3 ms·
Your comment made me go into a weird though experiment: What if non-urban areas could somehow "rebel" and escape from the power control of the government contro
by glaberficken 11y ago
Your comment made me go into a weird though experiment:
What if non-urban areas could somehow "rebel" and escape from the power control of the government controlling the cities?
Thus creating some sort of "Urban city state islands" rich in human/tech resources surrounded by "Urban land states" rich in natural resources.
Obviously in such utopia these 2 entities could enter into much more balanced relationships of power and dependency from one another than what we have today.
I dare speculate that the reason that this currently cannot happen is that everything about natural resources is financialized and thus beholden to the power of the urban capital. The non-urban exploited by the urban is what we have... (also an imbalance in population from one to the other...) and many other reasons other will surely point out better than me!
- pjc50 11y agoIt has been argued that this is what happened to Detroit: the "city" is financially separate enough from the surrounding state that it collapsed when its population moved into the suburbs. Of course that process of suburbanisation changes the boundary between "urban" and "rural". 'Natural resources' at least in the UK are not so much 'financialised' as in the control of hereditary landowners. The problems experienced today are not so much the urban exploiting the rural, as the rural landowners exploiting rural tenants. To complicate matters, sometimes the landowners are neither urban nor rural but offshore.