Ecological equilibrium – large towns

December 31, 2006

The Independent on Line edition today brings out a theme related to he increase of urban inhabitants, which in turn has caused depletion of rural areas.

The newspaper deals only with the tendency of changing habitat among humans who prefer the life in towns rather than the more sedate life in rural zones.

People are little by little losing contact with Nature and turning their attention towards the comfort, luxe and other facilities given by modern highly populated centres. And, in my opinion, they are affecting the natural equilibrium of things.

Nature is a conglomerate of factors which, intermingled, contribute to a better development of natural habitats. That is what happens in rural zones, where the culture of fields, products that are staple in our feeding customs and which at the time serve to keep herds of the different animals that make up the fauna of farms and that are also necessary in the alimentary habits of the populations, is being abandoned little by little giving way to an industrial treatment of that culture and those herds.

That the inhabitants of a zone move to another zone that is superpopulated is something that affects the natural equilibrium. I have no doubt of that, and if we add to this that the new habitat is mainly composed by cement, iron, asphalt and other components of homes, roads, streets, big buildings… with a small proportion of green zones exclusively planted with ornamental or shady trees and shrubs and lawns, then we have that the ratio culture::population has been altered.

It is true that the world has grown in an extraordinary way. It is true that life in the countryside is full of problems, but there are more problems in town than in the countryside, and towns are far more contaminant than small villages.

The environment is affected, too. Plagues accompany people in their displacements and concentrate where people live. In this connection we can see the extraordinary proliferation of these plagues in towns, perhaps proportionally more than it occurs in rural zones.

I know it is almost impossible to make people change their views, after all we enjoy of freedom to move wherever we wish, but I suppose there are ways to convince them of the necessity to abandon that preference for big towns. One of them is the high rate of delinquency in towns as compared with that in villages.

The capitalistic system has made that this happens, industry is also replacing agriculture with the subsequent damages this change does to the places where we live.

I just felt I should give my opinion on this issue, an important part of our environment, no doubt, despite our unconscious ignorance of it.

There was a time when rulers considered that towns should have limited dimensions, that there were limitations to their demography, but that has been totally forgotten and I can see migrations are starting to affect our environment


6 Responses to “Ecological equilibrium – large towns”

  1. MrZhisou said

    I see no problem with large towns, they just need to be built in such a way that allows for an overall sustainable balance with the environment – low density housing development with gardens, green areas and “wildscapes” allows for more diversity than agriculture which dominates out countryside.

    I do think that we often think, environmentally speaking, that urban is bad and country is good. Not so. Intensive agriculture might be necessary but it is not “green”.

    The problem is planning is not inventive enough, and there is, as always, not enough investment in infrastructure like transport and water recycling.

  2. Jose said

    I agree with you, MrZhisou. That would indeed make housing costs higher and consequently deter more people from coming.

    I am moving to your site where you have raised this question in more detail, which promises to be a really lively discussion.

    Country is good in the sense that recycling of everything is natural. True that the country is also being contaminated and that is another issue that should be dealt with.

  3. MrZhisou said

    Yes it would increase costs and therefore it does require government inteference to help reduce that, but, as I said (in my blog) some things do require the government to step in because the market cannot solve every problem.

  4. Jose said

    It will eventually be the citizens that would pay for it.

  5. Sheriff Adam said

    The core idea is the regeneration of sufficient clean oxygen to balance out the pollution, which is essentially carbondioxide. This would require an equilibrium between the inhabitants/mammals, the greenries (generators of oxygen) and the manmade materials around them (generators of carbondioxide).

  6. […] is an interesting entry here on Canarislander’s blog about the balance of town and country and its effect on the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: