![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rotschnjak.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsEach culture and each civilization is like to a human being. It has its own birth, it run through its childhood and flowering to its decay and death. If something has the beginning, it has the end. Factors, which make an organism adult, they make it old and decrepit too. It’s something like the gene of aging.
The modern culture is first of all the culture of cities, so to say, metroculture. We measure the development (and in some meaning ‘adulthood’) of nations namely by criteria of this phenomenon. Urbanization implies the development of our civilization.
Without cities we can observe only local cultures, but there is not enough concentration of resources for creating of general market, the general material and spiritual infrastructure. I suppose impossible to build an industrial enterprises, roads and airports, cinematographic studios and Internet in society without cities.
But urbanization is simultaneously one of the most important factors of social decay, because in certain stage cities begin to stimulate the mechanism of human self-liquidation. It’s slow self-liquidation of mankind (in certain cultural variant) as the dominated biological form.
Each populated area has the property of attraction the new people. I call it as social gravity. You try to settle always near the other people, but not at the far taiga or tundra. If you choose the place for to live, you need the access to infrastructure (the intercourse with other people is the certain part of spiritual infrastructure), and it is much easier to find with the increasing density of population.
With increasing density of population we have more social, but less natural resources in the certain place. In villages, if you haven’t enough natural resources for all people, you settle in other plots. Villager is always a bit expansionist, he moved for new natural resources and density increase according to ability of area in supporting the population.
In biology it is well known that organisms for survival have two strategies: r and K. The R-strategy means as mass as possible biological reproduction with minimal expenditures of resources for each unit. The K-strategy in contrary means maximal expenditures of resources for guarantee of survival of each unit, but not the mass reproduction. In extreme variants K-strategy brings about the refusal of reproduction for own maximally comfort survival.
Cities work by other principle in relation to villages. City dwellers aren’t really expansionists in classical mean, they don’t move to natural resources, they move natural resources in their city by intensive work of transport system. It allows increasing the density of population to very high level, which is depended on transport, but not on the natural limits of urban area. Because of their principle of functioning, cities need for some populated outposts to own supply.
Large cities have supergravity, they attract many new people from their controlled territories. This gravity is the reason of depopulation in supply outposts. Each person wants to live in a metropolitan and not in supply outposts because of standards of living and consummating possibilities. In this way cities saw the branch they are sitting on.
With depopulation of outposts we have in cities the increasing of concurrence for living resources. The standards of living but stay high enough. It motivates people for K-strategy in the more and more extreme variants. It is culture of families with one child or without children generally, it is the culture of singles. For each new generation such cities need new and new people, and it depopulates the outposts more and more.
In USA factually all cities are diffuse because of high developed “car-suburbs”. But it is not the solving of the problem; it gives only high dependence upon oil import. From our point of view, the generally area of western countries have been transformed during postindustrial era in something like Supercity of the world. It is like to Rome Empire very much.
The modern culture is first of all the culture of cities, so to say, metroculture. We measure the development (and in some meaning ‘adulthood’) of nations namely by criteria of this phenomenon. Urbanization implies the development of our civilization.
Without cities we can observe only local cultures, but there is not enough concentration of resources for creating of general market, the general material and spiritual infrastructure. I suppose impossible to build an industrial enterprises, roads and airports, cinematographic studios and Internet in society without cities.
But urbanization is simultaneously one of the most important factors of social decay, because in certain stage cities begin to stimulate the mechanism of human self-liquidation. It’s slow self-liquidation of mankind (in certain cultural variant) as the dominated biological form.
Each populated area has the property of attraction the new people. I call it as social gravity. You try to settle always near the other people, but not at the far taiga or tundra. If you choose the place for to live, you need the access to infrastructure (the intercourse with other people is the certain part of spiritual infrastructure), and it is much easier to find with the increasing density of population.
With increasing density of population we have more social, but less natural resources in the certain place. In villages, if you haven’t enough natural resources for all people, you settle in other plots. Villager is always a bit expansionist, he moved for new natural resources and density increase according to ability of area in supporting the population.
In biology it is well known that organisms for survival have two strategies: r and K. The R-strategy means as mass as possible biological reproduction with minimal expenditures of resources for each unit. The K-strategy in contrary means maximal expenditures of resources for guarantee of survival of each unit, but not the mass reproduction. In extreme variants K-strategy brings about the refusal of reproduction for own maximally comfort survival.
Cities work by other principle in relation to villages. City dwellers aren’t really expansionists in classical mean, they don’t move to natural resources, they move natural resources in their city by intensive work of transport system. It allows increasing the density of population to very high level, which is depended on transport, but not on the natural limits of urban area. Because of their principle of functioning, cities need for some populated outposts to own supply.
Large cities have supergravity, they attract many new people from their controlled territories. This gravity is the reason of depopulation in supply outposts. Each person wants to live in a metropolitan and not in supply outposts because of standards of living and consummating possibilities. In this way cities saw the branch they are sitting on.
With depopulation of outposts we have in cities the increasing of concurrence for living resources. The standards of living but stay high enough. It motivates people for K-strategy in the more and more extreme variants. It is culture of families with one child or without children generally, it is the culture of singles. For each new generation such cities need new and new people, and it depopulates the outposts more and more.
In USA factually all cities are diffuse because of high developed “car-suburbs”. But it is not the solving of the problem; it gives only high dependence upon oil import. From our point of view, the generally area of western countries have been transformed during postindustrial era in something like Supercity of the world. It is like to Rome Empire very much.
(no subject)
Date: 19/10/13 16:48 (UTC)Chickisaw Oak, Millennium Palms, Pine Hills, Arbor Ridge, Meadow Woods...
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/13 15:25 (UTC)