Cities are one of
the main ways humans inhabit the landscape and organise themselves, though they
have only recently, historically speaking (Data),
become where most people live. They, historically, made up for their lack of
population with concentration and by being major economic, cultural and
political centres. While climate potentially change the locations of our major
cities, possibly further inland, I think its more than likely that our current
cities will exist during and shortly after overshoot. After all Sydney was founded by convicts with no access to
fossil fuels and only indirect assistance from them (in the form of the British Empire). Therefore, if cities will play a role in
overshoot the obvious question must be answered.
What is a city?
To aid the answer
here is an appropriate extract from Terry Pratchet’s Night watch
Everyday,
maybe a hundred cows died for Ankh-Morpork. So did a flock of sheep and a herd
of pigs and the gods alone knew how many ducks, chicken and geese. Flour? He’d
heard it was eighty tons, and about the same amount of potatoes and maybe
twenty tons of herring. He didn’t particularly want to know this kind of thing,
but once you started having to sort out the everlasting traffic problems these
were the facts that got handed to you.
Everyday
forty thousand eggs were laid for the city. every day, hundreds, thousands of
carts and boats and barges converged on the city with fish and honey and
oysters and olives and eels and lobsters. And to think of the horses dragging
this stuff, and the windmills… and the wool coming in, too, everyday, the
cloth, the tobacco, the spices, the ore, the timber, the cheese, the coal, the
fat, the tallow, the hay EVERY DAMN DAY….
And that was now. Back home, the city was twice as big….
Against the
dark screen of night, Vimes had a vision of Ankh-Morpork. It wasn’t a city, it
was a process, a weight on the world that distorted the land for hundreds of
miles around. People who’d never see it in their whole life nevertheless spent
their life working for it. Thousands and thousands of green acres were part of
it, forests were part of it. It drew in and consumed….
…and it gave back the dung from its pens and the soot
from its chimneys, and steel, and saucepans, and all the tools by which its
food was made. And also clothes, and fashions and ideas and interesting vices,
songs and knowledge and something which, if looked at in the right life, was
called civilization. That’s what civilization meant. It meant the city.
So we can see that
a city is also a process as much as a place and includes the immediate area it
gains resources from and its products go to, e.g. in the past ¾ of some cities
were metal works. From the hinterland come the raw (and sometimes refined)
resources, such as wheat, eggs, ore and timber, that a city consumes and out it
gives the refined products (like steel, weapons and tools), culture and now
days machines/equipment. What can form from this is a symbiotic relationship
that enhances both the city and rural communities.
Here’s an example;
a village machine shop maybe able to produce almost all the villages needs but
lacks the skills, resources and time to make some of its own high precision
equipment. Now instead of cutting other services to be able to remake this
equipment or losing whatever capability the equipment provides. The machine
shop could instead import the equipment from a city, which has far more machine
shops, engineering works and the like. The village machine shop could then
maintain the equipment without sacrificing capabilities and allow the village
to produce more using the machine shops products. This can feed back into
greater exports to the city and hence the overall economic activity and
technological complexity. This form of symbiotic relationship will be important
if we wish to keep a relatively high level of technology/technical skills.
The level of
technology is quite important when thinking about sustainability on this scale
as the smallest unit shifts as the tech level increases. While at most levels
the village is the most basic unit as the tech level rises it becomes the
village- town relationship and then the village-town-city complex. If we want
an eco-technic future, we need more than eco-villages, at a minium we need
eco-towns as well and then eco-cities. This is not to say that village level
sustainability isn’t worthwhile, since villages can more easily downshift tech
level, simply that to have an eco-technic future, rather than a medieval
future, the cities that exist today will need to be involved.
Hi Leo,
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy a Terry Pratchett quote. He was a keen observer of human nature and the absurd, and this was a particularly apt observation.
It's funny how people keep bringing up the eco-village as a solution to an eco-technic future. In my mind it is a dead end, because the technology will slowly atrophy and the individuals won't have the skills to repair / replace / reuse. Nope. Cities just have to adapt. Rural areas just have to adapt.
Good post.
Regards
Chris
Greetings from WA. Just at the end of the trip, saw the Wheat belt, interesting area. Tough People.
ReplyDeletePratchetts one of my favourite authors, read all of the Discworld series.
The Eco-village is useful, for resource collection and land inhabitation. Eco-cities have the skills, industry and concentrations to adapt. Effectively, they complement each other, thats the Key.
Also, i was just wondering, what Animals do you keep and what Plants. I know you have Chickens and i assume you have a dog and/or cat.
ReplyDelete