A Christmas Carol
Read the article this discussion is about
- not_him_again
- Dubh_Sidhe
- LarryW_4
- not_him_again
- LarryW_4
- not_him_again
- LarryW_4
- not_him_again
- LarryW_4
- H2O
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» not_him_again - I am not sure I understand your point, Larry.
I am not sure I understand your point, Larry. Are you advocating social darwinism, or something else?! Interesting stuff about enclosure, though.-- posted by not_him_again
» Dubh_Sidhe - After reading your article, A Christmas Carol...
I was trying to reconcile Brian's comment that he was not sure he understood your point which, to say the least, to Frontier Theory IS vague--so I quickly flipped to your bio page which explained it--the article, that is. I think that only another product of California's out of the ordinary higher education system (U.C. Berkeley) could get the point, so I must say, "Fascinating article"! What happens to the light from a moonbeam, a falling star? If a tree falls in the woods, is there a sound, or does the result of that incident require an ear to say that a sound was produced? What is my point? Well, no doubt, it would take Dickens, or Larry, to reconcile my point. Happy holidays from Dubh Sidhe and all of the Little People at "Folklore"-- posted by Dubh_Sidhe
» LarryW_4 - Rats, Brian.
Rats, Brian. I probably assume too much. My point: Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol near the end of an intense episode of enclosure that preceded a massive emigration from Britain to America, whereupon Britain avoided what probably would have been a bloodbath. To me, our present circumstances seem about the same: lots of homeless, more work for less pay, concentration of wealth, rising debt, dysfunctional families and a booming drug trade. I say something's going to hit the fan.Is that better?
-- posted by LarryW_4
» not_him_again - Yes, and your point is very well made.
Yes, and your point is very well made. I wonder how we break out of the Malthusian strait-jacket without wrecking society?Are cities- and urban concentration- natural to mankind's condition? Or just a survival mode that eventually catches up with us?
-- posted by not_him_again
» LarryW_4 - What are cities, anyway?
Brian, you break out of the Malthusian straightjacket by "breaking out", a term encountered in population biology which means the conquest of a barrier to territorial expansion. All life forms that I know of do this, or they perish.The life cycle of cities is something else that seems to have an analogue in non-human contexts. In particular, colonies of microorganisms seem to grow at the edges and die at the center, like cities. When the Petri dish is full, even if you continue to supply nutrients, the organisms die. Compare this to the "death" of inner cities.
Bacteria at the center of a colony are poisoned by their own waste. Individuals at the edge probably have better access to nutrients, but, primarily, they escape self-poisoning. Is pollution the "poison" that kills cities from inside? Is it a behavioral poison that does the killing?
Frontier theory would seem to suggest that the process is irreversible, even though one can create a temporary reprieve by large expenditures of resources from outside the city. And that is a key idea, that cities cannot rebuild themselves using their own resources. Neither can nations. Nor planets.
-- posted by LarryW_4
» not_him_again - I just saw your posting
Sorry this took so long- been off the net awhile.I wonder, in view of the points you just made, is Ardrey right in his views of mankind? Killer Apes and all that?
Could it be said that the unifying fact of life forms is territoriality? That's a serious thought- if Ardrey is right, we can't accomplish much except to delay the inevitable?
-- posted by not_him_again
» LarryW_4 - Killer Apes, and All That
Nothing in The Territorial Imperative that I can recall suggests to me that humanity is necessarily doomed. In fact, I believe we can thrive by pushing our territorial frontiers farther and farther out.With continuous expansion, I believe even the people of earthbound inner cities can prosper, while the cities themselves will probably have to be leveled. The key is money. It takes enormous resources to rescue cities, or level them and replace them with new construction, and the resources are not going to come from a stagnant, risk-averse society rooted in "sustainable development".
If you can, how about offering some counter-examples?
Also, what do you suppose happens to people who are displaced from parts of New York that have been marginally "rehabilitated"?
-- posted by LarryW_4
» not_him_again - I am not sure
I don't really understand what you mean by counterexamples here, Larry. To which point you made?BTW, I did not mean that Ardrey was talking about humanity's doom- rather that he was casting doubt on its perfectibility, innate goodness, ect.
Your point about the need to leave old city centers is well taken, but in this day and age where the elites are attempting to restrict autos through stealthy means such as greenhouse taxes, we are not likely to see the kinds of action you advocate happening soon. The key to a frontier solution is probably mobility- isn't it interesting that the usual suspects in the close control game shout the loudest about the evils of private automobile ownership?
-- posted by not_him_again
» LarryW_4 - Personal Mobility
Interesting that you raise the issue of personal mobility. Cars are a symbol of mobility, of freedom, if you like, which is one of the reasons people grow attached to them.There is a class of people who love power, commissars, on whom we can always count to subvert liberty and limit choices. It is natural, I suppose, that persons who have obtained power by knowing the rules oppose any change in the rules. That means they oppose change. At the very least, they oppose change they do not initiate. It means they oppose personal mobility, personal choice and, by definition, the creation or extension of frontiers. As enclosure intensifies, their grip on power strengthens, and so they love enclosure.
Unfortunately, they tend to gravitate to positions of power, which they call leadership. Some are more successful than others. You probably know a few personally, even if you don't typically move in the circles of presidents.
I consider it surpassingly strange that the people who want power are the very ones who should not be allowed to have it.
So you're right. The guys that hold power closely hate cars, democracy, guns and frontiers. Why do we vote for them?
-- posted by LarryW_4
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.