TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Self-Sufficience v. Sustainable Cities

The question is which idea is better. Maintaining an individual or group's self-sufficience by way of the green construction of "off-the-grid" homes that depend entirely on on-site green energy, and growing one's own produce and livestock to sustain themselves and those in their community. This is an argument to DISPURSE the concentration of populations that happen in cities, and in turn decrease crime and the massive polution that comes from cities. OR Agenda 21, which is the plan to concentrate populations INTO cities to creat single places of higher density populations while leaving the rest of the environment out in the country to heal itself, without the presence of humankind. Which is better?

Topics: Agenda 21

Closing Statement from Evan Young

I think Scott and Alex proved the came to the table with the best points here. Both types are, in fact, necessary. I agree with the the statment about anyone who has land that does NOT grow, being a waste. When one owns a their own land, it is their responsibility to utilize it , and at the same time maintain it and better it.
I'll agree with Scott's statement about their being better transportation in the cities as well. the very few times I have had my misfortunes to find myself in the high density center of Boston, i did find it was certainly easy to get around with minimal to no fuel usage.
Everyone who had something to say here had fantastic points, and I thank you for the well thought responses. But know as a closing item, I will play Devil's Advocate simply to present an item to ponder for a while:

It is true, some people do want to live in the city, and many prefer the country life. But remember, fewer people than we realize actually drive hybrids or purely electric cars, and some people also refuse to drive hybrids because they WANT to drive fuel burning vehicles. Why serve to one lifystyle group, while treading on the other under foot and leaving them by the wayside? The massive use of fuel that this country goes through is detrimental to the environment indeed, but here's something to consider. The amount of emmisions produced by say a prius, when driven by from a blue color business man from here in Worcester "Woodchuck" County, MA all the way into the center of Boston is quite close if not more than "hillbilly" Joe driving his diesel F-350 across town to work (Remeber, regular diesel is actually cleaner burning AND more fuel efficient than gasoline).
I guess my argument is this, construct green construction closer to the cities for those who wish to work there, and at the same time encourage "off the grid" construction everywhere else. a safe and very stewardly compromise. to continue feel free to email me, eyoung3@mwcc.edu

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Jan 28 2013: I remember two relevant studies that come to mind. One involved monkeys on an island off Japan. The monkeys were fed sweet potatoes every day - enough to sustain the entire colony. The monkeys, in the presence of abundant food, reproduced accordingly. When the island was over-run with monkeys, bedlam took over. Monkeys formed into gangs and they were dangerous. They raped, murdered, and terrorized other monkeys. Their societies broke down.

    A similar study was done that involved rats who were amply fed and allowed to multiply with no increase in size of the cage. The same thing happened.
    • thumb
      Jan 28 2013: .
      Humankind will not be the similar because they will eventually know well what invalid happiness is.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2013: They might know better if you would stop using the phrase "invalid happiness" and find a way to express your idea using words that people will understand. Would you please take the time to explain what you mean? Last time I commented on this, I had a lot of thumbs up regarding it - so there is an interest.
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2013: .
          Thank you very much for your help !
          I am sorry I cause problems.

          By "invalid" I mean that a thing which is good or valid 10,000 years ago but not good or invalid now. (The "invalid" is the literal translation from Chinese 无效)
          Could you kindly show me the right word ?
          Thanks in advance !
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2013: I agree with TED Lover that it would be courteous and helpful if you were to define "invalid happiness" here rather than using the term all the time without explanation as a way of steering traffic to your blog, perhaps?
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2013:
          Thank you very much !
          I will certainly attach my definition of invalid happiness from now on.
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2013: Thank you for clarifying. So "invalid happiness" means being happy with something that you think shouldn't make a person happy today but would have been okay to be happy with 10,000 years ago?
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2013: Yes.
          Such as having junk food, drinking, smoking, taking drug .... making too much money.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.