|Re: City vs Country||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Ben Sher (sherdirectcon.net)|
|Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:15:07 -0500|
This is a false dichotomy (between "city" and "country." There is no doubt that both forms of life as they are presently constituted are artificial and dysfunctional. (Though some cities such as Toronto are more functional then others.) Perhaps what we need now is a new kind of "in fill" in which the population is more evenly dispersed across the landscape, wherein these people live in closer proximity to the earth and to food production, in which they cohere in something more like the scale of cohousing. The great cities will persist; and so too areas of wilderness. But the greater proportion of humankind is going to have to learn anew how to live relatively non-destructively and in harmony with the landscape across the great breadth of it. I don't perceive any other alternative. Meanwhile civilization--in all its forms, both urban, rural, and everything in between--as it is presently constituted is deeply problematic: billions of people utterly dependent on very fragile systems of food production and transport and water delivery and sewage and solid waste disposal and energy provision: all of these systems can and probably will fail or run out in the next century, in different places and at different times, and millions will suffer hugely. On the other hand, a relative dispersion of human population across the landscape can serve to buffer people from such disruptions. In the long run we just need to apply so many of the things we've learned and relearned (the old knowledge) in order to develop a way of life that stewards the unique place we share. Ben Sher Placerville Cohousing
- Re: City vs Country, (continued)
- Re: City vs Country lisa and brian voith, September 12 1997
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.