Suburbia sucks!

[Yazman]

I saw this posted in the description of a facebook group (I hate Surburbia), and I figured this would fit best in S&E since it is about our environment.

Anyway I just figured this sums up why suburbia is ridiculous and horrible, a mind numbing, soul sucking place of a pit to live in, why its uneconomical, etc. I don't know if its copied from somewhere else but anyway:


1. They are expensive. Even poor suburbs you need a car to live in almost entirely. There is no integration between commerce and residential and to access anything you must walk down busy near-highway-volume mega streets ussually with no sidewalks for several miles then cross unmonitered, desolate parking lots.

2. Suburbs encourage privatization and discourage the public life. Backyard pools, garages and large yards between houses discourage communication, and since no one can walk anywhere, they don't meet or see people in passing on the way to the park (which are few and far between). Giant golf courses and country clubs replace parks, and seperate people more. Ironic, people move to the suburbs to get to a more "country like pace" but they have to build an artificial country 'club'

3. Suburbs are completely uneconomical. The pollutant cost of driving, the actual cost of driving single person steel boxes, of the lawn water and chemicals, the cost of an ecconomy driven soley on the growth of the economy. They add countless traffic hours to the work day. A nine hour (8 working, 1 lunch) work day easily becomes 12 hours if not more when you add transit from litterally dozens of miles away. Hours that you don't get paid for. So there is an input, but no product, unlike if you used that time to better youself, your home, or community. It cannot succeed. Many pro-suburbanites say it's capitalism, market freedom to live where you want. They neglect that suburbs often leave huge tracts of underutilized land. Thats bad microeconomics

4. There's such a low density in suburbs, it's impossible to support even a remotely sustainable public transportation system, and schools have to be so spread out and giant that massive, expensive (and pollutant) bussing must be implimented. But the low density doesn't lead to less traffic. Because so few streets are through streets, it just creates more traffic on arterial streets.

5. They are ugly and redundant. Tract housing is redundant and is the housing equivlent of a box store like wal-mart. Front facing garages destroy the astetics of the house's architecture

6. They have no civic life or sense of community. Community is not made by setting up walls and making all the people inside get along, it's made by people who have shared, area specific institutions like churches or schools where people congregate.

7. They reak havoc on the environment when it rains. Because of the low density, most don't have fully adequet sewage systems, but they need sewers because of hoe much concrete and asphault there is, the water all runs off, there isn't enough earth to absorb it. And the earth it does fall on is almost always lawn filled with pesticides and fertilizer, which then gets into the ground water or into local ponds and creeks.

8. Suburbs pretty much directly lead to Fat America. Because one or both parents don't get home at any regular time to make dinner, it's all about the quick trip to Mc D's. And there's countless hours in the car instead of walking, even if it's to the gym.

9. Ever wonder why guys from the old neighborhood get along with everyone? Why those really ethnic guys are so fun? Because they grew up where they had to be. There friends were whoever went to school with them and lived within a few blocks. Whoever hung out at the corner store was thier friend. Not whoever lived 20 miles away and had the exact same taste in music. People in subdivisions don't care who lives near them, they want to find the perfect match, be socially lazy, and exclude others.

This basically sums up my thoughts of suburbia, really. What does everybody else think? I feel that we should all be advocating the destruction of suburbia and the building of a much more efficient city plan. Suburbia is counterproductive in so many ways.

[GPDP]

I pretty much agree in all respects.

Have you watched the documentary End of Suburbia?

[manic expression]

Yeah, I can't stand suburbia for a lot of those reasons and more. Good list (although they should've said that it's unbelievably boring, too).

[Yazman]

Yeah I actually have seen End of Suburbia, it is a pretty good doco.

[Bright Banana Beard]

8. Suburbs pretty much directly lead to Fat America. Because one or both parents don't get home at any regular time to make dinner, it's all about the quick trip to Mc D's. And there's countless hours in the car instead of walking, even if it's to the gym. QFT I really hate suburbia.

[which doctor]

As someone who's lived in rural, suburban, and urban America, I have to say the suburbs are my least favorite. Nonetheless, I spent most of my early youth in the suburbs and had a lot of fun, and I have some issues with the list Yazman posted.


2. Suburbs encourage privatization and discourage the public life. Backyard pools, garages and large yards between houses discourage communication, and since no one can walk anywhere, they don't meet or see people in passing on the way to the park (which are few and far between). Giant golf courses and country clubs replace parks, and seperate people more. Ironic, people move to the suburbs to get to a more "country like pace" but they have to build an artificial country 'club'
Maybe we were the exception, but I remember there being a pretty active social life on our block. My family was friends with many other nearby families and on summer nights people were always on others' porches, drinking beer and chatting.


5. They are ugly and redundant. Tract housing is redundant and is the housing equivlent of a box store like wal-mart. Front facing garages destroy the astetics of the house's architecture
This is an interesting point because urban housing is often very redundant as well too. Blocks of identical looking rowhouses from the late 19th century are not uncommon where I live. Nonetheless, I find a certain aesthetic appeal in the 'old' that I don't find in new, suburban housing developments.


8. Suburbs pretty much directly lead to Fat America. Because one or both parents don't get home at any regular time to make dinner, it's all about the quick trip to Mc D's. And there's countless hours in the car instead of walking, even if it's to the gym.
This has its roots more in rumor than fact. Yes, it's true that you do a lot more walking in an urban environment, but obesity is just as much of an epidemic in urban America as it is elsewhere. Part of this is due to differences in affluence. Suburbanites tend to be more affluent, therefore can afford healthier food. Urbanites (especially minorities) tend to be less affluent, therefore consume calorie laden, yet cheap, snack foods. Also, urban food deserts contribute to obesity in urban America. Grocery stores move out of poor neighborhoods, leaving only convenience stores and fast-food restaurants. If you live in a food desert and you don't have a vehicle, your options for food are very limited.


9. Ever wonder why guys from the old neighborhood get along with everyone? Why those really ethnic guys are so fun? Because they grew up where they had to be. There friends were whoever went to school with them and lived within a few blocks. Whoever hung out at the corner store was thier friend. Not whoever lived 20 miles away and had the exact same taste in music. People in subdivisions don't care who lives near them, they want to find the perfect match, be socially lazy, and exclude others.
I imagine this was written by some angry, suburbanite teenager who's nostalgic for the "ol' days."

[jake williams]

I'm kind of an "urban geography" (I'm not sure what to call it) geek, especially lately. Suburbs suck (I too agree with what you posted) and I'd never ever live in one, but I have sort of a morbid fascination with such unhealthy (emotionally, politically, physically) lifestyles.

[manic expression]

Suburbs suck (I too agree with what you posted) and I'd never ever live in one, but I have sort of a morbid fascination with such unhealthy (emotionally, politically, physically) lifestyles.

If you go through some suburban areas, it's almost surreal to drive for half an hour or so and see nothing but the same type of house with the same type of landscaping over and over and over and over again. I can't even explain the feeling. I grew up near one of those areas and I routinely got lost in them because everything is simply the same.

[GPDP]

What do you guys think of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Pedestrianism

They're billed as potential replacements for suburban sprawl.

[which doctor]

What do you guys think of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_urbanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Pedestrianism

They're billed as potential replacements for suburban sprawl.
I think they're petty-bourgeois attempts to create an artificial urban aesthetic for well-to-do liberals who don't want to deal the the 'gritty' aspect of real urban life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Too many suburbs are overly car-centric, which guzzles fuel at a large rate. It would be better if urban areas were based on railways, canals, and cargo ships.

If we could do away with the price system, then such specially designed urban areas (urbanates) could potentially be very efficient.

[Ashley]

I recently moved back to Baltimore suburbs after living in DC for the past year and now am even more aggrevated at the lack of everything. The public buses come very sparingly in the county and some people in the suburbs I've spoken with about them fear even riding them. The mindset in the suburban workplace is one that is rooted in boredom with a insatiable interest for celebrity anything. At the Barnes and Noble I work at our best seller is Glenn Beck.

I saw in my neighborhood for the first time Obama bumper stickers with the hammer and sickle replacing the O.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Around here, you dont really have a choice in the matter between urban and suburban. The city (just barely a city) I live in was not originally built with 2-4 storey rowhouses etc. It was built like a small, small town. There is no "downtown". So you either live in the old section (pretty much a 'ghetto') or you live in the rapidly expanding subdivisions. You would not believe how much this town has expanded just in the last 9 years. It has expanded so fast that the city counsel has trouble providing services to the subdivisions. I currently live in a newer house in the older section, but Im moving to a new section within a few days. These subdivisions are not as extreme as some in mainland Canada or the U.S., but are still boring as hell. But there is no alternative, so Im forced to live the next umpteen years in a middle class subdivision, where I'd be about a mile from anywhere, including where I plan to work for the summer.

Just wondering though, how would you guys like to see towns and citys expand?

[Lynx]

I live in a rural area. Quiet, less pollution, decent neighbours, fewer services, less employment. A car is necessary but there's the consolation of moving from point A to point B without fighting or being stuck in traffic.

If I had the choice, I'd rather live and work in the suburbs than in the city proper. If my work was located in the city though, I would want to avoid the daily commute.

[Pawn Power]

Too many suburbs are overly car-centric, which guzzles fuel at a large rate. It would be better if urban areas were based on railways, canals, and cargo ships.

If we could do away with the price system, then such specially designed urban areas (urbanates) could potentially be very efficient.

Of course they are "car-centric" the whole process of suburbanization was pushed through by corporations that would benefit from increase car use. It was an actual 'conspiracy' made be companies like Standard Oil of California, GM, and Firestone Tire. Public transportation was actively destroyed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy) by these companies with the goal of creating a car-based society. They profited greatly as a result from their acts though it has had a terrible impact of the environment and our country's infrastructure.

[GPDP]

Around here, you dont really have a choice in the matter between urban and suburban. The city (just barely a city) I live in was not originally built with 2-4 storey rowhouses etc. It was built like a small, small town. There is no "downtown". So you either live in the old section (pretty much a 'ghetto') or you live in the rapidly expanding subdivisions. You would not believe how much this town has expanded just in the last 9 years. It has expanded so fast that the city counsel has trouble providing services to the subdivisions. I currently live in a newer house in the older section, but Im moving to a new section within a few days. These subdivisions are not as extreme as some in mainland Canada or the U.S., but are still boring as hell. But there is no alternative, so Im forced to live the next umpteen years in a middle class subdivision, where I'd be about a mile from anywhere, including where I plan to work for the summer.

Wow, that sounds just like my city.

[FreeFocus]

I don't like the city at all, and while I might like the suburbs a bit more I wouldn't like having to drive everywhere.

Ideally, I would live on the outskirts of a town, in between the city and suburbs where I could engage in outdoor activities and still have relatively easy access to necessary things.

[IcarusAngel]

"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them." --Bill Vaughn

[Revy]

I think that the future will be large cities surrounded mostly by farmland, (which in turn will be surrounded by preserved natural ecosystems). Suburbia won't exist. This is the opposite of Pol Pot's vision - instead of moving everyone to the countryside, we will move everyone to the cities, the cities will expand accordingly, land will be freed up for agriculture and other uses (such as solar and wind energy).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that the future will be large cities surrounded mostly by farmland, (which in turn will be surrounded by preserved natural ecosystems). Suburbia won't exist. This is the opposite of Pol Pot's vision - instead of moving everyone to the countryside, we will move everyone to the cities, the cities will expand accordingly, land will be freed up for agriculture and other uses (such as solar and wind energy).

I can get behind this. We could free up so much land if only we used it more efficiently.

[Il Medico]

Some scientist say that if we don't cut emission by 40% in 10 years global warming will wreak havoc on the earth. Emptying the suburbs, a useless hell hole of a place would hugely reduce carbon emissions. I would also create a better sense of community amongst the proletariat.

[Yazman]

I think that the future will be large cities surrounded mostly by farmland, (which in turn will be surrounded by preserved natural ecosystems). Suburbia won't exist. This is the opposite of Pol Pot's vision - instead of moving everyone to the countryside, we will move everyone to the cities, the cities will expand accordingly, land will be freed up for agriculture and other uses (such as solar and wind energy).

I too could get behind this.

[The Accomplice]

Definitely agree with this list, especially number 3 and 6.



I recently moved back to Baltimore suburbs after living in DC for the past year and now am even more aggrevated at the lack of everything. The public buses come very sparingly in the county and some people in the suburbs I've spoken with about them fear even riding them. The mindset in the suburban workplace is one that is rooted in boredom with a insatiable interest for celebrity anything. At the Barnes and Noble I work at our best seller is Glenn Beck.

I saw in my neighborhood for the first time Obama bumper stickers with the hammer and sickle replacing the O.

lol That sounds just like the place I live in.

Because many people in this cursed town I live in hardly use the public buses, the regional transportation district had to dramatically cut the services. So now I'm forced to drive more often than I used to. :thumbdown:

[FreeFocus]

Surely the environment in a city is a lot more compromised than in the suburbs. Sure, it guzzles gas to travel to and from the suburbs, but in the city everything is concentrated and multiplied.

Perhaps it's just me. I hate city air, and the sidewalks, and the close proximity of the houses and everything.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ahh, the suburbs.

To expand on the environmental degradation part, this is true ten fold in Florida, where the suburbs are built on former knee-high swamps. It is so incredibly inefficient, complicated, difficult, and simply fucking stupid to build an endless sea of suburbs on top of a swamp; but hey it's all about profitability and tourism. Doing this requires draining out all the water (who the fuck knows how this is done), literally demolishing large tracts of Everglades in order to push further west in order to build more shitty houses in poorly planned construction designs (half of the housing in south florida is built on artificial land around canals).

Now it would be completely reasonable to develop a large 'urbanate' on the eastern ridge, where there is actually land and develop that area to be super-efficient and easily accessible for the entire population. The method of simply expanding suburbs west, does absolutely horrible things for the cost of living and standards of living here. In less than 2 years housing prices have almost tripled, and it is literally impossible to buy a house or even an apartment anywhere right on the east coast. The way they actually sell these damn suburbs is because initially prices are very low, as the more west you go its cheaper; but this backfires completely when you live so far outwest that your paying 300+ a week on gas simply to get to your job or school. Obviously due to this horribly planned way of living, the method of transportation isn't much better. There is no mass tranist in the suburbs here, not at anything that really counts; buses come every hour and are incredibly expensive, the only rail tranist runs north and south and isn't very accessable...

..ah Im done ranting.




Surely the environment in a city is a lot more compromised than in the suburbs. Sure, it guzzles gas to travel to and from the suburbs, but in the city everything is concentrated and multiplied.

Perhaps it's just me. I hate city air, and the sidewalks, and the close proximity of the houses and everything. The suburbs are pretty close, the sidewalks are actually worse, and the air is certainly not much better.

The city isn't for everyone, and everyone shouldn't be made to live there; however there is simply no excuse of the 7th cricle of hell known as the suburbs.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I don't really understand why the suburbs in the USA are considered as bastions of petty-bourgeois white people who drive SUV's to the gym. I think in most other places we see the rich (and poor) in the cities, but just the poor in the suburbs.

[Yazman]

Bullshit, I've stayed in plenty of cities where there are suburbs full of rich people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do massive, soulless housing estates count as "suburbs" if they're all terraced houses? Those kind of areas tend to be inhabited by poorer people, but they're still awful and I would knock them down all the same if I had my way.

[Yazman]

Yeah I agree, Noxion. The entire private-vehicle-centric city design needs to be scrapped completely and utterly. This is one of the major problems with current cities in a lot of "developed" countries.

[Technocrat]

Technocracy proposes that we scrap all existing cities and suburbs and replace them with urbanates, new living environments planned top-down for energy efficiency and maximum livability.

An urbanate would be an assembly of buildings containing everything needed by a self-contained community, including housing, shops, schools, hospitals, entertainment, and parks.

Urbanates would be compact, probably no more than 1/2 mile wide (160 acres).

Urbanates would house roughly 10,000-20,000 people. Several urbanates could be built adjacent to each other to form a large city, or a single urbanate could function as a small town.

The residential structures in an urbanate would be large, multi-story buildings, probably around 20 stories tall.

There would be no roads or cars within the urbanate, all transportation being easily accomplished by walking or cycling due to the compact area. In addition, there would be an underground mass transit system as well as moving sidewalks both above and below ground, for the elderly or those disinclined to walk.

[which doctor]

Technocracy proposes that we scrap all existing cities and suburbs and replace them with urbanates, new living environments planned top-down for energy efficiency and maximum livability.

An urbanate would be an assembly of buildings containing everything needed by a self-contained community, including housing, shops, schools, hospitals, entertainment, and parks.

Urbanates would be compact, probably no more than 1/2 mile wide (160 acres).

Urbanates would house roughly 10,000-20,000 people. Several urbanates could be built adjacent to each other to form a large city, or a single urbanate could function as a small town.

The residential structures in an urbanate would be large, multi-story buildings, probably around 20 stories tall.

There would be no roads or cars within the urbanate, all transportation being easily accomplished by walking or cycling due to the compact area. In addition, there would be an underground mass transit system as well as moving sidewalks both above and below ground, for the elderly or those disinclined to walk.

That sounds like a miserable place to live.

[Technocrat]

that sounds like a miserable place to live.Why? You are probably just ignorant. As I said, they would be planned top-down for maximum livability, so how could they be miserable?

[Yazman]

Sounds pretty good to me. Most of the proposals I've seen from carfree and technocracy movement organisations all sound like much better places to live than the current car-centric suburban hellholes.

[mel]

Sounds pretty good to me. Most of the proposals I've seen from carfree and technocracy movement organisations all sound like much better places to live than the current car-centric suburban hellholes.

