A vision of hell

[Toddy]

I agree with Ed; I have friends involved in the green city food growing organisations. Even parkland can be dicey in inner city areas. They're getting much better at sussing out potential problems before they try to crop though, so it's on a learning curve.

I think we need a much greater emphasis on biodegradeability of our common household wastes, and better methods of using that waste and containing and utilising the energy, etc., that it can yield.
Similarly with water use (and yes I know that's an odd statement coming from she who lives in a really soggy bit of the world), the sewerage systems are miracles of civilisation, but there's still a lot of room for improvement. It all costs money though, and we don't invest enough in the infrastructure.

atb,
M

 

[Squidders]

Why are people who have no intention of ever living in a city trying to tell those who do and want to, what they should be doing with them? Same demographic that moans when "city folk" decide what will happen in the country.

The bottom line is that this country needs cities and the cities we do have could use some improvement. I for one, welcome change and improvement where it is good and am willing to help make those changes into positive ones, instead of just digging my heels in and moaning.

Towers farms aren't viable now but until the experience is gained to make them viable, they never will be... When they are we can get rid of all the grumpy people from the countryside and return it to nature for everyone to enjoy... not the "gerrof my land!" types who currently try to hoard it.

 

[Marco1981]

I have always though of cities as monstrosities. I avoid them like the plague. I too don't understand why the general idea of cramming people so close together is deemed acceptable. We all complained about battery hens, only to encourage pretty much the same thing for humans?

 

[huntergathereralex]

There is an alternative, that is thinly viable, but as Red states, I'm not sure I would want to live in one, too much like what Asimov wrote about in the 'Foundation' series. It is Arcology: Super cities, built up, instead of spreading out. The disadvantages for humans is obvious, but the potential benefit for the Earth could be profound. A super city built upwards, with an immediate zone around it to grow food and extract resources, basically leaving the rest of the Earth to recover and rewild itself(this recovery of the Earth would be the one great benefit to this idea.
Anyway, google Arcology if you have not heard of it. Here is a picture of one persons concept of such a city, with height comparisons of today's structures for reference:

 

[Goatboy]

I have always though of cities as monstrosities. I avoid them like the plague. I too don't understand why the general idea of cramming people so close together is deemed acceptable. We all complained about battery hens, only to encourage pretty much the same thing for humans?

Well Crocodile Dundee thought New York must be a "...real friendly place, all them folks wanting to live together."

 

[EdS]

there isn't enough room in this country for every on to have their green acre. And if you spread the majority of the population that live in the urban landscape over a greater area you can say good by to most of the services and utilities we take for granted.

As Squiddes says - the in this day and age the countryside can not survive without the urban masses - - they provide the market that keep the rural economy ticking over (even though it is often cheaper to import), it is their taxes pay the for the country especially the handouts & subsidies the rural economy gets (certainly received more than it gives).

It is the urban population that fund the infrastructure we take for granted - with out them you can kiss good by to main electricity, the water and sewerage system, roads, schools, police, fire and NHS services.

It is the urban masses that pay for the rural ideal of some - a factor that many rural dweller forget. And that is spoken as some one wit ha foot in each camp -- I work in inner city Bradford, and live part time in the district (albeit a better area), but parents are born and breed in the Dales and live there and I live part time at the G/F with is 1 mile before the road stops in the Dale (its 15 minutes plus drive in to the nearest shops except post office)

 

[huntergathereralex]

Of course, if we don't 'extinct' ourselves, and a good portion of life on this wonderful home of ours, I'm fearful that we may progress to this urban hell that was invisioned by Asimov in his 'Foundation' trilogy. The planet of Trantor, homeworld of the human galactic empire. A planet completely covered by one gigantic city, with no greenspace except the emperor's palace grounds:

 

[huntergathereralex]

Who's read "The Naked Sun" ??? Writ in 1957 ...

Sounds like it might be interesting, I'll give it a try.
For a very profound vision of the near future try reading: 'The sheep look up'. I'm not a doom and gloom type guy, but this vision of the future had a disturbing effect on me. Fantastical, yet scarily possible.
Cheers
Alex

 

[British Red]

As Squiddes says - the in this day and age the countryside can not survive without the urban masses - - they provide the market that keep the rural economy ticking over (even though it is often cheaper to import), it is their taxes pay the for the country especially the handouts & subsidies the rural economy gets (certainly received more than it gives).

Can't agree with almost anything from that.

the countryside can not survive without the urban masses

I suspect the countryside can survive without the town much longer than the town can without the country!

[they provide the market that keep the rural economy ticking over (even though it is often cheaper to import)

We do import more than 50% of our food - because we are vastly overpopulated - so we take food from other countries (much of which is raised in conditions we would not allow, paying wages massively below our minimum, with animal welfare standards that are illegal here). Should we do more of this? The idea that the country needs towns more than towns need the countryside is...weird. Our countryside or someone else's provides the basis for human life - people existed without cities, but they can't without food

their taxes pay the for the country especially the handouts & subsidies the rural economy gets (certainly received more than it gives).

All depends how you measure it. I find food more important than ballet - which also gets subsidies.

As it happens, no-one pays for this country beyond ever spiralling debt mountains. However why does the idea of paying for food seem so bad?

 

[mountainm]

We buy things online. We work from home. We skype. We video conference. Travel will cost more, not less. We will ultimately have a more distributed global workforce. Cities will function differently.

 

[EdS]

BR - -for example. Where does the money come from to keep the Grouse moors of Nidderdale going, come from? The paying guest that make their money from industry and trade --- based in an urban setting.

