Cities are for the best

Turns out, living in a high rise city apartment is more environmentally friendly than living in a small country home. Why? Because smushing everyone together in a city takes up less space than spreading everyone out. Also, city denizens are more likely to use public transportation and stuff like that. So really the worst place to live is suburbs... Especially those ones with giant houses and super-sized yards and stuff, you know the ones. I first read about this in a scientific magazine. I don't remember which, or when, but you can get the gist of the idea here. In a way, it makes sense. Encouraging everyone to get back to the earth and grow their own food in the country and all that is probably the worst thing we can do to our environment (assuming anyone listens ).

 

Some "environmentalists" strangely advocate increasing population density, supposedly to keep humans from spreading all out over the environment and supposedly leaving little room for anything else. Like they want to lock us all up into some city-cage or something.

But that's so backwards from what the Bible says. Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, spread out, so as to continue growing their numbers while reducing potential conflict over animal grazing and sharing water from wells and such. Now presumably, since most all the "frontiers" are now mostly gone, now it makes some sense for people to people to populate closer together, because where else can we now go? The idea, as I see it, was not to stop growing in human numbers at all, but rather to delay the apparent higher population density, until the technology or the need was greater. Spread out, while yet possible, then spread closer together, to find or make room for everybody.

There's 3 perceptional dimensions that multiplying humans can yet grow into: outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards, would seem most preferable, probably in most people's view. More people, but not all necessarily smushed up together. Then maybe smush people up together, if really necessary or they like city life or whatever. Then upwards. Or something like that.

So one of the worst ideas, is to set firm "boundaries" on cities, to make housing unaffordable to the poor. As humans grow in numbers, we must expand our range and territory, to keep from getting too apparently "crowded." And that's what I have long advocated, as a far better win-win alternative to nasty, awkward, highly-experimental, side-effect-ridden "birth control."

I read in some article "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," that apparently a main cause, is that there are now more women of childbearing age than before. But of course, but from a different point of view. What better reason could there be, to perhaps build more "supercities," than that there is getting to be so many billions of women of childbearing age? So while God didn't command everybody to live in India, or in California, nor on top of one another, if bigger cities, closer together, are what it takes to find or make room for so many people, than of course, cities are for the best then. Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed to welcome everybody. That's the pronatalist/positive/freedom approach.

 

i'm sure the psychological toll of living in dense communities would eventually be great, though. not everyone can do it.

 

But why would that apply, if cities are designed well?

Eventually? That means whatever increased-density comes gradually, well within the time span that supposedly intelligent humans should be able to adapt.

Not everybody has to live in cities. Those who do so willingly, presumably leave more room in the countryside for those who choose to stay in the countryside, which people still seem to be fleeing the countryside, due to the lack of jobs and excitement.

If people can keep on having so many precious darling babies, then people probably can live in the city too. We can't keep adding more and more people to the world, and not bother to allow them any place to live. Supposedly, everybody couldn't live in the countryside, or would there be much "countryside" left?

The countryside isn't all it's cracked up to be, anyway. I have heard of somebody who moved to the countryside, because he didn't like all the city noise. Only to find out, that the natural sounds of the countryside were even noisier and more objectionable, so he moved back to the city. Those crickets at night can be so loud, unless one can tune them out. Well city noises can be "natural" in a way, and also be tuned out. Well except for those obnoxious punks blasting that Rap-is-crap out their car windows.

"If I wanted to hear the crap coming from your car stereo, wouldn't I be sitting in your car?" some bumper sticker

Yeah, humans seem to like nature and a natural environment, but not really all that much, come to think of it.

• We spend more than 90% of our time, indoors.
• We waste far more hours looking at the TV, than out a window.
• We like the outdoors, on those few days/hours when it isn't too cold, isn't too hot, isn't raining, isn't too much chance of sunburn, when there are other people around to talk to, and isn't too windy.
• We fail to go to bed promptly when dark, since artificial lights seem to do the job nearly as well as natural sunlight.
• We often fail to get up promptly at sunrise.
• We use curtains to preserve the darkness after the sun comes up.
• We run the furnace or air conditioning far more often than we open our windows.
• We buy our food mostly from stores now, few people having either the time nor interest in gardening.

I think one of the reasons I like Star Trek so much, is that it looks more naturally comfortable on that spaceship, than on the more "natural" earth.

 

speak for yourself. i NEED the wild. i NEED the wide open sky. i NEED physical space in order not to have a panic attack. i don't even like VISITING cities. not all of us can stand artificial air and artificial light. and now that i'm not having fits every time i walk outside or another person sees me, i'm alive again. at any given time on here, i'm in my back yard on my laptop, because the thought of staying inside is unthinkable. i can't deal. and i know there's a lot of other people who can't deal.

