on the eighth 
floor could not watch her child playing down in the park.  The 
crowding seemed to bring out the worst in people.  Everything that 
could be broken was vandalized.  It became unsafe to walk the stairwells.
Even though it was cheap, people refused to live there.  It was eventually
abandoned and finally, in the early Seventies, demolished.  (Side note:
there's a powerful passage in the movie "Koyaanisqatsi" about the 
decay and destruction of Pruitt-Igoe.)  

It seems to me that an arcology like in "Oath of Fealty" would be 
much worse.  No one would get sunlight and fresh air in their 
living quarters, unless they were rich enough to afford an apartment 
on the surface.  A gang could break a few corridor lights and 
terrorize a whole district.  You would be totally dependent on the 
building authority for light, air, water, power, and sewage.  A 
breakdown in any of the systems would make the place uninhabitable 
within hours.  There's little reason to expect that the authority 
would be any more efficient than present-day utilities.  Even if they were
effective managers, it seems politically dangerous to me to 
concentrate that much power in a few people's hands.  An arcology as 
a feudal system?  Fine, so long as you're not one of the peasants.

/jlr

    I rather enjoyed _OoF_ and found the concept of a society founded
    on trust and loyalty attractive at first.  Upon further reflection,
    I realized that the true basis of the society was the willingness
    of the residents to surrender significant civil liberties in exchange
    for the security offered by the arcology.
    
    The revolutionaries who founded this country were fully aware that
    such trust in authority is seldom justified.  That's why we have
    a constitution whose primary purpose is to limit the exercise of
    power.

    
    	What a lot of people fail to realize is that a free democratic
    society works best when ALL of its constituents vote and are educated
    and informed enough to do so intelligently.  OOF (as I remember
    it; it's been a few years) had the city based (for the most part)
    on cooperation and mutual support.  Another example of a workable
    system is the Tri-states in the Ben Raines " ... Ashes" series.
    If you don't like their form of government, don't live with them.
    The rules are few, the punishment for breaking them is harsh, and
    there is no crime.  You are required to receive education and to
    contribute to the defense of the community.  I found the series
    (up to six books last time I looked) to have an interesting perspective
    but it became rather monotonous (kill and rape, rape and kill, graphic
    torture).  These books are not for the faint-hearted.  The activities
    (for lack of a better word) of the 'bad guys' becomes sickening
    after a while.  I'm somewhere between books 3 and 4 and am in no
    hurry to pick it up again.
    
    						Speedo
    

    I just reread Oath of Fealty over the holidays, and while the society
    was far less offensive to me than I remembered, I am still uncomfortable
    about the level of routine surveillence accepted by its members.
    I can't believe it's not possible to get most of the benefits of
    such a society without giving up all one's privacy.
    
    len.
    

    
    	You still have to remember that the society is based on mutual
    trust and cooperation.  No one (read 'very few') has the ability
    to trust others that completely, even if their own survival depends
    on it.  In 'Oath of Fealty', the people in the city are attempting
    to produce a microcosm of a society which is less paranoid and more
    productive, while being as pressure-free as possible.  No strikes,
    crime or poverty, etc, etc. It's like a commune on a grand scale,
    and it CAN work; there are enough people out there who feel this
    way to make it work.
                                                        
    				From one who believes ...
    				Speedo

    If it's based on mutual trust and cooperation, why is so much
    surveillence necessary?
    
    Of course, you can turn the argument around and say "everybody trusts
    the surveillers to not misuse their power", but that doesn't quite
    feel right to me.
    
    len.
    

    
    The surveillance was used to keep track of the children in unusual
    circumstances, for one example used.  Naturally, there is a tremendous
    capacity for misuse and abuse.  'Human nature' would seem to dictate
    that 'Big Brother' is necessary to protect us from ourselves, but
    I feel that this is not the case.  Granted, I don't like anyone
    watching over my shoulder when I do something, but sometimes it's
    not a bad idea; everyone makes mistakes, and someone might catch
    one of mine before it hurts someone.
    
    The fake (and then actual) sabotage attempts are another good example
    for the need of a tight security system.  The people of the city
    (the name eludes me), whether they realize it or not, are engaged
    in an experiment which will change the way society interacts.  There
    will always be people opposed to change, simply because it IS change.
    I'll finish with a quote ...
    
    	"Great spirits have always encountered violent
          opposition from mediocre minds."  Albert Einstein
    
    (I just wish that I could have said it first ...)
    
    						Frank Caruso aka
    						Speedo the Beatnick
    

    
    Tanx and tanx again.
    
    						Speedo