655
without cops it would be chaos (quokk.au)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/mop
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Here's something to think about:

Why do we live in much larger and denser communities now?

For the majority of human existence we've lived in rural communities. What drove the urbanisation of rural populations?

During covid many places saw the reverse, ruralisation of urban populations. In an anarchist utopia that has removed capitalism, do you think people would stick with large dense urban environments or, like during covid, begin to ruralise again?

If you're unsure of what your opinion is on these questions. Somewhere to start could be looking at the Scottish Highland clearances, the Industrial Revolution in the UK, and the textile industry of the British Empire. All are major factors as to why Scotland urbanised. Most countries urbanised for similar reasons, but these examples are very well documented and very overt so make it more clear than many other places do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    We can also just look at the reasons people today still live in densely populated cities, despite big drawbacks such as the cost of housing. Proximity to jobs, universities, recreation options, grocery stores, and more. It makes perfect sense that during COVID when much of these benefits were essentially eliminated due to lockdowns, that the negatives began to outweigh the positives for many people, and so they moved away.

    I don't know exactly what your idea of an anarchist utopia looks like, but if it still involves things like universities, a wide variety of available jobs, various recreational activities, etc. then I don't see why the desire for people to live in cities would change?

    Also, not really related to my main point, but still: Yes throughout history we generally lived in rural communities, but this was not due to desire but necessity. For most of history small areas simply could not sustain large numbers of people, not too mention the other problems like housing and disease. But once we worked out how to sustain ourselves, we started living in larger and larger groups. It just so happens that some of these problems were solved under capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You've not thought about this for very long, but almost instantly replied to me as if I'm trying to argue with you.

    Why do people base their life upon work? Moving closer to where jobs are. This isn't a thing people do because they want to but because they need to. Because capitalism demands it.

    Universities don't need proximity, as evidenced by the UK's largest and arguably most left wing university in the country. But again, people move close to them because of a sense of need, not want.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University

    Recreation, do rural people not have recreation? Many recreational centres being in cities is due to the centralisation of populations. It's perfectly viable to have recreational venues spread across an area when the chase of profit is no longer the driving goal.

    Grocery stores, lol.

    I'm not saying cities will disappear or that there will be no need for them. But there's certainly no need for countries like the UK to have over 10% of the population within one city and over 80% of the entire population living in urban environments. It results in misery, mass pollution, unsustainable practices as everything must be transported, and as you originally noted, issues with enforcement of civility.

    Cities will forever be a thing in human society I'm sure, but current cities are an abomination due to the constant centralisation of power and wealth. Never before has human civilisation been so centralised into so few places and it has created a myriad of problems. It's time for a change on our perspectives beyond the constant chase of wealth, there's plenty to go around if it weren't hoarded by a select few as our current system enables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I posted about my doubts about a concept due to scalability. Was your response to that not an argument for why scalability need not be a concern? Maybe I misunderstood it.

    Also, your condescension is unnecessary. You don't know how long I've been thinking about something.

    In what way does capitalism require moving close to your job? The line between want and need in these situations is very thin. They need to work, and they want to not spend much of their day commuting. If they didn't have to work at all they might prefer to live elsewhere, but in a world where they do have to work, they would rather live closer to work. Though afaik abolishing capitalism does not mean abolishing the need to work (though it would greatly reduce the amount of work)

    For universities and recreation you seem to be saying it is not necessary to live in a city to access, which I agree with, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that people still do live in cities because they want to live closer to university, or they want to have access to a wide variety of recreational activities. Even without a profit motive, having a large number of people nearby is a good reason to build recreational centres, and having access to a wide range of recreational activities is still a good motivation to live in a place. On top of this, many dense population centres are around natural sources of recreation which cannot be simply built elsewhere, like beaches, mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.

    You don't have to convince me that cities as they exist now are generally terrible, I totally agree with you. But evidently a huge number of people still think it is worth living in cities, and if cities/ high population centres in general still exist even without capitalism, then the scalability of a system is still very much a valid concern, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I feel that this is relevant to the discussion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

    Behavioral sink is a term invented by ethologist John B. Calhoun to describe a collapse in behavior that can result from overpopulation.

    Many [female rats] were unable to carry the pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep.

    Having reached a level of high population density, the mice began exhibiting a variety of abnormal, often destructive, behaviors including refusal to engage in courtship, and females abandoning their young. By the 600th day, the population was on its way to extinction. Though physically able to reproduce, the mice had lost the social skills required to mate.

    "Calhoun's work was not simply about density in a physical sense, as number of individuals-per-square-unit-area, but was about degrees of social interaction."

    Obviously rodent studies are only so applicable to humans, but I see myself and worrying modern societal tends in some of their behavior and the ways they suffer.

    I think that when we interact with too many strangers every day that we're unable to make meaningful connections with any of them, leading to stress and illness. If we had few enough encounters that we could come to recognize most of them, it would build trust and a sense of community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •