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.

  • Jan 28 2013: I for one would like to know the definition of "invalid happiness."

    The studies the TED Lover provided explain the essence of my point exactly. We don't "fix" humankind by making our energy greener and more environmentaly friendly but ONLY in small concentration cities. It needs to be wide spread. Otherwise, we will have a massive re-play of that studie done with monkeys near Japan. Take a population, spread it thin but not TOO thin and teach them how to harness energy in a greener fasion, and we will see a tremendous decrease in polution and crime. Why does it seem to me that a lot of the speakers in the videos shown here speak praises of green sustainable cities, yet leave the true stewards, the farmers, fall by the way side? Let us speak praises of those small farming communities out there who have harnessed green power.

    Experience, creative thinking, intelligence, all leading to instinct is what taught many of our ancesters how to collect seeds and plant them in a fasion which would yield fruit at an acceptable, if not optimal rate. We evolved and became better at it and on larger scales. BUT. like all things, there is a deffinitive line that draws the end to the good. On the other side of that line is where we "think" we are advancing because this luxurious hybrid gets THIS many miles to the gallon, or this phone has THIS many apps, so we must be evovling. There is such a thing as detrimental evolution, where as we advance ourselves far to much for the world we live in. And cities, green or otherwise, cultivate this maner of thinking...

    As humans, who happen to be the most intelligent creatures on earth, one would think that we would keep in tune with our roots and continue to find better and better ways to be self-sufficient by way of sustainment, like our ancestors, not co-dependent on governement and technology like our youth are today. The more we depend on external forces and not individual ingenuity to survive, the more devolved we will become.
    • 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)
      Such as having junk food, drinking, smoking, taking drug .... making too much money.
      Could you kindly show me the right word ?

      Thanks in advance !

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.