The need for cities, and the future of human communities

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Adam, Dec 23, 2002.

  1. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Over the past ten millennia or so, we've seen a certain trend in human communities. We gather in cities, to allow faster and easier trade, communication, amd government. We urbanise. We set up huge office buildings. We move into the ever-expanding suburbs for easier acces to all the thigns we do and use in business, and this requires supply to the cities from mass production of food. I'm sure you all know all about the trends in cities and urbanisation and supply to such.

    However, we now have the technology to allow most jobs performed in cities to be performed remotely. We simply don't need cities, if we implement fully the technology we already possess. The only places we really need many people to gather are where there is mass manual labour still performed by humans. Might we eradicate cities and be left with only industrial parks, which would eventually become more and more automated anyway?

    I would like to see humans live in smaller communities, each with large greenhouses for food, each returning all bio-degradable refuse to their own system. Work done via broadband internet. All members of each community working on the resources of that community, perhaps gaining more appreciation for resource management.

    Of course such a move away from urbanisation would kill some industries, such as fast food chains which rely in high population density.

    From: http://bad-sports.com/~archive/revolution/governments.html
    Any comments or ideas?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr.Roboto Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    People will stay in cities because there are more things to do. That small community won’t have a Somali restaurant or ancient Peruvian dance class or special interest clubs. The city offers a better quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in a small community, and no one is going to abandon there home in the city just to live in a community. Most people won’t see the point of moving to a small community because there is no point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Personally i would like to see us develop buttloads of spacecolonies and then ban the use of the internal combustion engine on earth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. EvelinaAnville Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    Mr.Roboto

    Some would say that the best parts of cities are just small communities collected together in one geographically bound place. Take San Francisco for example. It is one of my favourite cities in the world because of how one can go to so many different (small) communities and experience so many different things. If we put more nature in between those communities and made each community more self-sustaining, I think that would be an improvement on the best urban model we see in some cities like San Francisco.

    They have tried a return to more village-like living in some suburbs. I saw a story a while back on groups of people living in suburbs which had their own schools, own small shops, etc. (So, technically, they were not suburbs...). The only problem was that not all of the peolple worked from home and still had to commute into the main city. I personally would not like to live in the model I saw because it was too much like any American suburbs. American suburbs make me sick because of how they must conform to some model of sterilized and uniform "beauty."

    The best model would be a combination of technology and old-world practices--small scale farming and relatively self-sustaining, low maintenance technolgy (solar/wind power). People could be freed from certain aspects of the world, like dependence on outside food sources, while still living in a community. I see a small movement of people doing that in the US, but it is not well publicized and there are not enough people doing it. It is sad that our technology has finally grown to the point where we could integrate it into the human system--taking the strengths from both the agricultural model of living and the urban model--but too many people either do not wish to do so or are too tied to their lazy system.
     
  8. Mr.Roboto Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    I live in Toronto Canada. Toronto is the most diverse city on the planet. In fact over 50% of the population is non-white. Yet Toronto had just 43 murders last year compared to Chicago’s 810. Note that Toronto also has a larger population then Chicago. I'm just pointing out that there is absolutely no social or ethnic tension in this city. There is no point in dividing the population into communities. I'd rather not live in a homogeneous society. Dividing us into communities will only create more tension. Ask yourself this; will these communities just be races or ethnic groups, even class groups segregated.



    If you are proposing each community grow its own food source then your idea is flawed. To have a sustainable form of agriculture and at the same time maintain the same variety and quality of produce and livestock is next to impossible. Even if it were somehow possible, it would be extremely inefficient. A large % of the communities population would be need to work in agriculture which would reduce the quality of life
     
  9. EvelinaAnville Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    Just because a society is divided into villages it would not mean that the villages would be homogeneous--ethnically or otherwise. Cities are segregated into (co-)culture enclaves now for a number of reasons, including the need for individuals to rely on other members of their particular co-culture for survival. Cities are already divided into communities for the community member's sense of identity and safety. Trying to get people to move into smaller communities which do not rely so heavily on over-crowded, polluted environments would not be a forced move, just a logical integration of old and new world technologies.

    Agricultural products and livestock do not need to be grown/raised in mass quantities, therefore the idea is not flawed. Refer to the Israeli kibutz, 19th century American communes, and the Amish for examples of small-scale, relatively self-sustaining communities. Small gardens and greenhouses can provide a family with a great variety of foodstuffs while, with the addition of some non-toxic modern technology, providing enough to be eaten or bartered outside of the community for more variety.
     
  10. Mr.Roboto Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Each village would have to have some sort of social bind that keeps them together, otherwise there would be no reason for people to move to that particular village. The Italian is likely to move to a village with other Italians who share the same social interest. Like wise a wealthily person is generally going to stick with other wealthy people. A homogenous group like the Italian community is unlikely to favor the introduction of a west Indian (that’s just the fact of human nature).

    Cities are definitely NOT segregated to cultural enclaves. Toronto has a "china town" and a "little India", but that has no bearing on the regional ethnic makeup of the city. My neighbors to the left are Middle Eastern; the ones to the right are Chinese.

    The end result will undeniably be the polarization of North America's population. Sure you can take a visit to the Italian community for some Italian cuisine, but you would only be doing it every other week. And what if the nearest Italian community is a couple hundred miles away?. The community system would also enforce social stratification. How well off will the Mexican community be compared to the French community?. Surely Mexicans moving to their community will bring less money with them. This goes for all ethnic and cultural groups who traditionally do not favor well economically

    The Israeli kibutz, 19th century American communities and Amish communities have a couple things in common. They are founded on protestant like work ethics ( I.e. working long and hard is what god wants you to do). They are limited or limit them self’s technologically. Their diets consist of mainly staple foods. They do not represent a sustainable way of 'modern' life.

    The US gets the majority of its Oranges from Florida and California. Without hundreds of miles of farm land dedicated to the production of oranges the people living in New York or Seattle could never enjoy the luxury of oranges. The same goes for hundreds of fruits and vegetables. The quality of diet is reduced without variety. Sure, a limited number of oranges could be grown in large local green houses, but at what cost? Increased labor? The cost of an orange wouldn’t just double or tipple. I personally view an increase in the labor dedicated to agriculture a giant step back.
     
  11. pumpkinsaren'torange Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,159
    you guys keep mentioning that..but, that's what the greatest transoceanic migration of the 19th century by water (solution) tried to solve. ..and, it wasn't a good solution.
     
  12. EvelinaAnville Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    pumkins ,

    Would you be more specific about "the greatest transoceanic migration of the 19th century by water" is? I'm confused.




    Mr.Roboto

    Instead of picking away at my theories about the future of cities and my hopes for human civilization, would you please present some ideas of your own? I am truly interested in what kind of place you would like to see humans living in in the future. Like, what is your vision of utopia (nowhere

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )?
     
  13. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    I find it interesting that no one has mentioned one of the biggest
    pluses re. high population densities: Greater variety of possible
    mates and/or companions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. susan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    221
    hm

    I can see the value of moving to a small community.
    say you are in a partnershiplove relationship and want
    to have more space to 'dominate' artistically.
    and you want to meet other couples, other people and
    have your own area of creative interaction.... i don't mean
    crazy sex, i truly mean intellectual persuits, etc....

    like, i know that you can act like a fool whenever you want in
    NY but usually only for a short time until you go into that fancy
    restaurant or cool club or whatever.

    i feel like smaller communities are for when you might be
    ready to 'entertain' most grandly, expand your orb and
    invite people into your life, not having to meet up
    somewhere in the city...
    like when where you are is justified by the fact that you
    are there.
     
  15. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    Cheap, fast transportation like monorails or something similar to shrink the time and expense to the point where a trip from St. Louis(my hometown) to New York would be a Saturday activity Would make this a moot point.

    How efficiently would these small communities use the land? The biggest are farmland, living space, and recreation. cemeteries are also a land user. In New Orleans, they can't bury people, they use crypts, I can't remember how exactly they work, but they're reused.
     
  16. Mr.Roboto Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    I'm only picking at your theories because they are theories and that’s what you do to theories

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Notice how I am not saying your ideas are dumb, just that they have critical flaws.

    My ideal place to live in the future would be a large city that has everything to offer, but one that has been restructured with the latest urban planning theories. Cheap and fast public transportation, smart high density road and highways that can handle environmentally friendly traffic. Dedicated green space (already happening in Toronto). Everything that can imporve cities without loseing what makes more people live in cities then towns
     
  17. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    Problem is, the oil companies have lots of money, and that translates to political power.
     
  18. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Oh so true. I grew up in a town of 3000 and now live in a city of a million. I would never go back. The sheer lack of excitement and diversity will drive a person insane. I saw alot of wonderful things growing up like people sniffing gasoline and having babies before they can drive a car. This stuff happens in cities but at least you can stay away from it. In a small town everybody's business is your business and vice versa.

    I think in the future everyone will live next to each other, but transportation will become unnecessary as everything will be able to be done from your home. Face-to-face meetings will be uncommon. Everyone will slowly but surely be secluded from the rest of the world.
     

Share This Page