Although I am a Canadian, not an American, the statistics of this article and the recommendations of this article likely apply to my country also. Global warming is an international issue, and it is also a moral issue — our failure to respond is an insult to our intelligence, and a reflection on our immaturity as a species.
Our hubris and our acedia are about to destroy us. We are so unwilling to step outside the cultural norm — that if we do not talk about an issue then it will go away — we are willing to destroy our species in consequence.
We need to break the silence.
This is the fundamental premise of The Climate Mobilization, one that I agree with. Again, it is an American organization, and it needs to be an international organization.
I want now to reflect on my hope for a mature culture. For more than twenty postings, I have suggested my ideas for a mature culture, not as a blueprint, but as a point of discussion.
I strongly believe that, if we are to survive as a species, we must more towards maturity; we must more towards:
the many features of justice and love that have been advocated over the centuries (the features that represent our greatness as a species), and
the ability to have power over the processes of power (the nemesis that has plagued our civilizations for thousands of years).
If we do not learn to manage these issues, we not only are not likely to survive, but we probably do not even deserve to survive.
As I reflect on what I know of the human species, and of the characteristics of civilization, it is very easy for me to feel discouraged.
We are at the brink of destruction of our world as a result of the complexity of global warming; we have knowingly been moving in this direction for at least 50 years, and we are only now beginning to mobilize our resources (probably ineffectively as yet) to combat these forces.
And what we are just starting to confront are only the symptoms of the hubris and acedia that underlie the processes whereby we have created global warming. Especially, we have yet to begin the conversation regarding the two major issues of overpopulation and the management of power.
It is not easy to read about, or to write about, these matters. I began to look at them in a serious way about five years ago, and as a result, I was in major despair for a number of years. I am through that struggle now, and as a result, I choose to live into hopefulness. But I have major empathy and compassion with those who are in denial or who give up — it is not easy to live with ongoing concern of these issues.
So, to begin, I see many forces arrayed against this possibility of maturity.
As a species, we are pain avoiders. We tend not to deal with issues until they are fully in our faces, such that we must deal with them.
Given the laws of physics as applied to global warming, this tendency does not bode well for survival. We are reaching, if not exceeding, irreversible tipping points that will change our world in major ways.
And there is the acedia of the general population, many of whom are almost certainly overwhelmed by the complexity of these problems. The difficulty here is to get others to respond; the problems are so complex and so difficult to prove, especially in the face of frequent disinformation. But silence maintains the Climate Lie.
We are the world’s top predator, and we are deeply in denial of this role. David Suzuki, in “The simple-minded nature of human super predators” (2016 Sep 06) notes: “When judged by this dynamic of upholding natural balances, humans are failing terribly as predators” — as compared to other predator-prey systems which are symbiotic, human beings degrade the system rather than stabilize it. We interfere, often with good intentions.
Between global warming and overpopulation, we are likely approaching Malthusian limits that will present themselves as famine, plague, or war, all of which have some basis in present reality.
Famine: Lester Brown in World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse (2011) has written: “I had long rejected the idea that food could be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link, but that it is the weak link.”
War: The increasing numbers of failed states such as Syria, and the testing of nuclear weapons by North Korea, are potentially only the beginning of struggles over resources such as water and food.
There is also the immense sabotage of democratic systems by processes that, for me, can only be understood as greed and evil.
Recently I read of The Court That Rules The World, a somewhat secretive legal system that allows corporations to impose their will on governments around the world, partly through legal means and partly through threat of the costs involved in litigation.
Consistent with the adage “Powertends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” there is much in the modern legal system that does not reflect justice, but merely legal maneuvering — a sad state of affairs with respect to the possibility of a mature culture.
Given all of this, many give up. I have not. In the next post, I will look at the positives.
For a number of months now, I have been presenting an extended series of postings on my vision of a mature society. Mainly I have done this as an invitation to the reader (and to myself) to undertake the thought experiment of what would life actually be like. I’ve often focused on the Victory City model in so doing.
I have also done this because I strongly believe that we need to have a positive vision to move towards. Essentially if you don’t know where you are going (i.e., towards something as compared to away from), “it doesn’t much matter which way you go.” (thus spoke the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland.) From my perspective, most of the writings in global warming describe what we need to move away from, e.g., away from fossil fuels, away from global warming. Often there is a movement towards technology such as renewable energy sources, but seldom is there a discussion of where our culture is going.
Throughout this series I have been fleshing out the Victory City. Why?
There are a number of reasons.
First, I believe we must stop interfering with the ecology of the planet. It can take care of itself if we let it.
The total human population of the planet needs to be under 2 billion people. Let’s assume 1.2 billion.
I estimate that the physical footprint of any given Victory City (one of 6000 cities) would be approximately 50 square kilometers maximum).
The total human population (200,000 people per city, or 1.2 billion people on the planet) would occupy 300,000 square kilometers., or 0.2% of the land surface area.
Assuming each city set aside another 150 square kilometers for recreational purposes, then 99% of the world could be left as wilderness! Leaving nature to resume its natural ecosystems.
Second, the Victory City could be designed to be self-sufficient, and ecologically both sustainable and resilient.
Everything would be recyclable, and there would be no garbage, no waste.
The modular structure of the Victory City would allow maximal productivity with minimal “waste,” even though a use would be found for any “waste.”
Third, the proposed lay-out of the “villages” would be consistent with the requirements established in Future Primal as previously described — the Truth Quest: the seeking of wisdom (individuation), face-to-face discussion of important issues (intersubjectivity), shared decision making in trusted groups (direct democracy) and a narrative of meaning (mythic narrative).
The village structure would allow the various components of personal growth and mature governance to develop within the parameters of the Truth Quest.
From this village structure would evolve increasing levels of justice circles as the basis of governance, always with the intention of maintaining a grassroots village-like human contact process.
If we are to survive as a species, we must shift to a society that values wisdom (phronesis — practical judgment) via wisdom (sophia — useful knowledge), discipline, hope and playfulness.
The Victory City proposal is certainly not the only way in which our culture could thrive. Fundamentally, what I like about the concept is that it encapsulated so much that I think is essential to a mature culture.
In the next post, I will reflect on what it will take for maturity, and my thoughts on how difficult it will be to achieve.
Onward — what are the blocks that stop human beings from maturing.
Continuing the theme of governance in a mature society, my thoughts have changed little since the writing of my book Acedia; thus, I am mainly quoting from this source (pp. 204-205), with additional minor commentary as update.
The best example of governance I have encountered is that of Gaian democracies (Madron, 2008). Madron notes that “we have to transform our societies so that they are capable of learning how to co-evolve for many thousands of years as complex, adaptive, viable parts of the total Gaian system.” He emphasizes that citizens must understand, be committed to, and share, a set of purposes and moral and ecological principles. These purposes and principles must be developed through intensive participative processes—they cannot be handed down from above. This requires dialogue-rich groups, focused on action shaped by reflection, and such that local groups have the power and authority to create change directly. People are rewarded with active immediate feedback based on success, and leaders are committed to their own learning. [emphasis added]
To this, I would add the skills associated with holacracy as described by Robertson (2006) in “Holacracy: A Complete System for Agile Organizational Governance and Steering.” Holacracy is a modern development in organizational development concepts. It is based upon intense participative processes and local group authority. In a holarchical business, representation of interests is distributed downwards and upwards by double linkages at all levels, downwards by those responsible for the broad interests of a company and upwards by those responsible for specific aspects of the functioning of the company. Although designed for coordination with businesses, I suggest it to be ideal for the kinds of inter-group coordination that will be necessary at all levels of governance in a mature society; I know of no better process to encourage participatory leadership.
Is this type of mature culture possible? I do not know. Is it necessary? I maintain the answer is Yes—we have to come to terms with a zero-growth sustainable culture, one that honors all species on the planet. Need it have the characteristics I am suggesting? No, but likely something like this would be necessary. We need to live in peace with our world; we need to live in peace with each other, especially our differences. [And we need to live sustainably and resiliently.]
It will be difficult to achieve. I remind the reader of the difficulties identified by the project participants, such as “I’ve worked on these issues for 20 years, and am amazed at how hard I have had to work.” Our current civilization is in a state where all of the forces that oppose acedia are disparaged, and thus, conversion to a more mature state will require much time and effort. Consistent with the proposals put forth by Gilding (2011), I believe that we are capable of such conversion, once we decide to do so. However, whether we will do so in time to save our species in not yet clear.
Continuing the theme of governance in a mature society, my thoughts have changed little since the writing of my book Acedia; thus, I am mainly quoting from this source, with additional minor commentary as update.