Yes we import t omeet demand for volume but also to meet demand for cost -- its cheaper to import green beans form Africa and cheap chicken from SE Asia and Brazil. An no we shouldn't be doing more of this. We should encourage more home grown food - but that requires space and mechanization to challenge the competition= more people having to move off the land be it for space or to find alternative means of support as mechanization.

Personally, I think cities would survive long with out the UK countryside - they already have the set up to import and generate wealth, than countryside the without cities. Certainly up north.

It is already happening - villages are dyeing as the towns folk that kept them ticking over in recent years are moving back into towns. The money is migrating out of the rural environment. Yes it moved in and displaced some locals. But the recent mass movement away from cities (leaving 19th C etc out of it) started in the 1930s and especailly 1950s with the increase in mechanization removing jobs - it isn't economically viable (at the moment) to have masses of unskilled farm hands doing stuff by hand any more.

At the end of the day we are an overcrowded island and need to steps to bring our population down. To everyones benefit.

As I say I've a foot in both camps so can see both sides - but it will be the cities that detrimne the landscape of the future. The countryside ( as it is now) will be come less relevant to the grand scheme of things.

 

[British Red]

That's kind of where I was going with an earlier post mountain. Cities made sense when we were heavily industrialised and needed a concentrated workforce. Offices made sense before e-mail and phones and videoconferencing. Now? Much less so. Why pack people together where we have to "import" food, and fuel and water? Why not have people live - not necessarily totally spread out, but in smaller more "human" sized towns and villages? Near the food and water, put the work near the people, not the people near the work. The South East of the UK already has to "import" water. House prices are eye watering. But other areas have cheaper housing and a surfeit of water. I simply can't see a compelling reason not to use new technology and new ways of living - and those new ways mean there really isn't a logical reason to have "mega cities"

 

[British Red]

At the end of the day we are an overcrowded island and need to steps to bring our population down. To everyones benefit.

As I say I've a foot in both camps so can see both sides - but it will be the cities that detrimne the landscape of the future. The countryside ( as it is now) will be come less relevant to the grand scheme of things.

I can agree with (and do agree with) point 1

As to "point 2", that's where I think we disagree. As global population rises, and as fuel costs rise, the days of the "cheap imported food" (and cheap imported everything) will, I think, end. At that point, I think our "food factory" will become hugely relevant - indeed a determining factor in our quality of life. The "funny money" that cities create (and even then do not create enough of), will, I think, burst like a big sub prime bubble at some point - the "invisible earnings" have already been seen to be invisible

 

[Toddy]

I suspect that I'm Mrs Average. I live in the suburbs with the countryside on my doorstep, but then so are the major motorway networks of the country.

I think I have it all really
Yes, more land would be nice, perhaps not 'quite' so many people, but that population dynamic means that we do have hospitals, schools, fire stations, greengrocers, supermarkets, post offices, chemist shops, railway stations and good bus services, readily to hand.
Could I live more remotely ? yes, and since the kind of practical preparation suits my nature it wouldn't be a problem. My husband thinks it'd be a silly move and my very elderly relations think it would be crazy; they grew up in a world of the 'country idyll' and it was damned hard work and not as golden as many people seem to think it was. They have a valid point.

Humanity thrives in society; we only stepped out of our hunter gatherer feast and famine cycle when we began to garden....funnily enough those early gardeners all seem to have settled in villages. They worked fields outside their villages and towns and cities. That's demonstrated in the archaeological record right across the world.

Me ? I'm an optimist and I find gloom and doom authors tediously boring.
Look for postive developments, encourage practical, involved, conservation, and encourage understanding of the issues of pollution and destruction of natural resources.
The old adage that we should all live a little more simply that others might simply live, isn't far wrong, I reckon.

Of course, that's just my opinion

cheers,
M

 

[mountainm]

it really depends if we can innovate ourselves out of a "fuel" crisis - if we can find a way to generate fuel cheaply then we'll have a very different future from if we can't.

Saying that though - it wasn't so long ago that the human race survived and flourished without electricity, petrol and gas moving us around and keeping us warm.

 

[EdS]

there will be another big global conflict before we get to the Megalopolis stage. That should take the population pressure down a fair way.

 

[mrcharly]

I think I'd like to live in British Red's world, but I also think it isn't possible without a vastly reduced population.

I'm splitting the difference for myself and buying a 1/3rd of an acre plot of land with a house, in a city. Not enough to be self-sufficient, but enough to make a pretty good fist of it.

 

[mountainm]

there will be another big global conflict before we get to the Megalopolis stage. That should take the population pressure down a fair way.

Actually the rate of expansion of the population is going down - we're having less babies now than we were before it's just more people are having less babies. (and living longer).

 

[EdS]

Actually the rate of expansion of the population is going down - we're having less babies now than we were before it's just more people are having less babies.

Depends where you are....plus more babies are surviving to adulthood. Still common for 5 or 6 kids but most now survive

 

[mountainm]

Depends where you are....plus more babies are surviving to adulthood. Still common for 5 or 6 kids but most now survive

Talking globally.

http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php

The world population growth rate rose from about 1.5 percent per year from 1950-51 to a peak of over 2 percent in the early 1960s due to reductions in mortality. Growth rates thereafter started to decline due to rising age at marriage as well as increasing availability and use of effective contraceptive methods. Note that changes in population growth have not always been steady. A dip in the growth rate from1959-1960, for instance, was due to the Great Leap Forward in China. During that time, both natural disasters and decreased agricultural output in the wake of massive social reorganization caused China's death rate to rise sharply and its fertility rate to fall by almost half.

There is also some evidence to suggest that fertility rates are declining too...