Post: #1

For example, imagine if cities were built in such a way that you couldn't have an urban area bigger than (let's say) 4 square miles. If you want to keep building you have to leave at least 1 mile of countryside around a built up area.

So a city can grow very large, but it would have so many gaps that it would really be a collection of small towns, very close together. The only things you could have in the in between areas would be factories, an airport, theme park, golf courses, roads, etc.

The effect of this would be, I think, that people would feel more attached to their local area than they would if it was a larger city. And I think that would play a part in reducing degeneracy because there would be less anonymity. Even if you move to another area, you'll then become part of a community, or more likely to. There would probably be less crime too.

That's just one example. I wonder if anyone has any other ideas.

Post: #2

No, that'd just spread the degeneracy further. Like LA vs NYC.

Post: #3

I live in an area like that(Auckland suburbs) and it's a total nightmare to get around.

Post: #4

Culture is the only factor. In the US back in the day, you had ethnic slums with strong family cultures that revolved around the local church. Now you have prosperous suburbs with comprehensive welfare and social support programs for the disadvantaged, and the communities are full of degenerate sluts, single mothers, and opiate addicts.

Post: #5

I've been to a few drug infested country communities with various gangs, so no I don't think this would work. Every year it seems they have a mass arrest of 30-40 people involved in a drug scheme spanning multiple small towns, dealing meth, pills, whatever.

In fact, I think in many cities people are caring more about their community, which is part of why gentrification is happening. People have said enough is enough, get this shit out of our cities and take it to bumblefuck wherever

Post: #6

I'll go against the grain and say yes. In fact, this is how cities used to be, a collection of small towns based on ethnicity/religion.

E. Michael Jones covers this in The Slaughter of Cities. He focuses on how many East Coast American cities used to be made up of ethnic enclaves, such as Catholic German, Irish, Italian, etc, Jewish, and so forth. Since they were smaller communities they self-monitored closely, just like a small town would:

Post: #7

You know the only good thing about global nuclear war?is that the cities will be eradicated... ya im not a fan. Heartiste had a good article about deurbanfication, since these babylons tend to be the propagators of most of the depravity in the modern world.

Post: #8

There are significant drawbacks to the model though it does encourage stricter regulation. Though I am sceptical that such a model would ever be sustainable beyond (2,-3 generations) without making significant incursions into liberty and movement.

I grew up in a traditionally racially segregated area further effectively divided alone ethnic lines and which had been previously subject to stringent migratory laws which effectively disbarred new immigrants for approximately half a century (a suburb in a large South African metro). In the space of a decade, my community has been destroyed largely by individual participants moving to more convenient areas (enabled by legislative repeal), and an influx of migrants from other parts of the country and overseas and the acceptance of intra-racial 'miscegenation' (inter-ethnic i.e. marriage between different ethnicities within the same race eg. a Brit to a Spaniard) (a nail in the coffin of kinship and communal ties).

You may extrapolate to conclusion.

Cities tend toward degeneracy. Anonymity is a natural consequence of size and amlgamation acts as a strong camouflage.

i should note I have no issue with miscegenation - though I have no inclination towards it myself.

Post: #9

Yes, there would be.

But the beauty of it is that if you want degeneracy then you can go to a big city whereas if you want less anonymity and more community and people holding each other accountable for their actions, you can live in a small town.

Nobody is forcing you to live in a big city and instead of wishing that big cities were like small towns, you can just move to a small town.

The appeal of the freedom and anonymity in a big city goes beyond just being able to sleep with whoever you like without judgement though. For example, in professional lives and business, I doubt most people would get ahead if they had to put up with the judgement and opinions in a small town.

I certainly had to move away from my small town and it's accompanying small town mentality to make something of myself. If I were to go back there now, I'd be accepted and celebrated but if I were to try and establish myself there under the eyes of everyone else then it would be very draining and an uphill battle.

Post: #10

(04-15-2018 05:53 PM)Repo Wrote:  I've been to a few drug infested country communities with various gangs, so no I don't think this would work. Every year it seems they have a mass arrest of 30-40 people involved in a drug scheme spanning multiple small towns, dealing meth, pills, whatever.

