A lot of you agreed with some of the ideas in my last post. I don't think that will be the case with this one.Civilization describes the way that humans live, when they have a surplus of food, and therefore labor. Civilization requires the development of cities, arts, cultural institutions, recreational and academic institutions under conditions of
(
Read more... )
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
There is much about this sentiment that I agree with. A month ago I might have agreed completely, except for the appeal to stasis -- stasis is always a miss perception. At the end of the year I went to Tanzania for a Safari and there met the Maasai. The Maasai are a culture, I believe worthy of the moniker "a civilization," that has lasted many hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, without cities, and with families living at significant distance even compared to suburban living. Other then the family boma, an enclosure large enough for the families huts, cattle, and goats, they don't even have a village.
I'm not sure the Maasai, or other non-city dwelling "primitive" cultures negate what you are asserting here, but it certainly gives me pause. I think the real issue is sustainability. Our suburban lifestyle is not a sustainable lifestyle if carried on in mass as we do today.
Reply
I couldn't agree more about cities. I'm proudly urban, because cities produce art, culture and technology, because life expectancy is higher for urban dwellers, and because humans are social. We belong in groups and if we accept that then maybe cities can improve. I can't abide that cities are used as hosts for the parasitic lifestyles of suburbanites. They shop, and play and earn in the cities, but leave their trash behind and take their money to the suburbs, clogging the cities with commuter traffic on their way out. I'd like them to stay. It may be fun.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment