President Obama capped off a busy week in Washington remarking on new lending guidelines aimed at lowering mortgage payments; an initiative to generate funds for small business and college loans; the release of his administration's first budget which includes $2T in deficit reduction; and the start of long overdue health care reform
I'm looking forward to the new Star Trek movie and the great story and special effects, but I'm not looking forward to how the movie treats San Francisco. It messes up the San Francisco Skyline, making it look like Hong Kong.
If you take a good look at the trailers for the movie, they show how San Francisco will look 300 years from today in the J.J. Abrams version of the Star Trek Universe.
The scene that I focus on in the video above shows what I argue -- but one other disgrees with -- is the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge. They claim it's the Golden Gate Bridge side, but that's not the point. The point is, the buildings are hundreds of times larger than the structures of today. Question: would San Francisco culture allow such skyscrapers to be created? My answer, and the SFist agrees, is no.
This has caused a fire storm of controversy, and even on my YouTube channel Zennie62, nasty comments, with some calling me names like "douche" and even some racial slurs, sadly. I've removed and banned about 30 accounts to date because of that. We can agree to disagree, but the flaming I will not tolerate.
Period.
Plus, it masks the main point: futurists tend to ignore culture over technology when looking forward and Star Trek is a great example. Now other Trekkers have explained that a nuclear war gave way to a new San Francisco Bay Area, but that doesn't mean people would not want to protect the Bay and our beauty. I just can't see that happening. San Franciscans have fought the "Manhattanization" of the city for years, why should they stop after a nuclear war?
The reality is San Francisco would fight to maintain it's human scale, even in the 23rd Century.