What do you consider a suburb? I've been to really remote rural areas (I'm talking a town of 35 people, nothing accessible for 40 miles). I've lived in relatively less remote areas with housing developments that branch off of main roads and where nothing is in walking distance, and I've lived in small towns that are "suburban" but where you can walk anywhere you need to go, with sidewalks everywhere. I've also stayed in or visited places in-between all of these. I've never lived in a city, but I hate to even visit them. They're crowded, busy, loud, polluted and I can't imagine being happy living in one. I want no part in any revolution where I would be forced against my will to live in a fucking city.

[Technocrat]

What do you consider a suburb?

People here are referring to suburban sprawl, which actually has a pretty clear-cut definition among urban planners. Urban sprawl is any development which is designed exclusively around the car. Pedestrians are an afterthought if they are accommodated at all. In such a place, population densities are low which means that the distances which must be traveled to obtain needed services are greater than can be comfortably covered by walking or cycling. In addition, such places typically have disconnected street networks which makes it more difficult to navigate on foot and needlessly increases the distance between destinations. Mass transit is difficult if not impossible to implement because of the low population density and the disconnected street network. The increased need to travel within a low density area, coupled with a lack of other transportation options, makes car dependency inevitable for such a place. Great for business, terrible for a sustainable society.

It is true that suburbs existed before the car, so called streetcar suburbs. However, these places are considered urban by today's standards, since they usually have features that suburbs do not such as neighborhood businesses within walking distance, higher population densities, connected street networks, and workable if not ideal mass transit.

Today when one says the word "suburb" they are most likely referring to the type of suburb which was built after WWII and which dominates the American landscape. Today, a majority of Americans live in such places.


I've never lived in a city, but I hate to even visit them. They're crowded, busy, loud, polluted and I can't imagine being happy living in one. I want no part in any revolution where I would be forced against my will to live in a fucking city.Yes, and all of those problems you just mentioned are more or less directly attributable to the car.

Venice for example has one of the highest population densities in the world, and yet it feels more pleasant and relaxed than your typical American suburb because of the almost total lack of cars on the city streets.

[Nwoye]

Why? You are probably just ignorant. As I said, they would be planned top-down for maximum livability, so how could they be miserable?
cuz places have to have some culture man. that's what sucks about suburbia, there's no culture.

[Technocrat]

cuz places have to have some culture man. that's what sucks about suburbia, there's no culture.

Whatever cultural facilities were demanded by the public would be provided to them. Also, with a 10 hour work week people would have a lot more free time to dedicate to art or to bettering themselves. Culture would flourish.

I would just like to say right now that anytime I say something that doesn't seem to make sense, it is most likely just a gap in your own knowledge regarding what I am talking about. This goes for everybody. Therefore, rather than making ignorant statements, why not just ask for an explanation or for more information?

An ignorant, dogmatic statement would be "No, that wouldn't work because it goes against what I know."

A reasonable statement would be "Oh, that sounds different from what I have heard. How would that work exactly?"

[The Author]

Technocracy proposes that we scrap all existing cities and suburbs and replace them with urbanates, new living environments planned top-down for energy efficiency and maximum livability.

An urbanate would be an assembly of buildings containing everything needed by a self-contained community, including housing, shops, schools, hospitals, entertainment, and parks.

Urbanates would be compact, probably no more than 1/2 mile wide (160 acres).

Urbanates would house roughly 10,000-20,000 people. Several urbanates could be built adjacent to each other to form a large city, or a single urbanate could function as a small town.

The residential structures in an urbanate would be large, multi-story buildings, probably around 20 stories tall.

There would be no roads or cars within the urbanate, all transportation being easily accomplished by walking or cycling due to the compact area. In addition, there would be an underground mass transit system as well as moving sidewalks both above and below ground, for the elderly or those disinclined to walk.

Do you have any visual renderings as to what an urbanate will look like? The written description appears interesting, but pictures would also be helpful.

[Technocrat]

It is predicted that Urbanates would have varying appearances to suit local culture & tastes. They are not "one size fits all". Urbanates would all have certain features in common, such as the ones I listed in the description above, but they would also each develop their own unique "flavor" over time. It is also important to remember that the Urbanates concept is a general plan. The specific details could only be determined by the engineers and architects of the Technate whenever they come to build one.

I agree, pictures would be very helpful in a number of ways. Unfortunately, we have badly needed visual renderings of Urbanates for some time now. One of the things sorely lacking in the Technocracy movement is marketing, but we are working on that.

[RedScare]

I live in and have grown up in suburbia. You're right when you say it's very car-centric, I know very few people who walk anywhere in my area, and the buses aren't very good, people do fear riding them. A lot of people also don't want to ride the buses in my area because they're elitist(because only working class trash ride the bus, amiright :rolleyes:).

[which doctor]

Why? You are probably just ignorant. As I said, they would be planned top-down for maximum livability, so how could they be miserable?
"Designed for ultimate livability"? That reminds of some of the advertisements for those awful looking condo buildings where 2-bedroom units for sell >$600,000. Frankly, I'd hate to live in some self-contained, sterile building that's designed for maximum livability and efficiency. These urbanates remind me a lot of some of those scenes in that 2005 movie, The Island.

Although I don't especially dislike where I'm living right now (quaint, old neighborhood in large city), I prefer the rural aesthetic. If I ever have enough money I'd like to live rather secluded on nice piece of land.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Designed for ultimate livability"? That reminds of some of the advertisements for those awful looking condo buildings where 2-bedroom units for sell >$600,000.

I think you'll find what actually motivates the designers of those condos you despise is something called "profit" rather than something so vulgarly utilitarian as "livability"


Frankly, I'd hate to live in some self-contained, sterile building that's designed for maximum livability and efficiency. These urbanates remind me a lot of some of those scenes in that 2005 movie, The Island.Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.


Although I don't especially dislike where I'm living right now (quaint, old neighborhood in large city), I prefer the rural aesthetic. If I ever have enough money I'd like to live rather secluded on nice piece of land.The countryside is a nice place to visit, but that's a completely different proposition to actually living there. Having actually lived in a rural area for about six years, I can tell you that in comparison to a city or even a half-way decent town there's pretty much fuck-all to do. I also find that the small communities typical of such areas encourage an insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan outlook.

There's a good reason phrases like "ignorant country shitkicker" exists.

[Technocrat]

I think you'll find what actually motivates the designers of those condos you despise is something called "profit" rather than something so vulgarly utilitarian as "livability"

Exactly. Today, "Livability" is just a word used to market real estate. I often find that when people object to an aspect of Technocracy it is because they are still thinking about things in terms of the Price System. Rather than looking at the big picture of Technocracy, they try to take an individual aspect of it and figure out how that aspect would work in today's society. It is only when you consider all the other aspects of Technocracy that you can understand how a single aspect of it would work. You really have to look at the big picture to fully understand Technocracy, or to understand any single aspect of it.

In this case, because of the Technocratic process of selection from below and appointment from above, the Urbanates would be designed by the best and brightest engineers and architects on the continent, and they would have available to them all the research and scientific findings of every organization on the continent through the sequence of the Continental Research. This would allow them to create a plan that will provide the maximum standard of living to all citizens that will not compromise long term sustainability.

[Lynx]

The countryside is a nice place to visit, but that's a completely different proposition to actually living there. Having actually lived in a rural area for about six years, I can tell you that in comparison to a city or even a half-way decent town there's pretty much fuck-all to do. I also find that the small communities typical of such areas encourage an insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan outlook.

There's a good reason phrases like "ignorant country shitkicker" exists.
Wow, you are prejudiced.

[mel]

I think you'll find what actually motivates the designers of those condos you despise is something called "profit" rather than something so vulgarly utilitarian as "livability"

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

The countryside is a nice place to visit, but that's a completely different proposition to actually living there. Having actually lived in a rural area for about six years, I can tell you that in comparison to a city or even a half-way decent town there's pretty much fuck-all to do. I also find that the small communities typical of such areas encourage an insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan outlook.

There's a good reason phrases like "ignorant country shitkicker" exists.

I live in a rural area right now, and have most of my life. Sometimes it's tough having limited access to things, but the relative seclusion can be nice, the atmosphere is relaxed and a lot of the people that live in these areas are perfectly pleasant people to interact with, that deal with a lot of unfairness and hardship, economic and otherwise. Can you blame them for retreating into politico-economic escapism in the face of overwhelming exploitation at the hands of capitalists?

[which doctor]

The countryside is a nice place to visit, but that's a completely different proposition to actually living there. Having actually lived in a rural area for about six years, I can tell you that in comparison to a city or even a half-way decent town there's pretty much fuck-all to do. I also find that the small communities typical of such areas encourage an insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan outlook.
I've also lived in a rural area (in addition to suburban and urban environments). I agree that urban and rural environments tend to foster two different outlooks, but I don't think one is inherently better than the other. Most of the coolest people I've ever met lived in small towns and they had hardly what you could call a 'reactionary' outlook. Hell, nearly all of them were drug-using, athiest, hedonists :lol:. As far as city-folk go, I just don't see what all the hype is.

And if you think there's "fuck-all" to do in a rural area, then I imagine your a pretty boring person no matter where you are. In the city recreation is often commercialized. Fun becomes a commodity that you pay for. Whereas in a rural area, you have all the land you could ever need to create your own fun. In the city, if I want a little bit of nature, I have to take public transportation for an hour, then walk another half-hour to a tiny forest preserve that's littered with beer bottles, used condoms, and hypodermic syringes. When I lived in a small town, we had several state parks only a short distance away offering all sorts of secluded recreation, from walking through caves and canyons with waterfalls or an old, disused canal with the mule path turned into a walking path. This was all in what could be called 'farm country,' mind you.


There's a good reason phrases like "ignorant country shitkicker" exists.
They exist for the same reason phrases like "lazy son-of-a-***** nigger" exist, they serve an idealogical purpose. Considering your clearly reactionary attitude towards people of differing geographical dispositions, you seem pretty insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan, yourself. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow, you are prejudiced.

Try "bitter" instead.


I live in a rural area right now, and have most of my life. Sometimes it's tough having limited access to things, but the relative seclusion can be nice, the atmosphere is relaxed and a lot of the people that live in these areas are perfectly pleasant people to interact with, that deal with a lot of unfairness and hardship, economic and otherwise. Can you blame them for retreating into politico-economic escapism in the face of overwhelming exploitation at the hands of capitalists?

Workers in urban areas are exploited too. The only difference is that rural workers are far less likely to meet people who are significantly different to them.


I've also lived in a rural area (in addition to suburban and urban environments). I agree that urban and rural environments tend to foster two different outlooks, but I don't think one is inherently better than the other. Most of the coolest people I've ever met lived in small towns and they had hardly what you could call a 'reactionary' outlook. Hell, nearly all of them were drug-using, athiest, hedonists :lol:. As far as city-folk go, I just don't see what all the hype is.

Small town? I wasn't even that lucky, although that depends on what your definition of "small" is. I lived in a fucking village, a form of habitation that should have died along with the horse and cart.

After living in that village (which shall remain nameless unless you really want to know), I found living in Rhyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyl) to be a breath of fresh air, even though at the time it was down-at-the-heels and a bit shabby. Plus living next to the beach was nice.


And if you think there's "fuck-all" to do in a rural area, then I imagine your a pretty boring person no matter where you are.Or you're stuck indoors because it's chucking it down. Or it's a Sunday so every damn place is fucking closed. Or you don't have the money to pay for the outrageous fares demanded by bus companies with shitty timetables.


In the city recreation is often commercialized. Fun becomes a commodity that you pay for. Whereas in a rural area, you have all the land you could ever need to create your own fun.Like what? Walking gets a little boring after the 20th time, and even then it's only pleasant when the weather is nice, which where I lived there was absolutely no guarantee whatsoever, even in the summer.

At least in a city, the pool of potentially awesome people to interact with is bigger, and it's easier to lose the arseholes in the crowd. Because there is a crowd.


In the city, if I want a little bit of nature, I have to take public transportation for an hour, then walk another half-hour to a tiny forest preserve that's littered with beer bottles, used condoms, and hypodermic syringes.It wouldn't hurt for cities to have more trees and green spaces, since if your description is anything to go by they are currently inadequate.


When I lived in a small town, we had several state parks only a short distance away offering all sorts of secluded recreation, from walking through caves and canyons with waterfalls or an old, disused canal with the mule path turned into a walking path. This was all in what could be called 'farm country,' mind you.I lived near to Snowdonia National Park, but that makes little difference since most of the land there is privately owned anyway.


They exist for the same reason phrases like "lazy son-of-a-***** nigger" exist, they serve an idealogical purpose. Considering your clearly reactionary attitude towards people of differing geographical dispositions, you seem pretty insular, conservative and anti-cosmopolitan, yourself. :rolleyes:Ignorance is a blight that can be countered with education, but there's nothing wrong with having dark skin and one can't reasonably do anything about it.

But I'm sure rich white farmers suffer the same indignities as black people.:rolleyes: Personally I think it cheapens racism to make the comparison, but what the hell do I know? I only did some growing up there.

[mel]

Workers in urban areas are exploited too. The only difference is that rural workers are far less likely to meet people who are significantly different to them.

Fair enough.


Or you're stuck indoors because it's chucking it down. Or it's a Sunday so every damn place is fucking closed. Or you don't have the money to pay for the outrageous fares demanded by bus companies with shitty timetables.

Like what? Walking gets a little boring after the 20th time, and even then it's only pleasant when the weather is nice, which where I lived there was absolutely no guarantee whatsoever, even in the summer.

Some people enjoy the rain, the mud, sitting outside reading a book, writing, or just lying down. Evidently you aren't one of those people, so it sucks that you lived in a rural area.


At least in a city, the pool of potentially awesome people to interact with is bigger, and it's easier to lose the arseholes in the crowd. Because there is a crowd.

And this is a great reason that a rural area is inadequate for you. For other people it might not be. My experience of rural areas was mixed. The place I lived had the character of sucking all of the life out of you for other reasons I won't get into, but it wasn't a characteristic of it being rural, and if it hadn't had that quality, it would have been a really nice place to grow up.

[Sarah Palin]

If you go through some suburban areas, it's almost surreal to drive for half an hour or so and see nothing but the same type of house with the same type of landscaping over and over and over and over again. I can't even explain the feeling. I grew up near one of those areas and I routinely got lost in them because everything is simply the same.

Agreed. The next town over from mine can't really be classified as a town. It's just houses. There's no "town center," no restaurants, no ANYTHING. It's just horrible.

[Technocrat]

The thing is, suburbia or rural living is not a valid option. People keep arguing for it in terms of "but it is what I like, it is what I grew up with." Well, too bad. The goal of society should be to provide the maximum standard of living while not compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same standard of living. If you disagree with this sentiment, you are a selfish, sub-par human being.

This means no more suburbs or rural towns. Sorry.

The cities are also sprawling messes that will have to be torn up and replaced. However, when it comes to resource consumption, no place is more wasteful than a suburban or rural town.

If you didn't know, suburbs consume 3x more energy per capita than urban settlements, on average.

A friend of mine moved from a NYC brownstone to a rural town in Connecticut. His energy use is 7x times higher now.

One advantage of compact, dense settlements would be that vast tracts of land could be reclaimed by nature, placing the rural environs within a short distance of every dwelling. Therefore you can have the best of both worlds. You can have all the services and facilities of a big city, while still having plenty of space and being close to nature.

There is simply no way to sustain the suburban way of life into the future.

Before you give me anything about alternative fuels or hybrid cars: I've already heard it. There is absolutely no way to fuel half a billion cars using alternative fuels, period. A reduction in driving means the end of the suburban and rural ways of life.

[Lynx]

It logically follows that most people will continue to live in cities or technates. The building of technates however, will not result in the disappearance of rural areas or of people who choose to live there.

[Technocrat]

First, and this is just a minor semantic quibble, but "Technate" refers to a Technocratic society. "Urbanate" refers to the new living environments proposed to replace cities. Like I said, just a minor thing, but I thought it should be cleared up to avoid future confusion.

Second, no one is forced to live in an Urbanate. If someone is happy as a farmer living off the land, they are not interfering with the operations of the Technate, so why bother them? Entire farming communities could be set up by people if they desired to live that way, and the technate may even be able to offer some kind of assistance to them if they wanted it.

The thing the Technate wouldn't do is supply everyone with their own personal car and suburban house, because this would conflict with the Technate's goal of long-term sustainability. People who choose to live in the country will have to be self-sufficient to some degree.

For those interested, I have posted a much more complete description of an urbanate in this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ultimate-urbanate-plan-t112088/index.html)

[Lynx]

People who choose to live in the country will have to be self-sufficient to some degree.
Yes and no. Improvements to transport infrastructure will improve and promote rural life. Increases in leisure time will lead to an increase in recreational activities that take place outside of urbanates.

Concerns about rural sustainability are theoretical - the majority of people in developed countries live in and around cities. Is there any indication that this would change if economic factors were altered or eliminated?

[FreeFocus]

Is there any indication that this would change if economic factors were changed or eliminated?

Historically, many people left rural areas in search of jobs, so if capitalist wage slavery were eliminated, things might change (but probably not - living in the city under capitalism conditions you to do certain things).

[Technocrat]

Yes and no. Improvements to transport infrastructure will improve and promote rural life. Increases in leisure time will lead to an increase in recreational activities that take place outside of urbanates.

Concerns about rural sustainability are theoretical - the majority of people in developed countries live in and around cities. Is there any indication that this would change if economic factors were altered or eliminated?

Peak oil.

If you can find a way to run cars without oil, fine.

The numbers simply don't support it, however.

It's not theoretical, it's mathematical.

Historically, the majority of people lived in dense settlements. Whether these were big cities, small towns, or rural villages, they all had one thing in common - people lived close together. This is because the only means of transportation available to them was walking, and if they were rich, a horse.