 

I didn't say living in cities would make people happier, just that it's better for the environment. The environmentally worst place to live is still the suburbs. People there tend to have larger houses, and we all know houses are the worst polluters, they tend to drive more, and they use fertilizers and stuff on the lawn, which is really bad for the environment. Not to mention the non-native species they plant around their houses. That grass on their lawn? It's not native. And they spread all over the place... Urban sprawl isn't a problem. It's suburban sprawl we need to worry about.

I think we all need the wide open sky.

 

yes, i can agree with that. there's few things that bother me worse than people building their homes all over habitat. but i have a problem in that i freak the hell out. in durango, co, where i lived for a while, i'd look out in the valley and see these huge tracts of new houses built around a golf course. part of an elk herd drowned in a brand new esthetic pond one winter. ranches and farms tend to be very good for the environment if they cooperate with the environmental departments, the fish and game departments. one such person to look at for an exceptional record is rick schroeder, in colorado.

 

you know, one of the nice things is that, especially here in colorado, is that people are making true strides in finding that balance between giving human beings space and providing room for the wildlife and environment. it's not a lost cause, people ARE finding a balance and cities are working with them. it's gaining speed and people are driving it.

 

Human ingenuity is a thing to be marveled at. If we take time to stop and think "how can we make this work for everything?" we'll find answers everyone can like.

 

yeah. it's just a simple step. the trouble is gettng people to shift their thinking.

 

But people who live in crowded surroundings, usually get rather used to it, almost to the point that they probably think that it is "normal" to have so many people all around. "Overcrowding syndrome," I think some poster called it. Perhaps it's like how people couldn't sleep, the night Nigagra Falls froze up. It was just "too quiet." If you lived in such a place, might not even you be similarly affected?

You say you don't like visiting cities? My objection wouldn't be all the people and buildings and "artificial" stuff, but rather, the artificially-high cost of gasoline, the blandness of cities and how is any city significantly different than any other city?, and if I travel then aren't I too far away from the comforts of home, and don't you know? I am quite sure that I forgot to pack something and before I get home I am bound to notice and be a bit mildly upset about it. In other words, I am not really so much into traveling.

You say you have problems with "artificial" air and light. I would agree to a minor point. When I was a child, I remember how uncomfortable it was, when my grandpa opened the patio door and let in the cold summer night air in the morning, and it just felt so cold. But now as I have gotten older, sometimes I just don't want to feel too "comfortable" all the time, and I rather like the cold air a few summer nights when I open my windows at night. I feel like too much "comfort" can sometimes be a form of "bondage" that makes us too afraid to venture and explore. Although that's likely a more philosophical explanation rather than a practical one?

I really don't like my back yard so much, because going out into it reminds me how far behind I get in my yardwork. I have too many bushes I would rather be rid of, I really need to trim my bushes a lot more often, and don't you know? the grass often is overdue to be mowed, or I didn't mow the entire back yard the last time I mowed it. Getting too dark, oh well, I didn't want to do more anyway. And eventually, aren't I going to have to pay big money for somebody to top, seriously trim, or remove some of my trees? Other than that, it's not so bad.

I like nature a little, but not really all that much. When I have went hiking, I don't mind for the trail to be "crowded," with people passing by every few minutes. All the better. Especially if they are friendly, socialable, talkable, or at least no threat at all. Nature + meeting people too. I don't go to "get away from it all," but rather, to meet people, so of course, I carpooled there, as why get lost driving alone, before I even get there?

I can sleep in a friendly crowd, in fact, a little natural human noise, can be relaxing or comforting, as it helps relieve boredom. Maybe that helps babies sleep admidst the noise of people. And much of the time, I rather like sort of dead warm air, of a warm or perhaps mildly "stuffy" house. I would rather run air conditioning rather than fans, because why blow around hot air, and I don't like for the air to move around all that much, most of the time.

I like to go outside, but not all that often. I rather like the indoors, especially the mazes of pipes and technology and hallways and buildings in action or sci-fi movies and video games. I rather liked the purring smooth humming of the nuclear reactor pipes in Half-Life. About as comforting, as the rare purring cat on one's lap, that actually likes to be socialable with people.

 

Better for the environment? That's not really the prime concern. What about the human environment? What do most people then prefer? Environment isn't just "nature" but also society, TV, and culture. And "pollution" in those areas, I think can often be far more destructive to people, than the usual "pollution" from which people are often "insulated" from their natural environment anyway, especially in more developed countries, where we rarely ever drink "natural" water, but "artificially" cleaned water, for an example.

It's surburban sprawl that probably should be advocated more so than merely urban sprawl, because probably most people, if they had their free choice, would prefer not to live too much "on top of each other." What of these statements I read in this thread, of preferences for open sky and such? Yeah, denser communities should be able to reduce commuting distances and perhaps reduce per capita yard work, which I likely could prefer, but obviously not everybody prefers the very dense city model. I am not an outdoor person, and one major thing I miss about apartment living, is not having to do yardwork.

And why are non-native species so bad? I like to see them in other people's yards. They are visually interesting. I prefer the more natural and plain, because I don't want to do yardwork. I think I would rather not have any bushes around my yard, so that I could just mow grass and be done with it. I do like flowers, especially if they will come up by themselves and not require much if any maintenance. In that neglect sense, I like the natural.

Often living in cities does make people happier, because they crave the people and the excitement, and the better jobs and opportunities, and most people are somewhat like me, in that while they may say they care about nature, their actions suggest that they don't really like nature all that much, actually.

I could even do without "windows," say hypothetically, as in some population arcology, some huge building of stacked-together housing units, in which perhaps only a small percentage have any exposure to "outside" walls perhaps with a so-so view of whatever supposedly might be left of "nature" out there, among all the other highrises and other arcologies. But no doubt, "virtual windows" could be popular? Which could either be of the fantasy computer "screen saver" variety, or actually relayed images from some webcam somewhere. Or perhaps nostalgic recordings. Actually, "virtual windows" could be more interesting, because they could be "virtually relocated," to more interesting locales. How about a window overlooking Times Square? Or Niagra Falls? Or Mars?

 

But how can you blame people's homes for perhaps somewhat "spoiling the view," when quite likely, your own home spoils somebody else's view. People have to live somewhere. Where will you send them? To the moon?

I consider homes and cities, a natural part of the natural view. Why can't human-build things, have their proper place in nature too? Who says that nature is human-phobic?

But one thing that occurs to me, is how "unnatural" and boxy, our homes can appear upon the landscape. Could maybe some more homes, appear in more natural shapes, such as domes, hexagons, or geodesics? And maybe more buildings too? But then if "unnatural" and boxy, is the cheap way to build affordable housing, then it really doesn't look bad after all, on second thought. I sure don't want to pay too much more, for some ugly or unpractical, "artistic" sculpture, of a house.

 

sounds like you fear the mighty forces of nature that all but run wild on your property. i think you know deep down that this power is inherrantly uncontrollable, and that we must respect that which has been here so much longer than we have.

it doesn't matter how much you advocate more densely packed populations, there is no way that overcrowding will ever be cool. access to the natural world and the space to breathe are basic human needs. for most of our history, that's all there has been.

 

i'm not talking about "SPOILING THE VIEW" i'm talking about "SPOILING THE HABITAT FOR A GOLF COURSE." huge difference.

 

I think there are people that can thrive in cities, and people that prefer the country and wide open spaces. Suburbs are a hybrid that developers came up with after World War II and I am not sure how well they will ever work. Most start out small and gradually become part of their nearby cities in the long run. You may have a fairly large sized lot, but most times you can still hear your neighbors flush their toilets.

Don't think I could ever live without windows...just me.

 

No, they don't just run wild on my property. Rather, what I mean to say, is that it is a challenge to keep up with all that overgrowth.

Respect the power of nature? Whatever for? Will nature "appreciate" it if I show it respect? I think not, for nature doesn't think. But what I do "respect" is that it is often easier to "do nothing" than to "do something." That's a practical reason to leave at least some things, to nature.

If we are to respect the power of nature as inherrantly uncontrollable, then why wouldn't this especially include the growing natural power of human natural increase? As there gets to be all the more human birth canals from which babies may emerge, and more cities and towns and villages swelling with people, isn't that all the more reason to be pronatalist, pro-life, or whatever, and welcome people to go ahead and have all their precious darling babies, since they must surely have so many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do?

How long nature has been around, isn't the point. There is no advantage to having a yard overrun with grass, weeds, or bushes, other than the work supposed saved by neglecting it. It doesn't even look nice. Grass and weeds and bushes, don't "want" anything at all, so I don't need their "permission" to prune or mow them.

