Have a close look at Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City above. How would you characterize his vision of the ideal city? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the layout you see here?
Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Brandon Davis
-
Brandon Davis
Map Exercise: The maps above are three ways of looking at New Orleans. What happens when you superimpose maps of race/ethnicity, elevation, and flooding? What other information would you want in order to draw some conclusions about the “social ecology” of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina casualties?
-
jonl
After superimposing the maps, we can see that most of the black communities are in the lowest part of NO, particularly occupying the area that shows point A to B and the 9th Ward. I would probably like to know population density and the strength of the levies and drainage (which ones broke and why). It may be interesting to know the poverty and unemployment rates of areas as well. I noticed that Kenner and Metairie are also low in elevation yet there was lighter flooding.
-
msmith92
I too noticed that the black neighbourhoods were generally in the lowest lying areas and were also the most effected by flooding. I would like to know more about how the city came to be organized in this fashion. For example, were blacks occupying the lower-lying areas because they had less say in the decision-making processes of the city? Additionally, I would like to know more about how the government responded to this natural disaster and whether there was preferential effort put into recovering certain areas. I also agree with the above comment that it would be interesting to see the economic statistics of each general area to see whether that correlates with the flooded areas as well.
-
jenniefrench
When you superimpose the maps you can see that ‘richer,’ usually white populations live at higher elevations, where african american communities and poor groups live at lower elevations. Obviously those living at lower elevations were far more dramatically influenced by the hurricane. Other factors that should be considered are evacuation protocols, the homeless situation and if they were considered in the evacuation, the amount of trust the local population has for officials or politicians, as well as access to cars, transport, even funds to be able to leave the city. The construction of the city left many vulnerable, and the hurricane itself cause so much damage – but I feel that the after math of Katrina left so many people angry because the government, local and federal, did not give the people living there, especially the poor and homeless, the respect they deserved. Environmental Justice was certainly infringed upon.
-
emilym
After superimposing the maps, the first thing I noticed was that the lower elevation areas were predominantly African-American and that the areas where white people live are generally at a higher elevation and were not as badly flooded during Katrina. I would like to know if income correlates with elevation as well and why/how the African-American community ended up settling in those low elevation areas.
-
sharonshi
The maps given exhibit the locations where the African-American and Hispanics lived, which are primarily in the region of the heavy flooding. The heavy flooding was a result of low elevation. The lighter flooding regions were dominated by the white population. This shows, that the deaths that resulted from the disaster were predominately of the African-American and Hispanic population. Some other information that would help draw conclusions about “social ecology” would be the wealth of each race/ethnic group. This will help provide evidence that the deaths that resulted from the “natural” disaster was not all that “natural”.
-
lcoulthard
We can see that not only were the heaviest flooded areas ones that were populated mostly by non-whites, and these areas were also the ones that stayed flooded for the longest after the incident. On top of that, these areas were also the ones that had many levees break. I would be curious to know the quality of the levees that were built in the non-white areas as compared to the white ones, and also curious to know where the search and rescue was primarily dispatched to in the start… I would further like to know why private companies like Halliburton were being offered contracts to rebuild areas instead of maybe the US Department of Housing and Urban Development!
-
Danni
New Orleans was separated into different communities according to the social status. Traditional Caucasian well educated and rich population lived in the higher elevations, but the African-Americans with some poor populations lived in the lower elevations. The organization of the city development reinforced the severity of the impacts from Hurricane Katrina to the poor populations. Moreover, Hurricane Katrina might be considered the flash point of the conflicts between different communities, which associated with the social ecology concept that the natural tragedies, like Hurricane Katrina, is not random. Instead, the major social impacts of these natural tragedies are imbalance of communities in residents’ social, economical, educational status in the same city.
-
katehaxt
As mentioned by everyone, we see that African-Americans were living at lower elevations and suffered worse with flooding than the higher dwelling whites. We can easily guess that the lower elevation communities were also denser, poorer and suffered more casualties than the higher elevation neighborhoods but we’d need this data and info about the rescue efforts to really understand the social ecology of NO when Katrina struck.
-
paige
It’s quite clear that the lower elevations were inhabited by mainly African American communities when the disaster hit. In order to draw conclusions about the social ecology we would have to know the status of business operations in the area, the general income of each neighborhoods inhabitants, events and general trends of interaction in each neighborhood and how those interact with the impacts of Katrina.
-
tsung
After superimposing the maps, it is evident that the heavily flooded areas were the areas where the African American’s lived. The white neighborhood experienced light flooding while those below elevation were affected most. Those living below sea level are evidently the blacks and Hispanic and in addition, the map depicts a clear segregation between the rich and the poor neighborhoods. Other information such as investments made into strengthening the levees’ in different areas prior to Katrina would be useful to understand the social ecology of New Orleans. Moreover, I would like to know why the US government would reject a budget to strengthen defenses for the city. Knowing that those in the 9th ward area would be overwhelmed if a storm occurred, why did the government reject any investments in protecting its citizens?
-
brenden
As many others have mentioned, the inhabitants of the lowest lying (and most heavily flooded) areas were predominantly inhabited by african americans. Additionally, if you examine the areas at higher elevation which experienced less flooding, they are predominantly occupied by caucasians. To draw additional conclusions about the social ecology of the New Orleans and the Hurricane Katrina casualties, I would want to examine information pertaining to, population density, home values and income levels, in the areas profiled. I believe that the trends would show that homes in the lower elevations would have higher population density, be worth less, and have lower household incomes. Alternatively, I believe that homes at higher elevations would have less population density, be worth more and have greater household income. The social ecological conclusion that could be drawn from these findings would be that in this city, wealthy caucasians primarily inhabited areas that were at higher elevations and lower risk of flooding.
-
Joyce Lin
What we see from the map is that nothing is located by random or by chance. This is a visual representation of the concept of social ecology. However, to draw better conclusions I would also be interested in looking at the land values, income, access to transportation/main roads and age distribution of the populations.
-
midara
If we are overlapping the maps we may find that the black communities are located in the lowest lying regions in New Orleans. It is because their communities are located in the lowest areas of the city, their damages due to floodings is undoubtedly the greatest among all. While we may conclude that the Black neighbourhoods are more isolated, ignored and rejected by the rest of the city, the result not only does represent racism and discrimination of the society but also the problems of the current social ecology. Social ecology emphasizes the interactions and relationship between human and society; because of the discrimination and racism that chases the Black communities to the lowest lying areas of the city, they have to suffer more from the loss and damages from the flood. Nevertheless, I suggest that more information on laws/policies of racism, transportation or evacuation methods available at time of disasters (i.e. are all people allowed to leave the area with same chance), population density, facilities such as hospitals or clinics, social class distribution etc. should be reviewed to draw bettwen conclusions on the “social ecology” of New Orleans.
-
jaydee
Its clear from looking at both the maps that african american communities are mostly located in the lower elevated areas of the land. I think a very interesting map would be to have one showing income, as well as population density, and compare that to the map of elevation. This would be especially useful if we were to compare it to a map showing the amount of damage per area or the mortality rate.
-
erikaw
The lowest levels of elevation (up to 9 feet below sea level), which were thus the areas of the heaviest flooding post-Katrina were almost perfectly correlated with the Black communities of New Orleans. This probably came about because of previous natural disasters, and through time the areas with higher elevation became higher in property value and thus for those with more money – namely white communities. Some other information I would want to draw conclusions on the “social ecology” of New Orleans would be population density, community involvement, and perhaps income.
-
bgibson
There is a clear correlation between low elevation and heavy flooding. Furthermore, these low lying neighbourhoods are primarily African American communities. Conversely, areas of higher elevation saw less flooding and are predominantly White. I would like to see further information about income, locations of community centers (Hospitals, Rec Centres, Police Stations, etc.), population density and age demographics.
-
phoebe
By superimposing the maps, there is clearly a relation between class, race, and elevation. White citizens of New Oreans lived in the higher elevation and thus generally faced little to moderate flooding. Black citizens lived in lower elevation and generally faced more severe flooding which would result in more property damage, loss of homes, cars and other luxuries/neccessities. These indiviudals were already disadvantaged as they had less money and means to recover from the hurricane and would have a more difficult time rebuilding back their homes and livelihoods.
-
alyumam
By superimposing maps is evident that neighborhoods where white people lived, higher elevations existed and less flood happened (after Katrina) are contrasting with those of other ethnicity. This denotes a whole lot of other contrasts which might be cataloged within the ‘social ecology’ definition; in this section, privileges such as education, access to information like topographic maps, among other things might also have been an element that contributed to the catastrophic outcome in New Orleans.
-
Keaton Briscoe
It is noticeable that the populations of the black citzens is predominantly in the lower laying areas of the city of New Orleans. It is clear why the damage was most severe in this area of the city. However, the higher elevated areas, which werent damaged as severly by the flood, were more white dominanted. I would be nice to know how the black citizens came to be habited in that lower laying area of the city.
-
nytsuen
It is evident that non-white citizens lived in lowest elevated areas which were affected the most by Hurricane Katrina. It was also much harder for these citizens to recover from the disaster because they were poor and disadvantaged from the very beginning. I wonder if the lands/houses in the higher elevated areas were more expensive than the lower elevated lands and if so, by how much? Is this some sort of discrimination in the sense that the prices are so high that it is impossible for non-white people to purchase these safer homes?
-
yitailiu
By superimpose the maps provided, I can see a clear connection between race, elevation, and flooding. The areas that have lower elevation which are more susceptible to heavy flooding are populated mainly by African-Americans. This creates a similar situation of disproportionate casualties as the Chicago heat wave. In both events, the severity of the natural disasters are highly relevant to the social ecology.
-
natashap
It’s interesting to observe that the lowest areas are mostly occupied by African-Americans. There’s not economic data on these maps, but it would be interesting to see if the stereotype that the poor live in the valley and the rich live up higher is true. Since the lower areas faced the worse flooding, this is definitely a case of social ecology contributing in this disaster. If the lower areas also had a lower income, this would likely mean that they may not have had the resources to leave while they could, which further contributed to the disaster.
-
eddietastic
i feel like the city risked those who were poor to the natural disasters while those who had more money were able to get higher elevation . Effectively forcing people to put an economic price on their ability to live.
-
-
Brandon Davis
Image inquiry: how do these two photographs capture Klinenberg’s point about the social ecology of Chicago’s neighbourhoods? What kinds of evidence can we draw from these images?
-
jonl
The picture of the Latino community shows a higher density community. I think with that many people living in close proximity of each other, they can more easily seek help. Also with stores closer to the people of the community, it may be easier to get something they need.
The picture of the African-American community looks like it is much more spacious and less dense. It may also be more common to see empty streets or not see people often. Therefore, with more people staying in-doors because of the heat, the support or aid from one another was less likely to occur. -
msmith92
The picture on the left of the Latino community appears to display a vibrant cultural community while that of the African-American community appears to almost be deserted. Often with strong cultural connections among a group of people comes stronger social networks. People who share traditions and cultural values tend to look out for each other. During the heat wave, those who had few social contacts were said to be a high risk for death. In neighbourhoods with strong social support, people would be more likely to check up on one another.
-
jenniefrench
These two images highlight Klinenberg’s point that while Latino and African-American populations may be living along a similar poverty line, the development of a city can effect who is more able to continue a community, and who is isolated through no fault of their own. The Latino community is obviously denser, more populated, whereas the African American community appears abandonned. I think another point to make is that when you are surrounded by people, culture etc you feel more supported and more motivated. When you live somewhere that feels abandoned, you feel abandoned and believe there is no one to help. The development, actual planning of a city, can influence how communities form and help each other.
-
emilym
The two images show that neighborhoods within Chicago are very different and serve to highlight Klinenberg’s point that the populations living within different areas were affected differently by the heat wave. The Little Village, which is primarily Latino, is densely populated whereas North Lawndale, which is predominately African-American, is far less densely populated and appears to be partially abandoned. This partial abandonment can isolate a community and contribute to a perceived or real lack of available services in times of need.
-
sharonshi
The two images presented in the reading showed two very different neighborhoods within Chicago, and with that two very different social ecology. The first image showed a much more busy and people-dominated area, whereas the second showed an abandoned neighborhood that was less dense in population concentration. What we can draw from these images is that such abandonment in the second image leads help in the time of need to be hard. Since the area is already so isolated from the rest of Chicago, people will have less of a tendency to try to help them. Thus, the social connection is lost, and with that, lives.
-
lcoulthard
It’s hard to imagine that these two photographs are two different parts of the same city. Little Village is obviously much more vibrant than North Lawndale, the active community would have had a much easier time relaying information and supplies to each other during the time of need. The picture of North Lawndale makes it seem like such an area that you could almost assuredly expect lawlessness during a crisis like a bad heat wave, and therefore the residents probably shut themselves in, accidentally cutting themselves off to any possible help from the outside.
-
Danni
These two pictures illustrated the differences in neighbourhoods organizing had social impacts in both Latino and African-American community. There is a highly dense community of Latinos, but the African-American community is much less dense instead. The people in the abandoned community could feel isolated. Furthermore, the social connection between different communities in a city are related, but may not be easily emerged by the planning of the city. The densities of different communities associates the social impacts from different communities in the same city.
-
Joyce Lin
I think aside from all the good points everybody has brought up in the thread about densely populated vs. abandoned spaces, the two images also show that cities are very unnatural environments. Yes, they have physical aspects such as location and situation, topography and geography but they’re constructed space. Cities are either built with a high degree of planning and care, or they are on the other hand, built with little planning care. In the images, we can see that not only is North Lawndale removed of any human presence but that infrastructure is also very poor, the roads are not being taken care of. In comparison, the Little Village image has evidence of public transportation, street lights, clear sidewalk and road boundaries.
-
katehaxt
Little Village looks like a functioning urban ecosystem. It is obvious from the photo that people are sleeping, working, shopping, eating and interacting socially in Little Village. North Lawndale may be housing some people but from the photo we can deduce that it is not filling any of the other basic human needs. These photos support Klinenberg’s point that North Lawndale was hit harder by the heat wave because it wasn’t a healthy human ecosystem to begin with.
-
sampethick
Well Klinenberg talked about how the Latino part of Chicago was more social and “vibrant” and there were lots of people around to help each other, and how the African American part of Chicago was basically abandoned and people who lived on their own (especially elderly people who lived alone) were left to their own devices when it came to the heat wave. He also talked about how two of the main risk factors that made people more likely to die during the heat wave, were living alone and not having social contact close by. We can see from the two photos that the Latino area of the city is packed and there is lots going on and everyone probably had social contact close by. But the African American part of the city is completely deserted in Klinenberg’s photo, meaning people were not out and about, not socializing, there was probably not many people there at all so the people who were there did not necessarily have someone close by that could help them if need be.
-
-
paige
The picture on the left shows a community that can work together, support each other, and function as a whole to survive the worst of it. The picture on the left shows a desolate area where one another are not aware of the struggles going on around them.
-
tsung
The two photographs capture Klinenberg’s point about social ecology as it illustrates the un-natural history (or deep-seated social problems) that shaped how the neighborhoods looked. The Latino neighborhood was vibrant and offered a sense of community. However, the African American neighborhood looked impoverished and underdeveloped. Additionally, the neighborhood seemed to lack a sense of community therefore when the heat wave occurred, those most vulnerable were those living alone and mainly African American. Since there was no social support from the African American neighborhood, it is no surprise the area was abandoned along side a higher mortality rate than the Latino neighbourhood.
-
brenden
The picture’s perfectly describe what Klinenberg discusses in his article. There were less heat related fatalities in the latino community as it appears to be somewhat more “tight-knit” with many people out in the street communicating and carrying on with their daily lives despite the heat. This can be observed in the first photograph. Death rates were higher amongst african american’s due to the impoverished abandoned disconnected community environment they lived in. As Klinenberg stated in the article, people who were most susceptible to heat related illness were those who were both elderly and alone. By looking at the second photograph, we can see that the african american community looks both poor and abandoned and it conveys the message that individuals in this community are isolated from one another for the most part, which is in sharp contrast with the latino community.
-
midara
The two photographs each capture a shot of Chicago’s neighbourhoods, and I think these photos are great representation of social ecology of the area. While in the Latino neighbourhood the picture depicts an obviously crowded and denser community, the one on the right shows a less dense and abandoned. Noticing that in fact both communities are of a similar level of poverty, it is obvious that the one with better development may receive more help and focus if anything happens. The isolated area usually receives less help from the society, and may be ignored or receiving insufficient resources for development. Even resources are available to the African-American comunity, they still have to be reserved to the share of developing/improvement of social/environmental problems. In case of heat wave, we may draw the conclusion that due to the better social ecology in the Latino community, we may see more help or better off result because of the developed services/facilities; while in the African-American community, due to the abandoness and isolation, we may foresee more damages due to impact of lack of interactions and resources.
-
jaydee
I think that these two photos most clearly represent the difference in three of the risk factors Klinenberg discussed: Living alone, not leaving home daily, and not having social contacts near by. From the photo, it is easier to tell that the Little Village is much more densely populated compared to North Lawndale. This means that the people of Little Village are more likely to have more close contacts, be living with other people, and from the looks of things, spend more time in the streets. There is much more activity in Little Village, so there is likely more money and resources being used and received in these areas, which in turn are giving the residents a better chance at surviving these natural disasters.
-
erikaw
As was stated earlier in the module that the hispanic community was much more densely populated, with more businesses and street traffic and general motion of society. It would be fairly easy to have social support in a community such as this. As for the African American neighbourhood that was much more barren and widespread, it would be difficult to be connected to a community. It would be easy for many people to slip under the radar of society and go unnoticed, which happened during the unfortunate Chicago heat wave.
-
bgibson
These two images clearly illustrate the stark contrast between the two neighbourhoods discussed earlier. The vibrant image of the Little Village neighbourhood shows how an individual would feel compelled to participate in the community, to get out and socialize. In contrast, the image of North Lawndale shows a neighbourhood that is quite desolate and obviously in disrepair. Truthfully I wouldn’t blame an individual from avoiding the street and becoming somewhat of a recluse, particularly an elderly individual. Clearly, there is less of a sense of community in North Lawndale, and a significantly underdeveloped social safety net.
-
phoebe
These two images demostrate the contrast between a vibrant, densely populated neighbourhood of the Latin communities which although poor is filled with life and supported its citizens against the African American neighbourhood which appears desolate and lacking life. The citizens living in the Latin neighbourhood were surrounded by people and help, thus increasing their survival rate. The African American neighbourhood is still and quiet, leading to some of their elderly citizens dying alone.
-
alyumam
Like people have mentioned it, both image are contrasting. In the picture the Latin-american community, despite experiencing the heat wave, also seem to be involved in a dynamic of exchange, exchange of goods, services, and so on. In contrast, the African-american inhabited area picture looks empty and therefore no social dynamic seem to happen.
It also would be interesting to know in detail what kind of streets were photographed since the first picture seem to have been taken at a busy location, and the second picture looks more like in a suburban area.
-
Keaton Briscoe
The two images are very different and portray two very differenent societies. The picture on the left, which is predominantly latino, looks like a community in which is densely populated and looks as though they are a communiting which could survive through practically anything and isnt really showing the effects of the heat wave. Meanwhile, the picture on the right looks abandoned and as though the community is more isolated from the rest of the city.
-
nytsuen
It is obvious how Latinos are situated in a more bustling area of Chicago. There are abundant store signs to suggest that many businesses are there; therefore, many people reside in this area. There is a music and clothing store, street signs, and a bus stop with a lot of cars. The picture of North Lawndale appears to be deserted, and isolated from the city. There seems to be little infrastructure, and all the buildings and electrical poles all look ruined. No one is outside and therefore, it encourages crime; whereas, in the Latino community there are many people walking around casually. The two photos convey completely different messages and vibes of each community.
-
yitailiu
The picture of the Latino community does show a much higher population density and appears to be much more lively than the African-American one. There is a sense of abandonment and isolation in the African-America community, it seems that people living there would have difficulties to get help when they need it. Looking at these two pictures, one can easily relate to the case of the heat wave in Chicago, which was concluded by Klinenberg that poverty and neglect were the main causes of the disproportionate deaths.
-
congo96
In the latino neighbourhood photo we see busy streets full of people meaning there is a vibrant community that interacts with one another. In the other photo the streets are void of people and the buildings look condemned reflecting a deteriating neighbourhood that people are not trying to be a part of but would rather abandon and get out of which is a problem for those who are part of it but can’t go anywhere else
-
natashap
The image of the Latino area is bustling and busy, there are stores and residences mixed together which supports the idea that they were well connected, neighbours would know each other, etc. The African-American neighbourhood on the other hand appears sparse and deserted, there’s a few buildings, but they’re far apart and the streets are empty – even if you did know your neighbours, it doesn’t seem like the type of neighbourhood where people would check up on one another.
-
-
Brandon Davis
Note his use of the term “social ecology”. What does he mean by this? How might the concept of social ecology be useful for thinking about the un-natural history of natural disasters?
-
jonl
Well “ecology” to me is the relationship of living organisms, hence we get plant ecology and other animal ecology. Social ecology I believe is human ecology or how we as humans relate to one another, our relationships with one another. I’m not sure about the “un-natural history of natural disasters”, perhaps ‘un-natural’ is referring to caused by humans? But in the example of Latinos and African-Americans, I believe the cultural aspect is what Klinenberg was talking about. Latinos have a more communal and close-relationship culture than African-Americans do, therefore they provided more support for one another during a time of hardship.
-
msmith92
I think that the term, social ecology, is used to emphasize the relationships between humans as well as our interconnectedness to nature. I also think that it implies that the social organization of humans into hierarchies and power positions impacts our relationship with the environment. In terms of the un-natural history of natural disasters, social ecology can be used to examine how human social structures impacted how the natural disaster played out. For instance, certain neighbourhoods and, thus, groups of people, may be more susceptible to others. Additionally, government, which is essentially the imposition of hierarchy, plays an important role in the “unnatural history” of environmental disasters.
-
jenniefrench
Social ecology, in this context, discusses the interactions of people, of a society. It is a useful term to think of in the context of ‘natural disasters’ because it reminds us that we are connected to nature, as well as part of a greater web. In previous modules we have talked about suburbia – and I feel this represents how many people (as we have often seen, white middle class people) have become isolated. They may have families and friend networks etc, but they are all a choice – they can choose to be isolated. A social ecology reminds us that we are all connected and can be effected by the same ‘natural’ disaster. This term is useful in thinking about the un-natural history of natural disasters, as it allows us to look at the systems in society and to see which ones are being neglected or overlooked. Likewise, it alerts us to our responsibilities, as an ecosystem, to support each other.
-
brandond
Last week Joyce encouraged us to apply some of the ideas we were covering to Vancouver. I think such advice works well for this particular blog question as well. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the social ecology of Vancouver. I personally find it interesting how the Lower Eastside and Chinatown are located in some of the lowest points of the city. If you think back to the sanitation practices late 19th and early 20th century when wastewater and other pollutants were often left untreated and allowed to flow wherever nature would take them, then it make sense that the places that sat at the “bottom of the hill” were the same places where marginalized populations lived. These are somewhat random thoughts. Please feel free to share any speculative thoughts you might have on the subject.
-
hannahepperson
compelling thought, the correlation between social and environmental gradients …
-
-
katehaxt
social ecology is surely how we all interact and co-exist as hu mans. so far the rules of social ecology seem to be that the rich and powerful get to appropriate and create the best living environment for themselves.
-
sharonshi
After some quick research (on top of the reading), I found that Social Ecology presents the fact that seemingly ecological problems, such as natural disasters, have actually a deeply rooted social cause. In other words, Social Ecology is the interactions between people in societies, which can then lead to the “un-natural” cause of natural disasters. For example, less wealthy areas of the city are usually those that are less sanitized. When putting food on the table is hard to maintain, people tend not to think twice when considering environmental damage. It may be because of these reasons that social ecology is interconnected with the un-natural history of natural disasters. As the Chicago case illustrates, most of those who died were elderly and lived in abandoned neighborhoods.
-
sampethick
I think I found the same article as you on social ecology Sharon (by Murray Bookchin?). Bookchin defines social ecology as “social” in its recognition o the often overlooked fact that nearly all of our present ecological problems arise from-deep seated social problems. What he is saying that many ecological problems such as “natural disasters” are very much connected to social disasters in that they might not happen, or would not be so severe without the social problems involved. Applied to Klinenberg’s use of the term social ecology with regards to the heat wave in Chicago, social ecology is referring to the fact that the severity of the heat wave was not actually a “natural disaster” as so many had called it. The heat wave was a disaster which occurred and was fatal for so many in large part was due to the fact that Chicago is a densely populated city, the right actions were not taken in order to help the cities citizens, and not enough people were equipped with amenities that would have helped them (such as air conditioners), among other reasons.
The concept of social ecology can be useful for thinking about “natural disasters” because it can give us a better understanding of exactly why they happen, and since it is social issues which are largely the problem in many cases, it can help people come up with logical solutions on how to prevent such disasters in places like big cities. We can’t really change things that are actually natural disasters, but there is a possibility of changing natural disasters due to social ecology.
-
-
erikaw
Eric refers to social ecology in terms of abandonment, dispersion, and decay – which is very true as all of these issues are deeply imbedded in the ecology of how humans interact on a social level. Ecology in it’s most basic sense is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment (from wikipedia) and so there are many different avenues of ecology that can be looked at. When 7 billion people plus inhabit this planet, and especially in cities, social interactions take up most of any persons day there is a clear importance at looking at social ecology and it’s affects and interactions in society. As we’ve seen in this module thus far there is a clear cause and effect between social ecology and the un-natural history of natural disasters – for example the compounding factors that worsened the heat wave of Chicago in 1995.
-
lcoulthard
I had never considered the social ecology of Vancouver before, but I can see how that would be true for Chinatown and Richmond. On the other hand, False Creek used to be very polluted from heavy industry. Instead of becoming a socially desolate area it has been reworked in three different locations. One of the areas had all of the developments sell offshore before it was even open to Vancouverites.
Regarding the Chicago heat wave in 1995 though, I can see how the social ecology affected the death rates and what Klinenberg means by it. The vibrant Latino communities which were more densely populated were probably not as worried about crime or falsified information than the African-American ones, and were more willing to help each other.
-
alyumam
I keep thinking about such differences between communities. African-American and Latin-American. What differences are there? what similarities beyond the ones Klinenberg marks also exist? I suggest that the social factor that Latin-American people have is their link to their community which is backed up by a geographical proximity; Whether African-American have closer ties to the foundation of the United States and less to the geographical area their ancestors might belong, such like Africa. i wonder if this might be involved…
-
-
Danni
Social ecology exams the interrelationship between social elements in an environment. It associates the social impacts (i.e. economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts) to the natural environment. There are social ecological impacts associated with the un-natural history of natural disasters. For example, the argument made by Ted Steinberg’s in his book “Review: Act of God: the Un-natural History of Natural Disaster in America”. He argued that disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, was not randomly occurred, but actually the situation could be improved, if the decisions from business leaders and government officials could help those residents preventing the loss of life and properties. The concept of social ecology reveals social impacts of the un-natural history of the natural disaster. It helps us to relate the social impacts to the ecological evidences.
-
Joyce Lin
The idea of social ecology is useful because it begs for a multi factorial evaluation of what played a role in the development of some issue. When considering the unnatural history of natural disasters, social ecology reminds us that there is always a social component to what might appear as a natural disaster…that there is, simply put, nothing natural about them!
A heat wave isn’t a natural disaster, it’s only a natural disaster because it happened where there were humans (social). A storm can pass through Antarctica and it wouldn’t be considered a natural disaster because it doesn’t affect a population as a storm that passes through America would. Bearing this idea in mind, we can be more critical about the consequences of “natural disasters”. That is, we can be less quick to conclude the consequences as a direct result of some physical/natural phenomena and evaluate how social aspects of human management/prevention methods/mitigation strategies/etc had an effect as well. -
paige
I think the social ecology he is talking about are the interactions seen in society. Different tradeoffs are made that can lead to abandonment and decay. This contributes to the un-natural history of natural disasters because the degradation of the living conditions through a common mindset increases the severity of the disasters. If everything was kept in proper working conditions things like this would not cause nearly the same amount of harm they do.
-
tsung
Social ecology refers to the relationship between ecological problems and social problems. In general, our ecological problems arise from deep social problems. I believe that race, ethnicity, gender, economic as well as cultural factors all play an important part when discussing ecological problems we face. Note Katrina, those who were most vulnerable were the African Americans therefore in terms of “un-natural history of natural disasters,” social structures as well those in power all impact how we experience disasters. People with money and power are often able to escape the deadly fate of a disaster, however, those who usually live below the poverty line or are in neglect will usually die. As noted during the 1995 Chicago Heat Wave, those most vulnerable are those who are neglected and poor. The un-unnatural history and construction of Social structures and the “dominant white society” have made those of different ethnicity much more vulnerable to disasters.
-
brenden
As some others have mentioned, social ecology is a phrase used to describe the connection between social and ecological problems in society. Social ecology views a cause and effect relationship between the two, arguing that ecological problems are caused by social problems which are embedded within our society. I think that social ecology is a useful tool for describing the unnatural history of natural disasters. As we have seen over the past decade or so, both the frequency and severity of natural disasters have been increasing significantly. For instance, hurricanes in the south, tornadoes in the midwest, forest fires ect. I believe that these to a certain extent can be linked to social problems. For example, a major problem in our society are over consumption, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels. These issues have long been linked to global warming. Global warming is widely considered to be a major contributor to the increasing severity and frequency of these disasters. Therefor, I do believe that the concept of social ecology is relevant in explaining the un-natural history of national disasters.
-
midara
For me, the term “social ecology” can be simple explained as the ecology happening in the society. While ecology in general may refer to interactions and lives of plants and animals, I guess it is safe to say that “social ecology” he refers to stands for interactions or relationships take place between human-human or human-society. I think the concept of social ecology is particularly essential because by using this concept we are excluding the natural part away from the cause of natural disasters and focusing on human only causes. For instance in the heat wave case, the use of “social ecology” shoulders the responsibility on social problems but not a naturally happening event/climate.
-
jaydee
I definitely think that social ecology in this sense refers to the interactions between and changes in human society. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ecology as “The study of the interaction of people with their environment.” as one of its definitions. This quote is using social ecology to discuss how humans interact with their environment and other people within a society. Clearly the way that our society interacts within itself affects the outcome and appearance of these natural disaster. For instance, earth quakes of the same magnitude kill exponentially more people in third world countries, simply because these societies do not have the resources to build in preparation for these types of disasters. In the same way, these african-american neighborhoods are similarly not in a position to be able to deal with these types of issues.
-
bgibson
I am in agreement with the majority of the class that Kilnberg’s use of the term “social ecology” refers to the interactions that occur between people within a social structure. I think Klinberg is emphasizing the different social structures that exist in Latino and African American neighbourhoods. The busy commercial life and vibrant public spaces typical of the Latino community likely ensured that individuals left home on a daily basis and had many social contacts nearby. This emphasizes that the mortality due to the heat wave is not necessarily due to the natural disaster, but due to the lack of support structures in the social ecology of high mortality neighbourhoods.
-
phoebe
Social ecology referred to by Klinberg is the relationships and interaction (or lack of interaction) between humans. In reference to the un-natural history of natural disasters, I believe Klinberg is trying to indicate that some natural disasters are not quite as “natural” as the press and media attempt to portray them. Klinberg uses the example of a majority of the victims of the Chicago heat wave being poor, black men who lived alone in neighbourhoods with few social contacts. The social ecology of this situation, the very lack of interaction between humans led to these men dying alone without help which could have been allievated if our society placed more value on interacting and helping our neighbours instead of facing them with polite indifference and suspicion.
-
alyumam
What Klinenberg seems to refer with `social ecology` is the relationship of the different social groups with each other in a given environment. Such term seems also to be exemplified with the various responses the different ethnic groups had towards the Chicago heatwave.
In what respect regarding the usefulness of this term in discovering the un-natural history of natural disasters is that social dynamics seem to be involved in recognizing society in ecological processes, and therefore humans as part of nature, although, with differences. Nonetheless all of us with power of decision. An element that seems to be key in this debate…. -
hannahepperson
Sounds like the definition for social ecology has been pretty comprehensively defined in this thread. Just a wee quick thought on a piece of Vancouver’s social ecology… I visited a friend who was house-sitting in Shaugnessy the other day; and it’s like walking into a maze. That neighbourhood is extremely inaccessible to navigate for an ‘outsider’! The urban planning of that particular neighbourhood works almost as a defense against invasion from the Commoner! Well – it’s one way to conceal and ‘protect’ the material wealth of a narrow cross section of vancouver’s population…
-
hannahepperson
also worthy of note that shaughnessy, vancouver’s oldest ‘affluent’ neighbourhood, was developed at a significantly higher elevation (which ties into Brandon’s comment), and pointedly developed at a good distance from false creek, which used to be Vancouver’s big industrial hub
-
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think what Klinenberg meant by “social ecology” is the interactions that humans have with eachother, socially and politically, within a given environment. I think this ties in with un-natural and natural disasters as it pin points the affects of society and how the natural disasters can impact the less fortunate more than the fortunate.
-
nytsuen
Social ecology means that present ecology problems are rooted in social problems. Klinenberg discusses how natural disasters might not be as ‘natural’ as what we depict it as to be. This allows us to think more deeply when we talk about natural disasters and consider other things. For example, with the Chicago heat wave in 1995, around 500-700 people died from heat-related illnesses. Even though the city could not prevent the heat wave from happening, they could have done more preventive actions to decrease the number of deaths. “Chicago’s Latinos tend to live in neighbourhoods with high population density, busy commercial life in the streets, and vibrant public spaces” in comparison to African Americans. It is time to ask questions on how racism, poverty and neglect shape the way people are affected by natural disasters.
-
congo96
Social ecology refers to the relationship between environmental problems and social problems in this case the heat wave and poor communities in which individuals experience isolation and lack of a social support system. Social ecology can help us predetermine what factors/ social situations are going to make potential natural disasters worse and work to rectify these social problems prior to a natural disaster
-
natashap
Social ecology refers to the relationships that people have and how this affects where they live and how this in turn affects them. I think social ecology is good for identifying those that are at higher risk for dying from natural disasters and those that are at lower risk. This could be used to encourage neighbourhood/city development that would minimize at risk areas.
-
eddietastic
i feel like social ecology refers to the relationships that people have with the environment because of social problems. For example, those who are more poor may not be able to do things which richer people do as a result this leads to people that are poor to become more succeptable to certain diseases and natural disasters .
-
-
Brandon Davis
Can or should this dependence on consumption and growth continue? Are there other ways to measure and envision prosperity, quality of life, and happiness? Is a new paradigm on the horizon, one that will reflect a new energy regime, new ways of eating, and new cultural values?
-
katehaxt
Some of these questions really do my head in! For instance- “Can or should this dependence on consumption and growth continue?” Yes, we should absolutely keep consuming the planets resources at completely unsustainable rates and filling the planet with toxins and garbage as fast as we can.
Yes hopefully there is a new paradigm on the horizon where we measure our quality of life on how helpful and useful we are being to the world instead of how much we are wantonly consuming. When we realize our duty is to be of service, to give rather than take, then we’ll all have unlimited happiness and prosperity.-
hannahepperson
I appreciate you bringing up the word/concept of service. It has been coming up in a lot of conversations with frustrated friends and colleagues lately … a sense of value comes from feeling needed … being in a position of service is, I think, the most intensely gratifying and fulfilling thing in the world. Giving gives! It’s one of those beautiful paradoxes, or something akin to a zen koan.
-
alyumam
Is interesting your commentary katehaxt although there is a part that I do not understand quite clearly, such like the one about continue consuming… Is this in order to realize the process of becoming aware that is better to give rather than take?
-
-
msmith92
Our dependance on consumption and growth can’t continue otherwise we are going to be in serious trouble. However, this is going to be extremely difficult to change. As a society that has had so much success and progress from this dependence on growth, it is going to require a complete cultural shift in order to change our current ways. In such a fast paced world, we can’t just stop everything and start fresh so I think that a paradigm shift will have to happen gradually over time as we begin to develop alternative energy sources and come to focus less on profit. Hopefully people will become more mindful of their consumption so they can make more sustainable choices.
-
jonl
The “other ways” I can think of is not the consumption of material things but personal experiences. I foresee however a mass outcry when public goods and common activities like going to the beach or hiking a mountain are fenced off and the public has to pay to use them. I feel like there is a shift coming should more people take greater concern for the environment.
-
youngblutt
I think for a global change towards sustainability and restraint to occur, the change in paradigms will have to be from the socio-historical view of human progress or even human-time progress to human inclusive, historical cyclicity. I can only imagine two ways for this shift to come about. One way involves the devastating pressure that climate change will put on human populations and the consequent adaptations, physical and ideological, that survivors will have to make. The other way involves class struggles. It is evident that social, hierarchal constructions are not be easily torn down. Instead, the institutions that maintain the status quo are skillfully morphed to quell or endure social unrest. However, each new revolt against the methods of developing in “developing” communities, will spill over, exponentially, onto the shores of the “developed”.