As I reflect on what I have written so far, in this long series of posts on the nature of a mature society, I realize that much of what I have written is very utopian (one original meaning of the Greed word utopia is no-place). I will add my reflections on this at the conclusion of the series (another three posts from now).
How do we recognize maturity.
Sophisticated electronic communication, including frequent high-level polling of needs and ongoing values, would allow the government to stay in touch with the populace. Each member of the populace would have multiple votes—I was immensely impressed, years ago, by an idea presented by Nevil Shute in his novel In The Wet, Shute proposed that each member of the electorate had up to seven votes: one basic vote, and additional votes depending on family stability (1), educational level (1), foreign travel (1), success in business (1), and contributory service to society (2). This type of system then preselects individuals who are likely to have a degree of maturity and wisdom. Higher levels of government would depend on input both from lower regional governments and from polling of the general population.
This is one way. Another way comes from recognizing those people who deserve respect. Amongst the pre-conquest native American peoples, the grandfathers were recognized as leaders, but they obtained their authority from the grandmothers.
The judiciary system would need to be a justice system, not a legal system. There must also be a way to deal with terrorism (preferably identifying the predisposition of individuals to be rebellious before they become terrorists).
Finally, the judiciary system of such a culture would function at all levels in a fashion of justice circles, the intention being that any discordance is to be resolved in ways that support the rights of both individuals and the groups concerned. In such a culture, there will arise occasions where individuals repeatedly act contrary to the needs and desires of the group. I suggest that, here, more senior groups (groups to which earlier decisions might be appealed) would have the power . . . whereby such individuals are ostracized from the group, perhaps to live in enclaves not subject to the standards of the general culture. These alternate cultures would be free to develop their own standards, but would not be permitted to impose their standards on the main culture. If desired, individuals in these substitute cultures could transfer back to the main culture, but a requirement would be they demonstrate they have sufficient intention and maturity to live within the main culture.
Continuing the theme of governance in a mature society, my thoughts have changed little since the writing of my book Acedia; thus, I am mainly quoting from this source, with additional minor commentary as update.
. . . a mature culture would balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the group, not by imposition, but because the educational system would provide the deep support such that members of the culture would want to balance these needs (as per the previous priority). Training would be offered in decision making . . . for comprehensive social change. [Such training would focus on the long-term needs of community, rather than the short-term gains so typical of modern politics.]
A mature culture would also train its members to live the “laws” of experience (we want positive, it is easier to get negative, and negative is better than flatness) and the “laws” of relationship (I can change only what I am connected to, others will change if I change, change requires I stay connected), in ways that emphasize both the powerfulness (to create self) and the powerlessness (to change other) inherent in relationship.
The joy of living expands the individual.
Such a culture would live into the stance that the joy of living is in seeking wisdom, rather than domination. Such a culture would educate its members that each member is truly accountable for whatever he or she thinks, feels, and does, without shame or coercion of self or other—that the truly unacceptable is that of violation (restriction of freedom without permission, beyond public safety). Such education would include education on the pitfalls and traps of being human, challenging both individuals and the cultural systems at various levels to “walk their talk.” This would require the recognition that “therapy” is simply another word for the seeking of wisdom, and thus would be honored as part of the development of every human being and every group.
We need a mature democracy.
. . . a mature culture would develop governance based on wisdom, on statesperson-ship. Our current “two-party” democracy is actually a one-party democracy (Friedman, 2009):
There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.
I propose that a mature culture would actually be a no-party democracy, with individuals elected on the basis of perceived wisdom, and with interlocking regional governments, up to a world government. Individuals would be elected on the basis of perceived wisdom by appropriate regional groups to form a regional level of government, that government deciding within itself who would be the proposers of legislation and who would be the devil’s advocates. Leadership would be developed within this membership, based on what was required, and might vary with need. Elected members would shift periodically in their assigned tasks, sometimes legislators, sometimes advocates of resistance. Membership on task groups would evolve out of the skill level of the members as needed. If elected for three terms in a row (15 years, for example), these members would become part of a more senior advisory body, for various additional task assignments. If not elected for such a period, support would be provided to allow re-integration back into the regional group. Essentially, the government would function to be a sophisticated cooperative body, attuned to the needs of the populace it served, yet focused on what the populace needed long-term, not as based on election requirements. . . .
Despite digressions, I am still wanting to complete my thoughts on envisioning a mature culture. This post will look at local and long distance transportation, personal and business travel, and interactions between cities. My ultimate goal is to envision how a mature culture could live in simple sustainable fashion.
