Moshe Zadka ([info]moshez) wrote,
@ 2006-03-25 18:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Vote Ecumenopolisism!
OK, so unfortunately, the coming election has nobody representing that position. But that does not mean we cannot organize and stand up for the belief we are hated and mocked for using. I have only made up the word Ecumenpolisism. Literally, it probably means "the belief that all the world should be one big city". But it is more than that, much mroe. Ecumenpolisism is the belief that nature, fundamentally, sucks, and that our goal as human beings should be to create a better version of that -- technology. So not only should nature be replaced by bricks, asphalt and mortar, killing all trees, draining lakes and demolishing oceans in the process, but also the belief that we don't actually need to be outside at all, and that human beings can be completely happy in a completely technological environment.

So what are our central beliefs?


  • Nature sucks. It is there to be exploited, used and thrown away, not to be respected or enjoyed.

  • The outdoors sucks. The fact that it exists at all is just a harsh comment on our lack of technological progress in building cities.

  • Earth sucks. Once we remove "nature" and the "outdoors" from the equation, we might as well catapult the cities into space and stop squandering resources on fighting gravity.

  • Walking sucks. Clearly, there should be better modes of transportation available in every sane scenario, and our goal is to research, discover and implement them.



Wear the badge of ecumenopolisism proudly (logo to be designed!).

ETA to clarify: The replacement for walking should be "personal mass transport": motorized walkways, with optional sits. Imagine NYC, only instead of static walkways, you have them motorized both ways, with some sits. You get on, sit, get off. Easy.
(Thanks to [info]glyf for his requests for clarification!)



(Post a new comment)


[info]bluemiree
2006-03-25 05:32 pm UTC (link)
Nature does not suck. Your logic is flawed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]moshez
2006-03-27 06:52 am UTC (link)
Ideaology is not about logic. It comes before logic -- it makes up the axioms, from which we deduce, via logic, what we need to do to realise them. It is ok to believe nature does not suck -- but it does not make nature not suck. Nature sucks, because whatever good nature has to offer can be reproduced more efficiently by technology -- if not now, then in the future. Therefore, the best way to stimulate it is to destroy nature -- take away the crutches, so to speak, so that mankind has to walk on its own two feet (technology).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]bluemiree
2006-03-27 03:06 pm UTC (link)
I disagree with this entire comment. But that's for another day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-03-25 06:06 pm UTC (link)
While you stay at home complaining about how nature sucks, you are missing an amazing spring.
Flowers are blooming everywhere in full force now and the sight and smell are breathtaking (or maybe that was the walk, one never knows).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]moshez
2006-03-27 06:49 am UTC (link)
Actually, I was forcefully taken outside. While I have proudly avoided any actual walking in nature (God forbid!) I was still forced to see the flowers blooming. I'd be happier if it was all paved over and an amusement park built there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]londonbard
2006-03-25 08:03 pm UTC (link)
You should be on a generation ship, breeding within it's confines until your grandchildren make landfall...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]moshez
2006-03-27 06:47 am UTC (link)
*Landfall*? Why would I wish such horrible fate on my grandchildren? They would probably be happier and more productive in space.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Tongue in cheek, hopefully...
[info]teknico_net
2006-03-25 10:20 pm UTC (link)
Well, this is so full of blatantly misguided hubris that it *has* to be tongue in cheek. Please, say it is so, because the opposite thought is too much to bear...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Tongue in cheek, hopefully...
[info]moshez
2006-03-27 06:46 am UTC (link)
Nope, it's not tongue in cheek. I really am full of such hubris. This hubris is, in many senses, the foundation of our society -- I'm just taking it to the obvious next step. In this sense, ecumenpolisism is an evolution, not a revolution.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

instantiation
[info]mednyi_vsadnik
2006-03-26 03:51 am UTC (link)
Have you ever visited the MIT campus? It seems to have been designed according to your principles. The buildings are all connected by tunnels so you never have to go outside; the students tend to look unhealthy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: instantiation
[info]moshez
2006-03-27 06:45 am UTC (link)
Awesome.
Sounds like I really should visit, next time I'm in Boston. Attention, Boston-friends! I will force you to take me there next time I visit you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]omerm
2006-03-26 05:40 pm UTC (link)
I won't wear the badge outside; I hope you will understand my sentiments. As about inside, the whole concept of wearing badge is misguided; we should not wear badges, because badges are unproductive. We should wear wearable computers, which will enrich our existence and simulate the ultimate experience of riding a bike down a green hill.

(Reply to this)


[info]carmstro
2006-03-26 08:09 pm UTC (link)
Please notify us when the logo is available.

-radix

(Reply to this)

moshez the Luigi Russolo of the 21st century?
[info]herenot
2006-03-27 10:43 am UTC (link)
moshez the futurist? moshez the modernist, or should that be ultra-modernist? (which is a much more catching name for your movment...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28art%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

this love of technology, and the view of tech as solving all of civilizations problems isn't really a new thing.

one of the great architects of the 20th century was a bloke called Le-courbosier, who actually realised what you are talking about with his architecture. it should be stated that in the real world this failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Edouard_Jeanneret

I think you should learn about those movments in art and architucture and tr to aquient yourself with thier history, specificly why did they fail..

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…