Very much what he said.

Many of the country towns of the American northeast are absolute hives of human garbage to rival the New York City of the 1970s. Desperately poor and bitter people with every excuse in the book, completely oblivious to that not being normal American life. It's true that there's less anonymity, but the standards are so low that making the news for getting arrested is normal, and even a point of pride. You'll find far more civic pride and engagement in Manhattan than you will in a lot of upstate.

Some are very quaint, but that mostly depends on the level of economic opportunity they enjoy from their ties to the cities on the coast. What the prevailing culture does is a separate question. There's nothing about small town life that inherently prevents a social breakdown.

The other half of this is the Ricardian problem, which is that communities which fail to embrace efficiency, whatever the social benefits of inefficiency might be, are eventually out-competed and subsumed by those that went forward anyway. Even Jefferson, early champion of the small town farmer, eventually came around to this realization in his own time.

The closest we probably get to the model Vladimir Poontang is pondering is in the vast sprawl you see in some of the west coast cities like Phoenix (which has semi-autonomous "urban villages" and has knitted into the small towns around it), San Diego, and Vegas, which has a lot going for it but also has some major economic costs and ends up cultivating ultra-anonymous suburbs where people don't even see their next-door neighbors.

If you're interested in this topic, Frank Lloyd Wright also had some deep thoughts about city planning along these lines:

https://www.curbed.com/2017/1/4/14154644...ty-history

Post: #11

The best cities in the world are the ones which have the most history, the oldest buildings, huge parks nestled among the buildings and a river is a massive bonus.

Planned cities never work - they are always soulless, sterile and boring.

And frankly, having lived in cities without degeneracy (like Saigon) compared with cities with plenty of it (like Bangkok) I can tell you, the degenerate ones are waaaaaay fucking more interesting to live in.

In fact, it's my opinion that EVERY city should have a skanky, druggy, sex-filled, debauched area. Cities without them lack soul. They did away with Kings Cross in London, it was a total shithole but it was good it existed, it made London feel real.

Dirty areas of cities are like dirty people on the streets - they remind you how far you could fall and they offer refuge when you feel like falling off for a bit.

Maybe I feel this way because I grew up in a debauched world and it feels "normal" to me.

Maybe... but I like a bit of skuzz, a bit of skank.

Keeps it real.

Post: #12

(04-15-2018 04:47 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  Culture is the only factor. In the US back in the day, you had ethnic slums with strong family cultures that revolved around the local church. Now you have prosperous suburbs with comprehensive welfare and social support programs for the disadvantaged, and the communities are full of degenerate sluts, single mothers, and opiate addicts.

Different incentives breeds different kinds of human. Different fauna inhabit different habitat. Partly why when McDonalds played classical music it reduces crime:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/m...90176.html


There will probably be more examples when people do more extensive studies.

Post: #13

(04-17-2018 08:40 AM)Sandstorm Wrote:  The best cities in the world are the ones which have the most history, the oldest buildings, huge parks nestled among the buildings and a river is a massive bonus.

Planned cities never work - they are always soulless, sterile and boring.

And frankly, having lived in cities without degeneracy (like Saigon) compared with cities with plenty of it (like Bangkok) I can tell you, the degenerate ones are waaaaaay fucking more interesting to live in.

In fact, it's my opinion that EVERY city should have a skanky, druggy, sex-filled, debauched area. Cities without them lack soul. They did away with Kings Cross in London, it was a total shithole but it was good it existed, it made London feel real.

Dirty areas of cities are like dirty people on the streets - they remind you how far you could fall and they offer refuge when you feel like falling off for a bit.

Maybe I feel this way because I grew up in a debauched world and it feels "normal" to me.

Maybe... but I like a bit of skuzz, a bit of skank.

Keeps it real.

Its only because modern planned cities have disgusting modernist architecture. And none of the beautiful architecture that is typical of neoclassical architecture.

Example of the livability of pre-modernist cities:

Post: #14

(04-17-2018 07:51 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 05:53 PM)Repo Wrote:  I've been to a few drug infested country communities with various gangs, so no I don't think this would work. Every year it seems they have a mass arrest of 30-40 people involved in a drug scheme spanning multiple small towns, dealing meth, pills, whatever.

