First web publication November 14, 1998.
is another nice number.
These individuals are botherin' themselves with a dichotomy which ain't really real, altho I guess their hearts is OK.
The word "removed" used with "natural environment" implies that the non-urban dweller is not "where it's at", where what's important is happening. This is quite a common attitude among modern urbanites all over the globe, who forget that their basic foodstuffs are developed in rural farmlands. When one asks "removed from what?", one perceives that the main difference between city and country life is in the number of other people and other peoples' machines with whom one associates daily. Most humans do not wish to discard completely cultural items such as built shelters, made tools and clothes, works of art, study, or entertainment, or all other humans; this would be regarded as "unnatural". Your "natural environment" seems to mean an uncompetitive association with a greater number, both categorically and individually, of non-human lifeforms, in a setting shaped by mainly non-human forces.
I doubt that most individuals feel a definite obligation to confront urban problems. Some of those who do may be motivated by guilt, if their poor planning of essential life-support structures or systems has created these problems. Negligent or absentee landlords and dope dealers leave problem-solving to others. Economic speculators and political manipulators of taxing areas can also leave the city in trouble, and are not likely to look back as they run with the dollars they took. There is no way to fully compensate for human and environmental tragedies caused by reckless management of manufacturing processes, although monetary reparations have been attempted in some cases.
Your proposed dilemna implies that confronting urban problems necessitates living in the city. Certainly the poor and powerless are often forced to confront these problems without means to solve them or escape. However, a home and/or studio in the country is often the resort of responsible creators such as architects, engineers, and performing artists, lest their talents be hindered by the psychic bombardment of city hubbub.
News broadcast and print media and the techno-wonders of personal communication and information transfer make timely knowledge of ecological/ social problems possible for residents of environments of all degrees of urbanity, or lack of it. Unfortunately, lack of foresight in initial techno planning can result in ecological disasters whose irreversible effects can excede even the boundaries of the global communications network. Thus even the modern Thoreau cannot escape acid rain, thermal cycle disruptions, nuclear fallout.
Cities did not originate as living enclaves for the masses. Industrialism synchronized the total concentration of human energies which has polluted almost as much as it has produced. With Third Wave Technology the form of the city will probably change, and perhaps revert to its original size.
The present day Individual need not agonize over where to live, but why and how to live; that is, to have at least a basic understanding of and personal responsibility to the ecosystem, to propagate these among others, and wherever possible to act politically to prevent further catastrophes.
My Response Essay İMike Jesko 1998 Summa you plagiarizers who have used this essay for a school submission may be interested to know that I think I lifted a sentence or two in the second-to-last paragraph from Murray Bookchin's The Limits of the City way back in the mid-80s when I applied to that college.
First web publication November 14, 1998.
is another nice number.
Back to Mike Jesko's Home Page
E-mail me at mikejesko@yahoo.com.