If I had my way, I'd ban large cities in America. The largest city couldn't be any larger than 100,000 citizens. I would strongly enforce that number, with no exceptions. It would eliminate half of America's problems overnight. Long traffic rides to and from work would be gone. And if I needed to, I'd limit the biggest cities down to 50,000 citizens. A small city is a functional city, a happy city and the homeless are cared for. I could write a very big book, about the problems caused by building big cities. The commonsense answer is to think the herd!
28 comments
Living on Guam, you must not have a lot of experience with large cities. I live in a suburb of a city with 400,000. It's surrounded by about a dozen first-ring suburbs, and about the same number of second- and third-ring suburbs. Most of those suburbs do not have the high-density housing to accommodate the 300,000 that you want to move out of the central city, or to handle the businesses that would also have to move.
You're obviously assuming that everyone will work in the same city in which they live.
What kind of footprint are you allowing for these 100,000-resident cities? 100 square miles? How close are suburbs allowed?
It's thanks to heavily populated cities that we have as much room for people as we do. Limiting populations to 50,000 or even 100,000? Where would everyone go? I know you are agianst depopulation because that's the only way this plan of yours would work.
Commuting. Suburbia.
NEXT!
A picture book, maybe. I'd love to know how you'd house them all without tearing out nearly all of the nation's industrial and agricultural infrastructure.
EDIT. Scratch that. Abrahamic fundie. Davey would just kill them all and "house" them in Heaven and Hell.
Dave seems to forget that commercial businesses and industrial factories aren't going to relocate at the drop of a hat to make the <100,000 people cities happen, so the problems with commuting to work are still going to exist if not worsen.
@creativerealms: small cities are fine so long as you keep them appropriately dense. what you want are cities dense enough you can walk (or use reliable, frequent, public transit) to pretty much everywhere, so as to cut down on private automobiles. you just don't see that in small towns in the USA, only the megacities get densely enough populated for that in this country --- and not all of those, insane as that is.
the late 1800's had all manner of problems, but their urban planning was actually pretty decent considering their technology issues. if we still built cities that way they'd probably be better than what we've got.
"The commonsense answer is to think the herd!"
See, you "thinking" of yourelves as such is where the general roots of societal ills lie.
Yeah I love how this works on so many levels with his utter lack of basic writing skill.
That's the thing: cities expand your horizons, because they put you in contact with people who do not necessarily think and live the way you do. In most people, that means they adopt a live and let live attitude, which fundies simply cannot abide.
If you banned large cities, many would have even longer traffic rides to work, as you would have to spread the small cities far and wide.
I live in a county with about 30 000 people. People fare ill here too, not all are happy, and we have migrant Roma people from Bulgaria and Romania sitting outside the grocery stores begging for money.
The county is littered with churches on this scale. Most people who go into them just want to look at them; historical artifacts. image
How would you "think"[sic] the herd? Euthanize all elders? Mandatory abortions? What about mandatory vasectomies, and ban on Viagra?
Against capitalism are ya? Because that's the driving force behind Metropolis'. It's not like people want to be packed like sardines y'know, no you don't you're an idiot getting his answers from an ancient shit book and uneducated preachers.
A thriving population grows, if the resources are there it's inevitable. All your plan would do is force successful cities (seaports, mining and agricultural centres) to annex outlying areas to support their own labor demands.
I don't know why I'm bothering, it's not like you'd listen to logic just as you won't think anything through. It's the preacher mentality, you spew half baked assertions and whine persecution when someone tries to clue you in.
Not his usual shit, but WFT anyways. Environmental reasons are an argument enough for dense, big cities(less green areas erased for streets & houses). And new economic powerhouses do only work in cities above a critical size.
Yes, we know you've been TOLD to live in Guam, but most people (non-lawbreakers) would not be happy being TOLD they had to move away because there were too many people in town.
Fortunately, this is a failure from the work "If".
not giving his daughter seizure medicine
@Pharaoh Bastethotep
I thought what I wrote was common knowledge around here but apparently not. As DJS himself says, "We moved away from Illinois for fear of retaliation or further tyranny from State authority." If you want to read his sordid account it's at his "DCFS Monsters" page, surrounded with pictures of the Elian Gonzalez raid, riot police and Hitler.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/dcfs_monsters.htm
Right, small-town America has no problems whatsoever, it's not just a figment of social pressure to keep issues in the community and lower media attention.
@Canadiest: Actually, I much preferred living in a major city to my current place (which is a little further from civilization than is really encapsulated by "suburban", but I guess isn't technically rural). All the practical benefits aside, I found it comforting being in contact with people all the time; out here it feels even more isolated than it is.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