I previously mentioned that everything in a mature culture would be recyclable, and that most structural needs such as furniture and automobiles would be modular, designed for practical long-term use. Once a design had been found effective, easy to repair and fully recyclable, it could be built in high volume, modular fashion, and distributed throughout the world. In a world that did not value senseless competition, most material items would then be standardized, with little future development unless there truly arose the need for improvement of the product.
Transportation
Public transportation would also be standardized, designed to be massively efficient in moving people from place to place as needed.
Within community buildings, this would mainly be by high-volume automated walkways and elevators.
Between buildings, there would be similar walkways, perhaps at many different elevations thereby connecting buildings in many ways. There would also be provision for “rentable” bicycles and electric vehicles depending on distance and personal needs.
Between cities, there would be high speed electric train systems, creating a vast intercity network for transportation of people and freight. Air travel would still be feasible if reliable electricity-fueled planes are developed.
I mentioned in an earlier post (Daily Live? Part 5) that there would be approximately 6000 cities scattered around the globe, each with a footprint of a few square miles. Such a city could be located in an area of great physical beauty, and still be surrounded by vast areas of wilderness, some of which would be available for human utilization as pleasure. But much of it would truly be wilderness, allowing maximal natural development.
City Life
Cities themselves would physically be fairly similar from one city to another (which they are now, although the vast unpleasant underbellies of modern cities would no longer be part of the culture). Any given city would provide high quality services in all areas such as health and nutrition.
It is likely that most types of standardized products would be part of the manufacturing component of the city, but also likely that each city would specialized in a few standard components, for example, transportation products such as automobiles or trains, or manufacture of solar energy products (all of which would then be distributed world-wide).
Where cities would differ would be in the arts and research areas. Every city would have many cultural components, much of which could be shared electronically with the rest of the world. Each city would also specialize in specific areas of research in medical, technological, and scientific studies; all of which would then be shared throughout the civilization.
Each city would also be a place where local cultures were maintained and maximized as to diversity.
Travel
I do not believe that physical travel would be a major feature on life in a mature culture, either for business or personal use. Technological advances would also allow much in the way of virtual travel, providing rich exposure to local areas of beauty without the high ecological cost of huge numbers of people.
And although I place great value on experiencing cultural diversity, I do not believe that our current patterns of travel create this. Modern vacations are often moving from one location to another, at great hassle of time and expense, while ending in an environment that is fairly uniform in its tourist characteristics. There may often be some special activity such as lying on a beach or skiing on a snowy mountain, there is usually little exposure to depth of culture.
Of much greater value has been those times where I have actually lived within a new culture, e.g., living with a Spanish family in their home while learning a new language. Or visiting a friend who lives in a foreign country, and then going on a hiking trip through the local villages. Such visits have been memorable, and perhaps allowed friendships of great depth, even if short term. This kind of travel could be maximized as learning experiences, as sabbaticals of travel from one culture to another.
In a mature culture, all would contribute authenticity.
Daily life in a mature culture — the last posting I painted a picture of major uniformity. I suggest that this is necessary so as to keep the human impact to a minimum, and that such life could still be very satisfying, although the emphasis would be on authenticity, as compared to becoming more competitive in the marketplace.
So what else about living under these conditions? First, some loose ends (which could become major postings if expanded).
Home and work life
Guaranteed resources: health, nutrition, education, child care
Stuff? We have too much stuff
Home and Work Life would both be based upon community interaction. Given robotics and electronic communication, much of work life could actually be performed within the “village” settings.
Then, if desired, external work interaction would be by choice. For example, food production by extensive local gardening might well be performed because people actually wanted to engage with the soil.
Much industrial productivity would be automated, but there would still be many tasks that required direct interaction, especially in the development of new technology that had not previously been explored.
The automated productivity would be relegated to products that no longer needed innovation. For example, how many brands of toothpaste are really needed? (Yet go into any modern “drugstore” and you will find dozens if not hundreds of brands. What nonsense!)
Many aspects of community life would be guaranteed.
The provision of nutrition and health care will be universal.
Education in the future will be universal, and must emphasize personal development, especially the development of wisdom and governance.
Historically education has emphasized skill development, especially the transcribing of religious texts, and has been restricted to only certain societal groups.
In general as well, human beings are experiential learners, with age-appropriate processing to an experience so as to learn from it. What seems to work best is to have a brief exposure to a problem, engage in a physical experience related to resolving the problem, study the outcome (especially since first attempts are seldom successful at resolution), and then further engagement in problem solving (until resolution).
