permaculture

[lblissett <blissett@optonline.net>]

I think it would be quite dangerous to use technology as a substitute for
more conventional forms of social activity. Many of my friends over the
years have in some way come from the use of technology, and it certainly has
its place and its advantages, but I think it's ultimately one more way (even
if it is a better way...) of escaping the kind of natural human social
interaction for which there is no real substitute.

That being said, I don't think this has anything to do with cities or rural
areas. I took my PDC in a very rural area, but it was clear from spending
time with the people there that meaningful social gatherings were a regular
and important part of their lives. On the other hand, many of the people I
know who live in urban or near-urban areas (myself included) have very
little face-to-face meaningful social interaction at all. There was a point
in my life where I would frequently go for days without having a
face-to-face conversation with someone, this while going to school in one of
the most densely populated areas on Earth, and as near as I can tell, this
experience is not at all uncommon among people who live in urban areas. City
living and social interaction sadly have almost nothing to do with one
another.

- David Travis




----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Murphy" <MMurphy@ctsl.com>
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [permaculture] self-sufficiency


> "Starting from the base of natural, social, and economic equities, rural
life is nature rich and social poor"
>
> That was before satellite TV, satellite radio and the Internet, soon to be
accessible over WiMax true broadband everywhere.  Technology made rural life
nature rich and social rich, and just as the auto enabled the suburbs, the
semiconductor enables the exurbs.  Living in bricks and concrete is a
preference, and no longer a necessity.
>