Trains didn't change settlement densities much because you need a minimum population to support a train service, and this means that densities usually had to be moderate to high.

[Lynx]

Peak oil.

If you can find a way to run cars without oil, fine.

The numbers simply don't support it, however.

It's not theoretical, it's mathematical.
Electric vehicles already possess enough range to satisfy a multitude of tasks, including rural transport needs. The pollution and energy wasted by idling in traffic could also be avoided.
Peak oil under capitalism makes alternative energy technology cost competitive. A transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector seems to be inevitable.

Another way to save energy is to offer people the opportunity to work from home. Few will miss the daily commute.

Historically, the majority of people lived in dense settlements. Whether these were big cities, small towns, or rural villages, they all had one thing in common - people lived close together. This is because the only means of transportation available to them was walking, and if they were rich, a horse.

Trains didn't change settlement densities much because you need a minimum population to support a train service, and this means that densities usually had to be moderate to high.
Railroads helped build Canada. They were not designed as passenger services yet they encouraged settlement of previously remote areas. As long as primary industries exist, as long as people can make a living, rural areas and the rural way of life will continue. I don't see a huge change in % with regard to living in cities vis a vis living elsewhere. But this is just crystal ball gazing.

[Lynx]

Historically, many people left rural areas in search of jobs, so if capitalist wage slavery were eliminated, things might change (but probably not - living in the city under capitalism conditions you to do certain things).
Who knows what might happen if people were given a choice? Cities are more livable than they were at the start of the industrial revolution, yet an important aspect of their attraction remains economic.

[Technocrat]

Electric vehicles already possess enough range to satisfy a multitude of tasks, including rural transport needs. The pollution and energy wasted by idling in traffic could also be avoided.
Peak oil under capitalism makes alternative energy technology cost competitive. A transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector seems to be inevitable.

So the question then becomes, are the alternative fuels available in sufficient quantity to run 500 million vehicles? Unfortunately for those who prefer suburbia, the math says no.


Another way to save energy is to offer people the opportunity to work from home. Few will miss the daily commute.Most of those jobs would probably be completely eliminated in a Technate anyway. The people could stay home and take up a hobby, travel, whatever.


Railroads helped build Canada. They were not designed as passenger services yet they encouraged settlement of previously remote areas. As long as primary industries exist, as long as people can make a living, rural areas and the rural way of life will continue. I don't see a huge change in % with regard to living in cities vis a vis living elsewhere. But this is just crystal ball gazing.With urbanates those working primary industries and agriculture will still live in the countryside, close to their work. One has to remember how everything will be re-organized in a technate under "Functional Sequences". This will change a lot, and will mean a lot fewer people working over all. How will a small farmer compete against the large scale farming of the Technate? How will the small town manufacturer compete against the large scale manufacturing of the Techante? They won't, and they wouldn't even exist after the transition due to the top-down structure of everything. The facilites needed for those functions would be located in the best possible area to serve the population of the technate and amount of work required would be reduced to the lowest possible minimum.

[Lynx]

So the question then becomes, are the alternative fuels available in sufficient quantity to run 500 million vehicles? Unfortunately for those who prefer suburbia, the math says no.
Electric vehicles are an extension of the power grid. Their sustainability would be linked to developments in electric power generation and distribution.

With urbanates those working primary industries and agriculture will still live in the countryside, close to their work. One has to remember how everything will be re-organized in a technate under "Functional Sequences". This will change a lot, and will mean a lot fewer people working over all. How will a small farmer compete against the large scale farming of the Technate? How will the small town manufacturer compete against the large scale manufacturing of the Techante?
In the absence of a price system, these questions are inapplicable. Small, independent producers might be producing for themselves, or are making a voluntary contribution to society via the fruits of their hobby. They may also be engaged in producing 'customized' commodities.

[revolution inaction]

So the question then becomes, are the alternative fuels available in sufficient quantity to run 500 million vehicles? Unfortunately for those who prefer suburbia, the math says no.


I hate suburbs, but your wrong about this, we could many times the total energy we use now with solar.

[Technocrat]

I hate suburbs, but your wrong about this, we could many times the total energy we use now with solar.

This is ignorance. Cars don't run off of solar power. Let's examine the alternatives briefly.

Statements like the above always irk me. It is similar to those who say "we still have billions of untapped barrels of oil in the ground." Well, that doesn't much matter if we can't easily and cheaply get to it, now does it?

Why Hydrogen Won't Work:

-it takes 20 grams of platinum to build a fuel cell
-let's assume with mass production this comes down to 10 grams, an optimistic estimate
-there are 7.7 billion grams of platinum on the earth
-there are 700 million vehicles
-700 million vehicles x 10 grams of platinum = 7 billion grams of platinum, or virtually all of the platinum on earth
-a fuel cell is good for 200 hours of operation, or about a year's worth of driving at average speeds
-Therefore, we would have to mine all the platinum on earth (itself a ridiculous proposition) in order to power our cars for one year.

Why Electric Vehicles Won't Work:

We would need to ramp up lithium production by more than 50 times current levels, while at the same time building a renewable energy infrastructure exclusively for our cars. Just looking at the energy and resource requirements of our current lithium production levels, it is obvious that we aren't going to be able to do it, especially as the required resources will become more and more expensive due to peak oil. We just simply won't have the resources to simultaneously ramp up our lithium production by the amount required while at the same time expanding our renewable energy capacity solely for cars. The final cost of an all-electric vehicle after you calculate all of this is astronomical. In other words: Sorry folks, it ain't gonna happen.

Biofuels can't be used because they burn dirty just like regular oil.

Any way you dice it, the future is going to be one of reduced car mobility, which means an end to the happy motoring utopia of McAmerica.

[revolution inaction]

This is ignorance.
your reply?



Why Hydrogen Won't Work:

-it takes 20 grams of platinum to build a fuel cell
-let's assume with mass production this comes down to 10 grams, an optimistic estimate
-there are 7.7 billion grams of platinum on the earth
-there are 700 million vehicles
-700 million vehicles x 10 grams of platinum = 7 billion grams of platinum, or virtually all of the platinum on earth
-a fuel cell is good for 200 hours of operation, or about a year's worth of driving at average speeds
-Therefore, we would have to mine all the platinum on earth (itself a ridiculous proposition) in order to power our cars for one year.

You don't have to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, you can use it in a internal combustion engine if you want, its not so efficient but it works. But assuming you do use a fuel cell it doesn't have to use a platinum catalyst, solid oxide fuel cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell) don't need platinum, although they are a bit slow to start because of the high temperatures they operate at. There is also research into replacing the platinum in other (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16275-platinumfree-fuel-cell-promises-cheap-green-power.html) types of fuel cell although these are much less efficient so far.




Why Electric Vehicles Won't Work:

We would need to ramp up lithium production by more than 50 times current levels, while at the same time building a renewable energy infrastructure exclusively for our cars. Just looking at the energy and resource requirements of our current lithium production levels, it is obvious that we aren't going to be able to do it, especially as the required resources will become more and more expensive due to peak oil. We just simply won't have the resources to simultaneously ramp up our lithium production by the amount required while at the same time expanding our renewable energy capacity solely for cars. The final cost of an all-electric vehicle after you calculate all of this is astronomical. In other words: Sorry folks, it ain't gonna happen.

that is a big increase, but i don't think you have shown it couldn't be done. I don't think the peak oil argument is vary convincing.
Also although lithium is the best material for batteries at the current time, its not the only material that batteries can be made from.



Biofuels can't be used because they burn dirty just like regular oil.

this makes no sense, whatever biofuels release when they burn the take up when they grow. the reason biofuels are not a practical replacement for oil is that we couldn't grow enough of them (with current farming techniques).
And would pollution actually stop them being used while capitalism still exists anyway?



Any way you dice it, the future is going to be one of reduced car mobility, which means an end to the happy motoring utopia of McAmerica.

in a post revolutionary society i'm sure we would not use such a inefficient means of transport as cars, at lest most of the time, and i think it is likely that rises in fuel costs will result in less people owning cars, and hopefully more and better public transport.
But saying cars will basically die out because of peak oil is just silly, the most you can say is that cars will get more expensive to run, but we don't know by how much.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You don't have to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, you can use it in a internal combustion engine if you want, its not so efficient but it works.

So the workload for producing hydrogen, an energy-intensive exercise since free hydrogen is rare on Earth, is increased even further.


But assuming you do use a fuel cell it doesn't have to use a platinum catalyst, solid oxide fuel cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell) don't need platinum, although they are a bit slow to start because of the high temperatures they operate at. There is also research into replacing the platinum in other (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16275-platinumfree-fuel-cell-promises-cheap-green-power.html) types of fuel cell although these are much less efficient so far.Why bother atomising the transport system in such a fashion? Why not just have a system of trains and/or trams that run straight off the grid? Rail systems are less intensive in energy and resources to build and maintain than roads, so that means that more people can potentially benefit. That's why efficiency is so important - the more efficiency, the better things willl be for everyone.


that is a big increase, but i don't think you have shown it couldn't be done.The burden of evidence is on you to show that it can be done.


I don't think the peak oil argument is vary convincing.Whether or not you find peak oil convincing or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that oil is ultimately a limited resource.


Also although lithium is the best material for batteries at the current time, its not the only material that batteries can be made from.Yeah, we could go with more environmentally damaging and less efficient options. That would be smart. :rolleyes:


this makes no sense, whatever biofuels release when they burn the take up when they grow.Not immediately - the local area is still being polluted with Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, ash and soot, and various other products. Burning stuff will always produce various pollutants.


And would pollution actually stop them being used while capitalism still exists anyway?Probably not, but what this red herring has to do with the rest of your post, only you can say.


in a post revolutionary society i'm sure we would not use such a inefficient means of transport as cars, at lest most of the time, and i think it is likely that rises in fuel costs will result in less people owning cars, and hopefully more and better public transport.
But saying cars will basically die out because of peak oil is just silly, the most you can say is that cars will get more expensive to run, but we don't know by how much.In comparison to the ridiculous level of car use in some developed countries, yes, cars will basically die out. Personal hobby projects and special purpose vehicles are the only things I can think of that cannot be replaced with more efficient mass transit. Oh, and military vehicles.

[revolution inaction]

NoXion you seem to have trouble seeing the difference between what is possible, what capitalism is likely to choose and what is a good idea, and would therefore I assume be chosen be a post revolutionary society.
My post was mostly about what is possible and what sort of options capitalism will choose.
Selling lots of cars is more profitable than building and running effective mass transport systems, so i think capitalism will try to keep on selling cars.
The oil will not run out so fast that capitalism is forced to start using energy in the most efficient way possible, it will just start selling "green" cars.

[Technocrat]

There is also research into replacing the platinum in other (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16275-platinumfree-fuel-cell-promises-cheap-green-power.html) types of fuel cell although these are much less efficient so far.

Exactly. Less efficient. Which means the problems with production would be even worse.


that is a big increase, but i don't think you have shown it couldn't be done. I don't think the peak oil argument is vary convincing.
Also although lithium is the best material for batteries at the current time, its not the only material that batteries can be made from.Okay, I will find some hard numbers for you if that will convince you. Like fuel cells, lithium is the most efficient material to make batteries from. Any other material is going to be even less efficient.


this makes no sense, whatever biofuels release when they burn the take up when they grow. the reason biofuels are not a practical replacement for oil is that we couldn't grow enough of them (with current farming techniques). And would pollution actually stop them being used while capitalism still exists anyway? You're right, we also couldn't grow enough of them and still feed ourselves. Perhaps that is a more compelling reason. No one is arguing that capitalism is not sustainable.

Not all of the pollution released by the burning of biofuels is "absorbed" by them when they grow.


in a post revolutionary society i'm sure we would not use such a inefficient means of transport as cars, at lest most of the time, and i think it is likely that rises in fuel costs will result in less people owning cars, and hopefully more and better public transport.
But saying cars will basically die out because of peak oil is just silly, the most you can say is that cars will get more expensive to run, but we don't know by how much.I didn't say "cars will die out". I was suggesting that a significant increase in the cost of car transportation will mean an end to the car-dominated suburban way of life.

To think that "someone will just invent something" to allow you to continue your wasteful lifestyle is called wishful thinking.

[Technocrat]

On Lithium:

The PHEV is rated at 9 kwh and so each car would need 18 kg of lithium. Hence, 500 million PHEV's would require:

18 kg x 500 x 10*6 = 9 x 10*9 kg = 9 million tonnes of lithium.

The entire world reserve of lithium ( accounted in the form of lithium oxide, Li2O) is 10.74 million tonnes, which contains (worked at an abundance of 92.5% lithium-7 and the rest lithium-6):

2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] x 10.74 x 10*6/2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] + 16 = 4.98 x 10*6 tonnes; call it 5 million tonnes of lithium.

Obviously there is not enough!

This is for hybrid vehicles. If you wanted to transition to fully electric vehicles, they are rated at 36kwh and so you would need 4 times more Lithium.

The point is that we will not be able to produce these fast enough to replace our ICE powered cars in a timely enough manner to avoid the consequences of peak oil and global warming. We may not ever have enough lithium to fully replace our vehicles. This means a drastic change in lifestyles is inevitable.

(http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2006/10/electric-vehicles-and-world-lithium.html)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, if we ever get nuclear fusion working, we'll need a reliable supply of Lithium (more precisely one of its isotopes, Lithium-6) as a source material for Tritium production and as a neutron absorber. Building a massive fleet of electric vehicles for personal use would run counter to that. It would be a far better idea to conserve Lithium reserves and use fusion to power railways and tramlines.

[Lynx]

The point is that we will not be able to produce these fast enough to replace our ICE powered cars in a timely enough manner to avoid the consequences of peak oil and global warming.
This is inconsequential. If it weren't for expected price increases in fossil fuels there wouldn't be a transition.

We may not ever have enough lithium to fully replace our vehicles.
This is unlikely. Lithium won't be the last word in battery technology. Zinc-air, flow batteries and super-capacitors are promising technologies that offer performance comparable to fossil fuel powered vehicles. If we are interested in building more modest electric vehicles that meet most people's needs, then lead-acid and nickel metal hydride battery technology can suffice.

This means a drastic change in lifestyles is inevitable.
A drastic change followed by improvement and progress.

[Technocrat]

This is inconsequential. If it weren't for expected price increases in fossil fuels there wouldn't be a transition.

It really depends on the type of curve we're talking about.

If prices rise fast enough, we won't have enough available energy for any kind of transition.

Even if prices rose at a moderate rate, there is nothing that says we will change our behavior in a way that will.

Your assumptions are based on the premise that more efficient cars would result in less fuel use. Jevon's Paradox suggests otherwise.

Whatever technology you are talking about, you are still talking about building enough renewable energy infrastructure for an extremely wasteful purpose - 30% of our energy goes into transportation. You could potentially bring that down to 5% or less and provide a higher level of service with the technocratic plan. Building renewable energy infrastructure will require materials and energy. Energy that will come from oil. The EROEI of alternatives does not support the rapid production of infrastructure or anything else. We therefore have a very limited time frame in which to make any kind of transition. The more energy-intensive we make our plan, the less likely it is that we will be able to actually complete a transition before peak oil makes it virtually impossible. Because of the low EROEI of alternatives, it would take hundreds of years to actually complete any kind of transition using just alternatives.

[Lynx]

It really depends on the type of curve we're talking about.

If prices rise fast enough, we won't have enough available energy for any kind of transition.

Even if prices rose at a moderate rate, there is nothing that says we will change our behavior in a way that will.

Your assumptions are based on the premise that more efficient cars would result in less fuel use. Jevon's Paradox suggests otherwise.
Energy consumption is linked to price. If the price of energy rises quickly, consumption will drop at a faster rate. This results in an increase in supply, and an increase in profits for energy producers. Marginal resources like the Tar Sands become profitable and are developed. Investment in energy production eventually leads to increased supply.

The above is a supply driven 'adjustment'. Jevon's Paradox is demand driven. If a transition were successful in decreasing fuel consumption, we could expect the price of fossil fuels to drop. The only way to avoid this would be to keep energy prices artificially high.

Whatever technology you are talking about, you are still talking about building enough renewable energy infrastructure for an extremely wasteful purpose - 30% of our energy goes into transportation. You could potentially bring that down to 5% or less and provide a higher level of service with the technocratic plan. Building renewable energy infrastructure will require materials and energy. Energy that will come from oil. The EROEI of alternatives does not support the rapid production of infrastructure or anything else. We therefore have a very limited time frame in which to make any kind of transition. The more energy-intensive we make our plan, the less likely it is that we will be able to actually complete a transition before peak oil makes it virtually impossible. Because of the low EROEI of alternatives, it would take hundreds of years to actually complete any kind of transition using just alternatives.
It would take a hard supply-driven adjustment to prompt the kind of reforms advocated by technocrats. Overall energy production would have to fall short of global energy consumption and remain flat for a long time. Anything less severe will lead to minimal reforms and a return to old habits as soon as prices ease.

[Technocrat]

Energy consumption is linked to price. If the price of energy rises quickly, consumption will drop at a faster rate. This results in an increase in supply, and an increase in profits for energy producers. Marginal resources like the Tar Sands become profitable and are developed. Investment in energy production eventually leads to increased supply.

That's a rosy picture, isn't it? Here's what actually happens: The price of oil rises. People continue to consume just as much oil because they have to. When the price gets to a certain point, people starve. You will not have an increase in supply because any drop in consumption by those can't afford it will be picked up by those who still can. Witness what is occurring worldwide. Nations in Africa are being out-bid for oil, which means they have to go without. If the Tar Sands ever did become profitable we would know that we were really screwed, because the EROEI of Tar Sands is about the same as if you were to break down the roads and turn them into oil. Low EROEI means that we will not be able to build anything in a reasonable time frame. You have to use high EROEI sources to build things quickly. The only high EROEI sources of energy we have are oil, coal, and natural gas!

Also, why would energy companies choose to develop new sources of energy when demand is low? That's completely contrary to common sense and real world experience.


The above is a supply driven 'adjustment'. Jevon's Paradox is demand driven. If a transition were successful in decreasing fuel consumption, we could expect the price of fossil fuels to drop. The only way to avoid this would be to keep energy prices artificially high.Jevon's Paradox has to do with increasing efficiency tending to make things cheaper which in turn raises our overall consumption rather than decreasing it. So it is supply driven in a sense. It's about what happens when you come up with a more efficient way of supplying something.


It would take a hard supply-driven adjustment to prompt the kind of reforms advocated by technocrats. Overall energy production would have to fall short of global energy consumption and remain flat for a long time. Anything less severe will lead to minimal reforms and a return to old habits as soon as prices ease.Overall energy production is always short of total consumption. That's why we have prices. If there was enough oil to meet the demand at all times, it would be abundant and we would have no need for a price. Oil production has remained flat since 2005, suggesting that 2005 was the date of peak oil.

[Lynx]

That's a rosy picture, isn't it? Here's what actually happens: The price of oil rises. People continue to consume just as much oil because they have to. When the price gets to a certain point, people starve. You will not have an increase in supply because any drop in consumption by those can't afford it will be picked up by those who still can. Witness what is occurring worldwide. Nations in Africa are being out-bid for oil, which means they have to go without.
Our wasteful use of energy ensures that consumption will drop in response to a price hike. Because we are wasteful, our consumption level is above what would be considered a necessary baseline. The worse scenarios involve a huge transfer of wealth from consumers to producers, triggering economic collapse.

If the Tar Sands ever did become profitable we would know that we were really screwed, because the EROEI of Tar Sands is about the same as if you were to break down the roads and turn them into oil. Low EROEI means that we will not be able to build anything in a reasonable time frame. You have to use high EROEI sources to build things quickly. The only high EROEI sources of energy we have are oil, coal, and natural gas!
Well, the activity going on in Alberta and the investments being made are in the pursuit of profit. However I wouldn't be surprised if the oil companies were benefiting from subsidies.

Also, why would energy companies choose to develop new sources of energy when demand is low? That's completely contrary to common sense and real world experience.
They develop them when the price is high or when they believe in favourable supply/demand projections. The role of oil cartels, speculators, political upheavals, natural disasters, etc. tend to make such projections unreliable.

Jevon's Paradox has to do with increasing efficiency tending to make things cheaper which in turn raises our overall consumption rather than decreasing it. So it is supply driven in a sense. It's about what happens when you come up with a more efficient way of supplying something.
In some cases efficiency frees up money that can be spent elsewhere. I consider it demand driven because consumers end up in the drivers seat, so to speak.
Jevon's Paradox is less likely to occur if we are on a downward slope of production.

Overall energy production is always short of total consumption. That's why we have prices. If there was enough oil to meet the demand at all times, it would be abundant and we would have no need for a price. Oil production has remained flat since 2005, suggesting that 2005 was the date of peak oil.
Production tends toward equilibrium with consumption. Divergence results in price changes. Of course, we don't have a free market in the energy sector. There are too many chiselers trying to manipulate the market in their favor. On one hand we have producers and cartels trying to boost prices. On the other side we have various government interventions and subsidies, because high energy prices hurt economic growth.
I believe we have reached or will soon reach a plateau in oil production. The shape of the curve will be more or less flat for an unknown number of years.

[Technocrat]

Our wasteful use of energy ensures that consumption will drop in response to a price hike. Because we are wasteful, our consumption level is above what would be considered a necessary baseline. The worse scenarios involve a huge transfer of wealth from consumers to producers, triggering economic collapse.

I agree that we are wasteful, but a lot of that waste is necessary for a lot of people (such as driving 10 miles to get some bread), and making things more efficient requires energy that will become increasingly scarce (more expensive) as peak oil progresses.

I don't think we will be able to sustain a way of life that depends on cheap car transportation.

[Lynx]

I agree that we are wasteful, but a lot of that waste is necessary for a lot of people (such as driving 10 miles to get some bread), and making things more efficient requires energy that will become increasingly scarce (more expensive) as peak oil progresses.

I don't think we will be able to sustain a way of life that depends on cheap car transportation.
At this point in time I don't believe we are in imminent danger of losing our privileged way of life. The future is far from clear, however. Like a ship sailing through the fog without instruments, we don't know what we'll run into.

[TC]

This thread provides perfect examples of 'technocracy's social reactionary, elitist nature. The idea that you could ever maximize livability 'top down' arrogantly and anti-democratically presupposes that 'livability' and a desirable lifestyle are value neutral concepts that can be engineered by experts, rather than political questions to be decided by the community democratically. This myth of politically and value neutral management of people has been one that the powerful have always relied on to justify their capricious power.

Thank god these people are obscure, powerless, and are transparently totalitarian and ridiculous enough to prevent them from ever becoming appealing politically rather than as part of a nerdy subculture.

[Technocrat]

This thread provides perfect examples of 'technocracy's social reactionary, elitist nature. The idea that you could ever maximize livability 'top down' arrogantly and anti-democratically presupposes that 'livability' and a desirable lifestyle are value neutral concepts that can be engineered by experts, rather than political questions to be decided by the community democratically. This myth of politically and value neutral management of people has been one that the powerful have always relied on to justify their capricious power.

You really know very little about Technocracy, don't you? For any given set of approaches to solving a given problem, there is going to be one approach that is most ideal. This is called systems-thinking, top-down planning, or katascopic design. It is used by engineers who build the things that you use daily. It is used by functional organizations to provide the services that you depend on. Of course Technocracy cannot determine how people should live, this is something that has to be determined by themselves. Once the question of how we should live has been answered we can go about determining the best way of getting there using the scientific method.

Technocracy has assumed that the answer to the question of how we should live would be to have the highest standard of living possible for all people that is sustainable. In other words, the highest standard of living that will not compromise the ability of future generations to also enjoy a high standard of living. This goal has been found to be more or less universal among people.

You seem to have little understanding of Technocracy. There isn't some shadowy group that is going to install this for you. If it ever happens, it will have to be by the people and for the people. In other words, it will have to happen democratically.

Within the political spectrum, Technocracy is about as far as you can get from totalitarianism.

It is also not reactionary, according to the accepted definition of the word. If anything, anti-technocratic primitivists are reactionary. Nor is Technocracy "elitist" - could you please explain why you think this?


At this point in time I don't believe we are in imminent danger of losing our privileged way of life. The future is far from clear, however. Like a ship sailing through the fog without instruments, we don't know what we'll run into.Global warming and peak oil suggest otherwise, although I suppose it depends on your definition of the word "imminent". To think that we will just invent our way out of this and not have to make any alterations in our lifestyle is not supported by the evidence, and is suggestive of wishful thinking. To assume that we will invent our way out of this without having to make any alterations in our lifestyle assumes a mathematically constant rate of improvement in the efficiency of our Technology, which is just as unlikely and unsustainable as a constant rate of physical expansion.

[TC]

For any given set of approaches to solving a given problem, there is going to be one approach that is most ideal. This is called systems-thinking, top-down planning, or katascopic design. It is used by engineers who build the things that you use daily. It is used by functional organizations to provide the services that you depend on.

No, for any given problem there is not going to one approach that is most ideal. This pivotal and unjustified assumption that underlies the basis of your ideology also exposes its deep conceptual confusion.

This assumption is an easy one to make for someone growing up under capitalism because capitalists attempt to depoliticize the management of people and claim that managers do something of objective value rather than facilitating the particular agenda of a particular set of people.

1. For any "given problem" there is a question of what the problem is, what elements are considered problematic. "Problems" are not things found in nature they're value judgments that people impose on situations, and what people problematize is a deeply political question that different people answer differently according to their interests and values.

The idea that a "given problem" could be identified in a value neutral way is your first false assumption.

2. The degree to which any given "solution" is considered "most ideal" is also not a quality found in the natural world that can be assessed empirically but a value judgment on which is most preferable, given different subjective preferences. What costs are worth what benefits, what components are conceptualized as 'costs', which conceptualized as 'benefits', and which are left out of the analysis all together, either deliberately or because they are not even identified in the political discourse, are all subjective valuations.


Simply put, there is no 'scientific' way to assess optimality. This is true even for engineers, you just have the mistaken impression that they can actually scientifically assess optimality because the function of what they design is typically overt and not brought into dispute.

Arrogant social engineering as you propose presupposes that there similarly could be no dispute, that the total impact would be overt and assessable, and that the social engineers subjective preferences were in fact super-humanly objective.

This is nonsense and this is reactionary.

[Technocrat]

No, for any given problem there is not going to one approach that is most ideal. This pivotal and unjustified assumption that underlies the basis of your ideology also exposes its deep conceptual confusion.

Well, there goes the entire scientific method, then. You're wrong about this. Your confusion arises from your inability to separate what is subjective and what is objective. Or maybe you are trying to deliberately obfuscate the situation by blurring the distinction between the two.


1. For any "given problem" there is a question of what the problem is, what elements are considered problematic. "Problems" are not things found in nature they're value judgments that people impose on situations, and what people problematize is a deeply political question that different people answer differently according to their interests and values.

The idea that a "given problem" could be identified in a value neutral way is your first false assumption. As I think you'll see if you re-read my initial reply to you, I have already addressed this. There is no assumption here. Once the problems have been identified, you can use the scientific method to determine the best way of solving them. That is all. In fact, the scientific method is the best method we have for solving problems. Identifying the problem is subjective, yes. Technocracy is a set of solutions to the problem of creating a technological sustainable society. It will be up to the people to decide if that is what they want.


2. The degree to which any given "solution" is considered "most ideal" is also not a quality found in the natural world that can be assessed empirically but a value judgment on which is most preferable, given different subjective preferences. What costs are worth what benefits, what components are conceptualized as 'costs', which conceptualized as 'benefits', and which are left out of the analysis all together, either deliberately or because they are not even identified in the political discourse, are all subjective valuations. Maybe you misunderstand what "ideal" means. The ideal solution would be the one with the lowest cost that achieves the desired outcome. Pretty straightforward. Ideal in this sense is empirically measurable. Efficiency equals output divided by input.


Simply put, there is no 'scientific' way to assess optimality. This is true even for engineers, you just have the mistaken impression that they can actually scientifically assess optimality because the function of what they design is typically overt and not brought into dispute.You are wrong about this. Engineers use the method I am describing all the time. In city planning for example there might be literally thousands of possible designs for a city. A computer is then given a set of instructions telling it what the goals for the city are, and then based upon that selects an ideal plan from the thousands available. They do the same thing with cars, toaster ovens, or anything else. It has been going on for a long time, except in the price system what is chosen is not the most efficient solution, but the most profitable.


Arrogant social engineering as you propose presupposes that there similarly could be no dispute, that the total impact would be overt and assessable, and that the social engineers subjective preferences were in fact super-humanly objective.

This is nonsense and this is reactionary.You don't know what reactionary means, do you? Reactionary movements are typically conservative and seek to return society to some idealized past. Like anti-technocratic primitivists, for example.

Here are the definitions:

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_egalitarianism) direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative (reactionary) ideologies.


Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante)) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful. The term originated in the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution), to denote the counter-revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary) who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) Ancien Régime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien_R%C3%A9gime). In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism) and aristocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) privilege against industrialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialism), republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism), liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism), and socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism). Today the term is largely used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejoratively) to refer to ideas that are considered backwards, outdated and opposed to progress.


Source: Wikipedia


I already addressed your other statement.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about how suburbia sucks.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I live in a suburban hellhole, and i agree with pretty much all the complaints levied against it.

[revolution inaction]

On Lithium:

The PHEV is rated at 9 kwh and so each car would need 18 kg of lithium. Hence, 500 million PHEV's would require:

18 kg x 500 x 10*6 = 9 x 10*9 kg = 9 million tonnes of lithium.

The entire world reserve of lithium ( accounted in the form of lithium oxide, Li2O) is 10.74 million tonnes, which contains (worked at an abundance of 92.5% lithium-7 and the rest lithium-6):

2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] x 10.74 x 10*6/2 x [(7 x .925) + (6 x .075)] + 16 = 4.98 x 10*6 tonnes; call it 5 million tonnes of lithium.

Obviously there is not enough!

This is for hybrid vehicles. If you wanted to transition to fully electric vehicles, they are rated at 36kwh and so you would need 4 times more Lithium.

The point is that we will not be able to produce these fast enough to replace our ICE powered cars in a timely enough manner to avoid the consequences of peak oil and global warming. We may not ever have enough lithium to fully replace our vehicles. This means a drastic change in lifestyles is inevitable.

(http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2006/10/electric-vehicles-and-world-lithium.html)

If you'd read the comments under the that article then you would know that the author admits they where wrong about the amount of lithium needed to make a battery and about size the reserves of lithium, there is more than enough.

[Technocrat]

The point is that cars are an extremely inefficient way of performing their given function, regardless of how you build them or what energy source is used to power them.

We could maximize cars but this would only maximize quality of life in some respects while lowering it in many others (pollution will still be a problem, traffic, 50,000 deaths from auto accidents per year, urban sprawl, etc). We can therefore say that this is not the maximum quality of life or global optimum but rather a local optimum. The global optimum is where we find the most efficient means of achieving the desired goals that have been set down.

Besides, the debate on lithium has still not been answered. There are many prominent sources who say that production will not be able to keep up with demand. Remember that it doesn't matter if there is enough in the ground. What matters is how much we can reasonably extract at a given time.

[Kyrite]

Suburbia in the UK doesn't exist in the same way it does in the USA. Over here in the UK our suburbs are vastly more integrated with both the country side and the cities. Where i live i am within walking distance of about 5 farms (albeit fairly small) and two tower blocks. There are also many shops within a very close area but there are also too many parks to count. All in all i like the mix of city and country that i have.

I live just outside London.

[MarxSchmarx]

The point is that cars are an extremely inefficient way of performing their given function, regardless of how you build them or what energy source is used to power them.


The problem is that in many contexts, alternatives are even MORE inefficient. Unimaginably dense rural rail networks (the sort that exist in, for example, parts of Japan) serve purposes other than those they are nominally intended for (like providing construction contracts instead of transportation). In many respects, they are grossly inefficient, and fail to really solve any problem.

This doesn't mean the automobile should be the only mode of transit - indeed, the concerns you site are very real:



We could maximize cars but this would only maximize quality of life in some respects while lowering it in many others (pollution will still be a problem, traffic, 50,000 deaths from auto accidents per year, urban sprawl, etc).

But these processes don't occur equally. For instance, traffic and sprawl around major urban centers are legitimate concerns, but less so in a provincial setting. Thus, there is a certain contingency to these problems that could be overcome by ways that don't involve taking away the automobile.

Is the objective really to "maximize cars" rather than to preferentially treat automobile transportation in some contexts but not others?

[Technocrat]

The problem is that in many contexts, alternatives are even MORE inefficient. Unimaginably dense rural rail networks (the sort that exist in, for example, parts of Japan) serve purposes other than those they are nominally intended for (like providing construction contracts instead of transportation). In many respects, they are grossly inefficient, and fail to really solve any problem.

I would argue that cases like this are mainly due to Price System interference (the construction contracts you mentioned being one example of such) and anascopic (bottom-up) planning.


But these processes don't occur equally. For instance, traffic and sprawl around major urban centers are legitimate concerns, but less so in a provincial setting. Thus, there is a certain contingency to these problems that could be overcome by ways that don't involve taking away the automobile.Such as? Might I point out that due to simple population pressures that not everyone is capable of living in a provincial setting?

No one is suggesting taking away the automobile. What is being suggested is that overall quality of life would be higher with a less auto-centric urban pattern. I like cars, personally. I still recognize that using them as the primary form of transportation is madness.


Is the objective really to "maximize cars" rather than to preferentially treat automobile transportation in some contexts but not others?I think the objective of our current urban patterns is to preferentially treat automobile transportation in all contexts. We need to abandon this mentality.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx
The problem is that in many contexts, alternatives are even MORE inefficient. Unimaginably dense rural rail networks (the sort that exist in, for example, parts of Japan) serve purposes other than those they are nominally intended for (like providing construction contracts instead of transportation). In many respects, they are grossly inefficient, and fail to really solve any problem.
I would argue that cases like this are mainly due to Price System interference (the construction contracts you mentioned being one example of such) and anascopic (bottom-up) planning.

Well sure if you don't believe in local planning these problems could be fixed through centralized micromanagement. But any add any degree of local autonomy and the need for flexible decision making, and it makes more sense to have a truck lying around that could be used to deliver goods and people at will than to have regular rail service, and only regular rail service, at a frequency that doesn't inconvenience anyone even in remote locations.



No one is suggesting taking away the automobile. What is being suggested is that overall quality of life would be higher with a less auto-centric urban pattern. I like cars, personally. I still recognize that using them as the primary form of transportation is madness.


What then are you suggesting? This seems to be precisely the gist of your claim in:

The point is that cars are an extremely inefficient way of performing their given function, regardless of how you build them or what energy source is used to power them.
We could maximize cars but this would only maximize quality of life in some respects while lowering it in many others (pollution will still be a problem, traffic, 50,000 deaths from auto accidents per year, urban sprawl, etc

If attempts at improving automobile emissions
Well in urban centers there is generally broad agreement on this point I don't see how it is all that controversial or, for that matter, different from what exists in most major, developed metropolises.


But these processes don't occur equally. For instance, traffic and sprawl around major urban centers are legitimate concerns, but less so in a provincial setting. Thus, there is a certain contingency to these problems that could be overcome by ways that don't involve taking away the automobile.
Such as? Might I point out that due to simple population pressures that not everyone is capable of living in a provincial setting?

