Well presented, but wrong… at least insofar as it paints a picture that will not come to pass, but I admire your summation.
This is basically a call for the “resource based economy”… an interesting fantasy.
That you understand that you could be completely wrong… and that you also understand that having a place, like a city, work as a much needed demonstration, is absolutely the proper approach.
No change like this could possibly be considered as something to adopt wholesale, unproven, by any sane person.
The market and price system has done more than any system devised to improve the lot of humanity… so astounding is it that the poorest people in the poorest nations commonly have cell phones and are connected with the world… something that no vision of a socialist utopia could accomplish so rapidly, and so efficiently.
But I say, indeed, create such a city. And when it falls, then we can get back to things that matter.
The only problem is, that in such a situation, those with vested interest in it’s success will hide its failures and invent its successes, just as happened in Cuba and N. Korea.
There is a second danger. Those that first adopt the effort will do so out of an ideological love for it, and this feeling will propel persons thus engaged into the best of all behaviors… artificially buttressing the weak points as millions of dedicated horses on the Animal Farm.
But like has happened with the Tiny House movement, the early adopters that did so out of passion… have succeeded in attracting the “common man”, and with it we see that the promise of the Tiny House is faltering… the beautifully constructed artisan lifestyle… erected by love and sweat… becomes a saltine box where people only casually attracted to it fail to understand what the lifestyle entails… and their experiment with the tiny house is short lived…. in short, it never becomes a lifestyle.