views on society?

[Enmos]

...and humans can know personally only about 50 people.

Hrm.. I very much doubt that. It's much less than fifty, I think it must be under twenty or else something must be wrong with you.
Perhaps these figures came from the same people that claim to have dozens of friends. "Friends".

 

[Enmos]

No, Fraggle, it's not voluntary and you know it! Modern civilization is only possible because of the umpty-eleven laws and rules and cops and courts and prisons that constrain us all.

Fraggle, just take all those laws and rules away, take all the cops away, remove the court systems and the prisons ...you'll quickly find out just how voluntary that constraint really is. You have a good imagination ...take a moment to imagine all the rules and laws gone. Is it pretty? And just how voluntary would the world be?



Yeah, see? Modern civilization does nothing but stifle man's natural instincts and desires ...and yet you argue for that very stifling? And then have the nerve to say that it's "voluntary"?

You're a hoot, Fraggle.

Baron Max

I think people generally dislike each other. Living so closely packed is certainly arousing irritation.

 

[Tiassa]

Go Team: The mysterious adventures of equally mysterious chimpanzees

Living so closely packed is certainly arousing irritation.

Indeed. There was an experiment in the '90s—I'm looking for it now—involving either chimpanzees or bonobos. The animals were brought together and confined, and they acted a lot like people in an elevator. They tried to make themselves smaller. Conversation ceased. Eventually they confined the chimpanzees for a period of hours. After being released, the chimps celebrated.

It's really, really weird. No joy yet. I'll keep looking.

Anyway, the point being that yes, having so many people packed into cities is likely having at least some deleterious effect. To the other our perception of society and how we relate to it is, within myriad collectives around the world, constantly evolving. As people respond to the various demands life makes upon them, certain responses—over a fairly short period of generations—become not so much circumstances in and of themselves, but expectations.

We're in a strange period. There's a lot in flux as far as, say, the American social conscience is concerned. It's a transitional era, one in which people's presuppositions about the relationship between individual and society will grapple with several fundamental principles. The transformation will be fascinating, but it's an ongoing process that a single lifetime, even extended by some technological solution, cannot contain. I'd like to imagine a smooth, orderly change, but that ain't gonna happen.

We expect to disagree with people; we expect to fight. It's part of our fundamental human mythology. When we transcend that expectation, well, I'm not going to be around for it, but I hope to hell we pull it off. As a species, you know? Go, team!

Right. The chimpanzees.

 

[Enmos]

Indeed. There was an experiment in the '90s—I'm looking for it now—involving either chimpanzees or bonobos. The animals were brought together and confined, and they acted a lot like people in an elevator. They tried to make themselves smaller. Conversation ceased. Eventually they confined the chimpanzees for a period of hours. After being released, the chimps celebrated.

It's really, really weird. No joy yet. I'll keep looking.

Anyway, the point being that yes, having so many people packed into cities is likely having at least some deleterious effect. To the other our perception of society and how we relate to it is, within myriad collectives around the world, constantly evolving. As people respond to the various demands life makes upon them, certain responses—over a fairly short period of generations—become not so much circumstances in and of themselves, but expectations.

We're in a strange period. There's a lot in flux as far as, say, the American social conscience is concerned. It's a transitional era, one in which people's presuppositions about the relationship between individual and society will grapple with several fundamental principles. The transformation will be fascinating, but it's an ongoing process that a single lifetime, even extended by some technological solution, cannot contain. I'd like to imagine a smooth, orderly change, but that ain't gonna happen.

We expect to disagree with people; we expect to fight. It's part of our fundamental human mythology. When we transcend that expectation, well, I'm not going to be around for it, but I hope to hell we pull it off. As a species, you know? Go, team!

Right. The chimpanzees.

It would be an interesting read if you can find it

As for humanity adapting to being closely packed (I mean the evolutionary type of adaption), I'm not sure I think of that as a positive thing.
What would we become ? By todays standards it would certainly be horrendous to most (I would almost say 'read sane') people.

 

[Baron Max]

As for humanity adapting to being closely packed (I mean the evolutionary type of adaption), I'm not sure I think of that as a positive thing. What would we become? By todays standards it would certainly be horrendous to most (I would almost say 'read sane') people.

I think a good, thorough, scientific comparison between small, intimate communities and the larger cities of the nation might tell us the story in full, horrid detail. We don't have to wait to find out, it's right there in living color almost every evening on the news.

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

I think a good, thorough, scientific comparison between small, intimate communities and the larger cities of the nation might tell us the story in full, horrid detail. We don't have to wait to find out, it's right there in living color almost every evening on the news.

Baron Max

Yup, I couldn't agree more.
But what I meant was that we might, in the distant future, have evolved to deal with being closely packed (at least that's what I gathered Tiassa meant). Although I have serious doubts this will ever happen.. the thought is horrifying to me.
I think in order to reach such a state our emotions will have to get seriously repressed or will have to disappear altogether.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I think people generally dislike each other. Living so closely packed is certainly arousing irritation.

This is not true in general. Only in the West. It's a cultural variable. The classic illustration is the conversation between a Chinese man and a Norwegian man in the hallway. The Norwegian guy keeps stepping backwards and the Chinese guy keeps moving towards him, each trying to establish his own comfortable interpersonal distance, until the Scandinavian winds up cornered at the opposite end of the hall. I've had Asian people sit down next to me on bench seats or sofas and be so close we were actually touching, when the space wasn't even crowded. The Japanese in particular are happy when they're packed together very tightly by our standards, and they do not share our love of "wide open spaces."

I think a good, thorough, scientific comparison between small, intimate communities and the larger cities of the nation might tell us the story in full, horrid detail.

Yes indeed. I've had the horrible experience of living in a couple of those small communities. They were stifling, culturally vapid, and there was very little privacy. Everyone knew everyone else's business. I couldn't wait to escape. The benefits of city life far outweigh the risks, which BTW are vastly exaggerated by The News For People Who Can't Read, aka television.

 

[Baron Max]

Yes indeed. I've had the horrible experience of living in a couple of those small communities. They were stifling, culturally vapid, and there was very little privacy. Everyone knew everyone else's business. I couldn't wait to escape.

Well, Fraggle, please try to remember that your views aren't the only views on the subject. However, your ONE opinion on the subject has been duly noted for posterity.

The benefits of city life far outweigh the risks, ...

Well, Fraggle, please try to remember that your views aren't the only views on the subject. However, your ONE opinion on the subject has been duly noted for posterity.

But perhaps you can tell me why so many city dwellers keep moving further out into the suburbs ....if not to get away from the city life?

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

This is not true in general. Only in the West. It's a cultural variable. The classic illustration is the conversation between a Chinese man and a Norwegian man in the hallway. The Norwegian guy keeps stepping backwards and the Chinese guy keeps moving towards him, each trying to establish his own comfortable interpersonal distance, until the Scandinavian winds up cornered at the opposite end of the hall. I've had Asian people sit down next to me on bench seats or sofas and be so close we were actually touching, when the space wasn't even crowded. The Japanese in particular are happy when they're packed together very tightly by our standards, and they do not share our love of "wide open spaces."

I guess you're right. But the Japs don't count, they are crazy anyway

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

But perhaps you can tell me why so many city dwellers keep moving further out into the suburbs ....if not to get away from the city life?

Based upon many personal interviews with these people, there are two main reasons.

• 1. Expense. You're the expert on 300-year-old economic theories like supply and demand. You can get more space for less money further out.
• 2. Quality. The death throes of the Industrial Era are pretty ugly: smog, congested traffic, inferior services, crime bred of inequities, etc.

The quality issue will be worked out as the Post-Industrial Era takes shape. Less traffic, less pollution, reprioritized governments, somewhat more even distribution of wealth. But the cost issue will remain, unless your economic theories prove to be as obsolescent as some of the early work in other disciplines.

Yes, there are people who move to the country because they like the trees and the birds, but they are a tiny minority. My wife and I impulsively moved to a rural area thinking it would be nice, but I find myself happier when I'm working in the city.

Nonetheless, your question is typically disingenuous because you did not put it in perspective. Everyone's different and some people don't want to live in cities, but they're a minority. The flow of population into the cities far exceeds that in the opposite direction. We recently passed the midpoint, and now more than half of the world's population lives in cities.

If anything will change that, it will probably be virtual reality. Right now I find "attending" a concert or other theatrical event on even a giant-screen TV far inferior to being there. And sports fans feel the same way about the events that transpire in those stadiums between concerts. But the technology will continue to improve.

Videoconferencing works very well, it's just too expensive for the average citizen to use for a social gathering. But it will become cheaper.

The internet has revolutionized games. I still enjoy going to the go club once a week and feeling glass stones hitting a wooden board, but in between I can play opponents in Singapore and Brazil who have a different approach to the game. Chess, Scrabble and other popular games have also exploded in virtual space. Even casino gaming thrives, without the technology yet being available to read your opponent's facial expressions and body language. But MMORPGs have revolutionized recreation, creating games that can only be played online. There's also stuff like SciForums. Even in the "physical reality" of a city I've never found a group like this with more than about six members.

As leisure time continues to grow and people are drawn to a whole new universe of leisure activities built upon online personal relationships, perhaps the attraction of the city will wane. We'll be able to have birds and trees witout giving up the culture.