Most of your examples have already been commented on in this thread, such as emissions and sprawl...

But let's start w/ the 50,000 deaths. Have a mechanism in cars that tests the breath of the driver for alcohol before starting. Viz. pollution, apart from what's already been said, getting rid of planned obsolescence would also help. And with respect to sprawl, this point was largely made already but we can rehash it - it is really just a result of bad or no urban planning and poor metropolitan coordination - the automobile has only made these things worse. Moreover, sprawl has been a disaster in some huge metropolitan areas (esp. in the developing world) but has been more benign in mid-sized cities in the global north, for example.


I think the objective of our current urban patterns is to preferentially treat automobile transportation in all contexts. We need to abandon this mentality.


But this is just not true. Look at most of Europe and much of east Asia for strong counter-examples. In fact, North America and Australia are virtually alone among developed nations in being so automobile-centric even in their urban development patterns. The status quo in those countries is just a sorry reflection of short-sited, corrupt, and bumbling bureaucrats, as well as another example of the limitations of capitalism, rather than an indictment of automobile technology.

By the way, even if it were the case that

[Technocrat]

Well sure if you don't believe in local planning these problems could be fixed through centralized micromanagement. But any add any degree of local autonomy and the need for flexible decision making, and it makes more sense to have a truck lying around that could be used to deliver goods and people at will than to have regular rail service, and only regular rail service, at a frequency that doesn't inconvenience anyone even in remote locations.

I fail to see how "local autonomy" automatically results in truck use vs. rail use. I don't see how there is any connection at all.


What then are you suggesting? This seems to be precisely the gist of your claim in:A national car sharing system would be sufficient to meet the needs of most people. If we had urbanates such a system would be convenient for everyone, since you could locate garages within each urbanate. For the few left who were true motor enthusiasts, you could provide them their own car. Rather than having a bunch of privately owned cars which sit parked for 95% of the time, you put those cars in use for 50% of the time and then you need 10 times fewer cars to meet everyone's need. Everyone gets to use whatever type of car whenever they want for however long they want. The design of urbanates would just make them completely unnecessary for daily transportation.


But let's start w/ the 50,000 deaths. Have a mechanism in cars that tests the breath of the driver for alcohol before starting. Viz. pollution, apart from what's already been said, getting rid of planned obsolescence would also help. And with respect to sprawl, this point was largely made already but we can rehash it - it is really just a result of bad or no urban planning and poor metropolitan coordination - the automobile has only made these things worse. Moreover, sprawl has been a disaster in some huge metropolitan areas (esp. in the developing world) but has been more benign in mid-sized cities in the global north, for example.How are you going to get rid of planned obsolescence without getting rid of the price system? Planned obsolescence is essential to the Price System. Not all deaths are related to consuming alcohol. There are many other drugs, and some people are just bad drivers. Then there is also the overall degredation in quality of the urban environment when cities adopt a car-centric development pattern. Since cars require a low density environment in order to function, accommodating cars (to the extent that most American cities do) precludes the possibility of higher-density, walkable, and public transit-oriented neighborhoods.


But this is just not true. Look at most of Europe and much of east Asia for strong counter-examples. In fact, North America and Australia are virtually alone among developed nations in being so automobile-centric even in their urban development patterns. The status quo in those countries is just a sorry reflection of short-sited, corrupt, and bumbling bureaucrats, as well as another example of the limitations of capitalism, rather than an indictment of automobile technology.Of course I was referring to sprawl where it exists. Asia doesn't have high enough per capita energy consumption to support sprawl, Europe suffers the same problem to a lesser degree.

If we examine the benefits of adopting car transportation as the primary means of transportation, it is obvious that they are outweighed by the costs. Cars should never be used as a primary means of transportation.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree, pictures would be very helpful in a number of ways. Unfortunately, we have badly needed visual renderings of Urbanates for some time now. One of the things sorely lacking in the Technocracy movement is marketing, but we are working on that.


Hey, talk to me about this -- I'm proficient with doing 3-D renderings based on virtual models derived from 2-D line drawings. Here's a link to some past work:

http://tinyurl.com/npncyd

[Lynx]

Global warming and peak oil suggest otherwise, although I suppose it depends on your definition of the word "imminent". To think that we will just invent our way out of this and not have to make any alterations in our lifestyle is not supported by the evidence, and is suggestive of wishful thinking. To assume that we will invent our way out of this without having to make any alterations in our lifestyle assumes a mathematically constant rate of improvement in the efficiency of our Technology, which is just as unlikely and unsustainable as a constant rate of physical expansion.
20 years should be a comfortable time frame in which to complete a transition in transportation and other sectors. If we don't have the luxury of waiting for technological improvements we can improve efficiency in other ways, such as driving less or carpooling.

Hybrid technology appears to be a likely intermediary between fossil fuel and electric drive vehicles. Running an internal combustion engine at its optimal speed improves its efficiency. Powering the wheels with electric motors saves weight. Utilizing regenerative braking captures wasted energy.

[ckaihatsu]

20 years should be a comfortable time frame in which to complete a transition in transportation and other sectors. If we don't have the luxury of waiting for technological improvements we can improve efficiency in other ways, such as driving less or carpooling.

Hybrid technology appears to be a likely intermediary between fossil fuel and electric drive vehicles. Running an internal combustion engine at its optimal speed improves its efficiency. Powering the wheels with electric motors saves weight. Utilizing regenerative braking captures wasted energy.


http://www.valentintechnologies.com/how-it-works/default.asp


100 MPG INGOCAR HYDRAULIC HYBRID

Valentin Technologies, Inc.


The piston of the free-piston internal combustion engine pumps hydraulic fluid into the accumulator. It stores the energy by compressing the gas bladder inside. The engine will be turned off automatically when the accumulator is filled – and turned on again automatically shortly before it becomes empty.

The pressurized fluid drives the wheelmotors, one in each wheel. Their driving power is continuously variable from zero to maximum speed.

The wheelmotors are reversed during braking and become pumps. They are powerful enough to stop the car like disk brakes, while recuperating the entire braking energy. The energy is stored in the accumulator and used again for driving. The ‘round-trip-efficiency’ during braking is 70% to 85%. The energy is stored in the accumulator and will be used again to drive the car.

[LINE ART DRAWINGS]

[Technocrat]

20 years should be a comfortable time frame in which to complete a transition in transportation and other sectors. If we don't have the luxury of waiting for technological improvements we can improve efficiency in other ways, such as driving less or carpooling.

Hybrid technology appears to be a likely intermediary between fossil fuel and electric drive vehicles. Running an internal combustion engine at its optimal speed improves its efficiency. Powering the wheels with electric motors saves weight. Utilizing regenerative braking captures wasted energy.

We may not have 20 years. If the latest reports are to be believed, we have less than 10 years in which to reduce our CO2 levels or we will face severe consequences from climate change.

I'd say 20 years is pretty optimistic. "Improving in other ways" would actually harm the economy, which in the long run will make the situation worse. If you had a lot of people car pooling that is a lot less money the car manufacturers are going to make, and that entails a loss of jobs and even less money for the consumer. If we drive less that's less revenue for the energy companies to invest in renewable energy sources. It's a vicious feedback loop.

I think hybrid technology is over-hyped. The highest rated car in terms of mpg is a non-hybrid Volkswagen. Europeans have had diesel engine cars that get in excess of 50mpg for years.

100mpg is good, but remember that a train can move a ton of freight 500 miles with one gallon of fuel. A ton would be equal to around 15 people of average weight.

[Lynx]

The piston of the free-piston internal combustion engine pumps hydraulic fluid into the accumulator. It stores the energy by compressing the gas bladder inside. The engine will be turned off automatically when the accumulator is filled – and turned on again automatically shortly before it becomes empty.

The pressurized fluid drives the wheelmotors, one in each wheel. Their driving power is continuously variable from zero to maximum speed.

The wheelmotors are reversed during braking and become pumps. They are powerful enough to stop the car like disk brakes, while recuperating the entire braking energy. The energy is stored in the accumulator and used again for driving. The ‘round-trip-efficiency’ during braking is 70% to 85%. The energy is stored in the accumulator and will be used again to drive the car.
This might compare favourably with pneumatic energy storage. Some details are lacking however. What is the weight of the storage vessel / drive train assembly? At what pressure does it operate? What is it's energy storage capacity?
The wheel motors are rated at 545 horsepower or 400KW. I assume this is necessary in order to support maximum braking?

We may not have 20 years. If the latest reports are to be believed, we have less than 10 years in which to reduce our CO2 levels or we will face severe consequences from climate change.
Then we will face the consequences. If a hard choice has to be made between burning fossil fuels and slowing global warming, we will continue to burn fossil fuels. I believe it is already too late to 'prevent' climate change. The best we can do is mitigate its effects by adapting to it.

I'd say 20 years is pretty optimistic. "Improving in other ways" would actually harm the economy, which in the long run will make the situation worse. If you had a lot of people car pooling that is a lot less money the car manufacturers are going to make, and that entails a loss of jobs and even less money for the consumer. If we drive less that's less revenue for the energy companies to invest in renewable energy sources. It's a vicious feedback loop.
A lower-energy economy, born out of scarcity, would be unpleasant. Unless we are forced into that situation, we will continue to believe we can have our cake and eat it too. Our civilization is not structured towards preemptive planning.

I think hybrid technology is over-hyped. The highest rated car in terms of mpg is a non-hybrid Volkswagen. Europeans have had diesel engine cars that get in excess of 50mpg for years.
Diesel contains more energy than gasoline. Are you certain the ratings were adjusted to take this (and other factors) into account?
Hybrids have some of the best fuel consumption ratings. For example, a Prius gets about the same highway mpg as a Yaris. In the city, the Prius consumes significantly less. A series hybrid like the Chevy Volt can be expected to consume even less energy in the city.

100mpg is good, but remember that a train can move a ton of freight 500 miles with one gallon of fuel. A ton would be equal to around 15 people of average weight.
I agree. Unfortunately the trend in logistics has been away from freight trains in favor of trailer trucks. Railroads have been abandoned and torn up. In North America, passenger rail service is in a sorry state.

[Technocrat]

Then we will face the consequences. If a hard choice has to be made between burning fossil fuels and slowing global warming, we will continue to burn fossil fuels. I believe it is already too late to 'prevent' climate change. The best we can do is mitigate its effects by adapting to it.That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. Even if we can't prevent climate change (I do not dispute this), we can certainly reduce its impact. One of the primary ways we can do this is by reducing our CO2 emissions.


Our civilization is not structured towards preemptive planning.I agree with this. The Price System results in anascopic planning which results in waste and inefficiency. This is why I advocate Total-Systems Planning or katascopic planning, which is also the approach that Technocracy uses.


Diesel contains more energy than gasoline. Are you certain the ratings were adjusted to take this (and other factors) into account?
Hybrids have some of the best fuel consumption ratings. For example, a Prius gets about the same highway mpg as a Yaris. In the city, the Prius consumes significantly less. A series hybrid like the Chevy Volt can be expected to consume even less energy in the city.http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/09/vws-prius-killi/


I agree. Unfortunately the trend in logistics has been away from freight trains in favor of trailer trucks. Railroads have been abandoned and torn up. In North America, passenger rail service is in a sorry state.I'm aware of this. That's why Technocracy proposes we redirect the energy and resources currently being poured into suburbia into projects like high-speed rail networks, canals, and urbanates.

Actually I recently took a train from D.C. to Philadelphia and it was a hell of a lot better than flying. But I agree, our rail system is worse than the systems of many third world countries.

[Lynx]

That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. Even if we can't prevent climate change (I do not dispute this), we can certainly reduce its impact. One of the primary ways we can do this is by reducing our CO2 emissions.
There has been much talk and little action in the past, so I am skeptical this will change.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/09/vws-prius-killi/
It's engine (1.6 litre, 105 HP) suggests a subcompact (Yaris size) model. It gets better mileage than the Yaris (diesel=gas + 11%), but is it really comparable to a midsize car like the Prius?
The 2004-2009 Prius weigh in at 1317 Kg. (source: Wikipedia)

[Technocrat]

There has been much talk and little action in the past, so I am skeptical this will change.

My position is that the current system is incapable of meaningful action, so I agree with you in that sense.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't really see all that's particularly profound in the analysis presented thusfar. Some of the supposed downsides of car culture you claim to be typical of this mode of transportation seem to be the most glaring, and frankly selective, cases, and I am not really convinced by your attempt to impose what is essentially an urban solution to the problem everywhere.

Basically it comes down to this:


If we examine the benefits of adopting car transportation as the primary means of transportation, it is obvious that they are outweighed by the costs. Cars should never be used as a primary means of transportation.


Maybe as a generality you could justify saying something like that. But so what? This has been known for a very long time and is, in essence, a global consensus. Even in places where sprawl is bad, nobody seriously supports sprawl for its own sake any more. Not even the car companies.

In any event insofar as you seem to want to take this claim to extremes, your focus neglects different needs of different communities and I don't think it gets us very far.

Other points:


I fail to see how "local autonomy" automatically results in truck use vs. rail use. I don't see how there is any connection at all.


They seem pretty self-evident to me. A factory finishes production early. They want to ship a larger than expected volume. With rail the logistics are much more complicated and have to be coordinated. With trucks you load them on and go.

People that want to live in remote areas - with roads they can arrange their own planning and scheduling. With rail this becomes rapidly impractical.


How are you going to get rid of planned obsolescence without getting rid of the price system? Planned obsolescence is essential to the Price System. Not all deaths are related to consuming alcohol. There are many other drugs, and some people are just bad drivers. Then there is also the overall degredation in quality of the urban environment when cities adopt a car-centric development pattern.


Who ever said all automobile deaths were related to alcohol? This is a strawman argument and at the risk of coming across as a flame it's a pretty sad response. Besides, in the US the primary cause of automobile accident death is alcohol and not wearing seat belts, both readily preventable and not a serious indictment of cars qua cars.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Number-One-Cause-of-Auto-Accident-in-the-US-and-How-You-and-Your-Family-Can-Prevent-Mishap&id=2057442

And just because planned obsolence is linked to the price system doesn't say anything. There are clearly alternatives to tossing out the whole car to reduce pollution. I don't understand what you're not seeing.


Since cars require a low density environment in order to function, accommodating cars (to the extent that most American cities do) precludes the possibility of higher-density, walkable, and public transit-oriented neighborhoods.

I see you've said this a number of times. I don't see why you feel the persistent need to keep repeating it.

[RedRise]

You're right.
Suburbia is a (boring) waste of space. I should know - I live in it.
I agree that the people will be in cities surrounded by farmland. It's the best way to set things up.
(Although I do have something against cities that are noisy and polluted!)

[Technocrat]

I don't really see all that's particularly profound in the analysis presented thusfar. Some of the supposed downsides of car culture you claim to be typical of this mode of transportation seem to be the most glaring, and frankly selective, cases, and I am not really convinced by your attempt to impose what is essentially an urban solution to the problem everywhere.

When did I say that this would be "imposed everywhere"?


Maybe as a generality you could justify saying something like that. But so what? This has been known for a very long time and is, in essence, a global consensus. Even in places where sprawl is bad, nobody seriously supports sprawl for its own sake any more. Not even the car companies.If it is a global consensus and has been "known for a very long time", why do we continue to build cities and towns in that way? In case you didn't know, the vast majority of projects still being built (in America) would be classified as urban sprawl.


In any event insofar as you seem to want to take this claim to extremes, your focus neglects different needs of different communities and I don't think it gets us very far.Why do you think it neglects the needs of different communities?


They seem pretty self-evident to me. A factory finishes production early. They want to ship a larger than expected volume. With rail the logistics are much more complicated and have to be coordinated. With trucks you load them on and go.Why would a factory finish production early or ship a larger than expected volume unless you had a bunch of independently operated (read: privately owned) units which had poor coordination between each other (like our present system)? You are also greatly exaggerating the difficulty of logistics with rail. In reality, such things occur all the time without a problem.

There is a reason why communist countries use rail.


People that want to live in remote areas - with roads they can arrange their own planning and scheduling. With rail this becomes rapidly impractical.Heaven forbid that rural residents might have to conform to a train schedule, and make some small sacrifice in their energy-intensive lifestyle. Also, no one suggested that rural residents wouldn't have cars available to them, but they might find that the price of fuel makes it prohibitively expensive for them to drive much. This is the reality of the situation we are in regarding energy.


Who ever said all automobile deaths were related to alcohol? This is a strawman argument and at the risk of coming across as a flame it's a pretty sad response. Besides, in the US the primary cause of automobile accident death is alcohol and not wearing seat belts, both readily preventable and not a serious indictment of cars qua cars.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Number-One-Cause-of-Auto-Accident-in-the-US-and-How-You-and-Your-Family-Can-Prevent-Mishap&id=2057442You suggested that we just slap a breathalizer onto all cars as a way to avoid car deaths. So it was you who indirectly suggested that the majority of car deaths were related to alcohol. The primary cause of automobile accident death is alcohol and not wearing seat belts. That is for those in the car. What about pedestrians? I suppose they don't matter? From that article it says that 1/3rd of auto accidents are alcohol related. What about the other 2/3rds?


And just because planned obsolence is linked to the price system doesn't say anything. There are clearly alternatives to tossing out the whole car to reduce pollution. I don't understand what you're not seeing.I already explained in a previous post that I am not suggesting "tossing out the whole car", so stop trying to make that your point.


I see you've said this a number of times. I don't see why you feel the persistent need to keep repeating it.Your persistence indicates that you have yet to get the point.

[Lynx]

For your consideration or comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_(automobile)

[Technocrat]

For your consideration or comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_village
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_(automobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_%28automobile))

Cool, I have been aware of these for a while, since one of my primary interests is in urban planning.

I see transit villages and transit oriented development as the best that the Price System can come up with. They still do not constitute a complete urban strategy, but rather are a set of patchwork solutions. Transit villages would be superior to car-centric suburbs, for sure, but they would not be as efficient or (in my opinion) as livable as urbanates or arcologies. Actually, my focus was on transit-oriented development before I became aware of Technocracy, Total-Systems Planning (katascopic planning), and Urbanates.

Platoons sound like an interesting concept. This is part of the automated highway system? I'm not sure we will have resources for that, or if the projected energy savings from it would be worth the investment. I have had a similar idea, though. Cars would basically park on a "train" that was on the highway. The cars would then turn their engines off and the train would carry them for the long haul.

I've talked a lot about how suburbs are inefficient and have poor livability, but what about the social impacts? Most social scientists who study these issues conclude that Suburbia is a poor environment in which to raise children. Suburbs foster matriarchal dominance: the kids are always safe, and always in sight. There is really no place for the children to go that is within walking distance, so the parents become full-time chauffeurs while the kids become dependent on their parents to get anywhere or participate in any activity that does not take place in the backyard. This stunts the development of independent individuals.

Entire volumes have been written on the social fragmentation that the suburbs create. Social scientists conclude that because the physical proximity between people is low, community also suffers. The opportunity for chance encounters between individuals is almost completely eliminated in the suburbs. In the suburbs, it is possible to create a bubble around yourself that reinforces pre-existing beliefs and prevents new information from coming in which might contradict those beliefs. This leads to stagnation and conservatism. Do you see how this might be relevant to a socialist or communist?

If we look at an election results map from the past 10 years, you will see that the cities are blue, democratic islands (with the exception of Houston and Oklahoma City), while the rural and suburban areas are a sea of republican red. Given what I have just explained in the above paragraphs, this is not surprising.

[Lynx]

I appreciate your comments. I don't have much to add since I mostly agree. It is interesting to wonder how much better human society could organize itself, if given the chance. I dare say we haven't done too badly, given imperfect information at the time - but that's no excuse for dawdling.

I've talked a lot about how suburbs are inefficient and have poor livability, but what about the social impacts? Most social scientists who study these issues conclude that Suburbia is a poor environment in which to raise children. Suburbs foster matriarchal dominance: the kids are always safe, and always in sight. There is really no place for the children to go that is within walking distance, so the parents become full-time chauffeurs while the kids become dependent on their parents to get anywhere or participate in any activity that does not take place in the backyard. This stunts the development of independent individuals.
Until it is time for them to head off to college and/or the big city. You can be more anonymous in urban areas, it would seem.
Another measurement is 'sense of community'. I can't say from personal experience which setting encourages or discourages this. Perception and behavior can be at odds.

Entire volumes have been written on the social fragmentation that the suburbs create. Social scientists conclude that because the physical proximity between people is low, community also suffers. The opportunity for chance encounters between individuals is almost completely eliminated in the suburbs.
In a rural area you do have the opportunity to get to know your neighbours. The same can be said for any real life version of Coronation Street. Yet it remains a choice. In real life I choose not to know my neighbours.

In the suburbs, it is possible to create a bubble around yourself that reinforces pre-existing beliefs and prevents new information from coming in which might contradict those beliefs. This leads to stagnation and conservatism. Do you see how this might be relevant to a socialist or communist?
I can see how it is relevant to me, in that I live there. There's a contradiction for those of us who are anti-social: in not wanting to be around people physically, I am drawn to the open spaces of the countryside. But to be truly alone in terms of relationships (anonymity), the city might be the place to live. In the city, I would not face any sort of pressure to get to know my neighbours. Apparently, this is considered 'normal'.
In a rural area, remaining aloof is considered rude. It is something 'city people' are accused of.

If we look at an election results map from the past 10 years, you will see that the cities are blue, democratic islands (with the exception of Houston and Oklahoma City), while the rural and suburban areas are a sea of republican red. Given what I have just explained in the above paragraphs, this is not surprising.
The wealthier suburbs will obviously be conservative and opposed to liberalism and hostile to progressive movements. There's also an element of racial segregation being quietly played out.
On a rather vacuous point, rural Nova Scotia used to always vote conservative. Then, in the recent provincial election, a big orange NDP wave swept across the South Shore!

Rural concerns appear to be irrelevant for the communist movement, excepting the tenets of Maoist theory. In the first world countries, Communism has retained its urban roots. It remains focused on where a worker's revolution is most likely to occur - in the city. It's a question of numbers and geography. Most people live in cities and that's where most jobs are. Industrial and commercial districts are concentrated in and around large urban areas.
The torch of rev-leftist ideals has been passed to a younger generation. Many communists may have been born in the suburbs, but I wonder how their experiences growing up there would have influenced them. (?)

[Lynx]

As an aside, the province of Ontario in Canada is interesting. Politically, it is divided in the sense that Northern Ontario is social democratic in the economic sphere, while traditionally conservative elsewhere. Northern Ontario's economy is tied to primary industry; Southern Ontario is economically more successful, yet liberal. The great majority of Ontarians live in the south (in cities, in hideous suburbs and in million dollar cottages on the weekend).

[FreeFocus]

People say there's nothing to do in the suburbs, but I find there's nothing to do in the city (personally): I hate malls, movies are a waste of money when I can stream online, etc. I think there's a lot more to do in a more rural or suburban environment. I'm more of an outdoorsman anyway. Not much for me in a city. :sleep:

[Technocrat]

In a rural area you do have the opportunity to get to know your neighbours. The same can be said for any real life version of Coronation Street. Yet it remains a choice. In real life I choose not to know my neighbours.

I can see how it is relevant to me, in that I live there. There's a contradiction for those of us who are anti-social: in not wanting to be around people physically, I am drawn to the open spaces of the countryside. But to be truly alone in terms of relationships (anonymity), the city might be the place to live. In the city, I would not face any sort of pressure to get to know my neighbours. Apparently, this is considered 'normal'. In a rural area, remaining aloof is considered rude. It is something 'city people' are accused of.

Of course. I wasn't trying to suggest that people don't interact with their neighbors in rural or suburban areas. What I was trying to point out is that with a smaller population, a greater distance between people, and a lack of transportation options except for the car, that there are going to be fewer chance encounters with neighbors and less diversity among those encounters. Also, because of community design, you never have to interact with those neighbors if you don't want to. Communities could be designed to remedy this. If everyone used mass transit you would have no choice but to rub elbows with your neighbors, both at the neighborhood stop and on the train/bus/tram itself. In the suburbs or rural areas, this option is not even available. It's car dependence by default which contributes to the social alienation I was describing. In addition to this, a large supermarket which depends on automobile traffic might draw from a 100 square mile area, while a neighborhood market might draw from a 10 square mile area. That means you are far more likely to bump into someone that lives next to you, instead of being in a sea of anonymous people. The car, and a car-centric urban and transportation pattern, increases social alienation by decreasing opportunities for social encounters. Urban planners and social scientists have written about this extensively.

As far as pressure to get to know one's neighbors, this is also a factor of population density. In a smaller town you do have pressure to get to know your neighbors because there are fewer people, but like I described in the above paragraph, diversity and encounters are still reduced. In a very dense city, you have the "school of fish" effect. There is a sweet spot density between the two that would be ideal for encouraging social interaction - enough people nearby that the rate of encounters and diversity is high, but not so many that you feel lost in a school of fish.


The wealthier suburbs will obviously be conservative and opposed to liberalism and hostile to progressive movements. There's also an element of racial segregation being quietly played out.
On a rather vacuous point, rural Nova Scotia used to always vote conservative. Then, in the recent provincial election, a big orange NDP wave swept across the South Shore!Actually in America, wealth is not a factor. The suburbs and rural areas are conservative regardless of average income. The republicans have been very successful at convincing the rural poor to consistently vote against their own best interests, by playing on religion, race, and b.s. social theory like economic libertarianism.


Rural concerns appear to be irrelevant for the communist movement, excepting the tenets of Maoist theory. In the first world countries, Communism has retained its urban roots. It remains focused on where a worker's revolution is most likely to occur - in the city. It's a question of numbers and geography. Most people live in cities and that's where most jobs are. Industrial and commercial districts are concentrated in and around large urban areas.
The torch of rev-leftist ideals has been passed to a younger generation. Many communists may have been born in the suburbs, but I wonder how their experiences growing up there would have influenced them. (?)There are also several trends indicating that more and more people will continue to live in cities. Scientists estimate that world population became more urban than rural in 2007.


People say there's nothing to do in the suburbs, but I find there's nothing to do in the city (personally): I hate malls, movies are a waste of money when I can stream online, etc. I think there's a lot more to do in a more rural or suburban environment. I'm more of an outdoorsman anyway. Not much for me in a city. :sleep:Well, the above is subjective, but in my plan for an urbanate you would have all the benefits of a city, but the countryside would also be accessible in about 10 minutes by foot. It would be easy to go to the movies or go camping. Also, with more people living in urbanates, much more land could be reclaimed by nature, increasing the opportunities for outdoor recreation.

[Lynx]

Of course. I wasn't trying to suggest that people don't interact with their neighbors in rural or suburban areas. What I was trying to point out is that with a smaller population, a greater distance between people, and a lack of transportation options except for the car, that there are going to be fewer chance encounters with neighbors and less diversity among those encounters. Also, because of community design, you never have to interact with those neighbors if you don't want to. Communities could be designed to remedy this. If everyone used mass transit you would have no choice but to rub elbows with your neighbors, both at the neighborhood stop and on the train/bus/tram itself. In the suburbs or rural areas, this option is not even available. It's car dependence by default which contributes to the social alienation I was describing.
This might depend on the quality of mass transit. I don't see a lot of social interaction on subways or in crowded buses. People need to feel relaxed before they are willing to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger, it would seem.

In addition to this, a large supermarket which depends on automobile traffic might draw from a 100 square mile area, while a neighborhood market might draw from a 10 square mile area. That means you are far more likely to bump into someone that lives next to you, instead of being in a sea of anonymous people.
Of course. Witness the local farmer's market - as much about catching up on gossip as it is about buying food.

As far as pressure to get to know one's neighbors, this is also a factor of population density. In a smaller town you do have pressure to get to know your neighbors because there are fewer people, but like I described in the above paragraph, diversity and encounters are still reduced. In a very dense city, you have the "school of fish" effect. There is a sweet spot density between the two that would be ideal for encouraging social interaction - enough people nearby that the rate of encounters and diversity is high, but not so many that you feel lost in a school of fish.
Indeed.

Actually in America, wealth is not a factor. The suburbs and rural areas are conservative regardless of average income. The republicans have been very successful at convincing the rural poor to consistently vote against their own best interests, by playing on religion, race, and b.s. social theory like economic libertarianism.
Since when can the poor afford to live in suburbs?
The picture that is painted by the mass media suggests the poor live in rundown parts of cities or in trailer parks. Suburbia is supposedly middle class at a minimum. Not that it matters. There was a time when the Democratic Party enjoyed the support of those who now vote Republican.

[Technocrat]

This might depend on the quality of mass transit. I don't see a lot of social interaction on subways or in crowded buses. People need to feel relaxed before they are willing to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger, it would seem.

It seems that this also would be a function of population density. With too high of a density you get crowded buses and subways.


Since when can the poor afford to live in suburbs?
The picture that is painted by the mass media suggests the poor live in rundown parts of cities or in trailer parks. Suburbia is supposedly middle class at a minimum. Not that it matters. There was a time when the Democratic Party enjoyed the support of those who now vote Republican.What you are saying might have been true in the 80s, but there has been a steady migration of the wealthy "creative class" back into the inner city (read Richard Florida). This causes the price of land to rise and forces middle class and poor people to outlying areas where the land is still cheap and they can afford to buy a house. The most expensive land is downtown, and the cheapest land is outside the city. This is going on right now in my city, where a traditionally poor hispanic neighborhood which is close to downtown is now being gentrified with luxury condos that are priced well above the average around here. This trend will probably be even worse with Peak Oil, since those with means will try to relocate closer to jobs and services, while those without means will simply be forced out.

The republican party deliberately fostered racism among southern working whites to split up the democratic voting block. Prior to that working whites and working blacks tended to get along o.k. and voted democrat. The nail in the coffin was when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. This caused the "realignment" where large numbers of (racist) southern democrats switched to the republican party. To me that makes the signing of the Civil Rights Act all the more noble, since LBJ probably knew that he was going to basically doom his own party for the next few decades.

[Lynx]

It seems that this also would be a function of population density. With too high of a density you get crowded buses and subways.
A properly designed mass transit system should be able to handle 'rush hour' without packing commuters together like sardines. Utilizing different sizes of buses etc, or staggering the workday are possible ways to alleviate this.

What you are saying might have been true in the 80s, but there has been a steady migration of the wealthy "creative class" back into the inner city (read Richard Florida). This causes the price of land to rise and forces middle class and poor people to outlying areas where the land is still cheap and they can afford to buy a house. The most expensive land is downtown, and the cheapest land is outside the city. This is going on right now in my city, where a traditionally poor hispanic neighborhood which is close to downtown is now being gentrified with luxury condos that are priced well above the average around here. This trend will probably be even worse with Peak Oil, since those with means will try to relocate closer to jobs and services, while those without means will simply be forced out.
But wouldn't the displaced poor tend towards parts of the city that are cheaper to rent? Has there been a sea change in the cost of living in an apartment with the cost of owning a home? I have heard that more and more Americans and Canadians are joining the ranks of ownership.

The available supply of low income housing is an issue in many parts of Canada.

The republican party deliberately fostered racism among southern working whites to split up the democratic voting block. Prior to that working whites and working blacks tended to get along o.k. and voted democrat. The nail in the coffin was when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. This caused the "realignment" where large numbers of (racist) southern democrats switched to the republican party. To me that makes the signing of the Civil Rights Act all the more noble, since LBJ probably knew that he was going to basically doom his own party for the next few decades.
You're describing an example of political opportunism :(

[Technocrat]

A properly designed mass transit system should be able to handle 'rush hour' without packing commuters together like sardines. Utilizing different sizes of buses etc, or staggering the workday are possible ways to alleviate this.

Staggering the workday is something that Technocracy suggests. You could eliminate rush hour altogether with round the clock use of facilities and with a staggered workday.


But wouldn't the displaced poor tend towards parts of the city that are cheaper to rent? Has there been a sea change in the cost of living in an apartment with the cost of owning a home? I have heard that more and more Americans and Canadians are joining the ranks of ownership.

The available supply of low income housing is an issue in many parts of Canada.Actually the cost of a monthly mortgage payment can be similar to monthly rent for an apartment around here. A lot of this has to do with the "ownership society" that has been promoted by Bush and his fellow Republicans (and which has landed us in the economic crisis we are now in). Also, in my city, they haven't built hardly any new rental housing for about a decade, but they've built plenty of single-family homes in the 'burbs! Actually, they have recently converted some of the rental housing into condos, decreasing the available supply of apartments!


You're describing an example of political opportunism :(Political opportunism is marked by an abandonment of one's political principles for some short term-gain. What I've described with LBJ is the exact opposite of that! If LBJ had not signed the Civil Rights Act in order to maintain the Democrat's power in the south, that would have been political opportunism.

[Lynx]

Staggering the workday is something that Technocracy suggests. You could eliminate rush hour altogether with round the clock use of facilities and with a staggered workday.
Why couldn't this be done today? Do workers and businesses enjoy having to deal with a rush hour?

Actually the cost of a monthly mortgage payment can be similar to monthly rent for an apartment around here. A lot of this has to do with the "ownership society" that has been promoted by Bush and his fellow Republicans (and which has landed us in the economic crisis we are now in). Also, in my city, they haven't built hardly any new rental housing for about a decade, but they've built plenty of single-family homes in the 'burbs! Actually, they have recently converted some of the rental housing into condos, decreasing the available supply of apartments!
That would explain some trends. Thanks!

Political opportunism is marked by an abandonment of one's political principles for some short term-gain. What I've described with LBJ is the exact opposite of that! If LBJ had not signed the Civil Rights Act in order to maintain the Democrat's power in the south, that would have been political opportunism.
What do you call abandonment of one's political principles for longterm gain?

[Technocrat]

Why couldn't this be done today? Do workers and businesses enjoy having to deal with a rush hour?

One reason is that establishments have to remain open at the same time in order for them to conduct business with each other. Of course, this isn't a problem in a Technate, with production organized into Functional Sequences (I can provide a link to the administration chart if you haven't seen it).

From the Technocracy FAQ:

"
5.4.5 Does Technocracy plan to change the calendar?
Technocracy plans no changes to the calendar currently in use. It will, however, propose a new calendar for the purposes of organizing work done. Whether the population will choose to abandon the current calendar or not for every day use is entirely up to them. The purpose of the new calendar is to illustrate how a Technate might organize its work force to provide a minimum of work for its people, along with a maximum of convenience.
The current calendar is another prevailing cause of poor load factors. With it, practically everybody works on the same days and is off on the same days. This introduces traffic jams and small periods of peak load on our places of recreation, distribution, as well as on industrial equipment. In order to improve the load factor on these things it is necessary for these peaks to be eliminated so that the traffic on any one day is similar to the traffic on any other day. The same goes as well for time periods during the day.
The revision of the calendar smoothes out the most offensive irregularities and is based on the Day and the Year, the two astronomical events that cannot be ignored. The Technocracy calendar, therefore, would consist of 364 days numbered consecutively, plus one zero day (two zero days on leap years). The work period would run for four consecutive days for each individual, followed by three days off. Every day is a day off for three-sevenths of the working population -- all healthy adults between the age of 25 and 45 who are not on their vacation.
The working population is divided into seven groups, each of which has a different sequence of working days and days off. These sequences are staggered so that the same number of people are working at any given time. On the basis of 660 annual work-hours and four hour daily shifts, we arrive at 165 working days, or 41 as the nearest whole number of working periods of working days on and days off -- a total of 287 days. There remain, then, 78 consecutive days as a yearly vacation period for each individual.
Of course, all these numbers are based on the industrial and technological developments of the 1930s. Since technology and the population have both progressed since then, these numbers would obviously be different today, the exact figures to be calculated by the people that finally install the Technate. It is resonable to assume, however, that the amount of work required would be even less than it was then, allowing for even more free time to enjoy a high standard of technological living."


What do you call abandonment of one's political principles for longterm gain?Also political opportunism, but why do you ask that?

[mel]

5.4.5 Does Technocracy plan to change the calendar?
[...]The revision of the calendar smoothes out the most offensive irregularities and is based on the Day and the Year, the two astronomical events that cannot be ignored. The Technocracy calendar, therefore, would consist of 364 days numbered consecutively, plus one zero day (two zero days on leap years). The work period would run for four consecutive days for each individual, followed by three days off. Every day is a day off for three-sevenths of the working population -- all healthy adults between the age of 25 and 45 who are not on their vacation.[...]

That sounds like it would suck if you had friends that worked different days.

[Lynx]

One reason is that establishments have to remain open at the same time in order for them to conduct business with each other.
Isn't that a circular argument?

Of course, this isn't a problem in a Technate, with production organized into Functional Sequences (I can provide a link to the administration chart if you haven't seen it).
I have read it, and mostly agree with it - I'm just wondering why it couldn't be introduced as a helpful measure. Naturally there would be those who would shriek "attack on freedom" or "this is big government gone mad". But hopefully people would be willing to listen and see the potential benefits. This 9-5 rut we find ourselves in is not an optimal use of time or resources.

Also political opportunism, but why do you ask that?
I was hoping there was a terminology able to distinguish between what LBJ did and the Southern_strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).

[Technocrat]

Isn't that a circular argument?

I'll rephrase: businesses depend on each other to be open at the same time. If they weren't the flow of commerce would be interrupted and the entire system couldn't even function. This isn't a problem if you have proper organization, but that kind of goes against the whole "private enterprise" thing.


I have read it, and mostly agree with it - I'm just wondering why it couldn't be introduced as a helpful measure. Naturally there would be those who would shriek "attack on freedom" or "this is big government gone mad". But hopefully people would be willing to listen and see the potential benefits. This 9-5 rut we find ourselves in is not an optimal use of time or resources.Well, it wouldn't work very well in a Price System, because people have to work as much as they do to make enough money to get by. That's kind of why Technocracy is an "all or nothing" proposition, unfortunately... it won't work very well unless all the aspects are adopted at the same time.


I was hoping there was a terminology able to distinguish between what LBJ did and the Southern_strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).I'm not sure if either one could be called political opportunism, unless you want to claim that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act for fame and to make a name for himself, which I guess is possible. :confused:

[Lynx]

I'll rephrase: businesses depend on each other to be open at the same time. If they weren't the flow of commerce would be interrupted and the entire system couldn't even function. This isn't a problem if you have proper organization, but that kind of goes against the whole "private enterprise" thing.

Well, it wouldn't work very well in a Price System, because people have to work as much as they do to make enough money to get by. That's kind of why Technocracy is an "all or nothing" proposition, unfortunately... it won't work very well unless all the aspects are adopted at the same time.
I'm not sure I agree. As a standalone measure, I don't see why it wouldn't alleviate peak usage. There is precedent in using one's birthday for vehicle and ID registration.
Hey, I'm reminded of J.G. Ballard's short story Chronopolis :)

I'm not sure if either one could be called political opportunism, unless you want to claim that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act for fame and to make a name for himself, which I guess is possible. :confused:
I mean to say that what LBJ did was NOT opportunism (he placed the good of society before the needs of his party), while the Republican strategy was opportunistic, be it short or long term.

[Technocrat]

That sounds like it would suck if you had friends that worked different days.

Except the work day is around 2-3 hours long, for everyone... :rolleyes:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Damn everybody seems to be hating on the burbs.

I don't mind them. Sure, it's a bit of a walk to the corner store, but hey, I ain't gonna get shot!

As long as your burb has a rail line to the center of town, life is good. San Fran is one of the damn coolest and most progressive cities in the country and I loved liviong there. Well, actually I didn't live there because it's ridiculously expensive. I lived in a burb and took the BART into the city when I wanted to. For the price of a condo in that city I could get a backyard and a pool and a few thousand square feet to spare in the east bay.

Fuck living in the city. Sure, it's fun college age. But I want a lawn when I grow up goddamit. I want a fucking collie who I don't have to get into an cramped fucking elevator with when he's got to shit. Then you get outside and he's bending over to do his deed but no, some prick with a badge and a gun longer than his penis tells ya that's an $75 fee for him to take a dump so ya gotta walk a quarter mile. God forbid it's raining outside. That is, if they even let you have a dog, that is, a real dog.

The city really wouldn't be all that bad if liberal progressive shitbags didn't gather there, or at least, it'd be a lot better. Fucking lanes of traffic 6 feet wide. Where the hell are we, the fucking Netherlands? And you gotta pay a fee for your fucking parking space, for bullshit ass reasons like security even though some degenerate fuck up breaks in every goddamn week and people are always getting shit stolen by some punk ass who ought to be locked in a portable toilet and set on fire. And not to mention every goddamn day you have to listen to some blather about some shit issue with society by some self-righteous moron. But the worst thing about is the people. Bunch of goddamn zombies. Everybody lives in their little cube and they work in a fuckin cube and every god damn mother fucking dick licking ass blowing moment of every fart smelling day your looking at a motherfuckin advertisement.

It never fucking ends, the goddamn advertisements. You go to take a piss at a place that will let people with bad credit piss there and you're looking at some fuck modeleling his briefs. You walk the dog and there's one shitty picture selling some stupid fucking bullshit after another. Never a moment of piece and quiet and prettiness. Never. And fuck parks. I ain't talking about some smog-filled parking lot with some trees in it.

The suburbs ain't that bad. The city has it's shitty side too, building up instead of out. Yeah, it's fun at times. But not when you have to listen to some ***** tell you the designated smoking areas are "over there."

*****, my designated smoking area is called the outside. Now get the fuck out of my face.

[FreeFocus]

Damn everybody seems to be hating on the burbs.

I don't mind them. Sure, it's a bit of a walk to the corner store, but hey, I ain't gonna get shot!

As long as your burb has a rail line to the center of town, life is good. San Fran is one of the damn coolest and most progressive cities in the country and I loved liviong there. Well, actually I didn't live there because it's ridiculously expensive. I lived in a burb and took the BART into the city when I wanted to. For the price of a condo in that city I could get a backyard and a pool and a few thousand square feet to spare in the east bay.

Fuck living in the city. Sure, it's fun college age. But I want a lawn when I grow up goddamit. I want a fucking collie who I don't have to get into an cramped fucking elevator with when he's got to shit. Then you get outside and he's bending over to do his deed but no, some prick with a badge and a gun longer than his penis tells ya that's an $75 fee for him to take a dump so ya gotta walk a quarter mile. God forbid it's raining outside. That is, if they even let you have a dog, that is, a real dog.

The city really wouldn't be all that bad if liberal progressive shitbags didn't gather there, or at least, it'd be a lot better. Fucking lanes of traffic 6 feet wide. Where the hell are we, the fucking Netherlands? And you gotta pay a fee for your fucking parking space, for bullshit ass reraons like security even though some cocksucker breaks in every goddamn week and people are always getting shit stolen by some punk ass who ought to be locked in a portable toilet and set on fire. And not to mention every goddamn day you have to listen to some blather about some shit issue with society by some self-righteous moron. But the worst thing about is the people. Bunch of goddamn zombies. Everybody lives in their little cube and they work in a fuckin cube and every god damn mother fucking dick licking ass blowing moment of every fart smelling day your looking at a motherfuckin advertisement.

It never fucking ends, the goddamn advertisements. You go to take a piss at a place that will let people with bad credit piss there and you're looking at some fuck modeleling his briefs. You walk the dog and there's one shitty picture selling some stupid fucking bullshit after another. Never a moment of piece and quiet and prettiness. Never. And fuck parks. I ain't talking about some smog-filled parking lot with some trees in it.

The suburbs ain't that bad. The city has it's shitty side to, building up instead of out. Yeah, it's fun at times. But not when you have to listen to some ***** tell you the designated smoking areas are "over there."

*****, my designated smoking area is called the outside. Now get the fuck out of my face.

This post was hilarious to read, you had some good points, but be certain that someone will try to restrict you for this. :lol:

[Technocrat]

I didn't think it was that funny. A lot of swear words might have been funny when I was still in high school.


As long as your burb has a rail line to the center of town, life is good. San Fran is one of the damn coolest and most progressive cities in the country and I loved liviong there. Well, actually I didn't live there because it's ridiculously expensive. I lived in a burb and took the BART into the city when I wanted to. For the price of a condo in that city I could get a backyard and a pool and a few thousand square feet to spare in the east bay.Yeah, because external costs like damage to the environment and wars to secure foreign oil supplies are not calculated into the price of your suburban crap shack. If these costs *were* calculated into the price of the suburban lifestyle, city living would be a *bargain* by comparison, since your typical city dweller consumes anywhere from *3-15* times less energy than their suburban counterparts.


Fuck living in the city. Sure, it's fun college age. But I want a lawn when I grow up goddamit. I want a fucking collie who I don't have to get into an cramped fucking elevator with when he's got to shit. Then you get outside and he's bending over to do his deed but no, some prick with a badge and a gun longer than his penis tells ya that's an $75 fee for him to take a dump so ya gotta walk a quarter mile. God forbid it's raining outside. That is, if they even let you have a dog, that is, a real dog.Many cities have houses with lawns. It may surprise you to learn that even in Brooklyn *many* of the residences have lawns. The rules and regulations you speak of are the direct result of anascopic, Price System planning. With a properly, katascopically designed city, none of the things you mention would be problems. So yes, cities as they are today have their problems, but this is attributable to the Price System, not to cities themselves.


The city really wouldn't be all that bad if liberal progressive shitbags didn't gather there, or at least, it'd be a lot better. Fucking lanes of traffic 6 feet wide. Where the hell are we, the fucking Netherlands? And you gotta pay a fee for your fucking parking space, for bullshit ass reasons like security even though some degenerate fuck up breaks in every goddamn week and people are always getting shit stolen by some punk ass who ought to be locked in a portable toilet and set on fire. And not to mention every goddamn day you have to listen to some blather about some shit issue with society by some self-righteous moron. But the worst thing about is the people. Bunch of goddamn zombies. Everybody lives in their little cube and they work in a fuckin cube and every god damn mother fucking dick licking ass blowing moment of every fart smelling day your looking at a motherfuckin advertisement.You could say the same about the suburbs. Driving down a highway through the suburbs one is literally assaulted with *giant* advertisements lining the highway. They have to be *massive* because that's the only way you can read them flying by at 60mph.

And if you want to discuss crime, statistics conclusively show that *per capita* crime rates are frequently *higher* in the suburbs. This is attributable to the eyes on the street effect. In a suburb the entire area turns into a desolate wasteland when the shops close up, full of alleys and empty parking lots where you can get mugged, raped, or killed.

Pretty much all your complaints levied against the city are the result of capitalism/the price system, and are not inherent qualities of cities themselves.

I'm not really a fan of cities *or* suburbs, as they are currently built (by the Price System). If I had to choose one over the other, I'd pick cities since they are more sustainable.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah, because external costs like damage to the environment and wars to secure foreign oil supplies are not calculated into the price of your suburban crap shack. If these costs *were* calculated into the price of the suburban lifestyle, city living would be a *bargain* by comparison, since your typical city dweller consumes anywhere from *3-15* times less energy than their suburban counterparts.

Wars to secure foreign oil supplies? You're hyperbole is noted.

Anyway, those costs *are* calculated into the cost suburban living. Hence why poor people end up getting stuck in the *inner-city* ghetto.


Many cities have houses with lawns. It may surprise you to learn that even in Brooklyn *many* of the residences have lawns. The rules and regulations you speak of are the direct result of anascopic, Price System planning.

Or I could live an hour outside the city and take a train in, and have twice the lawn and some breathing room so that when I go out back to smoke a blunt the entire block doesn't smell like bud. And oh yeah, I could probably get an extra thousand square feet as compared to living in some brownstone (not that I know real estate in NY, and that's beside the point).


With a properly, katascopically designed city, none of the things you mention would be problems. So yes, cities as they are today have their problems, but this is attributable to the Price System, not to cities themselves.

What are you suggesting? We abandon what we have and start over?

There are major fundamental flaws with most cities, especially in the US. And it's not like we can raze them and build them over again.


You could say the same about the suburbs. Driving down a highway through the suburbs one is literally assaulted with *giant* advertisements lining the highway. They have to be *massive* because that's the only way you can read them flying by at 60mph.

It's nothing compared with the city.



And if you want to discuss crime, statistics conclusively show that *per capita* crime rates are frequently *higher* in the suburbs. This is attributable to the eyes on the street effect. In a suburb the entire area turns into a desolate wasteland when the shops close up, full of alleys and empty parking lots where you can get mugged, raped, or killed.


What suburbs are you talking about? If they're a desolate wasteland, they're probably not full of people "wasting energy" commuting into town. In fact, that becomes a whole other demographic that occurs in any area.


Pretty much all your complaints levied against the city are the result of capitalism/the price system, and are not inherent qualities of cities themselves.

You fucking missed my entire point.

You're squeezed into a tuna can with a million other fish in cities. Fuck all that, I want to be a ways away. If it just so happens that the price system necessitate I work in a city, I shouldn't be bound to live there.


I'm not really a fan of cities *or* suburbs, as they are currently built (by the Price System). If I had to choose one over the other, I'd pick cities since they are more sustainable.

Sustainable?

Are you one of those apocalyptic fools?

Austin doesn't reallly count. Go live in Houston, the real Houston, for a while and you'll catch my drift.

[Technocrat]

Anyway, those costs *are* calculated into the cost suburban living.

No, they aren't.


Hence why poor people end up getting stuck in the *inner-city* ghetto. In a lot of cities poor people are being forced out of the inner city and into *suburban* areas, as I've already elaborated on in this thread.


Or I could live an hour outside the city and take a train in, and have twice the lawn and some breathing room so that when I go out back to smoke a blunt the entire block doesn't smell like bud. And oh yeah, I could probably get an extra thousand square feet as compared to living in some brownstone (not that I know real estate in NY, and that's beside the point).You could live an hour outside of the city because society supports this endeavor. Why should society continue to do so?


What are you suggesting? We abandon what we have and start over?

There are major fundamental flaws with most cities, especially in the US. And it's not like we can raze them and build them over again.That's precisely what we could do. As I've demonstrated in my urbanates thread, you could almost completely finance urbanates with the money currently being spent (wasted) on *transportation alone* with our existing urban patterns.


It's nothing compared with the city.Right now I'm in an urban neighborhood. I see fewer advertisements walking around then when I have to get on the highway to go to work. So your point does not hold.


What suburbs are you talking about? If they're a desolate wasteland, they're probably not full of people "wasting energy" commuting into town. In fact, that becomes a whole other demographic that occurs in any area.Again, your logic(?) does not hold. The suburbs turn into a desolate wasteland during certain hours precisely *because* several thousand people use *tremendous amounts of energy* to commute back and forth in them. Drive (or walk!) around any suburban area past the hours of business, and the entire place resembles some kind of post-apocalyptic ghost town.


You fucking missed my entire point.

You're squeezed into a tuna can with a million other fish in cities. Fuck all that, I want to be a ways away. If it just so happens that the price system necessitate I work in a city, I shouldn't be bound to live there.You obviously missed *my* point, which is that with proper design, you can have both the advantages of the city *and* the advantages of the suburbs. Oh well...


Sustainable?

Are you one of those apocalyptic fools?

Austin doesn't reallly count. Go live in Houston, the real Houston, for a while and you'll catch my drift.Are you one of those fools who believes we can blissfully continue business as usual? Because if you are, what the hell are you doing on a forum for leftists?

I have better things to do, so if you do not respond with a valid point I will probably not reply.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That's precisely what we could do. As I've demonstrated in my urbanates thread, you could almost completely finance urbanates with the money currently being spent (wasted) on *transportation alone* with our existing urban patterns.

The transportation system is extremely inefficient, but stuffing everyone into a smaller area isn't a very thought provoking solution from my end, even if it would be more comfy than cities in the past.


Again, your logic(?) does not hold. The suburbs turn into a desolate wasteland during certain hours precisely *because* several thousand people use *tremendous amounts of energy* to commute back and forth in them. Drive (or walk!) around any suburban area past the hours of business, and the entire place resembles some kind of post-apocalyptic ghost town.


Yeah, that's the point.

It's quiet. No horns blaring, people yelling, bright lights flashing.

And what the hell is with the *tremendous amounts of energy* deal? We use *tremondous amounts of energy* to give you 20 different choices of ethnicity when you decide to eat out at lunch, is that not wasted?

Would it not be more efficient to simply have a "CHOW" which serves one basic, compatible meal to everyone?

How many restaurants will be built in these new cities? The current mode is awfully inefficient.

That's a seafood joint, that took a truck coming in from some port. And there's a steakhouse. More trucks. Then there's that Indian place. Another truck moving more food we don't need. How about over there, Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Filipino? Italian? Greek? French? Goddamn, this is a fucking traffic jam caused by the choices of where you want to eat.

tut tut, this has to end.