Very much what he said.

Many of the country towns of the American northeast are absolute hives of human garbage to rival the New York City of the 1970s. Desperately poor and bitter people with every excuse in the book, completely oblivious to that not being normal American life. It's true that there's less anonymity, but the standards are so low that making the news for getting arrested is normal, and even a point of pride. You'll find far more civic pride and engagement in Manhattan than you will in a lot of upstate.

It's actually funny, sometimes people from the bigger cities think they can come to the country and try to run shit, but at the end of the day people are people and these country boys don't play around, just like in the big cities. Go ahead and think that somehow their more tame of whatever just because they don't live in the city, see how that goes. Many places a body can get left in the woods.

Post: #15

Here are some other ideas that I've thought about.

1 - Segregating men and women in some way, to some extent. I don't know how this could be done realistically and without being impractical, but keeping men and women apart to some extent I think is a good thing. Again, just an idea (obviously).

2 - Having very conservative rules, except for a degenerate zone, in which almost anything is permitted, but you have to pay through the nose. i.e. tattoo shops would only be allowed in the degenerate zone, and the licensing would be very expensive. And there would be little to no upkeep (street sweeping, rubbish collection, etc). This would create a contrast between that area and the rest of the city, so that way people would clearly know what side of the line they're on.

3 - Public flogging.


By the way I don't think planning a city is a problem. It's how you do it. Everything is planned in some way to some extent.

Post: #16

(04-17-2018 09:41 AM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Here are some other ideas that I've thought about.

1 - Segregating men and women in some way, to some extent. I don't know how this could be done realistically and without being impractical, but keeping men and women apart to some extent I think is a good thing. Again, just an idea (obviously).

2 - Having very conservative rules, except for a degenerate zone, in which almost anything is permitted, but you have to pay through the nose. i.e. tattoo shops would only be allowed in the degenerate zone, and the licensing would be very expensive. And there would be little to no upkeep (street sweeping, rubbish collection, etc). This would create a contrast between that area and the rest of the city, so that way people would clearly know what side of the line they're on.

3 - Public flogging.


By the way I don't think planning a city is a problem. It's how you do it. Everything is planned in some way to some extent.

Post: #17

Vladimir calling for some leviticus-style public flogging of whores.

1. Segregation was common in the past in that women were not a core component of the workforce and system (tending to more domestic tasks and marrying young). It worked decently well as a constructive societal vehical, however, that also means less free assorted pussy for posters here.

2. Love the idea of well defined disparate degenerate zone and idea 3 of harsher punishments.

But alas we live in the age of unrestrained liberty whete vice and degeneracy are not to be divorce from ordinary society but to be celebrated as healthy exercises of person choice

Post: #18

(04-17-2018 10:09 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 09:41 AM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Here are some other ideas that I've thought about.

1 - Segregating men and women in some way, to some extent. I don't know how this could be done realistically and without being impractical, but keeping men and women apart to some extent I think is a good thing. Again, just an idea (obviously).

2 - Having very conservative rules, except for a degenerate zone, in which almost anything is permitted, but you have to pay through the nose. i.e. tattoo shops would only be allowed in the degenerate zone, and the licensing would be very expensive. And there would be little to no upkeep (street sweeping, rubbish collection, etc). This would create a contrast between that area and the rest of the city, so that way people would clearly know what side of the line they're on.

3 - Public flogging.


By the way I don't think planning a city is a problem. It's how you do it. Everything is planned in some way to some extent.

I send you my best photo and you make a meme out of me? Yeah, right, thanks man. That's you off my christmas list.

Post: #19

(04-17-2018 09:12 AM)Repo Wrote:  It's actually funny, sometimes people from the bigger cities think they can come to the country and try to run shit, but at the end of the day people are people and these country boys don't play around, just like in the big cities. Go ahead and think that somehow their more tame of whatever just because they don't live in the city, see how that goes. Many places a body can get left in the woods.

There's that, and there's also that romantic idealism that things are simpler and easier - which can be true in the right small town - but even people in the ruined wasteland towns with hopelessly broken schools and all the girls knocked up by their pot dealer at 15 still embrace as part of their self-image.

