> The dystopian future where no one owns cars is already being laid.

Pardon me?

We're living in the dystopian present, where most everyone has a car or several. Cities are crowded with cars -- both moving and parked -- and it's awful for humans who aren't cars.

I can't wait for the moment people switch to a subscription and the cars are shared and drive themselves. The streets will be just as full of moving cars, but at least the parked cars hopefully disappear, giving us more space for trees or sidewalks or anything but cars really.

I think you've misread the parent poster.

* Their "not owning" means a swap to a subscription/license for the car, which could still be exclusive rather than shared.

* Your "not owning" assumes a reduction in the number of cars per capita.

In other words, the "dystopia" they are referring to is one that still has today's problems of gridlock, land use, urban planning, etc., with new kinds of problems layered on. Cars not being user-repairable, being nickel-and-dimed on features, a monopolistic used-parts market, and a general shift towards whatever boosts the car-manufacturer's profit margin.

You are injecting a lot of assumptions and wishful thinking to view the removal of ownership from this equation as a net positive.

I see no reason to assume that this would lead to the disappearance of parked cars or to more trees. Our corporate overlords will want to make use of that space for more cars or infrastructure to support the new car network, why would they ever just give it back willingly?