From: Hal Finney (hal@rain.org)
Date: Fri May 09 1997 - 13:24:30 MDT
We can also consider the motivations of someone who provides a free park.
I would guess that it would be done mostly for PR purposes. Maybe there
would be small, tasteful signs at the main entrances, "This park provided
through the generosity of XYZ Corporation, dedicated to improving the
quality of public life."
Now, if XYZ is doing it to improve their image and make people feel good
about them, they won't want people to have a bad impression of the park.
If it is an "anything goes" area, with people copulating and shooting up
on the grass, this would make many visitors unhappy, in today's culture.
XYZ Corp is going to end up getting bad publicity instead of the benefits
they wanted.
So I would expect free areas which are subsidized like this to hew
pretty closely to average morality in what is allowed. There would be
specialized places for people with particular interests, like nudists,
but that is no different from today's nudist camps and resorts.
I don't know whether nudism is becoming more popular. In some ways we
see an increase in formerly "fringe" ideas due to the net, but at the
same time there seems to be a backlash from mainstream religious morality.
I'm very roughly guessing that the conservative religious forces will gain
strength through the year 2000, but then that the millenialist fervor
will die away (Christ's failure to return tarnishing the reputation of
extremists, and by extension all religions) and perhaps there will be a
swing back to liberal tolerance. Your crystal ball is as good as mine,
though!
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:25 MST