From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: intentional communities
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:32:20 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Mike E. Romano writes:
>
>
>The argument that it is best to stay in the midst of the
>greater problems and try to solve them rather than to ==leave==
>and start a new community, has been around for some time.

Yes, and the impetus to run away from societal problems to 
areas where one can 'start over' has been around for some time.
Unfortunately, we are running out of land for people to run
away to.  And you are proposing that we destroy more 
environment so that you can build your favorite community, just
as folks in the 60s decided that they could rid themselves of 
the racial strife of the cities and move to the suburbs, 
destroying more natural environment for their idea of a nice
place to live.

>Specific point:  Mr. Clark states that moving out of the
>city to start a community is .... essentially the suburbs.
>That's hardly relevant.  There is no consciousness among
>suburbanites per se, concerning environment or community,
>merely more material comforts within commuting distance, etc.

My point is that you don't seem to have much environmental
concern either, or you'd be against more people moving out to
more countryside to produce more communities.  Mr. Clark is
simply against attempts to convert more natural habitat for
human use, whether from yourself or from suburbanites.

>As for the argument stated above that it is better to 
>struggle for equality in the cities than leave and start
>anew, it might be well to read some current journals
>including the Whole Earth Review, Rain, others...all
>are having a renewed and excited interest in 
>==decentralization== as a solution for city problems.

That's nice.

You might try reading some current journals including Sierra,
Garbage, and the Journal of the Nature Conservancy... all are
deploring the constant spread of people into previously 
natural habitat.  

>Intentional, eco communities can also be looked at as
>simply moving the city to the country and decentralizing
>it.

And thereby destroy as much natural habitat as possible.

>Finally, it is important to be specific.  Mr. Clark states
>that the cities have always been great models of environmental
>efficiency, liveability, etc....yet environmentally it is
>well nigh impossible to live and work in a city and 
>significantly curb one's pollution.

I ride my bike to work everyday, the gas for my heat comes
from an efficient pipeline grid, my electicity comes from an
efficient power grid that in the near future could get 
electricity from solar, geothermal, or wind energy.  Due to
the proximity of shopping, entertainment, education, and 
employment, I have no need for a car.  My recycling is efficiently
collected and we do our own composting.  In the near future
I will be able to telecommute to work, saving even more
resources.  If you can't find ways to curb your personal pollution
you aren't trying very hard.

>However that is exactly what can be done, and done easily
>and quickly in setting up an eco community.
>What is natural about a city?

Cities are the natural form of conglomeration for the social
animal homo sapiens, as demonstrated by over 2000 years of 
recorded history.  Cities allow efficient distribution of 
goods necessary for survival, cities provide efficient 
centralization and economies of scale in mass living 
accomodations, and cities encourage higher quality of life for
their inhabitants.  If they didn't, they wouldn't exist.

>How big and dense can a city be and still be liveable?

Hey, a good question.

>Anyone care to make specific suggestions on how to stop
>the homelessness, poverty, violence in the inner city?

Jobs.

KC