August 21, 2010

"Cities are the world's experimental laboratories and thus a metaphor for an uncertain age."

"They are both the cancer and the foundation of our networked world, both virus and antibody."

A double metaphor... a meta-metaphor?

(Via Arts & Letters Daily.)

10 comments:

rhhardin said...

Cities are the baggage carrousel of an uncertain age.

Ron said...

It's a cancer...and a foundation....

It's a flan...and it fits in a caulking gun...

traditionalguy said...

The article is 90% imaginary crisis hype filled in soaring thought with false data. The other 10% is enough reason to keep the energy resources we use to build and provision city locales (we call metropolitan areas) cheap and plentiful. Which means use lots of abundant oil and nuclear and not the inefficient windmills of the land or of the mind.

edutcher said...

I've always thought the wave of the future would be regional trading blocs like NAFTA and the EU, but they don't seem to be doing so well.

Then again, neither do the cities, but they're talking about city-states, like Sparta, which had large tract of land around them. Not unlike the 'burbs.

Oh, well, society seems to be regressing, anyway.

traditionalguy said...

edutcher...The population growth is not our problem these days. Cities are wonderful safe places for people with resources transported into them. They are the markets capitalism covets. What we are experiencing is the opening up of Marxist enslaved areas that are now taking away large parts of the capitalist world's resources to re-build them into functioning places. Study East Germany's re-unification with West Germany. Then multiply that by the Russian land mass opening up to post Marxist markets. And see the Chinese growth from poverty in the last 15 years. What we need is a way to keep capital from going over seas and building its industrial and market distribution system over there instead of here. Brazil may be the template for capital and government cooperation we need to see here again.

John Lynch said...

So most people live in cities. So what?

Every time we have some sort of crisis, people start writing about how "ungovernable" the country is.

No, it's not ungovernable. It's just ungovernable by the leaders we have.

We need new leaders, not some neofeudalism.

c3 said...

Another take on the "future cities" discussion

(as much as I distrust the term "futurist" Florida does have some interesting thoughts)

edutcher said...

traditionalguy said...

edutcher...The population growth is not our problem these days. Cities are wonderful safe places for people with resources transported into them. They are the markets capitalism covets. What we are experiencing is the opening up of Marxist enslaved areas that are now taking away large parts of the capitalist world's resources to re-build them into functioning places. Study East Germany's re-unification with West Germany. Then multiply that by the Russian land mass opening up to post Marxist markets. And see the Chinese growth from poverty in the last 15 years. What we need is a way to keep capital from going over seas and building its industrial and market distribution system over there instead of here. Brazil may be the template for capital and government cooperation we need to see here again.

I was talking simply about how viable different levels of government seem to be, not really population growth, but I see your point.

By your analogy, we are trading places with the old Communist blocs. Looking at who runs things here, it's a good insight, although neither Russia, nor Red China (a lot of talk about a big bubble threatening to pop) are really doing all that well.

But, clearly, a more laissez-faire environment for business is called for.

I think we are more in agreement than you seem to think.

ricpic said...

Saul Bellow had a three word answer to all this city rah rah: "Cities -- those pits."

Scott said...

We are now approaching The Futurama.