-
sharonshi
With better and better technology, I absolutely believe that we can consume (which implies economic growth) and evade the negativity of waste. As said above, sustainability is something that will help society move towards a way to consume without leaving behind residue that hurts the future generation. In order for change to occur, the view and understanding of what is happening today must be ubiquitously shared. If only half the people around the world knew that was going on, the other half will still be contributing to the eventual doom caused by the co-dependence of consumption today. It is only when the majority makes such a task the norm that society will shift towards a more positive future.
-
paige
I don’t think this view can continue for much longer, we are using up all of our sources for production. I think the view should be shifted to a greener healthier view. A societal makeover or cleanse if you will. This may be biased but because of where we (or the majority of us I believe) live but I think quality of life can be reflected in how “green it is” lots of green means cleaner air, clean air means healthier citizens. Prosperity and happiness can both be measured in citizen interaction. If we were to move towards a more local consumption pattern both of these could be improved.
-
bgibson
I seriously doubt our ability to continue to depend on consumption and growth (of consumption) to measure success and prosperity, especially as more nations develop their economies (and eventually become “developed”). Unfortunately, while there can certainly be other ways of envisioning quality of life and happiness, it seems in our modern society we are bombarded by marketing, media, etc. with messages equating consumption to happiness. Likewise these messages are broadcast around the world so that developing nations aspire to consume at a level equal to that of developed nations. All that is to say I do not see a new paradigm coming soon (although my definition of soon may be different from others, I think I might be thinking more short-term than others here), however like some others I see the possibility of a future where we may be forced to adapt, and in doing so view the world (and success, happiness and quality of life) in a different way.
-
jenniefrench
Of course we have to consume – otherwise how would we live. But the DEPENDENCE on this type of consumption isn’t good and isn’t sustainable. We are so focused on the mantra – growth is good – that we will never be happy with what we have. I can envision a future, although I don’t see it actually happening, where people consume based more on need than on want, on survival than on status. Quality of life and comfort doesn’t have to radically decline, but we need to get out of the mindset that more is better. Our values, based on family, religion, culture etc need to permeate into our consumption choices – we want longevity for each other, and happiness. Perhaps what we eat, what we buy, and how we build should reflect these values.
-
Joyce Lin
No, the dependence on consumption and growth should not continue. I think a new paradigm is on the horizon. You often hear that environmental activism has existed for a long time and that we’ve heard warnings of an “Apocalypse” arriving for many decades. However, I feel the awareness I am gaining today is very different from the awareness people in my parents’ generation were getting. I think that in the past, people acted on a precautionary principle (that even though they were unsure of the consequences, they should still act in prevention of the worst case scenario). However, in my lifetime a lot of real and serious consequences have surfaced and I truly believe that there are people who are changing their lifestyles and continue to influence other people with their actions.
We associate growth and consumption as an indicator of quality of life because it is associated with incomes, and therefore the level of affluence and economic development of a nation. Is this THE indicator though? I think not. In fact, many studies have shown that instead of the consumption of material goods, when people “consume experiences” (such as travelling with the family and thereby creating memories) the level of satisfaction is much higher than that resulting from goods consumption. I am confident that we will see a new lifestyle that finds a good balance between growth and consumption within our lifetime. -
lcoulthard
Can this dependance on consumption and growth continue? Yes, it can, until we run out of natural resources to continue making consumption a reality. Should it continue is a different question. Obviously, under the commonly Western definition of “freedom,” which entails prosperity and happiness, consumption is a clear victor. Consumption has been a backbone of the American economy, and it has allowed America to become so powerful over the years. At the same time though, the question must be asked of “what if it stops?” What if countries like America cannot access the natural resources they need to continue production in order to fulfill the lifestyles that their population desires. War is always a possibility, and oil is a perfect past example of a warred-over resource that is needed in order to maintain certain lifestyles. For example, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait it was to access oil in order to be traded to America for weapons. I realize I have strayed off a bit at this point, but bluntly speaking, the oil from this war indeed helped to maintain certain lifestyles. The Westerners got the oil they needed for their population, and the military dictator received more weaponry. In the end, even if an alternative energy regime that could still sustain these types of lifestyles was discovered, it is likely that the disunited nations across the globe will still squabble over ownership.
-
jaydee
This is a complex question. As mentioned by some others, there are limitations to our consumption, though it may not be in view at the moment. Once this limitation is reached, it will force drastic changes in our lifestyle. Ultimately, I feel that the reason there is so little concern for this is because we don’t entirely understand the consequences, and also because the consequences are not standing directly in front of us. If for some reason we had to start piling up our garbage in the middle of our own cities, you can bet that the way we view consumption would surely change!
-
emilym
I do not think that our dependence on consumption and growth can continue. Measuring success by how much we consume will simple not be a viable option much longer as we are seriously depleting our natural resources and running out of space to put the output of all of our consumption. Additionally, with our exponential population growth (expected growth to 9.2 billion by 2050) as well as expanded manufacturing and consumption habits in the developing world, the Earth simply will not be able to sustain our lifestyles based on consumption. There has to be a movement back towards reuse and recycling as well as production of products that are built to last rather than constantly replaced. The industrialization of trash has to stop and I think it needs to start with consumers demanding a change. A change in government policy would be nice too. Excessive packaging and use of materials like Styrofoam which does not decompose are examples of things that can easily be changed if we start demanding it. Though obviously more needs to be done than just that, at least it is a start.
-
tsung
I agree with many of the posts here that dependence on consumption and growth cannot continue. However, realize we live in a capitalist society and going into the past, capitalism has been with us all along. Every generation will feel the capitalist culture, there is simply no escape as we are all socialized (since a baby) into this system. It’s in our nature to want and once we get something, we simply just want more. Our craving for goods will simply not end unless we change the system but it’s easier said than done. In the developed nations, consumption is something normal to every citizen, however, in developing nations such as China, we see the new classes of people consuming goods. This new form of freedom of being able to consume and get something you want is slowly taking place in developing nations. As people are making more money, they are introduced to new products and will slowly take on a western style of consumption. I think education and awareness as mentioned by others are important concepts in inducing change. Many people don’t know what is happening. Society seems to be more concerned about inputs rather than outputs cause once we get what we want, we don’t care any further. I agree with what other have talked about such as having more does not mean happiness. Sometimes, it’s the little things that bring joy to people.
-
brenden
I know I often come across as pessimistic in these discussions but I genuinely do feel that humans are a species which on the whole is reactive by nature, not proactive. While there are individuals out there who dedicate themselves, their time and their efforts to bringing about change, whether it be through organic food production, alternative energy sources, researching climate change and other environmental issues, I feel that as a whole, humans will continue to follow their current path of consumption and growth and likely even increase their habits until it is no longer possible. Our society is structured a monetary system which rewards individuals’ greed and environmental degradation. For example, the technology for electric cars has existed for nearly 20 years (or longer). Yet the ratio of fossil fuel vehicles produced to electric vehicles produced is staggering. Auto manufactures work in close conjunction with the auto industry which ensures that fossil fuel powered vehicles will continue to dominate our roads until their is simply no oil left to power them, until not a single drop remains of that resource that someone can make a profit on. At that point I asume corporations will have targeted a new resource that can be exploited for monetary gains. I feel that similar trends occur in food production. While organic products are widely available, they represent a niche market as they have higher prices then normal goods. Large corporations genetically modify foods and use harmful fertilizers and pesticides to produce foods quicker and more efficiently then organic growers and command the market with the lower prices that they offer. I genuinely do not see an end to this trend in site unless there is some truly significant event which causes governments and corporations on a global scale to stop and examine the situation and change their values.
-
nytsuen
No, it obviously shouldn’t. Landfills and environmental problems due to waste is a result of consumption; therefore, we must not depend on consumption. However, everyone understands how difficult it is to shifts gears because our cities are built on consumption. We can’t imagine sustaining our cities and our people without it. With that said, there must be a sociological change; a change in culture. People have to realize that we can longer consume at the level that we do if it will have such devastating impacts. I genuinely believe that there is a bigger audience who is aware of this impact and are slowly changing their ways. This will not happen overnight or even in a year but gradually. There is definitely a new paradigm on the horizon and I think the biggest impact will be made by a new energy regime. Inevitably, people will continue to consume but let’s change the way we produce/process our wastes. Instead of burning fossil fuels and using a more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy like solar power, we can make the whole process of consumption less devastating. Yes, there are definitely other ways to measure and envision prosperity like life expectancy, the health of families, the stability of jobs, and the education program. Many also suggested ‘consuming experiences’ which I believe is great. Memories/good times are far better indicators of happiness and prosperity than material goods.
-
sampethick
No. This dependence on consumption and growth should not continue; as for the “can” this dependence on consumption and growth continue? Not if we want to develop a sustainable lifestyle for our environment. If growth and consumption continues the way it is right now, all of the waste, all of the fossil fuels needed to create the things we are consuming and to deal with the waste will damage our environment so badly that we won’t be able to live in it anymore. When this happens it won’t really matter who has the most stuff. As we have looked at earlier in this course things like wars will break out over precious resources such as water and food so the more prosperous people won’t be worried about material goods they’ll be concerned about these things.
This is a really hard one. You want to think that when it comes down to it people are going to change perspectives on what’s important. And right now lots of people are, but right now not enough are. Recycling programs are getting better, many people are using more eco friendly ways of transportation, houses are being built to save more energy, but mass consumption is continuing to be a growing thing. It seems like everything is being made disposable these days! Use it once then throw it away and use a new one. Do we really need disposable clothes?
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think the the dependence on consumption has to be changed, but I don’t think that it will happen anytime soon. With our society being mainly based on the fact that growth is a good thing, the ability to be satisfied is a far far distant concept. We always strive to become better people, and citizens, but the truth is, we just want to have a better quality of life. This idea of having a better life quality of life is something that will continue to harm our ability to become a sustainable nation because if people do not consume like they have been, they will believe that their quality of life, which is most important, has declined and they have failed.
There are many ways in which would help us become more sustainable, and there will continue to be more and more ways in which people can do this, it is just the fact of are people going to buy into what is being proposed? -
erikaw
Through reading this past section I tried to imagine if my life wasn’t focussed around disposable items, and sadly couldn’t. The only people I still know who live like this are my Grandparents, and even in their generation it’s becoming more and more of a rarity. This module has given me more insight onto why my grandparents get their shoes fixed and mend their shirts and wear the same belt for 20 years and has definitely given me a new appreciation for their lifestyle. I was born and raised in a generation of consumers, and although I don’t consider myself an over-consumer, my life is tied in to the ideas of disposable products. Fashion is a big one for a 23 year old girl in the city, and with that (in my closet) comes with buying new clothes and disposing of old ones. Where do they go? The thrift store – but after that who knows? Out of sight out of mind. I may have to rethink this whole cycle!
I see a paradigm shift occurring, in Vancouver anyways, around energy and the environment but how much it is steering away from disposable products I’m not sure of. It’s just a new area for marketing and sales – this yoga mat made out of bamboo bla bla, or this water bottle made out of glass, etc etc. There is always going to be something new and fun to buy – so the people on the other end can make money.
-
phoebe
I agree that dependence on consumption should be changed, but even if this is a bit pessimistic, I don’t find it very likely at least at this moment. Consumption, growth, and progession are closely linked ideas for our society and to stop consuming and making do with old clothes, old technology, etc. does not fit in with the mindset of Western culture. Having said that, there have been attempts at a greener lifestyle, especially by Wal-Mart (for economic profit) so although I don’t see consumption ending anytime soon, it is certainly possible that we can be convinced to consume more efficiently, and healthier for our enviroment.
-
hannahepperson
Two things. First an image from Gavin Bridge’s “The Hole World,” where he paints this image of the city skylines as “technologically, economically, and philosophically the ‘inverted mines’ of the city’s massive hinterland.” The higher we build, the deeper become our trenches. Mass consumption is echoed with mass depletion. The networks of provision that we’ve come to rely on have become so far flung, complex and alienated, however, that it seems we’ve become dispossessed of our understanding of cause and effect. We can learn about these kinds of principles in a physics class, but it is really concerning when there is a systemic failure to relate these principles to the real world. Think about the law of the conservation of mass, which basically articulates that mass cannot be created or destroyed. Economists would take this argument to be an affirmation that we’re really going to be fine, because humans are infinitely innovative, and as such, we’ll forever be able to procure provisions for survival. What a lot of economists fail to acknowledge, though, is that development is contingent upon codevelopment. If one chain in the link topples, we’re screwed. Anyway, I was meaning to talk about the law of conservation of mass … how it becomes a mantra in elementary physics lessons, but how it doesn’t seem like the concept really sinks/syncs with people! This law describes a relationship that is inherent in almost every aspect of our lives … you can apply it as a metaphor – albeit a stretch – to a romantic relationship even. What i’m trying to articulate seems so basic and obvious that I feel awkward even writing this.
On another note … paradigm shift! Yes! it’s happening. It has got to … because in the words of Jane Jacobs – “nature’s solution for maladaptations is extinction.” -
hannahepperson
One more thing on the subject of paradigm shifts – I’d urge you all to check out Bhutan’s “gross domestic happiness” concept – it’s pretty enlightening stuff! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
-
congo96
Its ben show that infinite consumption and growth is not sustainable and cannot continue at the rate it has for much longer so no the consumers lifestyle should not continue indefinitely. As far other ways to envision prosperity and quality there are many that individuals have already chosen to follow but there hasn’t been one yet that people believe will replace capitalism.
-
alyumam
Certainly our dependence on consumption in order to acquire growth cannot continue like is right now, however, this is not an easy change. I believe changing requires more than effort.
Out from North America (US and Canada) there is a popular saying about the American dream ( “the American Dream is only a dream”). This saying reduces the whole envisioning of consumerism into only a dream, We have realized that is one not so sustainable.Is interesting to see and read in detail how the need for new cultural values as also as a renewal in energy regimes is now required in order to continue growing . However, I believe, that by thinking about growth we also should rethink how we do it.
-
eddietastic
i feel like consumerism is hard to take out of our culture since its been ingrained in us since modern humans were on Earth. Since those who had more things then others were somehow a higher class then those who were lower classes which result in people wanting more things. furthermore, humans are naturally envious of their neighbors which results in people wanting more things even if they do not need the things which they get.
-
yitailiu
This dependence on consumption and growth should not and would not be able to continue for the simple reason that the planet has limited resources and will not be able to sustain unlimited growth in consumption. The issue lies in that people are trapped within the ideology of continuous economic growth creates higher quality of life. A new paradigm should be encouraged and people need to be informed about the negative impacts of mass consumption and not just focusing on the economic side of everything.
-
natashap
The dependence on consumption is going to stay until either the economic system is adjusted/changed or something drastic happens and we no longer can consume at the same rate. The entire economy (capitalism) is based on consumption, in order for us not to be dependent on consumption it would need to be changed so that other things were “rewarded” or beneficial – like buying locally or making products that can be reused or work long term.
There needs to be some benefit for people to design and produce products that last long term. It’s obviously cheaper for someone to make something with less material but that also means that it won’t last as long, but this in turn means that the consumer will have to buy it again, which is a good thing for the manufacturer.
I think things need to be priced responsibly rather than as cheaply as possible. This would allow quality, long lasting products to be made and still allow businesses to make profits. But this would obviously take a while to implement – people’s spending habits would need to shift from buying things whenever they want, to buying things when they are needed.
-
-
Brandon Davis
What sort of broader contexts do we need in order to understand what’s going on in this article? Who is behind the crackdown on piggeries? Who gains and who loses with the passage of sanitary laws that forbid pig-keeping the city? Think about how the following concepts interact in the article: social class, smell, health, and authority.
-
Joyce Lin
Hey Brandon, that was actually really difficult to read for me haha (print and language both)
From what I read that I think I understood…the crackdown on piggeries was led by the city authorities (from different divisions such as the police, inspector, etc). The crackdown and passage of sanitary laws leading up to it will benefit the rich because it will drive the pig keepers out of the city. Hence we see here, the city as a space of marginalization. The activities in the city are associated with different classes and they’re used as tools by those who have authority to shape the city as they want it to be.-
brandond
Reading materials like this all the time is probably why my eyesight has degenerated so quickly the past few years. .
-
-
jonl
I agree Joyce, that was somewhat hard to read and follow. It felt like reading a blow-by-blow report of a fight or an oddly written novel. The losers are clearly the pig-farmers, the lower class folks who – from reading about the use of pigs in the city – took care of the garbage. I’m sure everyone benefited in terms of health and over all living condition but if the pigs were part of a ecological cycle that helped keep cities relatively neutral then really everyone lost.
-
katehaxt
I think the pig crack- down was largely a crack down on the lower classes and on what was perceieved as an old and backwards way of life. The upper classes of the new industrial city wanted to believe they were part of new modern world and living next to an urban pig farmer didn’t fit with this aesthetic. They used a rhetoric of health and cleanliness to enforce their particular view of what a modern city should look like. The same thing happened in Vancouver with keeping urban chickens. Today with all the interest in local food and sustainable cities, the law against urban chickens was recently overturned, proving that it was never an issue of health, just of ideology.
-
msmith92
Evidently, in this article, it was the pig farmers who lost as their farms were shut down by the city authorities. I think maybe there could have been some more background information on what caused this law to be put in place. Was there an outbreak of disease that lead to this? Getting rid of the pigs probably improved overall sanitary conditions and lowered risk of disease transmission, however, it also made new strategies for garbage disposal necessary. Whether the authorities were actually making this call based on a goal to improve public health or whether it was an effort to marginalize social classes is left to be seen.
-
youngblutt
I think everyone above has summed it up well. One thing I’ll add is that the crackdown also targets immigrants because offals (animal organ meats) were often mainstays in the diets of Europeans and Africans. Therefore, I assume there was some profit to be made in the “boiling” and selling of these meats to the immigrant classes. The upper classes promoted/provoked the crackdown, under the guise of health and aesthetics but perhaps also in advocacy of American nationalism.
-
emilym
Reading this article I was immediately struck by how different Manhattan would be in there were still pig farms all over Midtown. The crackdown by city health officials and police definitely targeted the lower classes and benefited the upper-class, who I would imagine did not enjoy the sound or smell or potential health hazards of having pig farms in their neighborhood. I certainly can’t imagine modern day Midtown Manhattanites allowing pigs anywhere near their fancy apartments and condos. A couple of years ago, I happened to be visiting family in Manhattan during a garbage strike and the walls of trash bags covering the sidewalks and spilling into the streets were mind-boggling. Our trash outputs certainly are not sustainable and cities like New York are in real need of creative recycling solutions.
-
sharonshi
I too had extreme difficulty understanding the article, I am not used to reading passages like such and it challenged me quite a big. However, what I picked up on was that the losers are distinctively the pig-farmers who lost their farms as a result of the city authorities. I felt that the law kept a disparity present for the rich and the poor since most of the pig-farmers were poorer citizens. As a result of closed down farms, they lose their source of income. Despite the improvement of sanitary conditions and lowered risk for health diseases, the further widening of social status between the rich and the poor was something that I picked up on while reading the article.
-
paige
I think we need a broader view of what laws are being enforced and who is in charge of enforcing them at this time. It seems to me that a kind of “gang” was going out and bringing what they thought of as justice. I don’t see why they are allowed to go and take down another’s property but that seems to be okay after 3 days of warning. I feel as though it is the general public who loses in these sorts of situations and the men in higher positions who are gaining. The piggeries did make some money selling off their pigs but this can no longer be sustained. This is a little snippet of past societal rules.
-
bgibson
I agree with Paige, I don’t know what laws are being enforced, nor under whose authority the laws were passed, but it’s clear that only a three day notification period is warranted to the offenders. It seems likely to be a citywide initiative since the enforcement fell to the city inspectors office (and the force included other civic workers such as nightwatchmen, police officers, street inspectors, etc.). The losers of these sanitation laws are clearly poorer citizens who run the piggeries and offal boilers since they will lose their livelihood. I think most citizens of Manhattan come out as winners in this instance since it sounds like some of the piggeries were kept in poor condition and may have been overcrowded. In an urban environment that does sound like a breeding ground for parasites, disease, and infection. I thin as msmith92 pointed out we need a bit more background information on this case to determine if enforcing such rules was necessary at this point. If the piggeries were dismantled simply because of the offending smell and the stigma of having pigs living within city limits these actions represent a decidedly elitist thought process.
-
jenniefrench
I agree with everyone – pig farmers and, as youngblutt mentioned, immigrants would have suffered from the crack down on pig farming. I thought of this question from a greater perspective though – what did this do to western/north american society’s opinion on pigs and farming? Don’t we think of pigs as dirty, stupid, but edible creatures? When pigs, and chickens even, were more integrated into our daily lives, in the cities, we probably had more respect for the interaction between animal and human. Now we are so dissociated – we draw such strict divisions between human, pet, food, and wild. There was a time when these divisions were more ephemeral and I wonder if that was still the case, if we would have more respect for our living planet.
-
brandond
You all make some excellent points here, and have keyed in on some of the class and immigration issues. Your reactions do raise some questions for me. Why so much concern over pig odors in the late nineteenth century, and not earlier? Does odor have a history? Another way to think about this is to ask how odors take on particular meanings within particular cultural/historical contexts–an example: manure seems normal on a farm, but not in a modern sanitation-obsessed city. Or, put another way, the smell of manure is experienced differently by farmers, slum dwellers, middle class socialites, etc. (think about the language used to describe smells & how that language reflects class assumptions). Most broadly, these are questions of 1) context (in place and time) and 2) positionality (class, gender, & other things that might inform the assumptions of an observer).
-
hannahepperson
I’m fascinated with this idea of a city smellscape … I’ve been doing a lot of city soundscape projects, which has had the effect of shifting my focus away from sight as the predominant sense we use to navigate through the city, and have had some interesting conversations about the way we interpret and judge different spaces according to a combination of sensory experiences. Of course odor has a history! One of the biggest issues that’s brought up in discussions about public eating is the imposition of food odour on people sharing close spaces … this is linked, in turn, to ethnic tensions because of the particularity of spices used in various ‘ethnic’ dishes.
Interesting, too … a lot of the fertilizer used on UBC campus is pretty stinky, but you don’t see any students or staff members taking arms against the Plant Operations crews for laying down oppressively odourous manure in the plant beds!
-
-
lcoulthard
Enclosure much? Even though the people closing the pens down didn’t necessarily take the land and privatize it, this reminds me of Enclosure in pre-Industrial Britain because of the seemingly “higher-ups” deciding to shut down the operations of the lower classes. It seems their only argument put forward in that article was the problem of smell and cleanliness, but nothing scientific about human health or anything that would actually call for true change. It also seems to me that the group that was shutting down the pig pens was more of an angry mob than anything. Even though the police were backing them, these people were going from farm to farm ARMED! The common meat inspector coming to my farm with a pistol or crowbar and threatening me to shut it down without any true authority would not be a good situation, I can only imagine how helpless these farmers would have felt however in the face of roughly 80 people. This all just shows how violent and “sad,” our culture is and it definitely draws back to the social disparities from times when the newspaper looks like it was written in six different fonts and started to run out of ink! (ha!)
-
hannahepperson
I was similarly struck by the imagery of the sizable “army of the city inspector”… “armed with pistols, clubs and daggers” – reminded me of that scene from the movie Shrek, where the villagers take arms against the monstrous Ogre. There are some funny narrative parallels to draw from that to be sure. The whole thing sounded like an intentional spectacle, a street performance bent on shifting popular conceptions of the piggeries positionality within the modernizing urban fabric…
-
-
jaydee
Is the reason that so much concern over odors at this time because this is around the time that urbanization started to occur? As more and more people began to accumulate in towns due to industrialization, it invited a different class of people. These people were there for the city life, and not used to odors common in farms. Thus, in order for these towns to graduate to cities, the farmers and their smells had to go.
-
sampethick
You’re probably right jaydee, the concern over the odor probably did have a lot to do with urbanization. Cities were getting bigger and people were living in much closer proximity to one another. And also as you said a new class was introduced to these societies and this new class was looking for a much more metropolitan lifestyle than one which included pigs and their smell could offer. I think that what we need to understand here is the drastic changes that towns and villages went through at this time in order to become cities. People were forced to give up certain things and ways of life and make sacrifices to make room for the growing desire to live a city life. The removal of the pigs was a loss for everyone involved because it was a loss of a very eco friendly method of garbage disposal. But I think in this case the desired city life definitely outweighed the benefits of having smelly pigs around. I think that had these pig farmers been a little bit higher up on the social scale then getting rid of them would not have been so easy. But social class comes hand in hand with social power and therefore because the higher class citizens within the city wanted the pigs gone, gone they were.
-
-
tsung
From the article, we can note that the central component is the odor. I believe that the broader context that needs to be considered is odor and its history. Moreover, we need to consider the time as well as context and traits or personality of different classes. During the 19th century we can note by this article that odor posed a huge problem for people (those who are the upper class). Then, we need to question how is odor perceived by those in the 19th century. Farmers might see odor as natural, however, upper class members might see thus as “objectionable”. I believe perception is important and from the language used in the article, note how classist language was largely used. The upperclass is evidently responsible for the crackdown and clearly the lower class is on the losing end. Since a new law has been passed, they are forced to remove pigs from the city. What are the consequences of this? Well, people will loose their job and evidently, a greater stratification of classes will occur. “Us vs. Them” is evident in this article and by imposing this law, the upperclass is simply perpetuating their dominance in society. The odor has been described throughout the article as “objectionable”. “Odor thereabouts was decidedly disagreeable” is something that caught my eye. This sentence does not only reflect upperclass power and influence but simply denounces the lower class. Their decisions, opinions do not matter as they simply are viewed as “enemies”. They are seen as filthy and what they do is simply unacceptable to society as it threatens the cleanliness of the upper class. I believe context, gender, class and history all affect a perception of an individual.
-
brenden
Like my fellow classmates, I found this article tough to read in both it’s printed form and the language used to describe the events. I agree that the conflict over odor was likely due to the sudden increase in urbanization, the development of towns and rural areas in to cities. This debate also reflects the rise of the industrial revolution. As individuals abandoned farming and other artisan professions to work in manufacturing and business sectors, their interests and values changed. Individuals no longer felt comfortable living in close quarters with animals and subjecting themselves to such odours which is likely why issues like the one is this article occurred.
-
nytsuen
It was the city authorities (inspectors, police) who were on the crackdown of piggeries. With the new laws passed, the pig keepers definitely lose because they lose their income in that city and the upper class benefit from having disposed of these people and the odor. With urbanization, upper class might have thought that pig keepers and in general, people who are so involved with nature/keeping animals is a step backwards. Upper class people classified odor, dirt, mud, and wastes as lower class and therefore by getting rid of it, the city could potentially be more grand, and ‘better.’ There’s one line in the article that captured my attention and that is when the pig-keeper’s wife said, “Very poor revinge to tear down people’s buildings after the pigs is all sent away intirely, Very shabby for gentlemen; gentlemen wouldn’t do it.” I thought this was interesting because this proposes a class war. This also makes it seem like what the authorities are doing are very low class actions.
-
erikaw
I was wondering why it was so difficult to read until I read the date on the article! The health officials and the city seem to be behind the crackdown. The city is looking out for the greater good of the city by cracking down on the piggeries. I guess they are looking for the overall benefits to the city. They are bettering the health and sanitation of the city (which in that point in time I imagine was of vast importance in terms of disease and population health) while hurting the businesses of local piggeries within the city. It seems even back in the day raising animals for consumption is dirty work if done in mass!
-
phoebe
I agree with everyone else that the odor was mainly a concern because of urbanization and the increase of middle and upper-class families moving into the city who were not used to the smells of farms and livestock. One interesting bit of classist language I noticed was when one of the farmer’s wives objected to the destruction of her pigpen by sniffing in disapproval “Gentlemen wouldn’t do this.” The bits of colloquial language used by other farmers also seemed to indicate their lower education status as compared to the writer of the piece, presumably on the side of more urban city-dwellers.
-
hannahepperson
This article was hilarious … I wish this kind of journalism still had a niche! For me, one of the most interesting lines in the article was this one: that “there nuisances would be abated forcibly if they did not themselves remove all that was objectionable.” Objectionable? What an incredibly subjective and nuanced word! There are a plethora of ‘objectionable’ smells, sounds, sights, designs, etc. that we tolerate on a daily basis in a cityscape. But this article was pointing to a paradigm shift in a modernizing urban landscape that was declaring piggeries no longer tolerable. This of course ties in to the smart trail of comments that have already been added to this thread.
-
congo96
The broader context that we need to take into consideration is that society was becoming more and more modernized. As this happened the upper classes became more and more sensitive to things such as aesthetics/smells and public health. The upper classes must have influenced officials who they themselves might be part of to shut down the piggeries despite the loss to these farmers
-
alyumam
Interesting note, perhaps somehow funny, nonetheless an article that makes you realize the different factors involved the process of urbanization. It seems the pig crackdown was initiated by the inhabitants of nearby areas and obviously not by the pig owners which we can assume involves a social fight. This fight seems to push away recent urban settlers out of the city or change their habits instead.
In addition, those habits ( breeding pigs) seem to be, despite of smelly, necessary for the elimination of certain waste. Most likely the recycling practices from last century. Something that the dominant class seemed not to care much instead they ordered the authority to take charge of their business. -
midara
I have to say that I have most part of the news guessing because of the printing and the language used. But considering it a news from 1859…
I guess more background information should be provided in order for us to know and understand better about what is going on in this article. In our point of view it might be very awkward to image piggeries locating in midtown areas of a city, but by their time this might be a common phenomenon that is shared over the country. Some sort of city planning, and related law documents may also be very helpful in understanding and analyzing the article too.
For this piece of news, the loser of the “war” undoubtedly is the piggeries’ owner/ pig farmers generally speaking. The gaining behind the breakdown is the overally improvement of sanitary in the region, and those who live around and possibly disturbed by smells and sounds of nearby piggeries. Yet considering piggeries’ purpose as a city’s recycling station, the breakdown seems to bring a loss to the metabolism of the city as a whole too. -
eddietastic
i feel like raising pigs in urban areas will cause those who are not raising them feel like the pigs may be ugly, smelly, and cause problems in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the people would probably believe that the pigs should be grown but not in my back yard which is a mentality which many people have when it has to do with things that are less then clean .
-
natashap
It definitely seems that the upper-class – those concerned by the smell – were behind the crackdown. And from the article at least, it seems like the concerns weren’t actually with sanitation, but with “sanitation”. People didn’t like how the pigs smelled or how it looked dirty. The city must have been under enormous pressure to deal with the pigs though, because from what I understood from the article, the piggeries were only given 3 days notice!
-
-
Brandon Davis
The photographer Edward Burtynsky has made a career of photographing the inputs and outputs of industrialized societies: production, consumption, and waste. There is an excellent film, called Manufactured Landscapes, documenting his work—if you can rent it, it’s worth watching. If not, have a look at the following selections of his photography at http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/: China (manufacturing, recycling), Ships (ship breaking, ship recycling), and Oil (extraction, transportation). Post your reactions to the 106 Wall.
-
jonl
I know the photography we were suppose to comment on is China, Ships and Oil but I went through them all. Most pictures, as sad and appalling as the thought that they exist, is quite artistic and I think looks beautiful (ex tailing pond shots and the marshland in the oil spill). Unfortunately, they do exist somewhere in the world. Some shots of Bangladesh and the ship breaking/recycling looks beautiful but it’s a disturbing thought that that’s the end of something we’ve thrown away. I think it is a good reminder for us that when we throw something away, it doesn’t just disappear just because we don’t see it.
-
Joyce Lin
I have actually been introduced to Burtynsky’s work before through this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/edward_burtynsky_photographs_the_landscape_of_oil.html (it’s a super short 3 min overview of the objective and ambitious intentions behind the work presented by Burtynsky himself!) I never followed up on looking into more of his photographs after watching that video, so I’m happy this opportunity came up.
What I really like about Burtynsky’s photography is that he plays so much with scale. He focuses in on objects at a large scale which allows us audiences to consider things at a scale that we operate on on a daily basis (ex. the trash we produce). However, he also zooms out to the landscape at a smaller scale and this allows us to see a bigger picture that may be beyond our immediate horizons. Those are very foreign and alien images we are unfamiliar with, and yet we feel connected to them because in the back of our heads we think thoughts such as “this is where my trash ends up after I throw it out”. We have become very disconnected to landscapes beyond our urban and suburban realms, it’s true, and yet these horrific environments are still fascinating because they remind us that as individuals, we truly do contribute significantly to the whole.
Burtynsky’s work is also appropriate for the message he is trying to communicate and that is the impressive ability of humans to create as well as our frustratingly unsustainable ways of being that leads to destruction. I think the photographs of China’s Old Industry are most fitting for this reaction I have. When I look at the photos, they’re incredibly ghost like and empty but at one time, I know those abandoned factories and structures were the promises of a brighter future and places of employment and where activities that will eventually lead to a city’s growth occurred. Photography is perfectly suitable for these narratives because they produce instantaneous images. These images are honest and yet they never provide timeless truth. The photos can last forever, but the image they present is only the truth captured when the shutter clicked. And I think that’s a very humbling thought to how we behave and go about in development. Something that is remarkable or even revolutionary today may only be remarkable or revolutionary today, and not tomorrow.
That’s certainly the case when we consider the story of oil that we’ve looked at in the last week and especially with the landscape of the tar sands, which Burtynsky has also photographed. I saw this trailer for the documentary Petropolis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdFT3bZtnok a few months ago and I think it also uses scale very strategically. When I watch the documentary, it gives me thoughts about the future much like Burtynsky’s photographs do.
-
msmith92
I have previously been introduced to some of Burtynsky’s work and I think it is so interesting because of the contrast between the beauty of the photos yet how shocking and awful many of the things he is depicting actually are. Many of these photos seem like they are from another planet as they aren’t generally everyday sights. While we are aware of the destruction of the planet, this really puts a scale on it. For instance, the photos from the China manufacturing collection are shocking due to the extreme scale of these operations. Even though we all know that many of the products we buy are manufactured in China, I would bet that most of us wouldn’t have imagined the scale of this as depicted in these photos. I think tat Burtynsky’s work is important because of its extreme visual impact. They simultaneously draws you in because of their visual intrigue and draw attention to what we as humans are doing to the landscape.
-
paige
These photographs are beautiful in a shocking sort of way. They don’t disguise anything, they show human impact for exactly what it is. The message behind these photos is hard to ignore. They bring up the many issues that come along with human impact on the world.
-
youngblutt
The photos really show the scale and magnitude of our industrial age. They are at once awesome and disturbing. I kept thinking about how difficult it must be for a worker to breathe in these settings. All of the object’s seem to emit a haze of micro-particles. Like jonl, I was most drawn to the ship-breaking in Bangladesh. Perhaps because of the relative size of the constructs versus the size of the people on the ground. Interestingly, all of the photos depict locations and processes that civilians equally aren’t supposed to see and don’t want to see.
-
bgibson
I agree that the photos do a great job of demonstrating “scale and magnitude,” I think that comment does an excellent job of succinctly describing my reaction to the photos. Like you and jonl I found the ship-breaking photoseries fascinating, I also thought the urban mines series was quite interesting, especially considering the scale (and magnitude). I would suggest checking out the picture of the massive burning tire pile.
-
emilym
I think that Burtynisky’s work really demonstrates what the real inputs and outputs of our globalized industrialized world are. As others have said, the scale and magnitude of Burtynisky’s photos really are mind-blowing. We all know that the things we consume have to come from somewhere and end up somewhere after we dispose of them, but we rarely see the real effects of our consumption habits within the confines of our cities. The photos are eerily beautiful and horrifying at the same time and send a clear message about how we are affecting out natural landscape.
-
sharonshi
Like the above comments, I do believe Burtynisky’s work exemplifies the inputs and ouputs of a city. I especially liked his photo labled “Exhibitions”. The intersection of highways really shows the viewer the multidimensional aspects of transportation and how inputs and outputs actually arrive in the city. Burtynisky takes the simple things (such as highways) we take for granted everyday and makes them seem larger than life. As one who enjoys photography, the site was absolutely a joy to explore. Thank you.
-
jenniefrench
I agree with the above. Burtynisky’s photography gives us the chance to really consider the inputs and outputs of a city. Photos as an art form are so moving because we know they are real. Half the stunning effect comes from the photographer’s skill – but the rest is all reality. I found old industry fascinating because while superficially it shows the decay of machines and what is human built, to me it also showed our disrespect, our capacity to abandon, and the longevity of man made objects. Imagine if all humans just disappeared – how long would it take for the earth to reclaim our cities and buildings? And how much permanent damage, from chemicals etc, are we inflicting?
-
lcoulthard
I was really taken with the “transportation” section of the Oil photo-gallery. The various pictures Burtynsky has uploaded of the freeway on/off ramps are a great depiction of the dependence our society has on oil. The freeway spans a great distance and is packed with cars traveling to and from the city. It isn’t hard to just imagine the cars as barrels of oil shooting along a pipeline, the road. Further down in this same gallery, Burtynsky shows us pictures of Volkswagen car lots in both Texas and in China. The lots are expansive across a wide distance, and filled with Volkswagen cars. What gets me is that this is barely even a fraction of the cars being produced each year to be added onto the road. One other gallery of Burtynsky’s that I found particularly interesting was the manufacturing one in China. I know from a different class I am taking roughly some of the wages and hours that Chinese laborers work in these factories. I find it extremely sad that, for people who are conquering eight-hour days or even longer with wages that are abysmal by Western standards, these workers are not being given the opportunity to even sit while they work (judging by these photos) and in the cases that they do, the chairs are stools and lacking any sort of back rest. This is a strange argument to put forward, but it was the first thing that struck me when I saw the China photos.
