The high-technology metropolis reduces life to a series of mere conveniences...

The high-technology metropolis reduces life to a series of mere conveniences, which is most exemplified in its huge and visually hideous shopping malls. It could very well be that the religious Right have a stranglehold on the country, just as Right-Liberalism has on high-technology metropolis through the ever-increasing demand for schizophrenia-inducing media. My concern is with the quality of life under a system in which the media stultifies one intellectually, morally and in other respects, aesthetically; Where technology is collected simply as a means of convenience, which is what separates metropolitan life from a genuine passion for the country; The lack of necessity to surround oneself with higher aesthetic qualities- raw nature and pre-modern peasant-like architecture. There are many people who purposefully live in rural areas out of a passion for a low-technology, non-metropolitan way of life. As is sometimes said, life in rural areas is less convenient, so why would someone go out of their way to move to the country if not to escape the high-technology mechanical-industrial metropolitan dystopia? There is of course the factor of its visual beauty- this is not the visual beauty of neo-Classical architecture, but in some cases old towns made largely of wood, stone [in outward appearance] and other previously non-synthetic materials or mimicries thereof or more importantly raw and naked nature- meadows, trees, lakes and the sort. High-technology media is produced by the modern city because it is there that the pieces that amalgamate to produce media occur- the money from the urban bourgeoisie, the demand for reiterated but slightly altered technologies and the demand for a watered-down safe space in which greed, immorality and intellectual stultification are tolerated and indeed glorified.

Which authors hold a similar view?

Other urls found in this thread:

geof.net/research/2005/castells-network-society
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>industrial metropolitan dystopia
Is it possible for a city to not be dystopic? Could one be made well, good urban planning, and architecture, nature spaces? Could a person like such a city and country life and aim to experience plenty of both throughout life? Cities have existed for 1000s of years and I am sure someone wrote this same conceptual idea thousands of years ago, living on a farm, about the pompous Summerians and their tablets and tools.

How many cities exist in the world?

How many have you lived in, for how long?

DURRRR [advanced element of society] IS BAD BECAUSE [self-centered neuroses] AND [author's sexual hangups], SURELY ONLY [dominant identity group] CAN SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE [telling admittance of author's inability to function in society] AND [misplaced advocacy for protected group which undermines group's self-responsibility, framing them as mere animals] AND THEREFOR [utopian political ideal that relieves author from burden of action] SO THAT [nonsensical virtue signaling]
>distant howls of IMBEAGH DOMALB BLUMPFF NAO


Decontextualization: A Discourse

>Is it possible for a city to not be dystopic?
Pre-modern metropolis was not.

>Could one be made well, good urban planning, and architecture, nature spaces?
Potentially, but it is unlikely.

But the question is are there authors who have similar views to mine?

>How many have you lived in, for how long?
Not many, but for quite some time.

But the question is are there authors who have similar views to mine?

The city as a political concept is inherently susceptible to dystopia, some thought the garden city movement would revolutionise the way people in the city lived and that was a century ago

Check out Jünger's themes on technology and cities in the likes of Heliopolis and Eumiswil. Krystof Nawatek (polish planning theorist, forgive the spelling) whose wrote some really interesting stuff on Jungers total Mobilisation, Schmittian conception of space and the post socialist city

Deleuze and maybe Heidegger?

Earlier today I was walking downtown in a large city, and a man I didn't know came up behind me and started talking to me. At first I was alarmed, until I realized he was pointing in the air at a group of trumpeter swans. We both started running through the slush trying to see them around the skyscrapers. This strange man and I were briefly united in our desire to see a glimpse of nature in an area usually populated by tiny dogs in sweaters.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened to me. I have a hundred stories just like it. Your idea of the "high-technology metropolis" doesn't exist. People in the city still love nature. We marvel at swans and mushrooms and the moon. At the same time, there are people in the country glued to their smartphones, who prefer the movie theater to the meadow.

The idea that the country is somehow more pure or less technological than the city is absurd. Walk into the nearest cornfield and try to tell me how pure it is, if you can catch your breath with all those pesticides creeping into your lungs, and if I can hear you over the sound of the newest combine on the market.

Your post is one giant cliche, and frankly I hope it was in jest, and I'm just too tired and tipsy to see it.

>The city as a political concept is inherently susceptible to dystopia
there are poor people that live in rural places and poor people in cities (I presume cities are mainly dystopic to poor people?), we wonder if the poor city dwellers would prefer to live in the country side, or if each party is satisfied in their own particular penchant squalor.

>
The idea that the country is somehow more pure or less technological than the city is absurd. Walk into the nearest cornfield and try to tell me how pure it is, if you can catch your breath with all those pesticides creeping into your lungs, and if I can hear you over the sound of the newest combine on the market.

ITS EITHER A CITY OR A FARM LMAO WILDERNESS ISN'T REAL

>WILDERNESS
I live in a big city and whenever I crave some nature (while I could take a train an hour and half to the mountains and woods) I put on VR headset and explore nature parks while listening to nature sound videos on youtube, spread some potpurri around my room and do some deep breathing, its pretty rad

No. Most of the "urban planning" blogs often have a distinct hatred for private automobiles and even called out Elon Musk's dislike of public transit. Basically, all the "ideal cities" are basically ways to turn you into a slave where they have control of every aspect of your life.

Obviously that was written a while back (references to shopping malls and the religious Right place it back in the 1980s, I'd say). While "the city" is awful in its own ways just as part of its nature and part of the way politicians have corrupted it, but trying to live in "raw nature" is all pretentious horseshit.

UFOs are real

Old European cities seem nice. All modern cities are designed with convenience in mind and not beauty. The observer is the person that now has to create the beauty - by reducing his standards to a low enough level that he can appreciate what is basically a large greenhouse. The architect will design a building to his personal ideals that are not based in past beauty or past design. In the modern world, a beautiful city cannot be created. If it is created, it will not function.

That is one of the saddest things I think I have read.

Life in America sounds so sad and bland. I can see why they behave the way they do on this board. No grounding in the past and no respect for tradition.

I can imagine your heart racing while you were typing this.

>Basically, all the "ideal cities" are basically ways to turn you into a slave where they have control of every aspect of your life.
cities are the highest expression of society, community, and achievement of cooperation. Because so many more people exist in such a small area, so much work is able to be done faster and by fewer people, that everyone can therefore have more freedom and ease, its all about proximity, closer to everything, and everything being the most more muchness.

I dont think you understand how boring the countryside is, or can get, with its nothingness. The main reason a person would not like a city is because they dont like people, or dont like masses of people, antisocial, for as I said, the city is the supreme expression of sociability, you are talking about towns where there are 1,500 people living in them, many people in a big city could intimately know 1,500 people, and that network expands, 1 of them knows 100, one of them knows 300, one of them knows 400. And they are not all, farmers, hunters, barn fixers, river petters, taxidermists, liquor store operators, walmart enthusiasts, tobacco wranglers, sheep breeders, bird watchers, quad fanagalers, they are the most nuanced, sophisticated, varied, intriguing, making far off reams reality, bringing the flames from the light of infinity of heaven to earth, supreme beings of invention, creation, expression, exploration, taste, sublime happiness, and fun.

Where the towns you speak of may have a bar or two, a big city has 20 bars on every block (not saying thats good, but some people like taverns and places to meet and hang with interesting people), can say the same about restaurants, and cafes. Cities are a gift to the overactive imagination, to the ubermensch, how is ever indebted and enthralled that they were not born a savage creature destined to wallow in dirt and grass and filth for a lifetime, but can experience daily, millions of things brilliant, beautiful, touching, inspiring, heartwarming, heartwrenching, intriguing, unimaginable to one that is not in that mix. A single walk down a single block, looking at all the buildings not to mention the always beautiful architecture and decoration of even an old shabby apartment, brownstones or whathave you, seeing the odd cars and people pass, the infinte infintely strange strangers, who at any point if you feel like it can easily become your friend, a single 15 minutes of walking down a big city street, contains more life, and humanity, and imaginative information, of bondness, of proximity, of touch and taste and sight and smell and sound, than years around the dirt roads and corn fields. Different strokes for different folks indeed.

Start with the classics of sociology. Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies and Vilfredo Pareto

furthermore the countryside allows the city to flourish with their supply of various producitions (food, clothing, metal, wood, manpower) and the city allows the countryside to flourish with their demand for those productions, symbiosis.

See, usually I'm all up for philosophy about this but there's a pretty prominent view in sociology about this called the network society.

geof.net/research/2005/castells-network-society

Cities can be very beautiful if they're managed right.

This is coming from someone who loves nothing more than to wake up everymorning to the sound of cock and stretch on the cabin porch with coffee overlooking miles of pine and field.

If I wrote it mine would do the same. It looks very fun.

Is this copypasta? I couldn't find anything on a basic Google search but I don't want to make a serious reply until I find out for sure

its naught.

Pollution (noise and light included), poverty, waste (recycling though), cubicle living space, lack of fields and forests and places to get sun, too easy to get anything you can imagine anytime you want

sgdsg

>rural people are all inbred hicks who have one of 12 occupations while city people are these nuanced free spirits

good, you noticed that exaggeration

>The main reason a person would not like a city is because they dont like people, or dont like masses of people, antisocial, for as I said, the city is the supreme expression of sociability

or maybe I want legit peace and fucking quiet? I can't go for a walk without cars coming around every corner, hearing an occasional tirade of sirens, passing people using leaf-blowers on their lawn (not necessarily an urban thing, I know), etc. etc. The other funny thing--and you should know this if you've ever lived in a city--is that because so many people are concentrated in a small area, the willingness and desire to socialize beyond mere pleasantries takes a nosedive. It's a skill you have to acquire: zoning other people out, getting from A to B through dense crowds of people while the city drones away. And even if you are highly social, it's akin to the way Facebook works, in that you know a lot of people superficially but you share a deep, intimate connection with very few people. In contrast, a smaller community allows for one to make deeper connections with others and actually trust them, but of course runs the risk of turning into a self-affirming and delusional bubble of gossip and petty small talk. This happens everywhere though.

>And even if you are highly social, it's akin to the way Facebook works, in that you know a lot of people superficially but you share a deep, intimate connection with very few people.
>you
>you you you
I think you mean "I"

Assuming that this is written sincerely and in good faith, read the Invisible Committee. Their works specifically disdain (in the English) the /metropolis/ as an all-pervading technological thing which now transcends both city and country (You can get your Amazon prime box in rural Wyoming if the price is right, etc). Further, the people who are suspected of being this anonymous author themselves specifically left A+ urban life in search of a rural retreat (Tarnac)

t. just finished re-reading those works and writing things on the internet about them, pursuant to the recent English version of their latest book.