Yeah, so I just read bolo'bolo by recommendation of some of the post-civ folks in this sub. To be fair it wasn't as bad as I was expecting and sure as hell is better than most anti-civ discourse (if you consider post-civ because after reading it. I'm not sure how it really diverges from city culture TOO much). But I do take issue with a number of things. Most notably the restrictions on interactions with other people into small groups of 300 people. Certainly a city doesn't exclude such a possibility of forming small groups, by limiting interactions to a small scale only is a restraint on freedom.

And by freedom I'm speaking of a positive freedom. An ability to expand your options. Cities provide this possibility well, in the near future I want to see dense cities filled with rich culture and newly rewilded wilderness that is amazingly biodiverse due to having people minimize impact by way of cities. I don't think cities should be the only form of interaction and living allowed (I think that's really silly) and I suspect many will form smaller scale living arrangements like ecovillages as well as some people living outside of civilization all together. Certainly suburbia has proven to be destructive and I'm not sure it's worthy of any defense.

My position has always been that in a anarchist civilization those who wish to leave civilization would be able to. That is THE position for future focused anarchism. Something I think that needs to be made abundantly clear.