-
tsung
Burtynsky’s photos are not only captivating but also, they simply depict the input and outputs of our world. I believe the three sets of photos China, Ships and Oil all share one common perspective. We humans tend to get the most use out of something and afterwards, we dump it somewhere or leave it when there is no use for us. In an industrialized world we live in, once we exhaust all the resources and finishing exploiting what will bring us profit, we move on in search of something else to exploit. What really captivated my attention was Burtynsky’s Ship Breaking collection. All those ships were once a vita vehicle for the transportation of our goods. Now they are no longer in use, they simply lay there occupying a potential vast natural space. Citizens of Bangladesh dig through the wreck and this makes me think of Cronan’s article when he talking about “Wilderness Experience.” Class privilege seems to be an indicator as to who gets to enjoy the vast natural space and from one of his photos, I would ask why would we dump our trash there and take away their privilege to enjoy a certain space? Needless to say, Burtynsky’s photos are depicting a sad reality and although we often neglect it, we need to embrace it.
-
jaydee
I think that the photo that I had the greatest reaction to was the photos of the nickel tailings. My first thought was “there is no way that this is water!” The photo seems to provide a stark contrast to what we think of as a natural river. It’s as if the colors are inverted from what they are supposed to be. To me this photo represents the way human society has manipulated and perverted nature for our own personal use. It almost seems like a river of lava carving a path of destruction, as it destroys the land around it, just like human activity.
-
sampethick
This movie was a little hard to watch. Burtynsky’s photographs are so innovative and unique and they obviously have a clear message; “if we destroy nature we destroy ourselves” (Burtynsky). I really liked what he said about how his art isn’t to try and glorify what is happening all around us with regards to waste and manufacturing and these things, but he uses his photos to show people “that this is what it is” (Burtynsky). This movie shed a much different light on things than anything I’ve really seen before, we’ve talked about it but this really gave a good visual of the darker side of what globalization is doing. For example one thing that jumped out at me while watching the film is that the director chose to incorporate a lot of grey into the film. I think that this was probably to set a certain mood for the viewers, kind of like is scary movies when they put creepy music at the scarier parts to make it even scarier. In this case the mood was dark and depressing. I also liked how Burtynsky pointed out the connectedness of things. Like how without carrying ships there would be no globalization, and how even the smallest things are connected to this, such as the metal in his camera, and the gas he stopped to put into his car on the way to where he was taking his photos.
It’s kind of like what I learned doing the oil we eat blog assignment. It’s just so hard to get away from fossil fuel consumption in the world we live in today. The tiniest things that we don’t even think about at all contribute to the destruction of our environment. I really admire Burtynsky’s idea to photographically document these things because we live in a society where we could talk about this kind of thing all we want and it might have an impact, but the impact is far greater when people can actually see what is going on. It’s different to see things rather than just hear about them. Maybe it kind of makes it more real.
-
brenden
I found this pictures extremely interesting. It’s very unique how Burtynsky can turn things that so “ugly” into works of art. The pictures really shed light on the parts of the world that we ignore in our daily lives. We are all to happy using and consuming the items derived from oil and shipped by massive ocean vessels, yet we rarely take time to reflect upon the origins of items and their impact on the environment. One section of these photos that I found particularly interesting were the pictures of the SOCAR oil fields in Azerbaijan. These pictures really captivate humans impact on the environment and show how little care individuals have for the environment in certain countries. The pictures show the remains of what was likely once a thriving oil field. What remains now are the skeletal structures of tools used in oil extraction and pools of water and oil which have contaminated the environment. In one of the pictures, there are even a pile of bones (hopefully animals :|) but it shed light on the issue of animals re-entering this environment once humans have left and likely been killed by drinking contaminated water. It’s really unfortunate that the actions of soem can have such a negative impact on the environment.
-
nytsuen
His photography is very interesting and in some way, it is very simplistic. Burtnsky captures exactly what is happening without any other embellishments. It is very truthful and honest which is why I really appreciate the beauty in them. When I was looking through the photos, I also realized that I am very unfamiliar with these events and environments. This might be a reflection of how unaware we are of everything outside the cities. I will admit that I’ve never really thought twice about where our waste goes. Without thinking twice, we flush the toilet and everything we throw into the garbage, a truck comes and picks it up. These photos put everything into perspective and show how much effort, work and processes that happen in order for a city to sustain itself. However, it does so in an unsustainable way which is evident in these photos. My favourite photos were the recycling ones. Burtnsky captured photos of recycled rubber, aluminum, phone dials and wire and turned it into art. The colours and the randomness of the items capture my eye and is kind of abstract.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I found the photography by Burtnsky to be very interesting. The photos strongly impact the way in which you understand really what we as humans are doing. The photos dont really “beat around the bush” but show what something is for what it really is. I also agree with what was said above that the photo’s really exemplify the inputs and outputs of a city.
-
erikaw
This is the way everyone should be introduced to consumption! The visual aspect is captivating. Awareness if brought forward by the in depth yet straightforward text that goes along with the photographs. And thanks for sharing the video Joyce Lin! It was great to hear an explanation of how his work is set up.
-
alyumam
I find very clever how Burtynsky in his images and film does not put many references and/or judgement. The only information he gives, other than the visual description, is the place his images come form. I think this is an initial as well as perhaps one of the most ‘natural’ ways to realize new landscapes; in this case the manufactured ones.
The images are overwhelming, they let us observe and realize how oil extraction or ship recycling modify the environment.
Once again it seems we are disconnected from images our daily life is involved. In this case, our sense of sight seems to come very handy to bring us back to reality. -
eddietastic
I really enjoyed his photography not in the sense that i was looking at something that was clean and beautiful however it had an air which was hauntingly beautiful. In addition i felt like the images shed a light on China in a way which not many other mediums has because of the concentration on the negative aspects of pollution.
-
phoebe
Burtynsky’s photos are simply beautiful. Although they depict images of everyday life the contrast between the far-off shots and the close-ups was very effective. Some of the images, such as the endless spiralling highways made the world seem like an image of a sci-fi, super-efficient future; while images of the abandoned ships and garbage with few people appeared like the end of the world.
-
hannahepperson
While I experienced a lot of the same reactions to Burtynsky’s work, the most dominant of my thoughts was – this is why Art is so important! There is a kind of fluidity and subjectiveness that is expected from the artist and inherent in his or her work. Finding means of expression through different mediums is an integral part of the human experience, and pries open for broader discussion these tightly wrought worlds of meaning. Like many of you mentioned, there is a certain profundity and movement in Burtynsky’s visual/visceral explanation of the ‘inputs and outputs.’ Through the medium of photography, he puts into motion what words seem capable only of suggesting. I think it’s worthy of note that Burtynsky’s ‘formal’ education was in graphic art and photography … he’s not a politician or an economist or a businessman … and yet there is a kind of deeply intelligent and affective logic inherent in his work, made obvious by the resonance that his work has had on those who have engaged with his photography and films.
-
congo96
Crazy you never think about it but I guess everything has to go somewhere.. Not all of it looked so bad thought the oil pipes going through the forest in Alberta looked peaceful like an harmony between industrialization and nature. And the intricacies of the highways in LA were impressive. The electronic deposits in China were probably my least favourite it was just ugly and depressing thinking about how people live off recycling waste with all its dangers for so little money..
-
yitailiu
In the pictures of manufacturing factories and the worker dormitories , everything seems to be planned in order to be closely packed into the available spaces. This “orderly sense” of the factory photos is implying how much our consumptions in industrialized societies rely on mass production. Of course, with this large amount of inputs, the outputs are also enormous. Looking at Burtynsky’s photographs of the recycling sites is very different from just looking at the waste from one household, it makes people realize that every piece of garbage contribute to those piles of recycling materials and landfills.
-
midara
I think that Burtynisky’s photos are shocking but real in a way that the scale of industrial leftovers are overwhelmingly big. While in the China section, I see the large scale of labour intensive work with enormously large factories, I have a feeling that I am watching how materialism is driving all the industrial workers working. It is almost impossible to ignore, but we often forget that everything dumped is produced in such a large scale, and everything dumped has to have their own destination to end up with.
-
natashap
The thing that impressed me most about all these pictures is the scale. It’s pretty easy to think when you buy a product just about that one product and not about how many of them were actually produced – the factories and factory workers home seemed never-ending which makes sense considering the West’s appetite for goods also seems never-ending.
And the shipbreaking and recycling was also interesting – those ships are so huge and yet they have a limited lifetime. It makes you wonder about other huge things that will no doubt need to be torn down/removed eventually as well – giant skyscrapers and arenas, airplanes, etc.
-
-
Brandon Davis
Does a car and suburban lifestyle equal freedom (or a democratic right)? Is it realistic to think that citizens might sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good? This is a chance to reflect a bit on how personal goods (self interest) relate to environmental goods (collective interest).
-
jonl
I believe that, especially in the rise of cars and suburban lifestyle, that it did equal freedom. It was a sign that you made it, got what everyone wanted. Now, a car and a suburban life is so expensive that it seems out of reach for most graduating students or young professionals.
I read somewhere that the tram was actually a relatively green way of transportation. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. So I think that when the suburban lifestyle first started, there was no other “grater good” to sacrifice it for. Somehow I feel that the collective interest may be the self interest of every individual. That is to say, every body wants everyone to have everything (like not pay tax but get the government to keep expanding the budget). Sorry if I misunderstood what was meant here by personal good and environmental goods. -
roypat
I think at the time, those items represented a certain level of socioeconomic class and represented in a way, “equality.” However, the environment and the collective interest of the people was not at the forefront of the brains of the populace. Nowadays, it may be that certain items typically related to self-interest should fall as secondary to its environmental effects and the corresponding collective interest.
-
jenniefrench
No I do not believe that literally a car and suburban lifestyle equal freedom and democracy in this day and age. Perhaps in the past it did and it was an advancement in human society’s development of human rights and equality. Those were the values being developed in the past. They are still important and still need to be remembered and worked towards but now we are also working towards developing values towards nature and the environment. I do not think citizens will sacrifice this lifestyle just for the greater good – they will sacrifice it if it saves them money, gets them tax breaks, and if there are feasible and easy easy easy alternatives. Self interest and collective interest are still in conflict I believe. Historically I feel we have moved from a more tribal to a more individual world. Perhaps there was once more egalitarian ways of living that valued community and family before the self. It will be hard – very hard – to transition to a world where we really put others – the globe, our children, animals – before ourselves. We have been programmed to value the individual, the unique, and the special. It’ll be hard to make sacrifices that take away from what we perceive as our identity.
-
hannahepperson
In response, I want to share a quote from the Marquis de Condorcet, who was writing about commercial capitalism in its early years. He predicted that “liberty will be no more, in the eyes of an avid nation, than the necessary condition for the security of financial operations.” For Marquis, the revolutions of the age he was seeing unfold risked fostering confusion between freedom to make money and freedom itself. This is one of the most tragic and adverse confusions that we still carry in our contemporary understanding of liberty. It just seems that, for a society that champions its Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a paramount declaration of shared values, principles and prerogatives, it is problematic that the rights of its consumers seem to garner greater value than the freedoms of its citizens. Just consider this – in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the word “freedom” correlates to matters of the mind, namely – freedom of conscience, of religion, of thought, belief, expression, communication, peaceful assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. These are the foundational components of a participatory democracy, and which are vulnerable to corroding when economic and market-based values are mandated as normative. I think ultimately that our greatest freedom is in service, is in contributing to something much larger than ourselves. The two – giving and receiving – are only true if they are simultaneous in the self. On a grand scale, self interest is ultimately inseparable from selflessness … it is sometimes a wonder to me that we forget or neglect that truth to the degree that we do.
-
tsung
I would say yes, a car and suburban lifestyle does equal freedom. I do want to point out that this is a privilege vs. right concept – at least in my opinion. I say it’s a privilege because a car comes with responsibilities. Those who work hard to get their license and make money will eventually get a car and with it comes its freedom of movement. A car signifies freedom and individualism therefore I would say yes it does equal freedom. Without a car, we would have to depend on transit however public transit is restricting and doesn’t go everywhere. Moreover, a suburb life is conceived as peaceful, quiet, calm and therefore associated as something highbrow. I would say this is a privilege as well as its costly to move there and usually if you move to a suburb, you would own a car. In terms of whether citizens will sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good, I would say no, it is highly unlikely that we will sacrifice our lifestyles for greater good. Humans are selfish in general and we do weigh the pros and cons and what benefit us the most. We need to realize that we live in a capitalist society, there will always be inequality and the system has been constructed this way. It is impossible to tell rich people what to do with their money and ask them to sacrifice their lifestyle. This world is highly competitive and we will always be competing with each other for a better standard of living and greater privileges.
-
youngblutt
While it is very difficult for us (comfy, cozy Canadians) to predict that an alternative to suburban, auto-mobile society might one day be desirable (beyond necessary, that is), it may be valuable to consider this idea in a broader historical context. Human beings have been around for 30,000 years. The practical applications of freedom and democracy are 30,000 years old. The social contract was unwritten, but applied 30,000 years ago. Adam Smith, seeing a few of his cronies accumulate wealth, said “Humans are selfish, so capitalism will work!”, about 230 years ago. America, as it stands, is about 230 years old. Auto-mobility has been with us for about 100 years. Suburbia has been with us for about 60 years. The socially alienating powers of American individualism are only 60 years old.
The idea that humans are inherently selfish is new. Money is new. Millions of people wanting more than they need is new. Millions of people walking the streets with their head down and music blaring into their ears, avoiding eye contact is new. People living together in communities is old. People working together is old. People merrily walking long distances is old. People stopping to chat with strangers (making them strange no longer) is old.
The collective consciousness of humankind won’t tolerate the socially destructive conveniences of individualism for much longer, so do not fret. The benefit of the greater good is what we’ve always been evolving towards. The individualism required to keep a relatively few people in power positions is a passing phase; environmentally damaging, but passing. And as soon as Hannah is ready to lead, the revolution will sweep through the Americas like a red tide (i mean rushing tide). [sorry everyone, I’m sick and have taken lots of cough medicine and I don’t want to erase all of this and write something more becoming of me].
-
nytsuen
A car provides freedom as it allows one to go to where ever they want, and whenever they want but not everyone can get a car. Not everyone can afford to live in the suburbs either. So does this mean that not everyone has the same freedom? Is that democratic? Therefore, I don’t think it provides a democratic right or else, everyone would have access to it.
I don’t think that humans are able to give up this luxury for the betterment of the environment because our society not only wants cars as luxury items but need cards for our daily life. Our community, our city and internationally (Canada to U.S.) is built for cars. Our infrastructure is purposely for it. In the times when the automobile was just invented, they had to build specific roads for it and now, it is all built. Humans are self-interested. We are born to think about ourselves and what benefits us and if we can’t see very obviously the effects of driving on the environment, we’re not going to care!
-
brandond
Turner makes an excellent point in his chapter on sustainable transportation: that governments have made transit a part of the dream of prosperity in many cities and countries around the world. Perhaps there is some kind of tipping point, beyond which a culture of transit (over personal automobiles) catches on. Have any of you been to Portland Oregon? Do you think it’s a kind of ecotopia? Or is it still fundamentally similar to car-oriented cities around North America? Awhile back there was an article in Vancouver Sun, citing David Owen’s claim that New York is the greenest city in North America. Why? Density and prevalence of mass transit. Check it out:
http://www.straight.com/article-379478/vancouver/author-david-owen-says-dense-cities-benefit-planetAnyone find any seeds for optimism in all this? Can we get excited about something as mundane as mass transit?
-
brenden
I do not believe that having a car and a suburban lifestyle equal freedom or a democratic right. I think that freedom is having the choice to choose. Many individuals such as myself are more then happy living in the downtown core and using public transit rather than living a suburban lifestyle and owning a car. I highly doubt however that individuals who do enjoy these lifestyles would be willing to sacrifice them for the greater good. Generally speaking, individuals living in suburbs have families and prefer to have bigger houses and yards with greater access to green space as a place to raise their families. The idea behind this lifestyle is that you can commute into the big city for work during the week and head back to suburbia which doesn’t have all the hustle and bustle of the city on the evenings and weekends. The city generally speaking is not the ideal place to raise a family. Limited access to schools and recreation coupled with the dangers of inner city life make suburbia an attractive alternative for families. Individuals are willing to commute so that they can enjoy these lifestyles. I also think that personal goods are much more desirable to individuals then environmental goods. Having a car gives an individual the ability to go where they please when they please and they are guaranteed a seat and need not have anyone within their “personal space”. Whereas taking the bus, individuals are forced to conform to schedules and often board crowded buses where they may have to stand for lengthy periods of time depending on the journey.
-
Danni
I agree that owning a car and a suburban lifestyle do not equal to freedom or a democratic right. Transportation tools and lifestyle, including the living place, are just the individual choices various from one and the others. It is more reasonable for graduate students and young professional couples to live close to their working place, in order to saving time and expense on transportation. They usually spend more time with friends or on their continuous education, if it is required. However, once they have children, it is more preferable to have suburban lifestyle, which help establishing a family with a friendly neighbourhood. I don’t think individual sacrifice their individual good to accommodate environmental greater goods, but I realize that less cars on the road actually reduce greenhouse gases emission to the environment. I think we discussed at the beginning of our lecture. Moreover, I think democracy and freedom signify that any individual has his/her own choices in selecting lifestyles and transportation tool based on what actually needed. As individual, one have his/her right to choose, and also need to respect others’ choices as well. Democracy and freedom doesn’t require everyone have only one opinion or lifestyle, but when have our individual choices, we could respect others’ choice as well. Finally, variation between lifestyle is preferable and should be respected in our society, in order to maintain our democracy and freedom.
-
Keaton Briscoe
No, I don’t believe that owning a car and having a suburnban lifestyle equal freedom or are a democratic right. I think that in the past this might have equaled freedom but today they certainly do not. I think that they are still important and that everyone shoudl strive towards those goals, but they don’t equal freedom. I agree with the above that transportation tools and a lifestyle are individual choices and they will most likely change throughout the duration of one’s life. I also think that people will not sacrifce these for the greater good. I think the main reason for this is that people are pretty selfish (think about it) and that if we were to do this, there would have to be something coming our way in return.
-
midara
I think a car and suburban lifestyle is a freedom of citizens, but only that the freedom is building on others’ right/cost. This reminds me of an economic term “externalities” because the “freedom” is at the cost of others. While ones may enjoy the convenience a car may bring, and the suburban lifestyle they wanted, they are occupying others’ resources on their own good. It is not realistic to think citizens might sacrifice this lifestyle for the greater good of all people, especially to think of those who are already enjoying the good. However, I think in better promotion and education will gradually help the society as a whole by encouraging environmentally friendly actions of collective interest over self interest. Some other actions such as government subsidies on collective interests, or penalizing tax on over-luxurious actions may also be some nice ideas in improving the situation.
-
imnik
I think owning a car represents freedom as the car owners were now able to move freely and go wherever they wanted. Before owning cars they were limited to the certain distance or dependent on the stoppage of the trains or trams.
I believe a suburban lifestyle does not represent freedom. People were forced to live in the houses that seem almost identical. People did not had freedom to design their own dream house and instead they were forced to live according to the dream of the builder (the person who developed the local suburbia).
To be honest, I will not change my lifestyle to the harder lifestyle just to save the planet. For example, walking every day instead of taking the bus or the car. This is simply because I know that unless there is a collective effort from the government and community my sacrifice will make negligible difference. Also, government of majority if the countries is not even bothered to save the planet.
-
-
Brandon Davis
Vaclav Smil’s quote about US global influence and fossil fuels suggests a correspondence between the ability to harness energy and to wield global power. This seems to fit the great powers of wind energy (Spain, the Netherlands) and coal (Britain) as well. What do you think? If it holds true, who/what might be the next to turn new energy sources into global power?
-
jonl
Looking at the present, oil is becoming one of the most precious commodity. In this case, those who will hold the most power will be those who have access to it, Middle East nations. From the Manning article, we read how the US is spending billions on military to keep access to the oil open.
I think the world has to start looking at new renewable sources of energy or reusing/improving on old ones. This would mean countries with leading scientists and inventors are in the for front to gain global power.
-
natashap
I think that China is definitely emerging as a global power. They have such a large population that they have a larger workforce to pull from to generate new power concepts and implement them. They also are extremely strong as far as manufacturing goes – most of the products we have are made in China. So even if they aren’t directly in control of energy, they’ll most likely control the production of products that are necessary to implement/use the new energy sources.
-
bgibson
I think that industrial capacity has for a long time been tied to a nations ability to harness energy to power production. I think it may be possible that financial capacity is outstripping the importance of industrial capacity in terms of global power. America’s influence in the twentieth century may have been tied to their assembly lines and automobility, however American influence continues in the twenty first century due to financial interests.
That being said I think that alternative energy sources will be diverse and many different nations will end up specializing. For instance the Dutch boast all the major wind turbine engineering and manufacturing companies. While wind power is not likely to replace fossil fuels (you can’t put a wind farm just anywhere), almost any wind farm or turbine first goes through Dutch hands. Similarly, Scotland has well developed pilot projects exploring tidal power, where the movement of ocean currents generates electricity. If this technology proves viable in the future the Scots will surely have a place as global leaders. One of the interesting things about alternative energy sources is that many of them have serious limitations that prevent global adoption, some nations are landlocked, wind farms take up lots of space, solar panels require significant sunlight, storing and transporting hydrogen is challenging… I think that global energy requirements will be met by a wide range of new energy sources, and won’t be dominated by one source as it is now.
-
roypat
It may be that the next form of energy to turn a country into a global superpower has not been discovered yet. Oil is still so dominant as an energy source – and actually, in the future, it will likely be those countries (Canada & Venezuela, oil sands, or even the US with shale gas) with unconventional oil sources that will benefit. My first instinct was to say nuclear power, but with the Fukushima incident so recent in my brain (as well as the corresponding ban by Germany on nuclear power) I am not so sure if nuclear can be declared the future.
-
jenniefrench
I agree that the ability to wield energy corresponds to the potential for world influence and possibly power. In the past it is obvious that those who developed and could mine or access resources of energy could dominate others. Crosby discusses the development of agriculture in this light, and we have also learned about it through the history and documents of Britain and the US. I think natashap has a point that China will probably dominate next as they have the human fuel power, as well as the government drive (ie don’t really need to answer to the people to make decisions) to become very powerful. Likewise, roypat mentioned that the next form of energy to dominate (with which ever country harnesses it first) hasn’t been discovered or popularized yet. I agree with both these responses but I also think that we are moving away from energy/economy dominance. The European Union is a good example of collaboration (or the attempt to collaborate) that has separated itself from the US and is working towards their own goals and values. I think we may see more globally an awareness of energy and its effects, as well as a world that I hope considers its values more frequently than its bank account.
-
emilym
I think that in the near future, countries with oil will continue to wield a lot of global influence, but that long term, as we (hopefully) move towards more alternative energy sources, the global power that corresponds with energy harnessing capabilities will diffuse across many different nations since there are multiple alternative energy sources. I think a good solution for any country would be to invest in new energy harnessing capabilities and reduce reliance on oil, as dependence on others in the global system for energy is extremely risky and gives those nations providing the energy immense amounts of power.
-
Danni
Ethanol (ie. E85) might be the next to turn new energy sources into global power. It was applied in USA and Brazil. E85 contains 85% Ethanol and 15% fossil fuel. It greatly reduced the dependence of fossil fuel. As the ongoing development of technology, I can see the more efficient manufacture, storage, and application of Ethanol as energy source in the near future. This is called the cellulosic ethanol production plants researching projects, which are under going construction by different commercials. Ethanol actually was extracted and made from different plant materials, including crops and corns. The resources was directly from the agricultural products, therefore they were highly recyclable and comparatively green for the environment. In addition, the costs of manufacturing of ethanol are much cheaper than that of hydrogen, which is another alternative fuel.
-
msmith92
I definitely agree that global power is correlated to the ability to harness energy. However, I think that, for now, those who have access to oil will continue to have power because we are still completely reliant on fossil fuels. Those countries that are able to make use of alternative energy sources will ultimately have a huge advantage, in my opinion. It has certainly been shown throughout history that those countries that are self-reliant have the most global power. LIke many people have said above, as we shift into alternative energy sources, power may dissipated among a number of nations. Maybe, if we have learned our lesson, new power sources will be renewable and thus less localized to specific geographic regions. This may cause countries to be more self-reliant which I think would ultimately be beneficial.
-
brandond
I number of you have noted that the next great powers will have to harness new sources of energy. Drawing on what some of you (particularly Brendan and Roy) have said about the limitations of nuclear, solar, and wind power: perhaps the next great energy power will be determined not so much by access to these renewable energy sources, but rather by their ability to store and move energy effectively. Example: there is an enormous amount of easily gathered wind energy in the Prairies, but the problem is storing and moving it when and where its needed (on the coasts and along the Great Lakes). Any brilliant ideas for storing energy? How about thousands of modest sized raised water reservoirs? Water gets pumped up during periods of low energy demand, then flows down (through turbines) at times of higher demand. This functions a bit like hydro, but doesn’t require damming a large river, devastation of landscapes, etc.
-
hannahepperson
Like a lot of other conversations we’ve been having, harnessing energy might be something that needs to become more localized. it seems like one of the most severe drains on energy is the transporting of it … seems like we should be moving towards developing technologies to harness regionally specific renewable resources. The political implications of this are huge though – especially in an expansive country like canada, which contain so much geographic diversity. If energy harnessing technologies are developed on a much more local scale, what effect would that have on the energy dialogues at the federal level? In Canada, I could imagine there being a lot of provincial debate and conflict over energy equity, for example. Not that we enjoy global, national or regional ‘energy equity’ now anyway, but I could see it being problematic. Even so, I think it is important to begin finding ways to be more industrious with the resources we have within our own localities.
I’m also interested in ways we can capture our own kinetic energy? I feel like I remember reading an article a few years ago about this pilot project in london, where paving pieces were engineered to actually absorb the kinetic energy from foot traffic and supply power to the building … I could have dreamed that up, but I’m fairly confident I read it somewhere … I’ll see if I can’t dig up an article, it’s certainly an intriguing idea.
-
hannahepperson
It’s a real thing after all! Go Tokyo! http://inhabitat.com/tokyo-subway-stations-get-piezoelectric-floors/
Also, Brandon – in response to a comment you made in a previous thread, I think it’s valuable to keep in mind the possibility that if grosse military expenditures could be freed up for reallocation, developing and implementing alternative energy technologies could very well become economically feasible…
-
brandond
Considered energy resources are a major security issue you’d think the Pentagon might be vested in developing alternative resources. Maybe that’s their plan after they secure as much of the world oil supply as possible, but I doubt it. Although, I guess military force could also be used to harness human kinetic energy.
-
-
-
katehaxt
following on from the last post, i agree that the future is going to be about regional, diversified energy sources. i don’ t think we are going to discover the great oil substitute that allows us to carry on ‘as normal’. having energy needs dealt with at a more local level does,as mentioned, does have big political implications,maybe even dissolving the concept of big super power countries. maybe if we are all producing our our power locally and bing more accountable for what we use then we won’t need to wield power globally in the same way ie invade the middle east
-
phoebe
I agree that the ability to harness energy is the key to controlling power. Canada is a possibility for greater global power in the future. Nikiforuk argues strongly that the huge economic developments in Alberta as a result of tar sands has had many negative consequences. Although Canadians are often stereotyped as nice, boring, and reasonable, the huge economic development has drastically changed the face of political government. Examples include the ERGB consistently ignoring health statistics in favour of more development and Leon Benoit, A MP trying to bully Gordon Laxer into silence when Laxer tried to raise the question of energy security of Canada in discussion. Nikiforuk gives concrete examples of Canada’s increasing power because of energy reserves and the corruption of those in power in favour of more money.
-
tsung
Oil is the blood of a modern society as well as the blood of capitalism; it is what keeps it running and moving. I would say Smil is quite accurate in that yes, whoever has the oil will one day be the powerhouse. Canada has a great card in its hands. The Tar Sands will defiently come into play in the near future as oil resources become much more scarce. Our modern society (planes, cars, assembly lines) in fact from Manning’s article, everything is backed by oil. We need it to function and our dependency on it has not decreased as we continue to consume and produce. I would say Canada will be a greater global power in the distant future, however, we can also see China climbing it’s way up. The US seems to know that they need oil to continue functioning and secure their dominance in the global arena, however, without energy or a supply of it, they know they will loose their position. The world has indulged and locked itself into this system of consumption and reliance on oil. Oil will become the key to power and those who have it has got the upper hand for sure.
-
youngblutt
I like what was said about a return to localized energy (and therefore power) to account for the questionable efficiency of renewal energy transportation. However, I wonder if it is a bit too utopian. Consider the likelihood that forced migrations and substantial changes in land use due to climate change, really test the boundaries of international response and intervention. I wonder if humankind becomes best served (ethically speaking) to make more use of the channels of globalization that are already open. What I mean is, if the privileged societies (i.e. ours) were to become more localized, energy-conservative communities, would it hinder their chances of becoming a more globally altruistic society? Historically and geographically speaking, some communities will have more renewable energy resources, some will be able to use it more effectively, some won’t be able to protect it and some will have too many other factors to develop it. How will those communities that are better off be able to help communities in need? What relationship does energy transportation have to international development in the climate change era?
-
brandond
I think you raise lots of interesting questions, and hint at what geopolitics may look like in the future. Author Jeremy Rifkin has some thoughts on the questions you raised, which I think I highlighted earlier the course. He argues that renewable energies are more equally distributed around the world than the ever-decreasing non-renewable energies. This means, according to his analysis, that every region of the world may possess the power, both figurative and literal, its needs to be relatively self-sufficient and sustainable in its lifestyle, while still engaging in continental and limited global trade. In such a revolution, geopolitics would shift from being a battleground to secure fossil fuel and uranium energy resources to biospheric politics that are based around the stewardship of the larger communities and ecosystems of which we are a part. This sounds nice, but may a little too Utopian? What do you think?
-
-
nytsuen
As long as oil is still the main fuel, U.S. will be in control. Even though it may seem like U.S. is running out of oil (which they are) and are trying to secure oil through military conquests in the Middle East, their dominance is still widespread. Their military ability to station in middle east and continue to obtain oil is important. Obviously, there comes a point where other nations will grow and U.S.’s need for more oil in order to sustain the Americans will dry out. However, it seems like everyone’s on the same boat. According to Manning, everything is dependent on some form of oil because it provides the best form of energy. If new forms of energy are not powerful enough to fuel everything in the world and can’t be stored or transferred, then like everyone had mentioned, it depends on energy that can be formed from the local region. Instead of having one region provide all the energy, what if every region was only responsible for supplying their own energy. Also, it is working backwards but is it possible to go back to the times when we weren’t relying on oil? How about manual labor? Would China be able to prosper by employing its people to perform manufacturing work instead of automated machines?
-
sharonshi
I too believe that China will become the next to turn new energy sources into global power. Presently, China has an enormous population that seemingly has no end to it’s growth. Such a large population can infer many things, but the two I will focus on is consumption and production. A large population also implies a large workforce. With a large workforce, the country can employ it’s workers and produce at an alarming rate. Moreover, the large number of people will start to demand a large number of things. This, along with the big workforce will propel the country to produce more, and in that utilize more energy.
Another thought that came to mind is the level of innovation that could occur as a result of a larger pool of human capital. China’s large population implies a large workforce, and in that a larger source of human capital. With more minds at work, and the never-ending depletion of resources, China will have to come up with new and innovative ways to use energy. This source of innovation could very well be the push that turns energy sources into global power.
-
paige
I agree with this. I think energy harnessing and power go hand in hand. It is hard to say who might be the next super power, because we are still so stuck on oil. I think there needs to be drastic reinvention before anything definitive can be said. I think it would be quite predictable if the United States remained incredibly powerful, but using a different energy source than oil. At this point they make enough money from oil to invest in research to stay on top. As others have mentioned, China is also developing into quite the recognizable power.
-
Joyce Lin
I think there is truth in that relationship because if you can produce energy yourself, you have the power for internal/national activities as well as the power to influence markets outside the nation/externally. I am confident China will be a leader in new sources of energy in the future. We talk about China being a big polluter and its many possible environmental consequences in the future here but we must be rest assured, those in China also realize this. The Chinese people know what’s at stake themselves and that they have to develop clean energy now so that the country’s 1.3 billion (and growing) population can start living more sustainably. At the same time, I think most of the world’s countries with big powers today will retain their global powers because those are the countries who have the money to invest in new ways of harnessing energy.
-
sampethick
I think that energy and global power definitely come hand in hand. Just take a look at the way the world functions right now; industrialization and growth is one of the world’s top priorities, both of which require a lot of energy and a lot of money. The more of these two things each country has the more growth it can achieve and in turn more power and wealth. Ideally, the next who or what that will turn energy sources into global power are those who are going to find a way to harness energy that is ecologically friendly and one that everyone has access too. This way the world will be able to live off of energy sources that don’t harm our environment anymore but also allows us to continue to expand economically.
-
sampethick
This is a great idea too!
http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/eco-dance-floor.html
Energy generating dance floor in a night club. The pressure from the pounding of the feet of the dancers generating energy. And along with that they’ve implemented a rule that people who can prove that they got to the club by foot bike or public transport get in for free! So maybe Europe has to key to turning energy sources into global power…
-
jaydee
That is a genius idea! There are a lot of amazing technologies being developed around energy efficiency these days. Here is an article I read a while ago that I also found really interesting: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds
-
-
-
jaydee
I would definitely agree with this. Power is about control over others, and in this age, control of other people is gained through control over their needs. Unfortunately, I doubt this will change any time soon. This topic brings to mind an article I read recently:( http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122231-solar-panels-made-with-ion-cannon-are-cheap-enough-to-challenge-fossil-fuels ). As you can see from the article, scientific discoveries are leading to numerous breakthroughs in alternative energy sources. However, I wonder if these energy sources will ever really be able to catch on, because the use of a ubiquitous, uncontrollable power source (such as solar or wind) will lead to a loss of power for those that held it previously. I’m aware that some control can be exhibited by regulating the price to acquire the materials and build the equipment necessary for harnessing it, as has been the case for these energy sources already, but what will happen to the energy power balance when a source of energy is introduced that is easily affordable and the supply is nearly limitless compared to the demand? Will the price to use this power increase to the point where these eco-friendly sources become unfeasibly expensive for less developed countries, much like they are today, in order to maintain control? I can’t really see the “oil rich” countries allowing the global market to shift to these other sources until the well has run dry.
-
lcoulthard
I think that Vaclav Smil is correct in saying that consumption and harnessing energy leads to global power. It is definitely a trend that other nations have shown in the past. We can see that China is becoming increasingly before powerful, and it is also constantly opening new coal plants and taking on projects like their mega dam. On the other hand, as mentioned, the Cold War shows that the USA wwasn’t completely dominant during the 20th century. The oil shock is another example of the USA not being in complete control, but it also shows how the power that they did possess at that time was dependent upon mass energy consumption (and it still is today!)
-
brenden
I think that Smil’s is correct that consumption and ability to harness energy has an impact on a country’s economic and military dominance. I don’t however see the emergence of a new global leader based on the harnessing of a new type of energy resource any time in the near future. I think that country’s which exercise economic dominance and military dominance will thrive on exploitation of the environment through an exhaustion of the current non renewable energy resources. For example, China is the perfect model of a country that is emerging as a global economic and military super power. China also is one of the world’s largest consumers of coal which they burn for energy in many parts of the country. China also heavily relies on petroleum, diesel fuels. The United states also still relies heavily on these old non renewable resources as primary sources of energy and as President Obama mentioned in his most recent state of the union, the country is now producing more oil then it has at any point in the past 30 years. I predict that these countries economic and military domination will continue and they will continue to rely upon these outdated, environmentally harmful technologies until they are extinct and the countries are forced to move to new technologies out of necessity, not by choice.
-
erikaw
There are many factors to take into consideration with energy and power. As mentioned oil is a huge commodity in present energy consumption, so it would make sense that countries with large amounts of oil would gain more power (ex. Middle East). That being said because other countries (namely the USA) have more financial and political pull they have gained access to that energy power. There are areas of the Middle East which are growing rampantly (ex. UAE). China and India have the advantage of large populations and we are already starting to see their growth, both financially and politically. As new areas of energy are worked on and discovered (many of which have been talked about in this course) we will see growth in the countries that are focussing on research and implementation of renewable energy. In time, there will likely be a decline in the USA’s power and influence as other countries take lead in greener cleaner energy.
-
hoskinso
I agree with Vaclav Smil’s assessment of the source of the United States’ power in the 20th century. Cheap energy, and the technology to harness it effectively, are the drivers of a strong economy and enable a society to grow and dominate those around it.