And since God created the entire world in 6 days, humans have been around for about the same amount of time as nature anyway, so why this bizarre idea that some "environmental" extremists have, that we what do isn't "natural" or is somehow an imposition or intrusion or violation of nature? Rather than probably a part of nature? (In that sense, cities are "natural" parts of nature too, since presumably cities may be required to have so many humans naturally alive at once.) I would think they should say that, about ugly tattoos and grostesque body piercings, since those in no significant way, enhance the human experience.

Overcrowding isn't cool? What does a little urban/suburban spawl into the forseeable future, have to do with overcrowding? Like I said, I don't want to smush all the people together in dense or crowded cities, unless that's what the people themselves want, or it becomes necessary in the unlikely event that eventually the world population grows so enormous that people have to be crammed closer together to fit them all in.

For most of our history? Yeah, we can learn from the landmarks and traditions of the past, but in the case of population, the past is largely irrelevant. What size should the human population be, in the future? Well the future is the guide to that, not the past. So using the past to set a baseline reference, is illogical. Human populations have always been growing and naturally racheting upwards, higher and higher, so how far back do you look for a reference? Surely the original 2 people that God created, isn't near enough for modern times. When people have more babies, it promotes the greater good of the many. How big human populations should potentially get into the future, has a lot to do with how big human populations could get, both by natural and artificial support means. The Utilitarian Principle idea that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people, whether meaning to or not, implies that human populations ought to be welcome to ultimately grow "nearly as large as possible," so that means that leaders should encourage cities to swell with people, and populate both denser, but especially larger and closer to other cities, coelescing into other nearby cities, and filling most any useful gaps in between all the people, with still more people. And respect the people and families in the natural process.

You talk of the need for space. Don't you think that I, and most everybody else, and God, all know that people need space? But how much really? There's not really any set fixed amount. People can share a bedroom, because siblings and college roommates do that, all the time, just to save a little money or especially with young siblings, they don't really like a big lonely dark room anyway. People can even share beds, sometimes when necessary, and still do, in many developing countries. If you are on a bus, do you need the entire bus, for your stretching and elbow room? Or can maybe you share the bus, with a few other passengers? And yet the world is far less densely populated, than a single person with an entire bus to themselves.

You say that a world with space, presumably by there being fewer people, are basic human needs. Well isn't the needs to live, and to reproduce, highly important too? It might be nice if the planet was bigger, or if there were already other colonies on other worlds, just begging for billions of people. But there aren't, at least not yet, and probably not within the reasonable forseeable future. The technology just isn't moving in that direction yet, but rather towards making it safer and more comfortable for people to populate more densely and efficiently. So that's the natural direction we should go for now, well into the forseeable future. If you can't find enough "space" in a world that is still mostly empty of people, then why didn't you figure out how to be born into an earlier era, when human populations were smaller? Oh, but you had better give up then, all your DVD movies and computer and consumer electronics stuff then, because those things hadn't been invented back then. Perhaps the markets were too small back then, for those things to even be economically viable. It's amazing how much they can spend producing a good movie, and without so many millions of potential customers to pay to see it, how could they ever make a profit then? Many other technologies also have similar economies of scale.

Since most everybody wants or ends up having children, and most everybody has so many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, and yet the planet isn't getting any bigger, as the human race continues to grow, surely the most natural and logical conclusion is, that at least for the forseeable future, until human can colonize other worlds or the Biblical endtimes, there must come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. In order to properly respect the basic freedoms of so many people, human populations must be welcome to both go ahead and populate denser and denser, naturally, and explore how better to do so, making natural and proper adaptations of the sort that the people would want to make anyway. i.e. more toilets, more refrigerators, more clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, orderly trash collection, new suburbs, more cities, etc.

 

Golf courses? Yeah, what a yuppie huge waste of space. Good thing there's plenty of land available for such things as parking lots and golf courses. I don't think much of golf. Sort of a stupid hobby for unproductive rich people to waste time at. But how will you convince the elite rich who make all the decisions, that they ought not to play golf?

I can think of lots of better use for the land. How about a park for children to play, or more housing, or to build some stores or something to produce jobs? How about a library, well unless the internet is now "the library?"

 

I didn't hear neighbor's toilets flush, all that much back when I had an apartment. And it didn't bother me to hear a neighbor having sex, well except that I knew that she wasn't married.

So what if we hear neighbor's toilets flush? So what? What does it really matter? You could close your windows, if you wanted?

But what's a bummer, is thin apartment walls, with those rude neighbors who pound on the wall. Huh? I speak English, not pounding. What? Surely my TV isn't too loud?

Let people live in the city, in the countryside, in the suburbs, in the forest. Wherever they want.

Windows. I can take or leave them. It really doesn't matter that much.

 

Rural for me.