It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cities: Demons... or Saviors?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Population control has been thrown by eugenics, murder outright, depleted uranium. However, the problem is the elite and their greed. All first world nations have very low population even sometimes negative numbers. And all poverty and fundamental religious related crimes against humanity, done by design and orchestrated by the elite, causes the other.....

And no one is going to be herded into cities. They are minions, working for the people. They don't get earth handed to them as owners, they are CRIMINALS and many of us wait for JUSTICE. They don't get all their rare earth and fancy crafts and godhood in the cosmos while they enslave and abuse people. They're getting cosmically and earthly, narded.

They get to learn they are abut a humble co-inhabitant with everyone else and to play fair, and share, or spend their days on the wall like spook in the wizard of id, in prison.
edit on 12-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

edit on 12-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



But, I prefer a small city myself, and don't like living in small communities without services, my arthritis hurts when I drive. Much of the time, going 60 km in 90 km zone, up the hill, due to pain of pushing down on the gas peddle.

I like small cities, with alot of farmland and orchards, vineyards, greenhouses, surrounding.

The ideal situation would be varied. ie. townhouses, not bare bones, with stairs, no lifts for elderly, no second bathroom downstairs, and some awful builder who snuck in and stole the insulation out after the inspection as is done in the Okanagan by a certain company. ....

....Eco farms, with 20 acre farms, 100 acre farms in some cases, and many homes, with ample yards around them, say 1/3-1/2 acre each, greenhouse in back, cottage for elderly or child.

Townhouses, 3-4 bedroom, 1 1/2 times the current, joined with greenhouses, huge back yards and front, privacy. Good soundproofing and lifts for elderly.

Things should be designed for people, for families, for both FORM AND FUNCTION.

And family farms with wonderful eco homes, producing their own clean energy in abundance, and aquaponics.


I completely agree. This will be possible if cities could exist. 75% of people live in cities, and there's 97% of virgin land for those who wants to live in townhouses or farms. But it won't be possible if every single person lives each in a 20 acres farm.
But thanks for the numbers and what elderlies would want as a house. It's very helpful!



Ideally if I had my home in the city for my rather large family, it would be 3000 square feet including everything, no basement, lift to upstairs, and stairs, produce its own energy, have a back lane entrance and 1000 foot cottage for my mother, have 1/3 acre lots for lilacs, and forsythia and trumpet vine, and clematis, and grapes and a beautiful large greenhouse off to side with aquaponics.

One day i would be in the cottage and one my sons family in the house.


If I may, how many are you in your family? I know it sounds personal, but it's to understand what large family like yours would need.

P.S.: I highly suggest a 1 acre backyard. Seriously. I lived in a 1/2 acre backyard for 10 years, and then I moved in a 1 acre backyard. Big difference. I wouldn't trade it for anything smaller or bigger.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



But I don't even think they should be legally allowed to build skyscrapers, nor should anyone visit or work in them. they're dangerous, and not natural.


Skyscrapers were once dangerous, but now, especially ever since 9/11, the new generations are safer than houses themselves. So much than Giorgio Armani itself moved from their previous building to Burj Khalifa. If such a big corporation like Armani move in there, that's because it's more than safe.
Beside, the new designs always takes into accounts everything now, and adds external supports, and any safeguards they can think of. I would live anytime in the new generation of skyscraper than on Haiti.


Not only that, but all the housework, yardwork, growing food, not all really, but alot of it, can already be automated. There is no reason for the slavery and drudgery of this planet. NONE! We're way past the stage of jungle survival. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can take ET home! I am not joking when i say want my own r2d2.

Recycled tires and could be hempstone finish for me. While the water is all rain, and the electricity all solar/wind, I'd up that a bit, and rain is fukushima now! Recycle water, then its not scarsity either.

All the mining down, so much can be done by recycling, by plant resins, and even home grown quartz and crystals.

Aquaponics, they produced over 1 million pounds of produce and 10000 fish per year on 3 acres.


All of that requires technology. Technology that is becoming more and more demonized by the media and movies. Some people are scared that robots might turn psychopath.
Water can also be obtained by de-saltinizating sea-water.
But it's all technologies, and just like any kind of cities, it is more and more rejected.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 



High rise living yes.

Loads of said high rises crammed into concentrated spaces living far out of sync with nature, aka the cities of today; hell no.

Its always made me wonder why the small town model does not include high rise. i.e. why can't future living be small high rise town with say 10,000 people living in a square mile with at least 30 miles of farmland in every direction around it.