The most important part of the above statement is the “cheap” part. Fossil fuels represent a concentrated store of solar energy which is unparalleled in its energy density and portability. Only a small amount of energy input is needed to drill wells and tap into this incredible resource. The unique gift of fossil fuels contrast greatly with other emerging sources of energy such as wind and solar. Wind and solar installations are expensive and provide only intermittent power. The electrical energy produced cannot be easily stored. Barring unforeseen advancements in technology, I don’t believe wind and solar energy will be a source of geopolitical power to the same degree as fossil fuels have in the 20th and 21st centuries.
-
yitailiu
I agree that there is a strong correspondence between the ability to harness energy and to wield global power because energy is a necessity to power the industries and boost the economy. Since that the global energy demand is rapidly increasing, the ones that have more access to the energy sources would rise as superpowers. Presently, oil and coal are the major energy contributors, and they will most likely to continue to dominate in the near future. Theses nonrenewable resources would run out eventually, and the alternative energy sources will need to be considered. As of all the alternative renewable energy sources explored so far, hydro power seems to be a possible major energy source that will meet the future energy demands since its efficiency is well above biomass, solar, or wind energy.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think that oil is a very strong commodity and will continue to become a strong commodity in the future. Like it has been said above, I think that those who have to easiest and the most access to the oil will probably have the most power, and fortunately, I think Canada will be one of those (oil sands).
-
eddietastic
I believe that the current power is in the middle east and countries which have a huge amount of the natural resource which the world relies on the most which is gas. However, i believe that in the next couple of years there will be enough advancements for energy sources such as the sun or the wind which will result in most countries being able to sustain themselves instead of being reliant on the countries which have non renewable natural resources
-
midara
Considering that even food production needs oil in production and harvesting, there is no doubt that controlling energy sources will gradually be able to hold in global power. Petroleum, natural gases nowadays are some examples of non-renewable energy sources that make middle east nations undoubtfully powerful and rich internal wise. Therefore I think Smil’s quote is very true.
I guess the next to turn new energy sources into global power is very unpredictable. Before I might guess nuclear power maybe another “clean” energy source that one may consider, but the 311 earthquake/tsunami incident definitely has a great influence on the liability of nuclear power. By far, I think bio-energy may be another good energy source if the problem of smaller-scale energy generation is solved. That is, if any country is able to solve the problem and hold the technology, the country for sure is able to turn the “new” energy sources into global power. -
congo96
I agree that whoever could obtain the most energy for themselves also acquired the most power however its much easier to observe and comment on the phenomenon in hindsight than it is to predict the future. Who will hold the power in years to come? In order to predict that one would have to answer the question of what the next energy source is going to be. How long is our world going to depend on fossil fuels and if an alternative is found where will it come from? There is a lot of conflict in the middle east right now in part because of the fossil fuels present there. Surely countries like the US have taken note of that and have made it their business to be involved in the politics of these regions.. Beyond that who knows?
-
-
Brandon Davis
Can you envision alternative scenarios to the Western pattern for China’s growth? Is there anything China can/should do to expand affluence among its people without increasing its share of global carbon emissions?
-
roypat
I think the only way that China can continue its current trend of strong and consistent growth is by continuing to use energy sources that are cheap, but add a great deal to global carbon emissions (namely, coal). Since China’s manufacturing industry is booming and it is producing goods for a huge portion of the planet, I think that the continued increases in standard of living for many of the country’s people are tied to manufacturing growth. It will be a difficult case to make to tell China to ease up on carbon emissions and in turn, slow growth.
-
brandond
Indeed, especially since China has the third largest coal reserve in the world.
-
-
jonl
The alternative that I can think of would be what Ghandi preached for India, stay local. But with China’s growth tied with global production of goods, as roypat said, the Western pattern seems like the only way it will go. The Western pattern is all about globalization. If China is in this Western pattern, then I feel like it will end up being another US which is terrible for our environment.
-
sharonshi
I think there is absolutely ways in which China can alter its route towards the Western pattern. As a result of the ever-increasing “green” inventions these days, China can utilize those tools in order to expand affluence among its people without increasing its share of global carbon emissions. During the industrial revolution, the level of pollution released was also a cause of having “non-green” machinery. These days, protecting the environment has developed into a global concern and people have been finding new ways to be more “green”. A great example of this would the energy efficient light bulbs(a development that helps reduce the amount of energy consumed). With ever increasing developments like such, I am certain that there are alternative scenarios to which China can pursue.
-
msmith92
I agree with Sharon with what Sharon said above. Perhaps if China were able to emphasize sustainable growth via the use of environmentally-friendly technologies, they would be able to continue to spread affluence among the population. However, it may already be too late for this as they are focused on maximal productivity and are already extremely reliant on fossil fuels. In the Western steps of industrialization, this reliance on fossil fuels seems to be a hard one to avoid. This is likely because the use of fossil fuels allowed developed nations to become extremely efficient producers. This has set a precedence for other nations and so fossil fuels seem to really be the only feasible option.
-
jaydee
Exactly what I was thinking. Use of fossil fuels are allowing China to “catch up” to western levels of industrialization. I can see the hypocrisy in the more developed countries pressuring China to take a “more green” route. Although it would probably be a better move, both for the local and global environment, it would make the process of industrialization slower and more expensive. It’s easy to tell someone to use a less harmful method if you yourself have already done the deed. Perhaps if we began programs that create incentives for China to shift to more environmentally friendly methods, we could find a middle ground?
-
-
katehaxt
China’s growth is happening now while “Western” growth started in the 18th century. Surely China’s growth can and will be different. There is new technology and most importantly new awareness of the impacts of fossil fuel growth. It would be stupid and irresponsible for China’s growth path not to be fundamentally diffferent. Also I think we’ve heard suggestions in other readings that many trappings of modernity became popular, not because they fundamentally improved people’s lives, but because they were cool and “modern”. For instance I can imagine that in alot of places in China a car would not be practical or useful, maybe China can bypass car fever and raise standards of living in more meaningful ways.
-
bgibson
I definitely think that implementing modern technologies may allow China to grow in a way that differs from traditional “Western” growth. However, I know for a fact that China is just as car crazy as the rest of the world, and possibly more so that even those of us in North America. The automobile market in China is growing rapidly and is seen (with India) as one of the largest emerging markets for automobile sale. When GM restructured following the most recent economic crises it eliminated many of its brands (Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer) but kept Buick, despite the fact that Buick sells relatively poorly in North America in Europe. However, Buick is hugely popular in China and GM considers the brand essential to future growth.
I was travelling in China a number of years ago and one of the tour guides in Shanghai was very adamant that everybody in Shanghai wanted to own a car. As far as social status goes, owning a car in Shanghai was more important than owning an apartment (in her words). Now, Shanghai is one of the most westernized cities in China, but it’s also very urban and would be on of the easiest to get around without a car. Still, I think car fever is fairly well established in China.
-
-
jenniefrench
I absolutely think that there are ways that China can grow in a different and more sustainable and environmentally friendly way than the Western Method. I see China deciding to be a leader in sustainable technology, especially as the demand for ‘green’ products increases. I believe that China has the capacity to make greater steps forward in environmental responsibility, because it has so many people to care for, and because it has a centralized government that can enact quickly on what they deem to be important. Population is an important point. China has, perhaps contentiously, already brought in population control. And there is a huge number of people who bike in Chine (for economic/poverty reasons or other). China needs to be creative and I believe that if they make the choice to be truly ‘green’ they could succeed.
-
youngblutt
I believe that China is industrializing along a much different path than Europe and America did. As katehaxt pointed out, the fact is that China has the hindsight and finally the ambition to develop in a more sustainable way than the Anglo-European model of the 18th/19th century and it can be argued that they ARE doing it. China’s new 5 year, economic plan has been praised as a model for large-scale, progressive national development. I can only hope that China’s promise of temporary coal energy use will ultimately lead to the implementation of far-reaching renewable energy use as they’ve suggested. So far, they’ve managed to avoid the baneful automobile fetishism of the Western model and they don’t have the aesthetic concerns that are sinking wind energy projects in Europe and America.
China now battles against decades of blind haste to develop industrially. This has caused grave environmental situations and human rights issues. Over the past 5 years they’ve begun to take steps to correct the errors of their haste. China now sits atop the world as producers of clean energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html-
brandond
That was an interesting article. Since China has less reliable sources of oil than countries like Canada or the U.S., it makes lot of sense that they would want to invest in alternative energies. The U.S. spends trillions of dollars to fight wars to protect their oil supplies, while China invests in alternative energies. Although China relationship with Kenya is increasingly beginning to resemble U.S. relations to underdeveloped oil-producing countries.
-
hannahepperson
That’s an interesting insight I hadn’t thought through very critically – that the astronomical military expenditures to protect oil could/are used elsewhere to invest in alternative energies. I had always thought it was ridiculous, the variance in expenditures between US military expenditures vs. education, but hadn’t thought about that in the context of energy. thanks for raising that point.
-
-
alyumam
I agree, this is a very interesting article. I see all this (i.e. invest on clean energies, low cost of manufacturing, new economic relations) as a rehearse for new world scenarios, hopefully with more sustainable practices and less damage for our planet.
I hope, as Prof. Brandon mentions, this does not end up resembling the present example like the one the US has set in several countries around the world.
-
-
paige
I agree with what Sharon has said about the modern green alternatives. The western industrial revolution sparked studies of how to prevent what it caused, these results can be utilized by countries just now going through those steps. I think the only way these green alternatives will ever actually be implemented is if they are cheap to use. In the end it all comes down to money. I think that China will be able to learn from the history and move towards a more sustainable future as a developed country.
-
brandond
A number of you have mentioned that China is becoming a leader in both green technologies and alternative energies. There are also signs that some Chinese are taking a lead in eco-friendly urban developments. One example I heard about recently is the development of an “eco-city” on the outskirts of Shanghai. Here is the wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan. Unfortunately, the financing for it seems to be a major issue.
That being said, I would like to still stress that while China is taking some notable efforts towards sustainability, their, and the many foreign manufacturing companies based in China, environmental record over the past thirty years is quite abysmal. I have relatives in China whose kids have health problems due to contaminated milk (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal). This is one of the few environmental scandals that has become public in China. Most never receive the light of day due to a lack of a free press.
-
Joyce Lin
This is an extremely difficult question. Even economists and environmentalists who are much more knowledgeable than I have difficulty answering questions like this. Obviously, a focus on developing alternative energies will be key. I think there are many people who envision a different economic transition from Europe and North America…one with the same amount of affluence but less harm to the environment. How this plays out, to be frank, I can’t even begin to predict. I think, however, the most important thing to learn from history in this case, is to not let the desire for affluence sacrifice the care for the environment’s well being (such was the case when the London fog situation was neglected in England). As long as you develop without just a lone focus on the economy but all the variables involved…I think development does not have to translate to poor environment management.
-
natashap
I think for China and other countries to avoid the “Western” pattern of growth would require a significant amount of economic and other assistance from developed countries. The problem with the “Western” pattern of development is that the technologies used in the beginning – coal, oil, etc – are very environmentally unfriendly and that newer more “green” technologies can be expensive; obviously given the choice between a cheap technology and more expensive one, the cheap technology will be chosen unless there’s some incentive to chose the other. So maybe a system where people were encouraged to purchase items produced with green technology or developed countries provided economic help to developing countries to implement the green technology could help avoid the problems with the “Western” pattern of growth.
-
emilym
We have realized how bad for the environment the Western pattern of growth has been, but it will be extremely difficult to tell China that they aren’t entitled to follow the same patten that developed countries have followed in the past. The case of China is especially difficult since they had so many coal reserves and the Western patten is bringing them rapid growth. I think China needs to focus some of their investments into generating sustainable energy. Since China’s whole strategy of growth is based on the use of the globalized market, I think it will be hard for them to follow Ghandi’s strategy of staying local, but it would be possible and beneficial for China to focus on building green technologies and move towards sustainable energy since even China’s vast coal reserves are finite and non-renewable and oil dependence is already an issue for the country.
-
Keaton Briscoe
I think that by using another approach other than the Western Pattern will cause great effect to China’s growth as a country. Eventhough China uses cheap resources, like coal, and has a larger carbon emission rate than other countries, changing their pattern I think would result in completely changing their growth as a nation. I think that some initiatives could be applied to their pattern that a more “green”, but a completely change would cause major changes.
-
bgibson
While I can imagine alternative approaches to development that China could attempt I think it is extremely unlikely. China is focused on developing its economic potential as rapidly as possible and is following a proven model to accomplish this. As has been previously mentioned in this thread China has easy and cheap access to a wealth of domestic coal, so fossil fuels will be used to power much of the industrial infrastructure. Furthermore, following a western model of development is easier and safer (there is a successful template to follow) than embarking on a new model. I really don’t see how China, a nation that still struggles with human rights issues (among many others) and doesn’t have a true democratic system, will be encouraged to consider the environmental impact of its development. If they can’t be convinced to legislate basic workers rights I don’t expect the nation to legislate laws against pollution or to attempt to reduce their carbon footprint.
I think one of the more encouraging signs is that China is heavily investing in research and development of new technologies. Chinese researchers are consistently producing new research and publishing papers. I was putting together a presentation on metal nanotube technology last term and many of the most recent papers were from Chinese authors at Chinese universities. I think it has been pointed out how China has finite coal resources and limited access to oil reserves so hopefully research and development will reach the point where alternative energy sources can be used to spur further development and China’s environmental track record can begin to improve.
-
brenden
I agree that it is extremely unlikely for China’s development to follow a path that differs from the western style of modernization. China’s economy is focused around cheap domestic growth achieved through a focus on exports, agriculture and cheap domestic production. Based on the size of their population, I feel that they will continue to exploit both their natural resources and the environment to maintain their competitive advantage in the global economy. Since the focus is on increasing the standard of living in economic terms, it is highly unlikely that China will have a green revolution, the way the western world is beginning to, with the development of emissions controls and a shift towards alternative methods of energy and environmentally friendly production processes . I believe that until it has exhausted its resources, China will continue its current path of modernization until it is forced to move to alternatives out of necessity. It truly is unfortunate that our economy in structured in such a way that the environment is continually exploited until resources are completely exhausted before we begin to realize the need for alternatives.
-
sampethick
China wants to be its own country with its own ways of doing things. I think in this sense, China wants to come up with its own ways of decreasing its carbon emissions, out of the West’s shadow. I think that China (in the best case scenario for them as a country) will try and come up with its own new technologies and ideas for decreasing carbon emissions while continuing to live comfortably. Maybe they could even do this by building and expanding already existing ideas. That is however, not really the most likely scenario. I like what Jonl said about staying local, but again, unlikely. China has grown in the industrial world far too big to go back to buying and selling local and I don’t think that they have any desire or intention to do so. So probably, their best option would be to follow in the footsteps of the Western pattern. I really don’t think that there is much anyone can do to expand affluence among people without increasing carbon emissions. Money is the reason people are damaging the environment so badly, expansion of wealth is what comes from industrialization, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have such a big problem. If people could continue to grow economically without harming the environment the way that it is being harmed right now I feel like we would be; but it’s a choice between the two, abundance of money or the environment. This kind of brings me back to what Al Gore was saying in his film about the era of consequences of our actions…
-
-
tsung
I believe it would be hard for China to find alternative ways for its growth. After seeing how successful the Western nations became, I am not surprised to find China following the same path. In a way, fossil fuels (Western Model of Developing) have proved successful and why bother looking for another path for development when the answer is in front of you? Although the focus must be on the decrease in carbon, finding another alternative for growth seems unlikely. Currently, China and Indian have become the focus of my scrutiny in terms of environmental impacts due to their rapid expansion, however, I don’t believe it is right to point figures at them (especially from the West). The Western nations expanded and their standard of living is significantly high, however, when China or Indian are expanding, they are not only faced with global distrust, but also criticism for their ways. Times have changed, however, realize that China and India are simply following what Western nations did so, would it be fair to tell them no? Although it’s not the best way of developing, however, we need to face reality and understand why they chose this path. Green technology is expensive and therefore, relying on fossil fuels is no surprise.
Although China is the world’s largest contributor to carbon emissions, we do see that they invest in new technology and require their factors to meet a certain level of environmental standards. China’s authoritarian government can be beneficial in terms of environmental policies. I say this because they are more effective and efficient in terms of implementation of policies and monitoring these policies. For example, the single child policy is not only here to control the population, it is also to ensure resources aren’t diminished. During the Beijing Olympics, we see the implementation where factors were required to shut down to ensure cleaner area in the city. These examples show how effective policy implementation can be in relations to the environment. We need to keep in mind that our society and nations are constructed to exploit the resources before us and once we use up our own we search in new lands.
-
lcoulthard
I think that China’s growth pattern is fairly set-in-stone at this point. Their rural populations are being displaced for projects like the mega-dam. These farming populations then have little choice but to move into cities and work for low wages in factories, adding more fuel to China’s growth pattern. More factory laborers = more factory production and ultimately more emissions. On top of that, social conditions for many of these people are dismal. Admittedly they have policy and technology that is being implemented to help be more environmentally friendly, however with their vast population I believe their emissions will continue to rise until something drastic happens. Perhaps their air quality becomes so degraded that an event like one of the deadly London Fogs would happen and become enough of a situation to require policy change.
-
erikaw
As mentioned China must find a way to skip over the mistakes of our past. A way they could do this is focus on the development and utilization of modern and cleaner more sustainable energy and products. Although more expensive in the short run, if proper time and development is gone into this it should be much more influencial to their economy in the long run. Clearly the want and need is there for these kind of products, even though most markets focus on the old and dirty energy and production of the past. If China spent the time innovating new products, more developed nations may look to them for business. It benefits both China’s market and the well-being of their people and environment.
-
midara
I definitely think there are many more sustainable ways for China to grow and develop; as many posts above have already mentioned, there are greener methods and more advanced technology than what Europe and North America have had in 18th century. However, what I have to add is that not every part of China is able to be greener while trying their best to catch up with the developing speed. I am not trying to say that China is developing herself in a correct and clean manner now, but for sure there are many restriction to be considered before doing so. For big cities like Shanghai or Beijing of course they are able to do so; but for smaller towns in some relatively poorer regions, such as Guizhao, in my point of view it is very hard and harsh to change their habit of burning coal for energy. I have been there before when I was travelling to the Silk Road, and it was a place with large coal reserve but relatively poor and small town. It is hard to use other energy source (maybe solar energy is possible, but solar panels are expensive you know) than coal. While China are still on its path of development, I believe more funds and capitals will be put on other projects because we already see the fruit of “modernity” in “Western” countries as well as Shanghai or Beijing.
