> I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete
I actually never have understood this ... it is so obvious to me that natural space is more attractive, healthier and can be made in a very low maintenance (I suppose not zero maintenance) way. Why is it that cities, companies, organisations seem to take immense pride in concreting / paving over large spaces?
We have whole areas of the city where I live that are nearly 100% concrete / bitumen with barely a tree left. I see whole suburbs that are leafy and green and over decades people move in and inexorably start removing all the vegetation until it looks as ugly as everywhere else.
Nearly everyone seems to agree that natural space is nicer, but everyone also seems to agree that we should erase it all and replace it with concrete.
other than any city/state regulation on minimum parking spaces, i would guess that people remove greenery because it is unprofitable - not that it serves no function, but that you cannot extract private value from their function.
A patch of greenery produces visual value for passer by, and by extension society. It looks nice. But the owner of the land is not receiving compensation for providing this "niceness" - it's not as if it's a gated park that charges for entrance.
So at first opportunity, the owner would choose to use that greenery space for something more profitable - that is, privately profitable. Some city regulation require car parks - so paving over it and making it a parking space means they can extract some value out of that space, thus conserving more space for the building or some such that do provide private profit.
So the bottom line, literally, is why greenery in cities gets filled up with concrete. The city/state could alleviate it by having a tax code which rewards greenery (or having requirements for greenery), but the cost of this greenery is going to be borne by society regardless (via higher tax spending to offset the tax breaks for the greenery, or having land/buildings become more expensive to offset the regulatory need for greenery etc).
Disagree. Someday society will re-learn enduring value more earnestly. These false visages we suffer dont dominate forever. The hyper-real eventually consumes itself.
But let's talk about loud late night traffic! What trash! Society ought informally track & monitor this, collectively identify & call out persistent punks.
Im surprised it's taken so long but there was finally a huge huge 1 car crash around 2 am about a month ago. Honestly most of the people are just stupid loud, not also goong ultra stupid abaurdly fast. Still, so rude that some people insist on taking up such vastly vastly vastly outsized presence, at such hours. Or just have stupid shitmobiles with nusted exhaust they never fix.
Most suburbs in a big city are infested with people driving cars. If that was reduced and it was no longer fashionable to own a fast loud car it would be great. Lockdown with hardly anyone on the road was wonderful.
Not quite lmfao. I think if we survive the current crisis we'll continue to see the rise of craftsperson culture. Rather than pay super prices for things that used to be cheap perhaps we will see a rebirth of the era of craft work and hand made clothing, shoes and other personal items.
We could chose this route for few decades before some guy in craft company have the "good idea" of getting bigger and consumers find some advantages in paying lower their goods.
Last time somebody posted this, it was said that this story is "flamebait" and it got flagged. But note the addendum:
"Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece."
In communism, the people own the means of production collectively. On top of that, private property still exists. People own houses, cars, what else they may need and have access to. No communist ideology as far as I'm aware requires or advocates for the end of privacy.
This model, OTOH, centralises the means of production and the right to privacy in the hands of a few oligarchs, whilst the people are left with nothing except for the right (obligation) to work in order to be able to afford rent of somebody else's private property and services.
> In communism, the people own the means of production collectively. On top of that, private property still exists. People own houses, cars, what else they may need and have access to. No communist ideology as far as I'm aware requires or advocates for the end of privacy.
Sharing ownership means you don't own anything, unless you're the elite in charge of forcing people to share and taking away personal property to be "shared".
Seems like the end game for most companies mentioned on this site.