Cities, what's the point?

[martin]

I'd be interested in other people's views - I heard it mentioned recently that over 50% of the world's population now live in cities  - I also watched the recent two-parter where two people drove across India, and showed the rapid growth of use of "the car" there, and the building boom (was it not Gandhi who said the world couldn't afford for every Indian to have a car?)
Being personally more than somewhat averse to the dubious delights of towns, let alone cities, it has got me pondering that we are probably heading very much in the wrong direction for the good of the environment. Like so much nowadays, it makes "economic" sense for a lot of people to go and live in a barren concrete rabbit warren, but if you look at what city-dwellers produce of REAL value, they are actually just net consumers of the earth's resources whilst returning bog all..........Which leads me to the thought that we should be looking towards "going back to the land" instead....... (and limiting population growth too!) - discuss!

[dtl]

....Martin I fear you have a touch of Pol Pot about you; )

[martin]

I'm not offering any firm solutions, just noting what seems to be happening........ hence a request for other input

[biff]

well i know that there was a policy here in ireland to prevent people from moving into the countryside,it was a deliberate act to lump people together so that the services and law and order could be administered at lower cost. it was so bad that if a farmers son wanted to build on his land he could not get permission unless he knew a supportive td. then the rules were relaxed and if a family member wanted to build on the farm his application was looked upon more favourably,so building sites in the countryside were classed in this way, you could be looking for a site and find that the site was only granted permission to build to the sellers family,
   i remember some years ago doing a tour of scotland and the western isles,travelling from inverness it was just the one track to john,o groats,then again,a narrow track across to cape wrath and then down to fort william, i was puzzled by this caper of having to pull in and let the other vehicle by, then i realised it was all about managment and control.i dont think they built any more roads of importance since telford was sent there to open it up.we drove through glencoe and decided to have a look at loch etienne(i think thats how you spell it),it was another one track road that went on for ages,finally when we got down to lock etienne and had a view of the west coast which was only about 10 miles away as the crow flys,we discovered we had to backtrack all the way back up towards glencoe to travel west again.maybe it is different now but goodness me,the one track roads took any pleasure out of the drive.i dont care how hardy or determined one would be,sooner or later such enviroment would drive a working brain out and south to the city,which was exactly the plan.there is nothing wrong with city concept,it is just that the developers get heady and greedy,it is up to the city fathers to plan properly and there is some evidence that they do in a lot of cases,wheither you live in the city or in the country the big problem at the moment is the social or should i say anti-social problems.just imagine the problem we would have if those rioters lived in the country.just think of the effort we would have trying to contain them.near impossible.dont think for a moment that they would all be goody goodies if they lived in the country,,they would just be the same but with more room to operate.there will have to be some social reforms in the near future, an incentive to behave and pull their social weight. up to now such problems were solved by a good old fashioned war,pack em all off to gallapoli and run em into the mouth of the cannons.actually the turks are on the move again and the turks are born to win, but thats looking too far ahead....rant,,rant,,,
                                                                         biff

[dtl]

Biff,

Interesting what you say about Scotland and bad access and facilities in rural areas.
This is something that has always depressed me and I think you are correct in your assumption that there is an agenda, which in Scotlands case probably revolves around absurd medieval land ownership laws.

In Scandinavia and in particular Norway; they take the opposite approach. People are encouraged to live rurally in extremely remote locations.
The government builds and maintains high quality roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and ports to open up these remote areas.
They then ensure that all the social resources in these areas are as good as those in the main urban areas; hospitals and schools etc.
They then use their power to persuade private business to create jobs and industry in these areas.

The result is that a lot of people live very happily in what we would consider to be very remote areas.
The development does not destroy these remote areas because it is performed responsibly.
The residents don't mess these places up either, they are still pretty much "mint in the box".

[linesrg]

Martin,

I'm bit of a 'johnny come lately' on living out in the country. Kate (used to live down in Surrey) and I moved up here to Aberdeenshire 11 years ago, partly driven by my work but also to get away from 'it' all. We're now effectively midway between Inverurie and Huntly and 30 miles from Aberdeen.

At the time we made this decision it is fair to say we probably didn't look at all the implications (Kate being 4 months pregnant at the time). We have now compounded this by having the boys go to a private school in Aberdeen requiring lots of commuting and Kate going back to work (in fairness we hadn't realised that the state school system was going to seemingly fail us as it did).

The decision is costing us in terms of time and money but I don't regret it. Kate having to go back to work has removed the benefits of having the land and two ponies (with serious thought now being given to selling the second one and now isn't a good time financially). Battling with the snow the last two winters has been extremely challenging and stressful.

Putting all that aside I still believe that living where we do is the best thing for the family if viewed holistically. It is truly quiet at night, you can see the stars (along with the light pollution generted by Inverurie 14 miles away on the horizon), hear the owls, occasionally see/ disturb the badger, the deer, the birds of prey and listen to the sound of a babbling burn. I'll ignore the occasional smell of pig pooh and the sound of silage blowers for now.

Every time Kate or I go into Inverurie or Aberdeen we are reminded what it is we're getting away from.

If only we could get rid of our drunken, occasionally coke snorting (thrown out of the local pub for doing the business in the toilets!!) neighbour.......

Regards

Richard

[EccentricAnomaly]

Living about 700 metres from the single-track road Biff mentions for just under a year now I have to say I think it's mostly OK. Locals get used to timing things efficiently for the passing places - it's only the tourists who are a hassle. The 40 miles each way to Thurso is an expedition eating most of a day so you don't want to do it more often than absolutely necessary.

It depends very much on your lifestyle. I'm mostly a home bod and will quite happily stay in a for a week or more so it doesn't bother me. If you need to talk to lots of people every day or have kids in school or whatever then it'd be different.

The snow last winter wasn't much of a problem. I'm really glad we didn't have any power cuts but apart from that concern my only hassle was getting fresh bread. My rear-wheel drive van is completely useless in the snow so I couldn't really go out for quite a few weeks but my neighbours, with a 4wd picked some bread and stuff up for me when they were out. I was very pleased to see that the gritting lorry came down our road (population 3) Monday to Friday and, I think, sometimes Saturday. It meant the post was delivered all the time except for a few runs of a couple of days when conditions were worst. I even got a courier delivery from Tesco Direct when the snow was pretty bad - the driver rang ahead to ask about conditions and when I said the gritting lorry had been down he was happy.

I very much applaud the government moves to try to get decent broadband to rural areas. We need a diversity of businesses in the countryside just as much as in the towns. Also, using telecomms efficiently ought to allow a big reduction in the amount of traffic around. It would be really good if this area around Tongue, for example, could be developed further without the need to upgrade the roads.

I think that living in the country and not travelling a lot is one way of keeping your ecological footprint down. Another is living in fairly dense city centres, not using cars much but walking or (when travel is really needed) using public transport. The disasters are living in suburbs or living in the country but jumping in your car every ten minutes because you expect the amenities of a city.

[biff]

hi richard,i did the move to the country a few times,
                          over 30yrs ago i sold up and moved to a beautifull 3 acre site with a thatched cottage and a stream running through,it had golden beaches and really nice folks.i sold this and built a brand new bungalow with all the kit and gadgets, the kids were happy,but soon there was quite a bit of travelling to do,shopping was 20miles away and school 3 miles, then the kids started doing well at college but there was nothing around for miles to fit the kind of education we had in mind.
       so we crossed over to kent and there the kids had their choice of grammer schools and later choice of unis.my eldest girl was big into bridges and football stadiums,lift shafts etc, like her grandfather. so it was imperial and the final year across the channel in the uni of paris.the rest of the kids did liverpool and coventry and got their jobs.
 yet the manicured orchards of kent were so choclate box and artficial that passing through sittingbourne i imagined the whole planet arranged like that.the bog called and i went back, but back but this time alone because others had their lives organised to their choice.it was a relief to be back in the hills. no big song and dance,just the quiet and peacfullness of it all. and i built another home in the hills and i wonder how long it will stand after i am gone. i did it properly,with a view to withstanding hurricanes etc.so there are engineers and professors over in england who so happen to be related to me,i hope they stay city people because every time you move your shell,you lose part of your life but still,it is good to do the dream.
                                                                                                biff

[Amy]

Its probably just as well most people live in cities. Can you imagain the chaos if everyone were spread out, evenly spaced across the entire UK?

[desperate]

Martin, why do you say people in cities produce "bog all" there's loads of industrial activity in cities producing all sorts of stuff, some of it essential some of it, I grant you, not so important. There are huge advantages to living in and on the outskirts of cities, travel being an important one, we can get all we need for day to day life within a mile of here, multiply that millions of times over and you have a much lower energy demand per capita, same thing applies for sevices. I don't see why going bac k to the land would be preferable, in fact I don't think it would be capable of supporting us at all in our present numbers.
I do agree though that population control is the most pressing problem we need to deal with, not many have the bottle to try though.

Desp

[martin]

Back in days of yore, when cities like Birmingham produced tangible "things" like shovels and axes, then I'd agree that what they produced was intrinsically useful, and it is sensible that people live close to where they work, so there was a "point" to them, but nowadays so many cities are full of "consumers" consuming, doing each other's hair and nails, but not actually producing anything - it's nearly all "service industries", whereby they're all whizzing around using precious resources to keep "the machine" going - would it not be better for us (and the environment) to have less "ag" and more "horti" (horticulture is far more productive than agriculture)?, have more people living and working in the countryside where they could live far more "natural" lives than those offered in many cities. (The internet is a great help to "working from home")...

I'd also mutter that "travel" is intrinsically wasteful, and best avoided.......

[pdf27]

Being personally more than somewhat averse to the dubious delights of towns, let alone cities, it has got me pondering that we are probably heading very much in the wrong direction for the good of the environment. Like so much nowadays, it makes "economic" sense for a lot of people to go and live in a barren concrete rabbit warren, but if you look at what city-dwellers produce of REAL value, they are actually just net consumers of the earth's resources whilst returning bog all..........Which leads me to the thought that we should be looking towards "going back to the land" instead....... (and limiting population growth too!) - discuss!

Any form of lifestyle reliant on technology invented since the industrial revolution is essentially dependent on towns and cities. If you want to go back to living in a mud hut, cooking over an open (dung) fire and suffering from regular plagues or famines go right ahead. Modern farming (which has made famines a thing of the past in the western world) is heavily reliant on industrial chemistry, mechanisation and the like. These in turn are reliant on large industrial plant and major development projects, which require large concentrations of workers.

To look at it from another point of view, what exactly does a "back to the land" population return? They consume quite significant resources (mainly water and land) which are actually in quite short supply, and consume it at higher rates per capita than town dwellers do. They either lead a very poor quality of life (if living off-grid with technological imports) or are parasites living off that produced in the towns (e.g. solar panels, bottled gas, stoves, building materials, clothing, cars, road fuel, healthcare, policing and defence, etc.). If they're true subsistence farmers, they don't produce anything at all in return - beyond arguably some amenity for town dwellers who like watching TV programmes about them or visiting the countryside.

The sums on this are very clear - per capita, town and especially city dwellers consume far fewer resources than those outside. They live in smaller, more energy efficient housing. They make a far higher fraction of journeys by bicycle, foot or public transport (simply because the population concentration is high enough to make good public transport economic, and distances between places you want to go small enough to make other forms of transport much easier). In terms of knowledge and development, they contribute far more than any back-to-the-land type will. Pick almost any subject (beyond small scale gardening-type agriculture) and any environmental improvement will have come from technology developed in a town or city.

You have a legitimate point about population, but that's utterly irrelevant to the rest of your argument. May I assume that you're a member of VHEMT?

[biff]

25 yrs ago or so,the irish  goverment made a gallent attempt to move the light industry into the remote areas or gaeltach areas,irish speaking places like gweedore,etc,they built commercial units to a very high standard and let them out to budding millionairs. the renter got a 75 percent grant to buy his machinery and got paid for every person they gave employment to.it was a drive to get away from the cities but sadly it has not suceeded.
       even before some of the units were finished some of the people changed their minds and the units lay empty for years.these were not half hearted attempts,the goverment really did try and threw money at it left right and centre,i strongly suspect that the main reason people refused to go for it was because the dole paid so well,even now the irish dole is twice the english one,people were spoiled.i wonder does st barnabas agree,?
   the bottom line eventually filteres out to the opinion that the cities are for work and prosperity and the country is for the hard life and romantic notions. forgive me but i suspect that martin has met a very nice bee lady and he has taken to showing her the gentle rounded curves of the downs....
     here now biff!!! non of that  !! keep it clean !!
                                                                      biff

[biff]

pdf,,that was sore,
                 

[martin]

Nope, not a member, but I'm with Attenborough that population growth is a nettle we need to grasp very soon - do it now it'll be no more traumatic than the campaign against smoking, leave it much longer it'll be painful!

I really don't "buy" the nonsense about necessarily returning to the stone age by treading more gently on the environment - knowledge won't be destroyed, arguably it could be a far better way of life if handled properly - I'd be very happy with the "Woodland" house made from straw bales and sustainable wood, to my mind infinitely preferable to a million squidsworth of London house

"Modern farming (which has made famines a thing of the past in the western world) is heavily reliant on industrial chemistry, mechanisation and the like" -  is one of the major engines driving the environmental meltdown towards which we are heading - as shown well in "Farm for the Future", modern farming is on a hiding to nothing as all the enormous inputs required are becoming scarce, and the environmental harm colossal - we need to rapidly head towards genuinely sustainable food production, which tends to be more labour intensive, and therefore (as I've said in the past), I'd like to see revivified villages and the legislation (which still exists) to provide smallholdings and other similar initiatives, and wrest the production of food from the hands of the despoilers, and put it far more in the hands of small, local concerns, and (dare I say it) give people back the quality of life so sadly lacking nowadays - we have been concentrating far too long on quantity