91–100 of 103 posts
Someone should draw a map of the U.S. if city-states were to rise to power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant it's by its nature less productive per square meter than cities. Modern country could manage with <5% of population working the land, but I don't think we have any countries where 95% live in cities. And I don't think it's obviously good idea to force them to migrate (by putting a border between them and their jobs).
It doesn't seem to bother anyone that folks in poor rural countries with no functional cities are separated from their potential jobs by a border. Why would we care more about rural New York State'ers being excluded from NYC than we would about Haitians being excluded from Davenport, Iowa? The latter exclusion has a much higher humanitarian cost, and most of the justifications for strong national borders can be used…
I just think introducing new borders is painful (I can speak from my family experience with new borders - I live in Poland), and dismantling borders is great (personal experience with EU).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If farmers don't grow, they might not get to live either. They don't get medicine, farming equipment, fertilizer, gasoline, electricity, cell phones, the Internet, clothes, or anything else they've come to depend on. A lot of farming is automated, using GPS and other systems to drive tractors with extreme accuracy. Without gasoline alone it would be impossible for many farmers to find the labor to grow what they do.…
...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.
I wouldn't envy the farmer; being in a position where a potentially violent and desperate brute depends on you is not stable in the long run. You might start out feeling that you've got the power, or that you're at least on equal terms, but that only lasts as long as you can keep the brute content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.
A farmer who decides not to grow food for the city isn't going to be around long enough to tend his garden. It's not just the city's population that outnumbers the farmer 49 to 1, the city also has all of the resources and power needed to force the farmer to farm and trade, by threat of violence if needed. I wouldn't envy the farmer; being in a position where a potentially violent and desperate brute depends on you i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that it's not the XIX century anymore. Telecommunications and airplanes allow people to literally bypass the countryside and hop from city to city. Cheap transportation costs mean that markets are distributed and not as heavily reliant on local expansion as they were. Before, if an industrial business wanted to expand, doing it locally was the easiest and cheapest option; that's not true anymore, and in…
Better communication is a point against the urbanization if anything? Why cram millions of people, endure traffic jams and pay outrageous rent when you can telecommute?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.
> ...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. It goes both ways: cities depend on farms and farms depend on cities. Neither can sustain its way of life without the other. >And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Here's a secret: not every farmer owns land. There are about 6…
Folks who live in the country can garden. A garden can feed you. It takes no electricity and no gas to grow a garden. My Amish neighbors do it every year.
Cured meats is an irrelevant point. Grow beans.
Grains and vegetables can be canned and dried (are canned and dried by my neighbors every year). No electricity needed.
I think you vastly overestimate the difficulties of gardening (not farming) out here. We do it every year here in Iowa. Without all the support you imagine we need.
Yes. Countries were relevant back in the days when territory was the most prized thing and war was the best means of acquiring it. Countries evolved as a means of ensuring territorial integrity, via means both explicit (borders enforced by militaries) and implicit (cultural/linguistic homogeneity, leading to xenophobia and other such barriers). But territories are no longer the most prized thing: economies are. And e…
All you folks in the city will learn your lesson pretty quick once the food stops flowing in. Don't get too uppity!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.
A farmer who decides not to grow food for the city isn't going to be around long enough to tend his garden. It's not just the city's population that outnumbers the farmer 49 to 1, the city also has all of the resources and power needed to force the farmer to farm and trade, by threat of violence if needed. I wouldn't envy the farmer; being in a position where a potentially violent and desperate brute depends on you i…
Not saying urbans can't impose their will on the countryside. But the resistance would be fierce.