So: why bother with cities in the first place? Cities are where we develop technology--outside them, regression to nature is the rule.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
You can analogize them to stars: stars are where elements heavier than hydrogen are made. Outside stars, you slide back to absolute zero.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Humans cut off entirely from cities gradually lose the use of technologies they once had. If undisturbed for long enough, we'll forget fire.
1 reply 4 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Now, this is fine if you earnestly believe humans should live among other animals as other animals.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
But if you want to see where technological development will go, then you want cities to work. Which brings us back to the problem.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
While city populations grow by migration, city technology develops by imitation. Up-and-coming cities imitate mature cities...
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
...finding new, locally practical ways to accomplish the same results. This creation of new ways of working creates demand for more workers.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
Eventually, an up-and-coming city has imitated all that's worth imitating, invented whatever it can invent, and become a mature city.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
A mature city can only grow again when it finds itself "backward," behind the level of development of newer mature cities...
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Are you familiar with Jane Jacobs' book on cities and are you a fan?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.