But one thing that I guess will be helpful and relatively cheaper to attain a greener development pathway is educating the younger generation the importance of sustainability and eco-friendly. While swapping to a greener source of energy in mean time seems impossible, education at least should be started now to ensure a brighter future I guess. -
kimzzzy
I think there will need to be a change in its exporting and manufacturing industry. Such that policies should be set to reduce CO2 emission for factories/manufacturers and have penalties made for those who do not follow regulations. It could encourage growth and development in sectors such as hybrid car development and such technologies to help find solutions to pollution problems in the future.
-
kimzzzy
It is also important to pay attention to the food industry. More and more farms are being changed to big farm owners usinig machines and fuel. This allows big corporations to take over all the local businesses and jobs. Also, big corportation in general produces products at large scales so it requires the use of mechanical energy whhich generates more pollution. This will lead to people in villages where they have their own businesses become jobless and flee to larger cities for urban jobs. At the same time, the investments may be largely funded by foreign markets so the profits are not fully being kept in their own country. China should prevent such from happening by preserving local businesses and the set up of big corporations and allowing its dominance in markets.
-
-
yitailiu
I think that a major problem in China’s modernization towards Western standards is the issue of mass consumption. The high population density poses an enormous amount of stress on the land and the environment cannot sustain if large portions of people there adopt the Western style consumption habits. A difference in consumption pattern would significantly reduce the amount of resource and energy inputs. The use of alternative energy sources, such as sunlight and wind, would reduce the amount of global carbon emissions.
-
alyumam
This is an interesting question, but also a very challenging one. Like other people mention, I agree China is a country with the capacity for envisioning several alternative scenarios from Western ones.
An article that one of the members of our class posted above is really interesting. It talks about the different sectors China has invested and how clean energy is playing a fundamental role in this country.At the same time, given the the size of the population this country has, and despite many people may argue this can lead to over consumption of resources and other related problems; in my opinion, the rise of the Chinese contemporary industrialization seems to be promising since many infrastructure hasn’t been build which allows to buy and build new equipment based on clean and sustainable technologies.
-
phoebe
I find it unlikely that China will explore alternative scenerios to Western growth. At the moment, China seems most concerned with “catching up” with the West and quickly modernizing/industralizing their country. While this has been extremely successful, as others have mentioned it has produced a large amount of carbon emissions.
However, as others especially the U.S. are largely ignoring these problems in their own governments and continuing to value growth and cheap fossil fuels, I believe China will follow suit and ignore these problems in favour of continued growth for their nation. In order to convince China to pursue other green alternatives, the U.S. itself along with other industralized countries must show that they themselves are pursuing these choices and show a significant reduction in carbon emissions. With this pressure, China will likely agree to support green alternatives.
-
Danni
On one hand, I think China should continue the development and application of green technology, especially on the aspect of the source of carbon dioxide. The dramatically growth of the numbers of both private cars, and trucks should be gradually limited or should be altered by introducing the low energy consuming transportation methods. (i.e. hybrid or electric cars) This is very important due to the large population in China and their gradually increasing affordability. I noticed that there is a even/odd numbers of cars driving limit in Beijing, since there are too many cars, which stress out the traffic and increase air pollution as well. On the other hand, the manufacture quality control/assurance is another crucial issue in China too. Like the Melamine derivative, Cyromazine, contaminated milk issue in 2008 suggested the weakness in the quality control/assurance in the consequence of the pollution in China. In those cases, the product consumer, pediatric populations were the major victims in this issue. The serious critical review of the development and application of the stipulation or policy, regarding to manufacture food products is required ASAP.
-
eddietastic
Looking at the main production of China, which is products that do not require preciseness and are made from raw materials, pollution is a main problem for factories. As a result, it is almost impossible for them to continue the pace which they are growing and become more green because they are relied upon to make goods which create a large amount of pollution.
-
hannahepperson
I think something that has been sort of overlooked in this discussion is the potential for the very word “affluence” to be redefined and reimagined. It is my opinion that cultural innovators (philosophers, artists, poets, musicians, etc) are as important in this discussion as technological innovators. If we hope to shift the ways we understand affluence, success, ‘hipness’, modernity, belonging, meaning – there needs to be a lot more cross dialogue happening with the creative people who are implicit in shaping and creating ‘culture’ and the webs of meaning that are derived from whatever that culture is.
-
nytsuen
I think that even though there are alternate ways to grow, China would most likely continue to carry on with the way they are growing now. Their main concern is to catch up with the West and how they’re expanding now and their carbon emissions is roughly the same as what happened to the West during the western industrialization. Obviously, their industrialization is affecting the environment today but it is a little unfair to limit their growth when the West during the industrialization period emitted as much as they pleased without thinking twice about the environment. China can implement growth by using green technology; however, with their main focus on mass production from raw materials…whatever is cheapest is best. Green technology, although beneficial, is extremely expensive. It isn’t even fully utilized in Western countries so why would China take the initiative to produce/buy green technology. With that said, technology has advanced since the industrialization period. With advancements, it also means it’s more efficient so China’s growth, although is “Western,” is still different from western growth during the industrialization.
-
congo96
Yea one can imagine alternative scenarios and Im sure China can too but at the end of the day China is competing with the other developed countries for its piece of the pie and as long as its competing for its place in the market economy its in China’s best economical interest to play by the rules and be as economically productive and efficient as can be. If developed countries were more willing to share the big stage with a ll its benefits my making it easier for developing countries to become developed then developing countries could think about making decisions whose sole purpose is not just economic efficiency and productivity. But seeing as the developed countries want to stay at the top they won’t make it easier for developing countries to become their equal especially a country like China that has a very different political and social ideologies. It’s a power game everyones playing and eventually everybody loses..
-
natashap, 
congo96, 
eddietastic, and 22 others are discussing. 
yitailiu, and 20 others are discussing. 
midara, and 22 others are discussing. 
imnik, 
nytsuen, 
hannahepperson, and 27 others are discussing. 
msmith92 8:50 pm on March 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would say that his vision of the ideal city is more about building up than out. Obviously, a major advantage of this is that you have large green spaces in between the industrial buildings. In terms of actual land space used for buildings, it is very small because most of the population density is concentrated above the ground level. This probably means that although there is a lot of green space, it is all public as people would not have access to private yard space due to the high-rise nature of the living spaces.
jenniefrench 5:10 pm on March 28, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The first thing I saw about this drawing is how uniform the buildings all are. It is as if all the spacing, all the design is meant to be fairly uniform. The positive – it appears to be ‘egalitatian’ – everyone lives in a similar looking place regardless of income. The negative – it doesn’t foster the cultural diversity that makes a city (an Ecotopia) function and be so vibrant.
jonl 11:48 am on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As stated in the post previously, uniformity is probably the main characteristic of Le Corbusier’s drawing. An advantage is having a lot of and easier control over the spaces, particularly for maintenance (it’ll all be the same). A disadvantage will likely involve housing prices and probably overall property value of the city. In addition to looking pretty dull and boring, people might get lost with how similar every corner looks.
roypat 5:13 pm on March 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems as if symmetry is a key component of his design/planning, as is uniformity. The buildings are all the same, he goes with a very high-density concept. I actually quite agree with this idea of building up rather than outwards, and I think that high density is a good thing as long as it can be interspersed with appropriate mixed-use concepts as well as green space. All the lines are very straight as well. It reminds me of how certain streets in Paris were planned – very long, and straight, with a clear path. However, there are inefficiences in transportation here. With everything planned in squares or rectangles, if transportation doesn’t take the hypotenuse, it’s an efficient way to reach a destination.
sharonshi 11:55 am on March 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As said above, the layout of the city seems very symmetrical and uniform. To be honest, it all seemed very dull. Every part of the city will be the same, eradicating all sources of uniqueness and individuality that each city embodies. The photo attached was labeled “The Radiant City”. However, with that the photo showed, it seemed not to be radiant, but plain. An advantage of such a layout is the fact that large green areas can be included. Since buildings are built upwards instead of outwards, there will be more area for the “green spaces”.
emilym 10:13 am on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The tall buildings in Le Corbusier’s “radiant city” would make the city densified, ever though he left space for green spaces within the city. The uniformity of the buildings seem to imply an egalitarian approach in which people of all income levels would be living together. This uniformity, however, do not seem very realistic for any city, and does not give the city much character. It is as if one square block was just copied over and over until the needs of the population are met.
katehaxt 1:40 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can imagine an ultra-planned city like Le Corbusier’s being really efficient. I think you’d get low environmental footprint and egalatarian living conditions which would presumably lead to less crime, less violence and less substance abuse. Also if you have a city where everyone has a safe, efficient home I’m sure you’ll get happier and better looked after children, more people in work (leading to a bigger tax base and better community services..). I acknowledge that the city looks dull as anything and I’d miss character filled neighbourhood as well but I think that we should acknowledge that those are pretty middle class concerns. To people living in the streets or in sub-standard housing it would be life-changing to be included in an apartment building with everyone else.
alyumam 9:47 pm on April 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Have a close look at Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City above. How would you characterize his vision of the ideal city? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the layout you see here?
Le Corbusier`s Radian City, as others have recognize, seems to have a uniform as well as a symmetric shape, (depending on the chosen area ). Overall, to my taste, a bit monotonous.
A positive element i find in this city are the roads or highways, or what it seems to be such. They seem to be well distributed and running closely along what it also seems to be buildings. In addition, the cross shaped buildings make me think they might have some function, however I wonder what this one could be. Despite of that, the roofs have no green areas and the bottom parts seem to be have few trees.
I guess since this image was created in 1935 does not represent the todays` interests and needs population has.
youngblutt 7:38 am on April 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As stated above, Le Corbusier’s city is dull in it’s uniformity but my thinking is a bit more like katehaxt, in that human creative expression can be found in a plethora of varieties, that buildings might resemble each other is really a middle class consideration and probably shouldn’t be a major component of future urban planning, especially if we consider ourselves to be on the verge of irreversible environmental degradation and broadening social inequality. Sustainability, affordability and efficiency should reign and we can find ways to outlet creative expression, such as a return to interest in nature’s creative expressions.
bgibson 12:42 pm on April 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This vision of the ideal city is definitely characterized by high density apartment buildings surrounded by large green spaces. There is certainly an element of symmetry in the design of the city, as each residential complex each seems to be allocated one “block” of green space. If nothing else, the symmetry and lack of variety in the city may make it confusing to navigate (especially for older people), which could keep people off the streets. I imagine that although all the buildings are drawn with identical designs these could easily be replaced with unique designs, the main idea I get from this illustration is Le Corbusier’s ideal of high density housing surrounded by green areas. Like Alyumam noticed, there does appear to be a highway running along the bottom of the illustration, quite close to what looks like the city center. The city is clearly optimized for travel by automobile (crossing 6 lanes of highway on foot… no thanks) and I don’t see any evidence of light rail or other public transport.
brenden 9:15 pm on April 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s vision of the ideal city is characterized by high volume housing (apartments), separated by green spaces. Le Corbusier also strongly advocated the consolidation of roadways into a limited highway system and high speed public transit. There is a very symmetrical design to the ideal city which I find to be visually pleasing. However if every city were to look the exact same, our society would look like something Orwell’s 1984. The advantages of Le Corbusier’s ideal city are an increased amount of green space for all, decreased c02 emissions (through the consolidation of transit and increase of plants which trap c02). The notable disadvantages are the loss of individuals ability to own their own land and live separately. I feel that it would be a tough design to implement as individuals generally like to have privacy and live with some distance separating themselves from others (ex. living in the suburbs or countryside).
paige 9:48 pm on April 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can see what he was thinking and why. But that image just makes me think of congestion. Building up for housing is great, and green space is great, but what happens on a sunny day when all of those people who live there go outside to enjoy the green space, they will be piled up just as they are in the living situation. Transit is good but there will be incredible rush hours and noise. It just makes me a little overwhelmed to be honest.
Jason 2:39 am on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel as though Le Corbusier’s vision of centralized high-rise buildings for maximizing population and minimizing land use make a lot of sense. However, there may be some issues. For instance, high building could have a lot of safety problems in the case of an earthquake. Furthermore, I feel that building cities in this way will only get us so far. Just because we are building up instead of out doesn’t mean that our cities will be sustainable. We still will need land for agriculture.
sampethick 8:20 am on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As pretty much everyone has already noted the picture gives you a sense of uniformity when looking at it. It’s esthetically pleasing, but one thing that popped into my head when thinking of an answer to this question is that cities are full of the widest variety of people who all range from the widest variety of wealth. So one problem that might occur from Le Corbusier’s Radiant City is that if all of the housing is the same we’d have to assume that the pricing is pretty much the same; and we know that in cities there is housing for people who have low income and housing for people with a higher income, so where does Le Corbusier’s housing fall? With his ideal city will there be anywhere for people who can’t afford to live in these buildings? I do though understand the appeal, it looks really nice, there is lots of green space and it definitely seems efficient.
Joyce Lin 1:19 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The uniformity that everyone above as well as myself, have noticed is part of the standardization of space characteristic of modern architecture. LCB’s vision involves increasing density by maximizing the height of buildings on minimal space and making simple forms using glass and concrete. The buildings are identical and geographically anonymous. That is my critique of the biggest flaw in LCB’s vision. This vision removes character and culture and the history of a landscape. This can contribute to an identity loss for its inhabitants.
On the other hand, I appreciate LCB’s vision of making open space available to people and building high rises to maximize light and fresh air. In its uniformity and standardization, LCB’s vision offers an equality in urban spaces that are so often imbalanced and polarized.
erikaw 2:51 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The first thing that came to mind when looking at this drawing is that Le Corbusier focussed on green space and efficiency of living (capitalizing on vertical living), but that all of these spaces are very public oriented. Instead of each person having a small plot of land (aka a yard) where they can do gardening and grow food and whichever other leisurely activities they desire, it is instead a larger shared space. In my opinion these spaces would not be utilized as efficiently because they are shared, and people may not have the same interest or respect for them as they would if it were a private space for them and their families. The only trouble with this is that it takes up more space and would then be set up more like a modern day suburb, where most people don’t utilize their gardening space anyways.
tsung 8:01 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s concept of a modern city encompasses green spaces, seperated functions as well as density and efficiency. After looking at the photo I do notice these traits in his ideal city. The amount of green spaces is notable, however the city seems rather congested, dull and very inefficient in my opinion. Large roads separate buildings and it feels as if large amount of cars and volume of people are concentrated in the centre making the space very congested. I feel as if he is trying to bring nature closer to the people and the core of the city, however these green spaces don’t look like “small-scale” garden but rather, very large and takes a great amount of space. I think he is trying to incorporate the idea of a community garden into the downtown core which would be quite nice if done right.
I do notice the great distance between buildings and the use of large highways as a means to connect and move people. His ideal city doesn’t seem to promote sustainability as these roads are the main means of moving around. Rather than using large highways that take up a great amount of space, it would be better to use this space to construct and bring functions of the city together. Le Corbusier indicated that an ideal city would have separate functions, however, the city can be much more efficient with people being able to walk and gather things within a certain area. Currently, his ideal city requires great distances between the different functions.
nytsuen 8:49 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
His ideal city is very symmetrical, aligned and is obviously building up rather than out. The city seems to be split evenly into 4 squares with the highway in between and the high buildings will be able to accommodate a growing population. However, it is SO structured and symmetrical that it seems to lose out on any character or flare. Every city, like Vancouver, has its own perks. A beautiful recreational center, a mall, a skating rink, a museum, monument and a beach. All these things MAKE the city and MAKE Vancouver what it is. Without them, the city would be lifeless and unappealing. Le Corbusier does a good job in accommodating as many people as he can; however, it feels very prison-like. A prison can accommodate many people and is very uniformed, but it lacks pretty much everything.
Danni 9:30 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The standardization of architectures promoted the uniformity of the city appearance. The increasing amount of high-rises leaded to a limited space could be occupied by each person. The view of the ideal city was so limited, but it collaborated a large amount of population into a limited amount of space. It was good that people get closer to each other, life become more convenient. More green could be put in between, if it is possible. However, privacy could become a concern because of those kind of high-rises layout. The closer the people located may evoke conflict as well.
midara 9:39 pm on April 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
His standardized planning of city indeed holds more population than the garden city planning, and I guess one advantage of this is the better interconnectivity between areas because the purpose of different lands are planned and located carefully. However, the uniformity of living area may not suit everyone’s lifestyle; I see least diversity in living condition, and lack of personal/individual spacing in his design. Moreover, highrise building and architectures have to be carefully planned and constructed, and may not suit every continent/land. Regions with frequent earthquakes, seashores, deserts, and areas where the problem of soil liquidification exist are not suitable for such city planning.
phoebe 2:03 am on April 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s drawing of the Radiant City looks very standarized and uniform. I agree with everyone else that it seems rather dull and restrained seeming to force everyone to live in the same cookie-cutter apartments with equally spaced similar public land. I think a huge disadvantage in this scheme is that it forces everyone to live too closely together and gives no private land for freedom. I think a sense of freedom along with the idea “My house, my kingdom, my rules” is one of the central feelings of middle-class North Americans and to force everyone to live in apartments and take away their backyards/ private space seems to be invading on their privacy.
Also, many apartments have no pet rules which would raise the concern of those living with dogs/cats. True, there are also many apartments that allow pets, but they are usually more expensive than those that don’t which would be a concern for lower- income families. Not only do they have to live more closely together, they might also have to give up a loved family pet because they are not able to rent a place that allows dogs.
Keaton Briscoe 3:29 pm on April 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think his vision of the ideal city shows that he wanted his city to be spaced instead of cluttered. I also think that his design exemplifies uniformity in the buildings. It is also very obvious that he wanted to build veritcally, rather than horizontally, which promotes more space for green living. However, I think that the space he has opened up because of the high rise buildings will eventually be used by all the people who live in thes high rise buildings and the city will eventually become too densified and very cluttered.
eddietastic 3:43 pm on April 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel like his city is beautiful in the sense that it is very put together and symmetric which sows how architecture has really developed over the years. furthermore, the plan for the buildings which seem to have changed from big vertical palaces and mansions into high apartments which are more efficient with the increase of population that we see today
congo96 12:30 pm on April 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Le Corbusier’s idéal city is an efficient one. Space is used to host as many people as possible while allowing for green spaces. The advantages is that you can have a higher density population without necessarily having a larger city in spatial terms. As far as disadvantages go cities with high population like that are extremely crowded even with high speed transit systems. New York is probably a close realization to Le Corbusier’s vision and people talk about how you can just lose yourself and how nobody really cares about people since there’s so many. An example of that is the often told story of the man dying from stab wounds on the sidewalk and no one stopping to call 911.
natashap 10:14 am on April 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It’s an interesting concept – building up rather than out. One of the main advantages of his concept is that not very much space is needed, yet there is still green space. It seems to be the opposite of efficient though, to have residential, business and recreation in different areas of the cities.