From: rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Summary: big cities, good? bad?
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:15:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

>   Big cities disgust me. They are filthy, congested, and far more dangerous
>(due to these wonderful creatures called humans) than any wilderness I've 
>ever been in. After 10 years in a large city, and most of my life previously
>spent in cities of around 100,000 population, I fail to see any virtue in 
>large numbers of people. A smaller number with a higher standard of living
>(as defined, of course, by me) would be far preferable. 
>Jeff Achenbach

	Kind of reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia.  Why did he like the desert
	so much?  "Because it's clean".

>I fail to see any virtue in large numbers of people.

	Well, there are reasons why large numbers of people congregate
	together.  Mainly it's due to efficiency.  Larger groups of people
	lend themselves to higher levels of specialization and division of
	labor.  Most large groups of people are located near an important
	shared natural resource, i.e. a river, harbor, or lake.  People living
	close together results in decreased travel distances for people and
	the goods they produce.  Why do you think that all these businesses
	headquarter in downtown Manhattan?  Being physically close to other
	related and interdependent businesses is more efficient.  For those
	people who *do* like other people, a large city provides more diversity
	and variety in the people who live there.

	Also, there is a relationship between competition and population
	growth.  It is easy to come up with all kinds of utopian societies
	that would function well within a protected environment, i.e. an
	environment that does not have to face competition from other societies.
	But, the world we live in *is* affected by competition.  Different
	groups of people *do* come into conflict with one another, and in these
	conflicts high population growth is a competitive advantage.  If two
	groups are in conflict over the acquisition of a resource, the one
	with the higher population will tend to win.  If only by sheer force
	of numbers.  But, there are other advantages.   The larger society has
	more bandwidth for specialization.  In a smaller society, more people
	have to do double duty.  In the larger society there are enough people
	for a portion of the population to spend it's time exclusively in
	training for one function, say, the function of a warrior.  When the
	small society and the large society come in conflict, the small society
	will either have to adopt the methods of the large society (which
	include increasing it's population) or it will be defeated by the
	large society and it's members will be integrated into the larger
	society and be forced to adopt it's methods.

	In the United States, though, we are privileged as a people and have
	many more options, in terms of life style, than anyone else has in
	any other time in history.  It is now possible to live in a small town
	and enjoy many of the benefits that previously may have only been
	available in large urban centers.  I can live in Podunk, Oklahoma and
	enjoy chocolate from Switzerland, oranges from California or Florida,
	wheat from Iowa and beer from Canada.  And I can enjoy plays, art and
	concerts presented on recorded media and delivered, mail-order, right
	to my door.  But, this comes at a price.  The reason we can do this
	is mainly due to the fact that we burn massive quantities of fossil
	fuels.  We use these fuels to power the trucks that move goods
	thousands of miles; that deliver fresh milk and eggs to every grocery
	store in the nation every single day.  And, we can do this because
	of the exploitive and emperialistic foreign policy that we pursue.
	We use our military might against other peoples to ensure our supply of
	cheap natural resources (such as oil from Saudi Arabia) and cheap
	labor (cheap import products produced by exploited labor from countries
	like Singapore, Mexico and others).

	The problem is, once the oil is gone, and we no longer have military
	domination of the world, people who live in small cities and remote
	areas are going to have to face the inherent inefficiencies of
	those places.  Goods are going to become more expensive.  Travel
	is going to become more expensive.  Choices are going to become more
	and more limited.  It's easy enough for us to say "we'll just limit
	our population".  But, what about China?  What about India?  What
	about Mexico?  We don't live in isolation.  We compete with societies.

-- 
Russell Spence                                               Austin, Texas

"Foot-impelled bi-directional verticle transport asset"
				- staircase, as defined by the U.S. Army
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals