The socialogical mind : LUSENET : Aeon Flux : One Thread

What are the things that peolple find in desity of population there are a meriad of reason not to stay in large groups disease, famine, even some phycological problems. Yet people are constantly atracked to the big city. We group together despite out most positve reasons not to, nature despises those who group together. We are people and we try to form as large as communities as possible. We take a million people and throw them into a space equal to the space = to the amount of space used in my part of the world by a 150,000 in many parts its truely signifigantly less. The world is divided into 3 worlds, 1st, 2nd, 3rd. All these worlds are over populated except were I live where there is room(more than enough) and wealth enough for the people who live there. We manage a quality of life unmached by the rest of the world. It makes me sick inside. People have this desire to pack themselves into a city for reasons such as vibrancy, diversity, and excitement. What are these compared to the the addage of of calm, peace and utter and complete, lack of chaos?

I proclaim that the human mind is determined to fail based on its need to congrigate with others the feeling of connection will kill all that is good in you. In cities the crime rate is so much higher than rural areas, depression skyrockets the more people you have to deal with .

What is this the need to be with numbers, quanity, not quality of you own species? Its a very vexing puzzle, I myself am not immune to such affectations, but it seems that inlellect should, and doesn't make me.

-- Rick"Markus" Mercier (, February 24, 2001


It's a tough question. I myself like living in LA/Babylon, a mere ten or twenty miles from anything. The value of diversity should not be underestimated, but the question is, how much is too much?

Humans started out living in groups of 100-150. If we feel alienated today, it's because the original "tribe" is gone, replaced by anonymous masses. Should cities be abolished? I don't think so, but a certain level of community is required in order to replace what we have lost.

-- Paul (, February 24, 2001.

True in context and in execution. There is for some reason a true loss of familiarity in large goups. What people stick in place of commuity is a homogeneous falicy. People place the race, creed or colour in place of feelings of true connections. I will never be one to love the city. I have been one to live in both kinds of communities, the small one far surpasses all the benifits of aneinmity, offered by the large group(I can do what I want because I have no past no future, to these people). I long for a group of 100-150 I live in 1100 people town and I wish, oh do I wish for something smaller where all peoples faults and fears are exposed. The downside is not all people are comfortable with familiarity, even here on the internet(as disconnected as pssible) people want still to be less connected, or more connected. It seems as though some look for a chance to meet and greet those they meet, on the internet, and others would arather appear as faceless notes on a forum.

Some desire more connection, some desire less, the strange parodox of the person is that when they desire less personal connection they go to larger groups. This is entirely not there fault, it the action of people in "bulk" they treat each other like a commodity, a resource to be traded. ie. this person makes me laugh, but so does this person. There can be no impersonal interactions, but people in cities do tend to treat things that way.

-- Rick "Markus" Mercier (, February 24, 2001.

But there are different kinds of community... the village model you're talking about is one, but many people group together based on common interests. Here in the city, I may not know most of my immediate neighbors, but I do know my friends, and many of them live in the Valley, miles from here. Some are white, black, Asian, Israeli, Indian... so it's not at all segregated. Of course, the language you speak and the neighborhood you live in play a role, too (as they should, we need local representation), but I think that in big cities, community has more to do with belonging to a "scene".

-- Paul (, February 24, 2001.

That scene is what I'm talking about. Its a good metaphor the scene is like that of a stage play its just not real its a fabricated sense of connection. As far as segrigation have you ever been to Toronto? It is my point taken to its futherest reaches. It divided into towns. People belonging to a distinct race have a section of the city where a vast majority of the people are of similar background to them.

This is my point you go to a city and then create your village and yet you are forced to have less intamacy with less people. In a small town do know people and you know them well its a little forced on you but its a good thing.

-- Rick Mercier (, February 24, 2001.

It could be argued that geographical connection is just as arbitrary. People group together for all sorts of different reasons... why should my circle of friends be limited to the immediate area? It's not an act, my scene is my community. As far as "getting away from it all", I've been looking into Ojai (small town just north of LA, very interesting & eccentric), but if that ever happened, I'd still commute to the city on a regular basis. Society might suck, but don't write off cities - they are a tremendous force for change, both positive and negative.

-- Paul (, February 25, 2001.

I've fathomed your code you traitors! I'm alerting the Special Branch.

-- al from cal (, February 26, 2001.

For once, I'm glad I didn't take part in a conversation on the forum. So he's sending an alert to the Special Branch, *shudder* that's pretty close to 5 increments from Hooligan status.

-- Barb e. (, February 26, 2001.

I missed something. Special branch? Thats a bit inside for me.

-- (, February 26, 2001.

I see 5 or 6 long posts and I go to the next ones (damn this short attention span) :-)

-- William (, February 26, 2001.

your a dickhead.

-- dase (, February 28, 2001.

I do not remember anyone asking for your opinion dase.

-- Lady Morgan (, February 28, 2001.

Which one of us is the dickhead? Is it me? Please Dase say its me.

-- (, February 28, 2001.

No. But this is a forum, So I gave my opinion. Yes it is you.

‘I proclaim that the human mind is determined to fail based on its need to congregate with others the feeling of connection will kill all that is good in you.’

If the human mind was determined to fail, you wouldn’t be alive.

-- dase (, March 01, 2001.

I'm alive because people haven't had the opportunity to get into group as large as they are now on earth. But I've already made my point and I'm not really in love with this topic so I'm done.

-- (, March 01, 2001.

dase, opinions are great but is such vulgarism necessary?

-- Lady Morgan (, March 01, 2001.

this is the internet where freedom of expression is the only certainty

As the population increases it seems people withdraw into themselves more

-- William (, March 02, 2001.