Child care would be guaranteed. In particular, we must find ways to optimize child care.
It is becoming well-recognized that early child development, especially in relationship to attachment needs, is central to the development of healthy adults (healthy both physically and mentally). We can no longer afford the erratic child care provisions of our modern society where we expect young parents, struggling with a multitude of issues, to provide effective child development on top of their other stresses.
Sorenson (1998), in Preconquest Consciousness, emphasizes how “groups of people can be simultaneously individualistic and collective — traits immiscible and incompatible in modern thought” (p. 82), but at the same time he noted how such cultures shrivel “with alarming speed when faced with harsh emotions and coercion” (p. 80), traits common to our current society.
Stuff? We have too much stuff.
A huge aspect of modern life is the provision of stuff for consumption, with little attention to the actual cost of production and the cost of the garbage created when the stuff is outmoded.
We cannot afford this! Everything in a future world must be recyclable.
Given our population density, we cannot afford garbage on a finite planet.
I suspect that if a society truly valued appropriate productivity, most of what we “consume” would be provided free as modular recyclable units, standardized to fit the needs of the product, efficiently designed for long-term usage.
A small aspect of productivity could then be applied to two areas:
innovative development of truly new products
creative development of individual artistic products.
when people moved (from job to job for example, or for educational training), they would simply take their clothes and their artistic products with them, and leave the rest to the next occupant.
The status associated with “new, improved” would not be part of the cultural milieu.
Your thoughts? (Remember, my musings are only intended to stimulate thinking about what really matters to a mature culture.)
Glitzy and exciting, but urban sprawl has major disadvantages.
Daily life in a mature culture — now that we have looked at the possibility of a Victory City, what would daily life actually be like in such a city? As noted, I am proposing that the high-rise buildings would consist of a large number of village-like settings, where people would actually live much of their day-to-day activity.
A reminder: these postings are simply my thoughts on what it would be like to live permanently in a mature culture; I present them mainly to stimulate your thoughts.
Each “village” would consist of three floors within a high-rise complex, each complex perhaps holding approximately 30 “villages.”
As such, there would be a communal living floor sandwiched in two floors of private living/sleeping quarters.
Much would be modular, both for efficiency and minimal environmental impact.
Most food preparation and eating would be within the communal space, or in more central cafeteria-style buildings within the city.
There would be an emphasis that such food be both nutritious and of very high quality (not at all like the typical cafeteria of modern life).
Each village would consist of about 200 people, likely about 50 families, interacting with each other. There would be about 125 adults (including late teens), and about 75 younger children.
There would be extensive day-care facilities for child care (approximately 25 per village, or 625 per high-rise); essentially the village would raise the children, and children would be able to attend every process of village life.
school-aged children (approximately 2000 per high-rise) would attend school in the high-rise common area.
late teens would attend some kind of college or university, of which there would be 5 – 10 in the city, with the possibility of outreach to other cities.
The “adults” would meet several times per week in small groups, perhaps 10 people each, for personal development. Each week, there would also be a variety of local governance groups planning the needs and development of the village community, and a number of meetings with other groups outside the “village,” planning governance on a broader level.
The adults would be engaged in work activity 25 hours per week, 5 hours per day, approximately half of which would be virtual meetings or some kind of activity that could be performed without leaving the local village.
Children of all ages would be welcome at all activities.
Given that the cultural narrative would be that of a permanent state of sustainability, then perhaps most of adult life would be lived out in these environment.
We would no longer live the current cultural model of continuous improvement and discovery (such living is not compatible with being the dominant species of a finite planet).
Your thoughts? Would this be too commune-like? Would this be too sterile? Both Rupert Ross (Dancing With A Ghost) and Louis Herman (Future Primal) have a lot to say about this.
Ross, when reflecting on “primitive” native culture, notes (pp. 103-108):
Each generation’s turn at the wheel might include performances better or worse than the last, but they would be essentially the same performance, with the same set and script and plotting. . . .
We post-industrial societies, in contrast, seem to run a cross-country relay race, passing the baton to a generation that will never set foot upon the ground we have covered . . .
There is a temptation to conclude that such a repetitive existence would be boring in the extreme, that it would feel binding and imprisoning.