I got it. This is what we do:

WHITE CHOW: Meat and Potatoes, cooked well done.
ASIAN CHOW: Chop Suey, Sweet & Sour Pork and White Rice
MED CHOW: Lasagna, with olives on top to incorporate Greece
SEA CHOW: Fish. Take it or leave it.
CHICKEN CHOW: Chicken.

There. By design, I have created a system which will reduce massive amounts of needless, *wasted energy.* People who have been eating out and enjoying food have been propped up by society.

Why should society continue to do this?


Or we could just change our transportation systems, for one. Goddamn, I am a genius. I did have a V8 while staying at a Holidasy Inn last night, however.


You obviously missed *my* point, which is that with proper design, you can have both the advantages of the city *and* the advantages of the suburbs. Oh well...

As opposed to building mass transit, and not razing neighborhoods and starting over.

Trillions of man-hours were used to build what we have. Why waste billions more.


Are you one of those fools who believes we can blissfully continue business as usual? Because if you are, what the hell are you doing on a forum for leftists?


Yes and no.


I have better things to do, so if you do not respond with a valid point I will probably not reply.

I don't give a fuck.

[Technocrat]

The transportation system is extremely inefficient, but stuffing everyone into a smaller area isn't a very thought provoking solution from my end, even if it would be more comfy than cities in the past.

Please share with us your brilliant solution. Simply building mass transit will not be enough. First, you probably will not get a sufficient cut in carbon emissions or energy use to mitigate peak oil or global warming, since transportation consumes just 1/3rd of our total energy use. Of this, a significant portion is consumed by shipping, so you wouldn't be saving any energy there - you are just talking about shifting personal car trips to transit trips. So, our total reduction would be less than 1/3rd, which is far short of what scientists have determined is necessary for us to mitigate the effects of climate change and peak oil (environmental and economic impacts). Second, you can't just "build mass transit" like you suggest later, since suburbs are of too low a density to *support* viable transit. Suburbs *will not function* without cars. Mass transit *will not function* without a sufficient *density* - this means mass transit won't work in the suburbs! This is *obvious*.


Yeah, that's the point.

It's quiet. No horns blaring, people yelling, bright lights flashing.

And what the hell is with the *tremendous amounts of energy* deal? We use *tremondous amounts of energy* to give you 20 different choices of ethnicity when you decide to eat out at lunch, is that not wasted?

Would it not be more efficient to simply have a "CHOW" which serves one basic, compatible meal to everyone?

How many restaurants will be built in these new cities? The current mode is awfully inefficient.

That's a seafood joint, that took a truck coming in from some port. And there's a steakhouse. More trucks. Then there's that Indian place. Another truck moving more food we don't need. How about over there, Chinese? Japanese? Korean? Filipino? Italian? Greek? French? Goddamn, this is a fucking traffic jam caused by the choices of where you want to eat.

tut tut, this has to end.

I got it. This is what we do:

WHITE CHOW: Meat and Potatoes, cooked well done.
ASIAN CHOW: Chop Suey, Sweet & Sour Pork and White Rice
MED CHOW: Lasagna, with olives on top to incorporate Greece
SEA CHOW: Fish. Take it or leave it.
CHICKEN CHOW: Chicken.

There. By design, I have created a system which will reduce massive amounts of needless, *wasted energy.* People who have been eating out and enjoying food have been propped up by society.

Why should society continue to do this?This is stupid. The % of energy is so low here as to be negligible. Eliminating people's choice of where they eat is not going to save a tremendous amount of energy. People have a *choice* to live in the suburbs because *society* supports this - prior to this most people lived in the cities and those that lived in the country were mostly self-sufficient (farmers). Society's decision to support this action is *directly responsible* for our current predicament with peak oil and global warming. That is, if we *did not* support this action, global warming and peak oil *would not be problems*. But, you are probably one of those nutjobs that thinks peak oil and global warming are government conspiracies. Go listen to some Alex Jones or something and leave this website.

We are talking about *functions* here. Suburbs perform a specific set of *functions* which could be performed more efficiently in other ways. Obviously eliminating the choice of places to eat would eliminate the *function* itself, which is *not* the goal, and would also *not* save us a great deal of energy. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand - I am probably wasting my time.


As opposed to building mass transit, and not razing neighborhoods and starting over.

Trillions of man-hours were used to build what we have. Why waste billions more. I've already explained the advantages here, so I don't feel the need to go over them again, but I'll recap briefly: First, keeping what we have and simply building mass transit will probably not be enough. Second, if the end result of building urbanates is a higher quality of life for everyone and a sustainable environment than those hours are not wasted. Third, you seem to think that the cities we built are going to last forever. In reality, they are crumbling around you all the time. A city is a continuous process. As parts of it die new parts are created to replace the old. What I'm suggesting is that *new construction* take the form of urbanates. Why should we continue to build cities the same way we have since the 1930s? Because you like it that way?


I don't give a fuck.I'm done here.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Please share with us your brilliant solution. Simply building mass transit will not be enough. First, you probably will not get a sufficient cut in carbon emissions or energy use to mitigate peak oil or global warming, since transportation consumes just 1/3rd of our total energy use. Of this, a significant portion is consumed by shipping, so you wouldn't be saving any energy there - you are just talking about shifting personal car trips to transit trips. So, our total reduction would be less than 1/3rd, which is far short of what scientists have determined is necessary for us to mitigate the effects of climate change and peak oil (environmental and economic impacts). Second, you can't just "build mass transit" like you suggest later, since suburbs are of too low a density to *support* viable transit. Suburbs *will not function* without cars. Mass transit *will not function* without a sufficient *density* - this means mass transit won't work in the suburbs! This is *obvious*.

First, global warming is the least of my concerns. I would never base any policy out of concern for that.

Secondly, 'peak oil' is a croc of shit. What it should be phrased as is the end of cheap oil. The "Peak Oil" numbers don't even include the oil from Canada, the number #1 source for oil in the US.

Read about it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil#References)

ACting like we're in an emergency and the world is going to end unless we start making rash decisions is only going to cause things to get worse. Technology will move away from internal combustion, but that's going to take time.

Third, you were bashing people who commute from the suburbs to the city in order to work. At these things mass tranist works wonderfully. Maybe you need to leave Austin for a bit, check out what's been done in San Francisco or the Northeast or maybe even what they're trying to do in Dallas. You claimed that I was able to drive in to work because "society supported this endeavor." Society should do more.

Fourth, no type of trasnportation system which is in the business of moving people is profitable, or 'viable' as you claim. Which doesn't even make sense in a society thats post-Pricing. I'm suggesting we provide a new transportation system to get off fossil fuels for most travel (I've elaborated on this elsewehere. Check out my blog), which isn't new at old but already undergoing a renaissance in this country.

You're suggesting we bulldoze our cities and rebuild them. Good luck on that one.

And "just 1/3 of our energy?" Were'd ya pull that number from? Is that 1/3rd of America's energy use? The world's?


This is stupid. The % of energy is so low here as to be negligible. Eliminating people's choice of where they eat is not going to save a tremendous amount of energy. People have a *choice* to live in the suburbs because *society* supports this - prior to this most people lived in the cities and those that lived in the country were mostly self-sufficient (farmers). Society's decision to support this action is *directly responsible* for our current predicament with peak oil and global warming. That is, if we *did not* support this action, global warming and peak oil *would not be problems*. But, you are probably one of those nutjobs that thinks peak oil and global warming are government conspiracies. Go listen to some Alex Jones or something and leave this website.


Negligible? Billions of people go hungry everyday and the fact that we have dozens of diners doesn't seem to be a tad inefficient of a system for you?

You have to admit, that if everyone were to get at least one good meal a day then there would be a lot less food to go around and make sure we in the US have every choice imaginable.

Would it not be more efficient to simply produce a smaller amount of goods en masse and distribute these one-size-fits-all meals to everyone?

Anyway, you could say I'm not one of those who enjoys selling crises.



We are talking about *functions* here. Suburbs perform a specific set of *functions* which could be performed more efficiently in other ways. Obviously eliminating the choice of places to eat would eliminate the *function* itself, which is *not* the goal, and would also *not* save us a great deal of energy. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand - I am probably wasting my time.

But suburbs are largely what already exist. I'll get my sign talking about the need to build new rail and bus lines, you get your bulldozer.

Eliminating the unnecessary amounts of places to eat would get rid of huge amounts of waste and man-hours which could easily be spent doing work that's more needed.


I'm done here.

Peace.

[Technocrat]

First, global warming is the least of my concerns. I would never base any policy out of concern for that.

That says a lot right there.


Secondly, 'peak oil' is a croc of shit. What it should be phrased as is the end of cheap oil. The "Peak Oil" numbers don't even include the oil from Canada, the number #1 source for oil in the US.

Read about it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil#References)Peak oil is the date of maximum oil production, nothing more. How could the numbers not include this? That's laughable. Peak oil likely occurred in 2005, since oil production has not increased since then.

http://localfuture.org/charts/20080301/20080301WorldOilProductionWissnerLarge.GIF


ACting like we're in an emergency and the world is going to end unless we start making rash decisions is only going to cause things to get worse. Technology will move away from internal combustion, but that's going to take time.Why would the decision be rash? Your intentional mischaracterization of what I've said is a classic straw man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

First, Technocracy could *only* happen with the informed consent of the people. Second, once it was established, it would be a system that ensured that all positions were occupied by the people *most capable* for them. I won't elaborate on this here since you can find more information on this elsewhere on these forums.


Third, you were bashing people who commute from the suburbs to the city in order to work. At these things mass tranist works wonderfully. Maybe you need to leave Austin for a bit, check out what's been done in San Francisco or the Northeast or maybe even what they're trying to do in Dallas. You claimed that I was able to drive in to work because "society supported this endeavor." Society should do more. Yes, and I pointed out how even if we *completely* switched all personal car trips to mass transit, this would *still* not effect a sufficient reduction in energy use to mitigate the economic impacts of peak oil or the environmental impacts of global warming, but you've already stated your position on that.


Fourth, no type of trasnportation system which is in the business of moving people is profitable, or 'viable' as you claim. Which doesn't even make sense in a society thats post-Pricing. I'm suggesting we provide a new transportation system to get off fossil fuels for most travel (I've elaborated on this elsewehere. Check out my blog), which isn't new at old but already undergoing a renaissance in this country.Another mischaracterization. Viable here obviously means "efficient" since what we are talking about is *not* profitability (however, if you did a true cost comparison, mass transit would be the clear winner vs. cars). You're just defining my words however you want to better support your argument. It's obvious that mass transit is *far* more fuel efficient than personal car travel. High-speed rail *would be* the new transportation system to get us off fossil fuels.


You're suggesting we bulldoze our cities and rebuild them. Good luck on that one.Uh, no - if you read my post, you'll see that I suggested that *new construction* take the form of urbanates, so that over time the city would be transformed. Go back and re-read it.


And "just 1/3 of our energy?" Were'd ya pull that number from? Is that 1/3rd of America's energy use? The world's? I was stating that we could have a higher quality of life in North America while reducing our energy use to 1/3rd of our present rates of consumption. This is an estimate. Sweden uses about 1/3rd the energy we do, per capita, as do many other European countries, so this shows the possiblity of an Industrialised country with lower energy use.

The following are *conservative* estimates of what would be possible with *today's technology*:

Transportation 26% - this could probably be reduced to 3% (high speed rail, canal networks, planned living environments that don't rely on cars)
Residential - 20% - this could probably be reduced to 10% (see urbanates)
Commercial - 16% - this could probably be reduced to 5% since there is a lot more needless commerce that occurs in a Price System. The number of retail establishments alone is probably 10 times more than what would be needed in a Technate.
Industrial - 38% - this could probably be reduced to 12% (probably less) since the Technate would only use *the most efficient strategy possible* to perform any given function, in contrast to today's Price System which deliberately uses wasteful strategies for the sake of employing people/making money. For example, we could pre-fab parts and build a house (or entire building) in a single day using machines, but instead we build them the old fashioned way with hand tools so that it takes months and so that a lot of people are employed. Or, we tear up the roads and replace them using a lot of workers which takes weeks and inconveniences thousands (or millions), when we have machines that can tear up *and replace* roads at a rate of 8 miles per day, with just *one person* managing per shift. There are countless examples.


Negligible? Billions of people go hungry everyday and the fact that we have dozens of diners doesn't seem to be a tad inefficient of a system for you?That is regrettable, but has nothing to do with the fact that we have diners. They are not starving because we have food here. If anything, this is a basic problem of geography. Some areas, whether we want to admit it or not, are currently doomed to scarcity. This may change in the future with new technological developments, but the fact is, only certain areas of the globe can provide an abudance.


But suburbs are largely what already exist. I'll get my sign talking about the need to build new rail and bus lines, you get your bulldozer. Already addressed this one... this is just another of your straw men.


Eliminating the unnecessary amounts of places to eat would get rid of huge amounts of waste and man-hours which could easily be spent doing work that's more needed. That's assuming that there's other work to be done, isn't it? The whole aim of Technocracy is to provide the maximum quality of life with the minimum input of resources, including human. One of the aims of communism is to "make the workers more efficient", and this is one of the basic points of disagreement between the two movements (as I see it). Which do you prefer - *the maximum quality of life for all with the minimum input of work and resources* OR *from each according to his ability, to each according to his need*. The latter implies "making the workers more efficient" as well as rationing, neither of which would be necessary in a post-scarcity society.

[GX.]

I live in Atlanta where most of the development is suburban, often brand new neighborhoods that sprung up in the middle of nowhere and aren't part of any town or incorporated area. Commute times of an hour or hour and a half, sometimes even two, are not unheard of. It's pretty horrible, suburbia has to be one of the worst misallocations of resources ever imagined. Just looking at the street pattern of some of these places you have to wonder what they were thinking: the local roads snake around so that the collector road may literally be just on the other side of your backyard, but it takes ages to get to by car. It's hard to explain, just look at some suburbs of atl on google earth to see what i mean. There's no logical street grid. It's almost like suburbs were designed specifically to fuel overconsumption.

[Lynx]

I live in Atlanta where most of the development is suburban, often brand new neighborhoods that sprung up in the middle of nowhere and aren't part of any town or incorporated area. Commute times of an hour or hour and a half, sometimes even two, are not unheard of. It's pretty horrible, suburbia has to be one of the worst misallocations of resources ever imagined. Just looking at the street pattern of some of these places you have to wonder what they were thinking: the local roads snake around so that the collector road may literally be just on the other side of your backyard, but it takes ages to get to by car. It's hard to explain, just look at some suburbs of atl on google earth to see what i mean. There's no logical street grid. It's almost like suburbs were designed specifically to fuel overconsumption.
To my knowledge suburbs are not built on a grid system with thru roads. I believe developers prefer to create as many cul-de-sacs as possible as homes on dead end streets fetch a premium.
Cul-de-sac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cul-de-sac)

Question:
Would it be more efficient to move away from wood frame construction to other structural building materials, such as steel, cinder block, composites, etc. ?

[Technocrat]

There are several reasons why developers build cul-de-sacs. One is to increase property values like Lynx already mentioned. The other is to reduce through traffic on neighborhood streets. By channeling all the traffic onto a few main collector roads, the suburban street network does a good job of keeping through traffic off of neighborhood streets, but the traffic on the collector roads is often horrible as a result. There is also the loss of walkability, since like GX pointed out, your destination might be one house over, but the street network might require to circumnavigate the block before getting there. I think it is also cheaper, as in fewer road miles per capita, to build cul-de-sac networks instead of grids.


the worst misallocations of resources ever imaginedBeen reading some Kunstler, eh? ;) It's okay, I agree with this statement... but Kunstler is kind of unorginal in his proposed solutions, which broadly would fall into the category of "eco-communalism".


Would it be more efficient to move away from wood frame construction to other structural building materials, such as steel, cinder block, composites, etc.Yes. I think the most efficient would be pre-fab panels which could be assembled in just a few days. Check out Ikea's BokLok housing concept for an example of this. We use antiquated and wasteful methods precisely *because* they require more man-hours of labor. More man-hours = more jobs. This is a necessity under a Price System.

[GX.]

I actually wasn't aware kunstler had said that, althuogh it's a pretty common observation. Then again, he is often pretty unoriginal like you said.

[GX.]

To my knowledge suburbs are not built on a grid system with thru roads. I believe developers prefer to create as many cul-de-sacs as possible as homes on dead end streets fetch a premium.
Cul-de-sac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cul-de-sac)

Question:
Would it be more efficient to move away from wood frame construction to other structural building materials, such as steel, cinder block, composites, etc. ?
It's not unheard of for suburbs to be built on a grid pattern, but yes in north america most new suburbs are built on the street hierarchy model. But connectivity here is a lot worse than most other suburbs i've seen. the land is flat and theres nothing to constrain development so a culs de sac street may extend for say 2 miles which seems exceptionally long given how they feed into collectors. there are a I think a few other places in the us where it's worse like the inland empire, which is actually fairly dense by comparison.

[Lynx]

This may be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_Grid

[Technocrat]

The fused grid is a creative idea, but it's entire purpose (apparently) is to accommodate cars and pedestrians equally. In my opinion, we shouldn't be accommodating cars at all for intra-city transport. Cars should only really be used for some inter-city transport, and to access remote spots in the countryside where a rail line can't be justified. Everything else can be easily and more efficiently handled by mass transit.

[Invincible Summer]

I got it. This is what we do:

WHITE CHOW: Meat and Potatoes, cooked well done.
ASIAN CHOW: Chop Suey, Sweet & Sour Pork and White Rice
MED CHOW: Lasagna, with olives on top to incorporate Greece
SEA CHOW: Fish. Take it or leave it.
CHICKEN CHOW: Chicken.

This is sort of offensive and based on stereotypes. I know you probably weren't 100% serious, but Chop Suey and Sweet & Sour pork aren't even "real" Asian (Chinese, specifically) dishes. What about Japanese and Korean people? Thai? Indian?