There's no meaning and no other purpose but money.(once again the fuckin' capitalism did it...old subject...i'm tired of talking about it) People have gone to the cities due to confort and forgeting everything could remind them of the life on the farms...and that's the way our life style became what it is. mother nature seems to be far from us when we work downtown and live in the suburbs with no memory of the most things left behind, as the spots of insects and birds in our fruits and vegetables...and I challenge you guys to buy an apple an keep it for one month on the top of the fridge...you'll see nothing changes...it is still looking terribly beautiful. Now I ask you: If in a month not even worms wanted to have it...why would you be the idiot to do it? Any other thoughts of the city and its utility would help me think this question once again, although now I believe the city is nothing but a bunch of people living closer than what would be the ideal and with money and confort as the only goal...one more question: Our goals for life wouldn't be being reasonable, responsible and happy human beings improving ourselves a bit every day? Just thoughts from south america.
Unfortunately, there really isn't room for everyone anymore. Most land is used either for livestock production or grain to feed the livestock. land use is the #1 reason to become a vegetarian!
If the population of the world spread out from cities, there wouldn't be a whole lot of country side left. I think cities are environmentally friendly in one way, that one area gets paved over and built upon.....
Ok, in one way, maybe. But don't you guys agree that the first mistake we've made was losing total control of the number of people being born wthouth room for everyone? Don't you think that - resonably speaking - it is a crime to bring another human being to this world nowadays when there are so many orfans and the whole planet is crowded? Don't you think that if at least 50% of the population moved to the country the whole world would be a little more balanced and that it would be a way for everyone to have more food 'cuz we wouldn't be just maintaining the city. And don't you guys think we could develop other sides of ourselves like, more reasearch on natural medicine and stuff alike? We cannot just give up on the cities, but saying it is a good ideado not convince me.
NYC was a colony to begin with, then all the immigrants from Europe landed there in the late 1800's so that's why it's so large. Security is another reason, safety in numbers. I'm glad i live in the country. The mountains and the streams are a hell of alot more peaceful and i loathe loud noises.
But having money and comfort help you to be a happy human being... Granted, those things can't buy happiness if you have other problems in your life, but there's no question that around the world, people who live in cities are better off than people who live in rural areas. I don't see that as a bad thing. What's wrong with wanting money and comfort?
Why are there cities? cities are the places where market itself has a value and people producing goods need to BUY food. That is, there is no agriculture in the city*. there are of course types of cities, feudal towns, asian, china model cities, inland and royal cities and etc. * a new sustainable development policy suggests civic horticulture: people grow their own tomatoes and veggies, in the common gardens (Cuba is doing this.cheaper food, greener city)
There have actually been several studies on this. Birth rates change for a reason. Back in the pre-industrial area (and in some third-world countries today), it was not uncommon for a family to have 10+ children and expect half of them to die before adulthood. They were viewed as an asset (free farm labor) rather than a liability. When industry and medicine came around, this changed. But the birth rate ALWAYS lags behind social and technological progress by about 20 years. That's why you have these exploding populations in the third-world...people are becoming better-fed, better-medicated, and moving to the cities, but they don't yet realize the change. In first-world countries, there isn't as much social change and hasn't been for more than 20 years, so the populations are stable or actually declining. Not if you can afford the child, especially if you live in a country with a relatively low birth rate like the United States, Canada, or Western Europe. No, no, no! People moved to the city for a REASON! It is much more economically feasible to have 1% of the population growing food and the other 99% doing other things. We wouldn't be able to grow more food just because there would be more people doing the growing...all that would do is slice the pie thinner among farmers. Most medical research takes place in cities, where the money is. If people moved to the country in droves, the standard of living would drop and medical research centers wouldn't have as much money. By "natural" medicine are you referring to herbal, New Age-type solutions? The more politically incorrect term for such studies is "quack medicine." Very few of these products have any real medical value.
Cities are designed to suck away what soul is left in people so they can conform to society easier and have less qualms about destroying nature....oh yeah and so they can host and feed the majority of violent crime by sticking all the drugs there...the cia has ties w/ coke distribution in the gettos
The thing is, people moved to cities because it was the most efficient way to do things. As a social species, we need to have a society of some kind, but with growing populations, farming was the only way to support them. That quickly lead to food surpluses, which supported greater numbers and allowed some people to do non-food related jobs (gov't, construction, military, etc). Even today, it wouldn't work that well for all these millions of people to leave the city; they'd destroy it in no time. It's still the most efficient way for us to live, even with all the environmental problems they cause. Believe me, I hate the city, and wish there were a better way...well, there are better ways to build cities. The Garden City idea is a decent one; it incorporates some rural features into the city to make it more livable. I think it's not so much about banishing the city as it is solving the very solvable problems we keep creating. Although things like water pollution (from human waste) and deforestation are old problems, mercury emissions, acid rain, urban sprawl, etc...these are new problems, mostly. They can be solved, all of them; but only if people are willing to do something for once, to actually change their lives. If we stopped fleeing the city centers and actually improved them, we'd solve a lot of problems immediately.
The major problem of the city for me is that it is the place where market takes its place in everyones brain. I see problems having more people in the world instead of adopting orphans cuz if you can afford having children in your coutry the whole earth is gonna have to deal anotoher amount form 6 to 10 tons of trash...thats the problem an considering most of people cant even afford their own existence, looki ng through the environmental perspective...well this is a huge problem.
cities have been around since the beginning of time. humans are social creatures for the most part so they are bound to live near one another. Also throughout history people have lived close together for reasons of safety. Cities aren't inherently bad for the environment, it is how people live.
NOT all. Some came in from Canada. Norweigians come to mind. And thank GOD for that. Cities DO help keep BAD people out of our playground. Ever go CAMPING in the city? KOA sucks when it's in town! We have one here.
