Paul B. Hartzog has made some interesting comments on the growing issue of anti-mobility :
'What do we mean by mobility? Although there are technological forces in the world that promote mobility, are we missing the ones that obstruct mobility? What are the forces of anti-mobility?
* There are many difficulties posed by anti-terrorist safety measures on airplanes. These measures have already had wide-reaching consequences such as musicians not being able to do their jobs (which involve substantial travel) because they can no longer transport their expensive instruments.
* Border-crossing and passport issues are getting worse. Many people are just staying within their “safe zones.”
So I got to thinking that if the forces of anti-mobility overcome the forces of mobility, we will actually be less mobile than we used to be...One can envision scenarios where society becomes more mobile locally, i.e. within some small predefined boundary, but less mobile within the global context.'
Or what if 'mobility' is itself a form of immobility since the more 'one moves', the more a person is visible and leaving traces, traces that can be applied to forcing greater immobility upon a person? Mobility --> visibility --> potential immobility.... Again, floating ideas here...