Somebody here once wrote a very insightful post about being "goal-centered" vs. "drama-centered", and the problem towns tend to turn into fishbowls with everyone swimming around in circles because there are no goals to be had other than escaping. You get very frustrated people who are all trapped in each other's petty dramas with little other experience, very confident that this is just how life is and that they're surely less miserable than everybody else.

Point is, like you said, people are people. There's cult-like degenerate social conditioning in the bad parts of the country, just like in the bad parts of cities, and it feeds the kids right through a wood chipper in the same way. Google "Oniontown" for an interesting side trip into a small town that has achieved mythological proportions in parts of NY.

Post: #20

(04-15-2018 09:00 PM)Super_Fire Wrote:  I'll go against the grain and say yes. In fact, this is how cities used to be, a collection of small towns based on ethnicity/religion.
E. Michael Jones covers this in The Slaughter of Cities. He focuses on how many East Coast American cities used to be made up of ethnic enclaves, such as Catholic German, Irish, Italian, etc, Jewish, and so forth. Since they were smaller communities they self-monitored closely, just like a small town would:

On average I'd say that's still what diversity looks like still in America. There is a sort of unconscious balkanization, NOT a melting-pot. I saw this in my years living in Los Angeles. It's especially acute whenever you have first-gen immigrants who don't know English. They huddle together and it enables them to not have to assimilate. Despite the predominance of latinos, it breaks down further into El Salvadoran vs. Mexican enclaves, etc...

Post: #21

(04-17-2018 07:51 AM)Jetset Wrote:  Many of the country towns of the American northeast are absolute hives of human garbage to rival the New York City of the 1970s.

It's really industrialized farming that has destroyed rural america. It used to be that being a farmer was considered a dignified profession because you were the bedrock that kept society going. But these huge automated factory farms that require very few employees have left everyone else in the area with nothing to do.

The rural areas of the Northeast are even worse off because farming shifted to the breadbasket and then the textile and heavy manufacturing industries have been destroyed by globalization.

US jobs that pay well are therefore mostly of the cubicle variety, and much of THAT has in turn been eroded by foreign outsourcing. What's left is one flavor of IT work or another, if not coding, at least banging away at a keyboard or manning a phone, and for the most part, that still requires people drag themselves into the office rather than telecommute.

All of this is part and parcel of Trump's rise and the MAGA meme but I'm not sure there's any turning back at this point.

So I don't know what's worse, living in a trailer park with no goals in life or living in the city with this:

Post: #22

(04-17-2018 12:55 PM)questor70 Wrote:  All of this is part and parcel of Trump's rise and the MAGA meme but I'm not sure there's any turning back at this point.

You're absolutely right about what happened to smallholder farmers, but also about the problems of avoiding it. The Ricardian example I mentioned above was from his writing on industrial machinery. While Ricardo conceded the possibility that 19th century mechanization would decimate the British working class, the alternative was that Britain would ultimately be subjugated by more productive foreign industrial powers, and then it would be done anyway. Strong economic determinism at work.

With that said, I think what's key to the OP's point is that forcing people to live in a small town environment, without anonymity, only makes them into better people if that's what the prevailing local culture is pressuring them to do. That's a huge assumption that can't be taken for granted. It can just as easily mean being encouraged to destroy yourself, without the moderating effect of having other moral examples to follow, in which case you'd actually be better off anonymous and free of strong bonds to that community.

Like they say, you are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.

Post: #23

Surely - city life is a source of much degeneracy.

If cities are left on their own they become shitholes with people becoming insane.

But you must take care with planning big city life too - it's easy to become totalitarian.

Solution can only be achieved with large amounts of people sharing the same values organizing their city life according to well thought out principles out of free will. That means no multiculturalism. And no moral relativism. Basically it means unifying faith. Without it nothing much can be achieved.

Post: #24

A reminder of what the interiors of city buildings used to look like

Post: #25

Reduced space for cities ? Ain't that what we call an island ? Is there less degeneracy on small islands ?
No, exactly the same level but more discret, therefor this point seem to be invalid.