I suspect . . . no such sense of limits. . . . they [native peoples] may have perceived their lives as holding a virtually limitless scope for challenge and accomplishment. . . . their lives did not center on building things, but upon discerning things. Life’s challenge lay in observing and understanding the workings of the dynamic equilibrium of which they were a part, then acting so as to sustain a harmony within it rather than a mastery over it. One aspired to wisdom in accommodating oneself
. . . they sought that wisdom not only to better ensure survival but also as an end in itself, as something in itself exhilarating.
Herman notes (Kindle location 7130):
Our wilderness origins fashioned our creative self-consciousness, which is both expanded and balanced by following the primal dynamic: face-to-face communication within a caring community of individuals, passionate for living and learning in a mutually enhancing resonance with the natural world. This is the truth quest, and it is our primal inheritance. We can ignore it, or we can cultivate it in all our endeavors and bring it into a creative engagement with the reality we find ourselves caught up in: a civilization rushing to self-destruction while displaying tantalizing possibilities of a more beautiful, joyful way of life.
As a therapist of 25 years’ experience, centered largely in my own emotional growth, I know that exhilaration. Personally, although such “village” life as I am describing would have challenges, it could also be immensely satisfying.
Glitzy and exciting, but urban sprawl has major disadvantages.
Daily life in a mature culture — now that we have looked at the possibility of a Victory City, what would daily life actually be like in such a city? As noted, I am proposing that the high-rise buildings would consist of a large number of village-like settings, where people would actually live much of their day-to-day activity.
Let me flesh it out a lot, with a bit of imagination. I’m in a dilemma though — I want to provide details of my vision, mainly to have something to bounce against, but I am also fearful that I will lose the reader if I get too detailed, too utopian, to hold interest. But I do so because such visioning is what I am encouraging in our society — we need a sustainable vision so as to more forward to what we want, not away from what we don’t want. Such is life!
Here is an overview. I strongly value Herman’s characteristics of individuation, relationship as primary, face-to-face democracy, and the need for a mythic narrative. So, for me, the needs are:
personal development of individuals,
relationships that maximize diversity and cooperation,
village life as the source of interaction,
the ending of consumerism, and
the sustainability and resilience of our planet.
To accomplish this, I suggest we must maximize both:
modular production of consumable products (minimizing footprint and waste while preserving effectiveness of function), and
individual creativity and expressiveness.
A tall order. Utopian in many respects, but still for me a vision of a creative life. There could be a lot of uniformity in the mundane areas of life (extensive modular design would keep the industrial impact to a minimum), and there could be much creativity and diversity of the smaller aspects. For example, buildings throughout the world could be quite uniform, but the manner in which they were decorated, externally and internally, could be incredibly diverse.
I am assuming that, if:
the basic needs of food, shelter, education, and health were provided, and
people throughout the planet were orientated to a balance of diversity and community, placing high value on personal development and creativity rather than consumerism,
then there would be little need for money and private property, and a large need for individual creativity.
Suppose, then:
the planetary population was one billion (1,000,000,000) people
there were 5000 cities of 200,000 people each
each city would occupy about 10 square miles (much smaller than current cities today), with extensive wilderness surrounding.
the wilderness areas would be available for exploration, provided the human impact was well managed.
each city would specialize in a limited number of activities (in modular fashion) required by the world population.
these might consist of some kind of industrial production, or some kind of artistic production such as film or theatre, all of which could be distributed to other cities, either in physical form (industrial) or virtual (artistic)
each city would consist of 40 high-rise buildings of 5000 people each
there would be another 40 low-rise buildings for such activities as food production, transportation, maintenance, et cetera
all buildings would be green buildings (see the Manchester Retrofit of the previous post)
most mundane activities would be automated to a major extent, but activities enjoyed by human personnel (e.g., garden care and cooking) would be encouraged
each high-rise would be 90 floors
15 floors for high-rise common area, such as schools and hospitals, and/or industrial activity.
full medical and educational facilities would be present in each high-rise, with advanced facilities located in some of the out-buildings.
most industrial activity would be automated, requiring only limited supervision and/or the equivalent of sophisticated machinists. Much could be done under remote control with sophisticated electronics.
75 floors of village-like living groups
every 3 floors would be a village of 200 people
each village would consist of 2 floors living area, with 1 common floor sandwiched between
connections within high-rises and between buildings would all be by high-volume, high-speed elevators and walkways, minimizing travel time within the city, and almost eliminating the use of personal vehicles.
I will continue next post with the characteristics of these village sandwiches.
