The concepts of 15-minute cities, C40 cities, smart cities, freedom cities, network states, and even the Civium project represent diverse visions for societal organization. Each promises to address modern challenges espoused by the likes of the UN, WEF, central banks and mega corporations, such as sustainability, governance, convenience, quality of life etc. However, their reliance on advanced technologies—particularly artificial intelligence (AI)—raises critical questions about their potential to enable mass surveillance and accelerate the path toward a technological singularity, a hypothetical future where AI surpasses human intelligence, fundamentally reshaping society. This article explores how these community living models could contribute to these outcomes, their interconnections, and the risks they pose in a rapidly digitizing world.

Defining the Stakes: Mass Surveillance and Technological Singularity & Tokenization

Mass Surveillance: The pervasive monitoring of individuals through technologies like AI, IoT (Internet of Things), biometric data, facial recognition, and data analytics, often justified for security, efficiency, or public good, but risking privacy and autonomy.

• Internet of Things (IoT): Network of physical devices embedded with sensors and software to collect and exchange data over the internet.

• Internet of Bodies (IoB): Connected devices that monitor, collect, and share biological data from human bodies, such as wearables and implants.

• Internet of NanoBioThings (IoNBT): Integration of nanotechnology and biotechnology to create microscopic devices that interact with biological systems and communicate data.

• Internet of Behaviors (IoB): Use of data from connected devices and analytics to monitor, predict, and influence human behaviors.

• Internet of Everything (IoE): Comprehensive network connecting people, processes, data, and things to enable intelligent decision-making and interactions.

• Internet of Medical Things (IoMT): Connected medical devices and applications that collect and transmit health data to improve patient care.

• Internet of Industrial Things (IIoT): IoT applications in industrial settings, connecting machines and systems to optimize manufacturing and operations.

• Internet of Smart Cities (IoSC): Network of connected devices and infrastructure to enhance urban services, efficiency, and sustainability.

• Internet of Wearable Things (IoWT): Wearable devices with sensors and connectivity to track and share user data, such as fitness trackers and smartwatches.

• Internet of Robotic Things (IoRT): Robots integrated with IoT technologies to perform autonomous tasks and share data in real-time.

Technological Singularity: A point where AI achieves superintelligence, potentially merging with or surpassing human capabilities, leading to unpredictable societal transformations. This could result from exponential advancements in computing, data collection, and interconnected systems.

Both phenomena are intertwined: mass surveillance generates vast datasets that fuel AI development, while AI’s growth enables more sophisticated surveillance, potentially culminating in a singularity where control shifts to autonomous systems.

Tokenized economy is an economic system where assets, services, or rights are represented as digital tokens on a blockchain, marketed as enabling secure, transparent, and programmable transactions. These tokens can represent anything from currency and property to access rights or rewards, and can be fractional, facilitating peer-to-peer exchanges without intermediaries.

In smart cities and digital societies, a tokenized economy enhances efficiency and connectivity by:

• Streamlining transactions: Tokens enable instant, low-cost payments for services like public transport or utilities, integrated into IoT infrastructure.

• Incentivizing behaviors: Tokens reward sustainable actions (e.g., recycling or using shared mobility), aligning with smart city goals.

• Enabling tokenized governance (often marketed as “decentralized”): Citizens can use tokens to vote or access services, fostering transparent, participatory digital societies, such as in ranked-choice voting, conviction voting, quadratic voting or liquid democracy.

• Supporting data economies: Tokens facilitate secure sharing of personal or IoT-generated data, powering AI-driven urban planning and services.

By leveraging blockchain’s trust and automation, tokenized economies integrate with smart city systems (e.g., IoT, IoSC) to create interconnected, responsive, digital ecosystems.

How Each Urban Vision Contributes

15-Minute Cities: Localized Control and Data Collection

The 15-minute city model, which ensures essential services are within a short walk or bike ride, emphasizes sustainability and livability. Cities like Paris and Melbourne are implementing this through urban redesigns, bike lanes, and public transit enhancements.

Path to Surveillance: 15-minute cities often integrate smart technologies to optimize urban planning—e.g., AI-driven traffic management or apps tracking mobility patterns. These systems collect data on residents’ movements, preferences, and behaviors. For example, mobility apps can monitor how citizens navigate neighborhoods, creating detailed behavioral profiles.

• Digital Twins: Virtual representations of the city to simulate, analyze, and test different scenarios, allowing for better urban planning and management.

• Public Information and Engagement: Digital platforms for residents to access information on city services, events, and to participate in community discussions and feedback.

• E-governance: Online platforms for accessing government services, permits, and information, streamlining administrative processes and enhancing efficiency.

• Smart Grids: Advanced energy grids, “Smart grid” technologies are made possible by two-way communication technologies, control systems, and computer processing. These advanced technologies include advanced sensors known as Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) that allow operators to assess grid stability, advanced digital meters that give consumers information and automatically report outages, relays that sense and recover from faults in the substation automatically, automated feeder switches that re-route power around problems, and batteries that store excess energy and make it available later to the grid to meet customer demand.

• Smart Lighting: Adaptive street lighting systems that can adjust brightness based on real-time conditions and occupancy.

• Digital Infrastructure for Local Businesses: Online platforms and tools for local businesses to connect with customers, manage inventory, and promote their products and services.

Singularity Risk: The data amassed from these localized systems feeds AI models, enhancing their predictive capabilities. As cities scale this model globally (e.g., via UN-Habitat’s sustainable urban initiatives, sustainable development goals cities,) interconnected datasets could accelerate AI’s ability to model human behavior at scale, a stepping stone to superintelligent systems.

Concerns: 15-minute cities could morph into “open-air prisons,” where localized zones enable granular surveillance, restricting movement under the guise of sustainability. The tech infrastructure makes this feasible.

C40 Cities: Globalized Data Sharing

C40, a network of nearly 100 cities like New York and Tokyo, collaborates on climate action, sharing policies and data to reduce emissions. It overlaps with 15-minute and smart city goals, promoting green tech and urban efficiency.

Path to Surveillance: C40 cities often adopt smart technologies, such as sensors for air quality or energy grids, which generate real-time data. This data is shared across the network, creating a global repository of urban metrics. AI analyzes these datasets to optimize city systems, but the same infrastructure could track individuals across cities, especially if linked to digital IDs or climate-focused apps.

Singularity Risk: The global scale of C40’s data-sharing amplifies AI’s learning potential. Cross-city datasets enable AI to model urban systems holistically, advancing general intelligence. If C40 integrates with UN initiatives (e.g., AI for Good), this could centralize AI development under global governance, hastening singularity.

• Concerns: The centralized nature of C40’s framework raises fears of a “one-world” surveillance system, where AI monitors climate compliance, potentially stifling dissent.

Smart Cities: The Surveillance Backbone

Smart cities like Singapore and Dubai rely on= on AI, IoT, and big data to optimize urban systems—traffic, energy, waste, and governance. They epitomize tech-driven urbanism.

Path to Surveillance: Smart cities are surveillance by design. Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative uses facial recognition, sensors, and predictive policing, collecting data on nearly every aspect of life. Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs project (partially abandoned) proposed pervasive sensors, sparking privacy backlash. This creates a panopticon where AI monitors and predicts behavior.

Singularity Risk: Smart cities are AI’s training ground. The vast, real-time datasets—traffic patterns, energy use, social interactions—fuel machine learning, pushing AI toward general intelligence. As cities like Dubai scale these systems, they create feedback loops where AI optimizes itself.

Concerns: Privacy erosion is a core issue. Smart cities echo dystopian sci-fi scripts, with AI enabling totalitarian control. The risk is not just surveillance but AI systems becoming opaque, where even governments lose oversight.

Freedom Cities: A Double-Edged Sword

Freedom cities, proposed by figures like Donald Trump or libertarian groups, and Silicon Valley tech bro types marketed as prioritizing individual liberty and minimal regulation.

• Path to Surveillance: Despite the name, freedom cities could still enable surveillance if private corporations dominate. Without strong regulations, tech companies could deploy unchecked AI systems for profit, as seen in some libertarian-leaning projects like Prospera in Honduras, where private governance risks data exploitation.

• Singularity Risk: By fostering innovation with minimal oversight, freedom cities could accelerate AI development in unregulated “sandboxes.” This could lead to breakthroughs—or reckless experiments—pushing toward singularity outside traditional governance.

• Concerns: While marketed as anti-surveillance, freedom cities may trade one form of control (government) for another (corporate) aka GovCorp—a business entity established by the government to provide public services, often in areas where private companies might not be as inclined to operate.

Share

Network States: Digital-First Surveillance

Network states, as envisioned by Balaji Srinivasan, start as online communities and evolve into physical or semi-physical entities, using blockchain and AI for governance and coordination (e.g., CabinDAO, Zuzalu).

• Path to Surveillance: Despite their decentralized ethos, network states rely on digital platforms, which can be surveillance vectors. Blockchain-based IDs or AI-driven governance (e.g., smart contracts) track member activities. If compromised, these systems could expose sensitive data. Even decentralized systems aren’t immune to hacks or insider abuse.

• Singularity Risk: Network states’ tech-forward approach—using AI for decision-making or resource allocation—could create microcosms of autonomous systems. As these “states” scale, their AI could integrate, forming distributed intelligence networks that approach singularity.

• Concerns: The idealism of network states overlooks tech’s dual-use nature. Digital communities could become surveillance traps if not carefully designed, especially if AI outpaces human oversight.

Civium: Speculative but Relevant

Civium, a lesser-known concept, may involve decentralized, citizen-driven urbanism with tech integration.The Civium Project is a multifaceted initiative focused on creating a "human-scale" alternative to the current model of civilization, which is centered around cities.

• Path to Surveillance: If Civium uses AI or blockchain, which Jordan Hall has discussed being a proponent of in his presentations at the Start Up Cities Foundation with Peter Thiel’s Prospera, it faces similar risks as network states—data leaks, misuse, or unintended centralization. Without clear governance, it could replicate smart city surveillance under a different banner.

• Singularity Risk: As a tech-driven experiment, Civium could contribute to AI’s evolution. Its speculative nature makes it a wildcard.

• Concerns: Lack of transparency fuels skepticism. If Civium is a rebrand of existing models, it inherits their surveillance and singularity risks.

Interconnections: A Surveillance-Singularity Nexus

These urban visions converge on technology, creating a feedback loop:

Data as Fuel: 15-minute, C40, and smart cities generate massive datasets, while network states and Civium add digital-first data. Freedom cities may indirectly contribute via private tech.

AI as Enabler: AI processes these datasets, optimizing cities and learning autonomously. Smart cities and network states explicitly advance AI’s capabilities.

Global Scaling: C40 and UN initiatives (e.g., SDGs, AI for Good) link cities, creating interconnected AI systems. Even decentralized models like network states could federate, amplifying AI’s reach. In this way it echos the sentiment of H.G. Wells model of decentralized information institutions as the conduit to the World Brain.

Singularity Trigger: As AI integrates across cities—predicting, optimizing, governing—it could achieve self-improving intelligence, potentially outstripping human control.

AIWS and UN Centennial Initiative:

• AIWS: Developed by the BGF, AIWS is a model for global AI governance. It promotes “AI for Good” to advance UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as reducing inequalities and enhancing education, while fostering new democratic models for digital societies.

• UN Centennial Initiative: Launched to reimagine global governance for the UN’s 100th anniversary, it integrates AIWS to address frontier technologies, aiming to “remake the world” toward an age of global enlightenment, AI-enabled future. It includes forums like the Global Forum on Fundamental Rights in AI & Digital Societies to set standards for AI ethics and governance.

Role in the Path to Mass Surveillance

The AIWS model, operates within a global framework that could inadvertently contribute to mass surveillance.

• Data-Driven Governance:

  • AIWS advocates for AI systems to collect and analyze vast datasets to support SDGs, such as urban planning in smart cities or health monitoring via the Internet of Bodies (IoB). This aligns with smart city initiatives like Trump’s Freedom Cities, where IoT and AI could optimize services but require extensive data collection.

  • Centralized AI systems (e.g., for public safety or resource allocation) could enable mass surveillance, as seen in China’s social credit system. In their society they talk about a social value rewards system. The UN’s push for global AI standards might normalize data-sharing protocols that prioritize efficiency over individual privacy.

  • For example, tokenized economies in digital societies, where governance tokens track voting (e.g., quadratic voting) or behavior (e.g., rewarding sustainability), could create detailed citizen profiles, vulnerable to misuse by governments or corporations.

• Global AI Standards and Centralization:

  • The UN’s High-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence (proposed in 2020) and AIWS aim to harmonize AI regulations globally. This could lead to standardized surveillance tools under the guise of “ethical AI,” especially if powerful nations or tech firms dominate the framework.

  • In smart cities, blockchain-based voting systems (e.g., liquid democracy or conviction voting) could integrate with AIWS principles, securing votes but also tracking voter preferences in real-time, raising surveillance risks if data is not anonymized.

• Partnership with Tech Entities:

  • The BGF’s collaboration with tech leaders and the UN’s engagement with private sectors could prioritize corporate interests. AIWS’s focus on innovation might integrate proprietary AI systems (e.g., from Silicon Valley or Big banks and corporations) that embed surveillance capabilities, as seen in some IoT-driven urban projects.

  • For instance, Trump’s Freedom Cities, supported by deregulated tech entrepreneurs, might adopt AIWS-inspired governance models but skirt privacy regulations, enabling data harvesting via Internet of Everything (IoE) networks.

Role in the Path to Technological Singularity

Technological singularity—where AI surpasses human intelligence—poses existential risks and opportunities. AIWS’s role in this trajectory includes:

• Advancing AI Capabilities:

  • AIWS promotes AI research for societal benefits, such as in education or healthcare, which could accelerate general-purpose AI development. This aligns with the UN’s goal to leverage AI for 80% of SDGs, potentially hastening the path to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

  • AI-driven infrastructure (e.g., autonomous vehicles or Internet of Robotic Things (IoRT)) could serve as testbeds for advanced AI, pushing toward singularity if unchecked by ethical constraints.

• Potential for Over-Optimism:

  • The UN and BGF’s optimistic view of AI’s potential might downplay singularity risks. AIWS’s focus on “new democracy” models could over-rely on AI for governance (e.g., predictive analytics in smart cities), creating vulnerabilities if AI systems approach superintelligence.

  • Tokenized economies, while empowering participation, might integrate AI-driven decision-making (e.g., allocating tokens based on behavior), amplifying AI’s societal control and edging closer to singularity scenarios where human agency diminishes.

• Digital Societies and Tokenized Economies:

  • AIWS’s vision of “new democracy” aligns with digital societies where citizens engage via blockchain platforms.

  • Internet of Behaviors (IoB) could link tokenized incentives to behavioral monitoring, risking surveillance if AIWS’s ethical guidelines are not enforced.

Critical Perspective

• Surveillance Risks: AIWS’s data-driven approach, aligns with global trends toward surveillance capitalism, especially in smart cities where IoT and AI converge. The UN’s centralized framework could legitimize invasive tools. UN-backed smart city standards or climate monitoring (aligned with C40) could normalize AI surveillance, especially in authoritarian regimes. Digital IDs, proposed for SDG inclusion, risk tracking citizens globally.

• Singularity Concerns: By fostering AI innovation, the UN could accelerate tech breakthroughs. Its global reach might centralize AI governance, raising concerns about unaccountable systems.

• Power Dynamics: The partnership with BGF and tech elites risks favoring Western or corporate agendas, potentially marginalizing Global South perspectives in AI governance, which could exacerbate surveillance and singularity inequities.

• Voting Systems as Safeguards: Blockchain-based voting systems (e.g., quadratic or liquid democracy) could empower citizens to resist surveillance or reckless AI development, but their effectiveness depends on decentralized implementation and public literacy.

The UN’s AIWS model, in partnership with the BGF for the UN Centennial Initiative, seeks to harness AI governance in digital societies, aligning with smart city visions. However, its data-intensive approach and global standardization efforts could enable mass surveillance if privacy is not prioritized, particularly in IoT-driven urban systems. On the path to technological singularity, AIWS’s governance frameworks and corporate ties risk accelerating unchecked AI development.

Risks and Ethical Dilemmas

Loss of Privacy: Smart cities and C40’s data-sharing erode anonymity. Even decentralized models like network states risk data breaches.

Autonomy Erosion: AI’s predictive power (e.g., in smart cities) could nudge behavior, undermining free will. Singularity could render humans obsolete in decision-making.

Inequality: Tech-driven cities may favor elites, leaving marginalized groups under surveillance without benefits.

Unintended Consequences: Rapid AI scaling, as in freedom cities or network states, could trigger singularity before safeguards are in place.

Conclusion

The visions of 15-minute cities, C40 cities, smart cities, freedom cities, network states, Civium project and the UN’s AIWS reflect humanity’s ambition to reimagine society. Yet, their reliance on AI and data risks a slide toward mass surveillance and a technological singularity. Smart cities lead the charge, with pervasive monitoring and AI optimization, while C40 and 15-minute cities add global data networks. Freedom cities and network states, though purporting resistance to centralized control, may fuel unregulated AI growth and lead to control grids via decentralized nodes. The UN’s urban and AI initiatives could amplify these trends, raising ethical stakes.

The future hinges on choices: prioritize privacy, equity, and oversight, or risk a world where surveillance is ubiquitous and AI outpaces humanity. By understanding these community design models’ trajectories, then hopefully we can steer toward innovation without sacrificing freedom or control.

The Courtenay Turner Podcast

Dangerous Dames | Ep.73: Behind the Facade: Unmasking the Smart City Agenda

Courtenay Turner

·

May 20

Are Smart Cities the Next Step in Global Surveillance? The Dangerous Dames Reveal What They Don’t Want You to Know

Read full story