Vulgarity, not necessary but I thought it was appropriate. Because Rick takes such a negative view of the world and just comes across arrogant. But as William said ‘this is the Internet where freedom of expression is the only certainty’ which if I may say is not a bad quote. And some times Freedom of speech is not a good thing. But as for the original statement I still think he needs to experience more and then re-think his view on the world and maybe move out of his 'utopia'

-- dase (, March 05, 2001.

Why not just say the latter then? i think you much more intelligent than to display such talk to convey ur pt of view. Alright enough on the matter. :O)

-- Lady Morgan (, March 06, 2001.

Well I personally am not offended, nor do I intend to be. Say what you will, but be wary, this forum has a ladies sensablity.

-- (, March 06, 2001.

Hi, Rick! I'm Kiru. I enjoy Ćon Flux. What do you like?

-- Kiru (, March 12, 2001.

My real name isn't Rick and I like being asked about myself. I as well like Aeon Flux.

-- (, March 13, 2001.

This is less related to my topic but is similarly oriented Base on skeletons found from the Ice age, the Ice age poeple lived almost as long as we do now, the shorter life spans of the past, came to the party with agriculture. Isn't that funny, agiculture allowed us to support at higher population, but with short lives. I though nothing bad ever came from that advancement, other than pesticides, and GE.

-- (, March 14, 2001.

I think Trevor would approve of this push into genetic manipulation/cloning. The way it has been portrayed in the media (well here at least) is that it is controlled by a few mad scientists determined to create the perfect physical specimen with little regard for the public in general. Of course, this would not be the case but it certainly would suit Trevor.

-- William (, March 14, 2001.

Trevor wouldn't be the one manufacturing potatoes that make their own pesticide. He might be more towards the misguided, although somewhat noble medical proffesion hoping to eliminate disease. I use the word misguided with 1 ideas in mind. The very simple fact that 90% of all disease is completely preventable with proper lifestyle and diet. Thats right 90%. Along these lines a body could have all the super genes in the world but a gene will never exceed what is put into it. If you didn't feed superman he wouldn't be strong.

As for agriculture Nature has a way, a glorious way that we shouldn't in our be playing with. Our flirtation with godhood, might come to a close very quickly if genetics stays tied into finance. It won't save the world because most of the world doesn't have the money. I would even prefer the use of pesticides, as opposed to a plant that makes its own. I think this because once you've changed somethings genes that can't be cleaned up. Except of course by natures way.

-- (, March 14, 2001.

this the biotechnolgy industries official site. Its chalk full delcious propaganda. Enjoy!

-- (, March 14, 2001.

Lady Morgan, dont take any shit from that fool dase

-- NaTaS (, March 18, 2001.

This sort of sounds like those two groups from a series of Arthur C Clarke novels, the "spacers" and the "settlers". The spacers are humans who are very technologically advanced, rich, and rely heavily on robot labor to do things, and have this basically exaggerated Victorian cleanliness ethic where human contact is more or less shunned. The extreme of this are the inhabitants of a spacer world called Solaria where everyone lives alone and communicate via hologram. The settlers are humans who live on earth in cities underground, of millions of people. THe spacers shun human company as being barbaric, while the settlers enjoy their human compny

-- Alexander Cointreau (, May 03, 2001.

(looking at cue card) Customary welcome to newcomers! Whoops.

Anyway, great to have you here (have you posted before? can't remember). Though I'm more familiar with the man from his interviews, Clarke is a wonderful writer. I think many people become "Spacers" today (living in gated communities, buying expensive security systems) because of urban paranoia... Me, I love interacting with different people, but I'm also very shy, & crave personal space (currently living in a tiny apartment with 4 rooms & little else). Incidentally, the story I'm working on is all about living in cities, and the effects of monoculturalism. It's called "Parallel City". Well, enough blather for now...

-- Inukko (, May 04, 2001.

People are pretty distastful, we are all dirty, barbaric, and well "unclean". I know we're dirty but I don't mind in fact I like it. Makes me a settler.

-- Mark (, May 07, 2001.

Innuko, you like people but your shy, thats a ironic little personality paradox. Could explain why your on the internet. As for me the only thing similar I can think of for me is that I try to draw attention to myself then when I get it I push it away, it just never stops. Just a stupid compulsion to have control of a situataion.

-- markisgreatgiveusthechocolatecate (, May 08, 2001.

Sounds like Osho, he said love and meditation were humanity's two basic desires. You need to be around people, then you need to be alone, then you need the people again. The trick is to get into a "third state" where you don't need anything, but easier said than done ;)

-- Inukko (, May 08, 2001.

The thing I see as most interesting to discuss on this matter of cities vs. no cities is the "what is this need to be with numbers, quantity, not quality of your own species," question. I don't think that people are mysteriously, magnetically drawn in some way to accumualte tons of relationships with "lower quality" people. I think that MAYBE that is one of the unfortunate hurdles to finding "quality" people/friends. You know the whole "you've got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince/princess." The sad thing is yes, a lot of people in this world suck. But location alone won't eliminate encounters with them. Maybe people congregate in large cities so that they've got a large pool to fish in. Meet a person you don't like when you live in a place like Miami, FL (where I live) and you can say "f**k 'em! There are enough people living here that I don't have to worry about the threat of total lack of human contact just because one jerk-wad couldn't be a decent human being"

- of course that's just MY opinion I COULD be wrong - as my main man Dennis Miller always says :)

-- pixi (, May 09, 2001.

well ok, disposable people are a good benefit of living the city. No, that what I'm against. People in my veiw are to learned from abusive, loving, etc. They all show you bit of who you are. you piss off somebody you don't lose human contact, I live in a tiny community (at least for a little while). Dig this baby, people ain't fish.

My main man Norm Macdonld says "cock, COck, Cock!" on the Denis Miller show.

-- markisgreatgiveusthechocolatecake (, May 09, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