That is exactly what can happen. Per countries, you have from 400 to 300 towers. How many buildings does New York have?
400 to 300 towers would mean that in the entire United States, you would have 400-300 towers in totality. 8 Towers per state. That means, 1 city of 8 towers in every state, with the rest being forest, farms, parks, everything.
That could finally be our future. Not cities packed with thousands of buildings, and then farms after farms after farms spreading, indispensable forests getting chopped down to make place for more farms, but 1 city with maximun 10 towers, surrounded by nature in every way that people want it.


There's your mistake right there; you are assuming that you would only put in 4 people per 20 acres.

In reality one acre can feed 4 - 8 people. So, in fact 20 acres could support up to 160 people. Yep, you could build one small apartment block on 20 acres and it would feed them all.


Even with 8 peoples on a 20 acres farm makes that we'll need 5 Earth, stripped of forests, to shelter everyone.


With today's technology only one person would be needed to farm 20 acres. Heck, my dad had a 200 acre dairy farm that he ran by himself 90% of the time.


And that is even less preferable. Imagine 7 billions of individual 20 acres farms! Forget that we'll need 10 Earth for each family of 4 living in said farm, now we'll need 40 Earths. Less people live together, more spaces all those individuals take.


Putting notions of revolutionary farming methods mentioned in this thread aside, you do still realise that cities or not, most of the land surface of the planet that is not city is farm right now don't you? Farmland is steadily growing and if our population continues to grow, we will use every little bit of land we can.


That is EXACTLY why we need revolutionary farming methods. Vertical farming will solve all problems. Not only will it save Earth, but we will have no choice to use those revolutionary farming methods if we want to put some in orbits, or on water, or even on other planets.
Horizontal farming will soon become devastating. But all those land surface problems could be fixed with the towers-farms that ATS member swanne showed us, just like overpopulation. Growing upward is the only way we'll survive, not sideways. This is why 4/5 of the plants grow upwards, not sideways: they take less much space that way, and more plants can grow.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by starheart
 


Wow, seems like you really took the time to run the figures and present it in a complete thread. I can tell you've put alot of work here. ATS need more threads like this.

S&F from me.

Now imagine if we colonize other planets instead of wasting resources and warring against each others. Goodbye overpopulation - estimates show that the Solar System can support trillions.



edit on 8-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)


More think the figure was 10 quadtrillion to fill our solar system.
IE we wont be able to do it!



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   

ketsuko
Well, hello Agenda 21. The more we allow them to pack us into concentrated urban areas like so many rats in a cage, the more control over us they have.

Sorry, family has some land, and we will hold it to our last breath. Land is liberty. Cities foster tyranny.

So what your solution?

Kill 6.5 billion people so we can all live in farm?



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I will also add to all those saying city's are bad, its not city's that are bad its city's planning.


Yes packing millions in to concrete low income slums will always end up in disaster.

Thats not what the OP is suggesting. He is suggesting well planed high quality buildings.

There is a HUGE difference between this :


And this:





Plus as the OP has stated not everyone is suited for Urban living, and someone has to still tend the farms.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
If I have to move back to a city I will start burning buildings and murdering people.

Leaving the city is the only thing that's kept me happy, sane and calm.

No good comes from living above, below and surrounded by other people.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

thisguyrighthere
If I have to move back to a city I will start burning buildings and murdering people.

Leaving the city is the only thing that's kept me happy, sane and calm.

No good comes from living above, below and surrounded by other people.


Thats YOU though.

I hate the country side.

Much prefer Urban living. In good quality housing mind you.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Then it's great we have that choice, isnt it?

These megacity schemes such as Agenda 21 are designed to take that choice away and force more and more people into urban living through regulations, restrictions, taxes and services.

In rural areas across the country laws are popping up out of nowhere to dictate what you can grow, what you can raise, where you water can come from, how much electricity you have to consume and taxes on property keep increasing to fund nothing.

Utilities are ceasing service little by little too. Even the USPS refuses to deliver mail during certain times of the year in places. Months go by without any delivery.

Now, I'm not opposed to utilities and services being cut off myself. Others are though. What I am opposed to is the taxes and regulations that appear to accomplish nothing beyond discouraging living in a rural area. Some of my older neighbors have seen their property taxes increase 300% over the past twenty years and these are retired people on fixed incomes. They dont get anything for it. The roads are still dirt, school enrollment is down (though paychecks for faculty and administrators is record high) and the FD and PD are an hour away.

So the only thing I see being accomplished is some great push to empty the rural areas and corral everyone into a city where living is dirty, crime-ridden and cheap.

