by ReverseEngineer » Sun 14 Sep 2008, 10:09:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CarlosFerreira', '.')Fire away

Large population centers, AKA Cities, are an artifact of the agricultural revolution and the centralization of wealth. Once it became possible to accumulate more food than was necessary to survive for a given population you did not need so many actually involved in ag production, and so they became industrious in other ways. Because at the beginning transportation was a logistical barrier, people not involved in ag production congregated together in cities, barter and trade happenned within the city proper, markets were formed for that. All to the good one would say in abstract, it enabled human kind to bootstrap itself up from humble beginnings as hunter-gatherers to SUV driving, Nintendo playing, Fast Food Eating, Suburban House living Citznes in the course of only about 4000 years. Marvelous!
In the downspin, also in abstract the large city theoretically has more economic viability then the small town does. Two problems of great signifcance with this one though. First off, the city is the very ESSENCE of centralization of wealth, which is what is at the root of the problem here. How many people here on Peak Oil are apalled by the wastefulness and greed of the mega rich in their Private Jets? The bigger any society becomes, the more you get centralization of wealth and the greater the dichotomy between those who work to make the society function and those who live above them and make the rules that keep them in power. For a VERY short time in America (and only while it was highly underpopulated and we could basically steal the land from those who got here before us), there was an egalitarian ideal pursued, but it did not last long and it was not all that real for an ag society. Of course Slaves were used to make it run until Fulton came up with the Steam Engine and then Otto came up with the internal combustion engine, at which point that type of slavery no longer made sense, to be replaced by the economic slavery we see today in the industrialized world. If this is something you see as a good organization for people, you could support the idea of the big city and a market economy. Its an inevitable result of the centralization of wealth, and you cannot stop it from happening by imposing a communist system on top of it. Communism fails in this regard because itself it is a centralization of power into a collective of people far too large to be responsive to the people. This on an economic level is why I cannot support the idea of big cities, and why I also see them as doomed in the post Peak Oil environment.
The second major reason to RUN AWAY from the big city is the Zombie problem (sorry to have to drop the Z word into this here). While on the upspin cities develop fairly gradually, in the downspin they devolve rather quickly. The potential for violence between people is extraordianary, and certainly in cities of today so highly dependent on energy to function they can fall apart just as soon as a hurricane takes out the power grid, or a lack of water makes sanitation problematic. Cities are highly complex machines dependent on many parts, and the bigger they are, the harder they will fall. If you happen to be residing in one when TSHTF, WATCH OUT. Think Buenos Aires and Ferfal here, and that is a GOOD outcome only possible because Argentina still functions inside the rest of the world and a black market can operate to keep it functioning to some level.
Although the Agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution which followed it in a sense benefited human kind by increasing the knowledge base, it was bad for humanity in the sense that it over time led to an overshoot of population and a destruction of the planet we live on and depend on for survival. Its not sustainable in this way, and it has to be STOPPED. It WILL be stopped by Mother Nature, it is quite obvious now that Mother Nature has rebelled, she has told us in no insignficant fashion NO MORE.
We will either die off or we will return to our roots as hunter gatherers, hopefully with a little better lifestyle courtesy of the ideas and inventions generated through the course of history. To be equitable, societies must remain small, my postulate is for societies of no more than about 10,000 human souls in a clearly defined geographic area that is self sustaining. Not precisely sure how many areas will be left short term as the result of the environmental degradation, but I am hopeful that perhaps 1000 such societies can survive the coming storm. In the aftermath of the Bottleneck here in population, perhaps 10 million human souls left on the planet. Quite a bit better result than the 10,000 Human Souls who repopulated the earth after Toba went Super Volcanic 60,000 years ago.
When all is said and done, if these societies have learned something from this, if those who survive are the ones who share with each other and care for each other and do not rape the planet and each other, human kind will have learned a lesson and been better off for it. If these are not the poeple who make it through, the Earth will be a charred planet hurtling through space for the next 4 billion years, until our sun goes burns itself out.Feel free to answer this as you would like