I guess that's a good angle to work when it's time to vote on regs and taxes, that you may be encouraging policies that force people like me to live next to people like you. That's not something you want.
edit on 13-3-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You guys keep on mentioning Agenda 21 so to justify sociopathy. Well I'd like to mention Executive Order 10998:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

In the event of SHTF, martial law states that all farms (including yours) become government property, and the people who live on it become labour force. Why do you think there's so much publicity to encourage people to move into farms?

They are using conspiracy theories about Agenda 21 so to push more people into farmlands, and train them into being a labour force, in the event that EO 10998 goes into effect.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yup it is.

But we are going to have to face a very hard truth.

At some point we are going to have to stop clearing land for farms and building into land reserved for wildlife. We cant keep building out. Its unsustainable.

Now that's ok for you if you already own land.

But that does mean the price for land will go up in proportion of the population. A lot of people will end up priced out of farm land.

Thats a hard fact that cant be avoided.

You have too many people and limited country land space not everyone is going to be able to live in there own farm house.

Me and you we have a choice, but our children or grand children may very well not.

Its all about space and having too many people and too little space.


thisguyrighthere
into a city where living is dirty, crime-ridden and cheap.


Well thats the thing. Where me and OP are comeing in. Its about making city living NOT dirty and crime-ridden. And theres no reason for it not to be with good city planning.
edit on 13-3-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
my 2 cents - I think people in the crete (born in the city or concrete) have more of a stress related life style.
Always having to work for the very basics of what makes us human.

I would prefer 40 acres and mule - a little bartering on the side.

BTW - bring back the family farm - Willie Nelson started FarmAid
back in the 70's for this very reason - banks were ordered to foreclose - after all - Kaint have a sheeple w/ independent farmers - even one farmer is too many - right globalists.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

jibajaba
my 2 cents - I think people in the crete (born in the city or concrete) have more of a stress related life style.
Always having to work for the very basics of what makes us human.


And you think farming is all fairy tales? You have to work even more in a farm than in a city. If you think living in a city is stressful, then you really don't know what a farm is really about. I know stereotypes show that farming is all easy on the TV, but in reality there is so many things than can (and do) go wrong.

www.farmerhealth.org.au...

umaine.edu...


Farm life can be stressful and at times a bit depressing. There are the everyday issues of family life, balancing budgets, planning for the future and keeping up with developments in your area of farming. The added pressures of managing a farm during difficult times like floods, market fluctuations or droughts can sometimes seem overwhelming.



Farming can be stressful in the best of times. Financial worries, unpredictable weather, plant pests, livestock diseases, and isolation all contribute to farmers’ anxiety. University of Maine Cooperative Extension recommends the following resources to help farmers and their families who are under stress.


Welcome to the real world.



edit on 13-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 



Haven't you seen the proliferation of videos and stories of people who are lying there on the street dying and everyone just walks right by them without stopping to help?

So, do you want to rethink your statement about how help is only a doorway away? If learning to live with other people means simply learning how to ignore them when they need you, then what does it matter if we're so far away from our neighbors or right next door to them? Clearly, it doesn't seem to matter much either way.


It doesn't really help when Satanism and Might makes Right philosophy gains popularity. These beliefs claims that unless someone is your friend, you don't help him (basically; there's alot more rules to it).
These people will exist, in cities or in farms. The difference? In a city, you'll have a thousand times more chance to find someone that will help you, than in a farm.
Travel 96.2 Km2 to your farming neighbour: if he doesn't help you, it's another 96.2 Km2 before you might find someone.
Travel that same 96.2 Km2 in a city, and trust me, you'll have loads of people who are willing to help, even if the guy next door to you didn't.
Selfisness is a human condition unrelated to where he live; you're going to find one even in the farthest village.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 



We tried that in the 1970's. Glasgow in Scotland demolished all the ghetto tenement blocks (outdoor toilets), and replaced them with around 1000 high-rise apartment blocks surrounded by farmland and gardens. It only took a few bored teenagers with mental health problems to completely devastate the area. They did things like elevator surfing (which broke them), jumping down the waste disposal chutes, burning rubbish in the surrounding gardens, playing loud music, holding extremely noisy parties, mugging other tenants in the hallways and breaking into an apartment when the owner was out working. Animals in the neighboring fields were teased and poisoned. They'd do everything from trying to see how many people could ride a horse at the same time to arranging dog fights.

Sometimes the builders themselves didn't construct the properties correctly. Tenants suffered problem with humidity, damp and mold because there was either continental windows (open air slats), or double-glazing and no ventilation. Neighbors also objected to the construction of high-rise apartment blocks because they lost the sunlight to their gardens as well as their privacy and security. Having a high-rise block also gave tenants a birds-eye view of which low-rise properties were vacant, so that encouraged squatters and burglaries.

In the end these properties had to be demolished and replaced with low-rise building. Some people are just not civilized enough to live in high-density units.


I do not pretend to be an expert in this domain, but that looks to me like a badly runned city, like something that was made in a hurry to calm people. Frankly, if any of us would have been mayor of that sector, those teenagers would've been treated or taken away until they calm down, and the builders would have been fired and replaced with better ones.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


On the surface it looks like a nice idea.

I still think that the Amish have the best model, they depend as little as possible on technology. This habit can be seen as a weakness at first glance, however in reality it is their greatest asset. They move at the paste nature does. They understand that nature already is the best technology. They don't need a Large Hadron Collider to know who they are, they believe in God.

So far, what problems have they caused to the earth?

Do they fight for land?

Do they suffer from plagues?

Are they starving?

Do they need an army? Huge mega hospitals? A pharmaceutical industry? Waste management? Huge political campaigns costing the price of many hospital or wars that could put every citizen on the planet on a retirement plan?

Do they make items which pollute the planet?

If a CME hits earth and the power grids are down who will suffer the most ? Urban citizens or them?

The list goes on and on.

They have been living this way for centuries, untouched, quiet and at peace. They work hard and life isn't easy, but is it ever?

Our intelligence is a nice gift, but sadly we are trying to trick and play with a technology (nature) that is already perfect , this tech (nature) doesn't depend on humans, but we do. Perhaps, the idea in your post is different, I will not toss it in the bin yet, but I find it funny that we have a model already tried tested and true, arrogantly we are looking away.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 



They have been living this way for centuries, untouched, quiet and at peace. They work hard and life isn't easy, but is it ever?

Our intelligence is a nice gift, but sadly we are trying to trick and play with a technology (nature) that is already perfect , this tech (nature) doesn't depend on humans, but we do. Perhaps, the idea in your post is different, I will not toss it in the bin yet, but I find it funny that we have a model already tried tested and true, arrogantly we are looking away.


Living the Amish way will end up with the same end results than everyone living in a farm: we will still take 10 Earths to shelter everyone.

It is not by arrogance that we look away from farming and Amish lifestyles, but because, exactly as you said, we depend on nature. If we destroy nature because of all 7 billions people stretching horizontally on Earth's surface, we will annihilate both us and Earth. Farming and Amish ways were once great when the global population was 500 millions. Now... it will destroy Earth if we follow that path.

And even Amish have started to evolve to incorporate some technology in their life. Yes, to answer your question, they suffered from rare diseases that got transmitted family after family. Since they were a closed community, it was fairly easy to cross-breed and catch a disease that would otherwise be rare. Also, their lack of waste management lead to contaminations, contaminations they could have avoided with proper management.
Anyway, after a while, they had no choice but to allow some medication in their community to get rid of the diseases. And now, some Amish families even consider future high technologies, such as gene and cell modification, so that their members can overcome paralysis and other grave problems.

Technology is scary to many, but it is our only way forward. Nature can heal us to some extent, but it can't cure us from paralysis; technology can. Before DARPA, paraplegic couldn't write or walk; after DARPA's release of mind-computer technology, paraplegic can write with their mind on a computer, and can walk through mind-controlled robotic exoskeleton.

Before technology, blind people couldn't read or see; with new technology of nerve implants, they can.







To quote Gabryel in "The Prophecy 3":

Get used to it.
edit on 23-3-2014 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

bitsforbytes
reply to post by starheart
 


On the surface it looks like a nice idea.

I still think that the Amish have the best model, they depend as little as possible on technology. This habit can be seen as a weakness at first glance, however in reality it is their greatest asset. They move at the paste nature does. They understand that nature already is the best technology. They don't need a Large Hadron Collider to know who they are, they believe in God.

So far, what problems have they caused to the earth?

Do they fight for land?

Do they suffer from plagues?

Are they starving?

Do they need an army? Huge mega hospitals? A pharmaceutical industry? Waste management? Huge political campaigns costing the price of many hospital or wars that could put every citizen on the planet on a retirement plan?

Do they make items which pollute the planet?

If a CME hits earth and the power grids are down who will suffer the most ? Urban citizens or them?

The list goes on and on.

They have been living this way for centuries, untouched, quiet and at peace. They work hard and life isn't easy, but is it ever?

Our intelligence is a nice gift, but sadly we are trying to trick and play with a technology (nature) that is already perfect , this tech (nature) doesn't depend on humans, but we do. Perhaps, the idea in your post is different, I will not toss it in the bin yet, but I find it funny that we have a model already tried tested and true, arrogantly we are looking away.


If you love the Amish so much why dont you get off ATS and smash you PC and all your tec up and go join them?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join