Good point on litter, but what about an education program to stop people littering with penalties for people who openly flouted the law (not fines, community service)

I'm fine with that.

If I defecate outside on the public footpath I would be committing a crime, then why is it not a crime for dog owners who let their pets go anywhere and not clean it up, this is a scourge to our public health, especially on our parks and open spaces where our children play sports

I actually don't agree with the litter one - this shouldn't be a voluntary position.

The great thing about volunteers is that you don't have to do it but of course I know what you mean, vandals and litterbugs should be cleaning up our neighbourhoods as part of their community service :-)

If it's work that is value to society, then those doing the work should be remunerated for it. Punishment is a separate issue, and using work as a punishment sets up a truly horrible incentive structure.

For some people work can be a great education....

"If I defecate outside on the public footpath I would be committing a crime, then why is it not a crime for dog owners who let their pets go anywhere and not clean it up"

in my country it is, and fined with almost 50 dollars.

It would be better if people in cities made eye contact with each other more often and for longer. I feel we too easily dehumanize each other even as we are surrounded by humans.

@ Nigee - allowing your dog to foul is a crime in the UK, actually:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/20/contents

Send the SWAT team to bust someone the moment they litter or swear in public.

@Thucy: I don't neccessarily agree or disagree that more eye contact should be made, but why would you consider it dehumanizing to not make much eye contact?

Just wondering what's the reasoning behind that. Do we look at 'human' things more often than 'inhuman' things? Don't we look at 'inhuman' things most of the time, so wouldn't looking at someone be more of a sign that you look at them like an object rather than a human?

What if you don't look at someone out of respect?
Another thing is that you can't give everyone everywhere eye contact. Wouldn't you be treating everyone more equally if you don't give anyone eye contact by default?

I'm just being Socratic on this one, for the record. Don't try to read my opinion out of that last post, because it isn't there.

It's a very basic thing but I try and say hello or good morning in public places to complete strangers, not everyone responds but it makes me feel better.
Eye contact can be very important, if you bow your head when you walk past someone it can look like you have something to hide

If you never look at someone's face, it's easy to forget that their body is in fact no just an obstacle, but also a human being. It doesn't have to be rational, I don't have to successfully defend it in argument - human psychology is not rational.

I think it's more natural to look at someone's face. If you notice, we're all sort of hard-wired to do it. If someone is walking towards you, you take a second to glance at their face. It's some sort of instinct - you learn so much information from their face. However, in modern cities, we look away as quickly as possible - god forbid two strangers lock eyes for more than a split second, right?

It's just a damn shame that we seem to be afraid of eye contact. I think it's symptomatic of being afraid of human contact. It's depressing how many people out there talk in terms of "you can't trust anyone" and "people are stupid animals" and all this type of shit. Is this good for society? Lol. I don't think I need to spell it out for you.

I see your point.

On the other hand, I've had various, sometimes heated, arguments with a bunch of girls in particular because I 'always look back if they look in my direction'. They considered it pretty creepy for a while. It's probably one of many tiny things that got me into a conflict with one girl which I still haven't been able to fix. Her theories are getting a bit too paranoid, actually.

If people are afraid of eye contact, should you make it? Even if that just makes them afraid of you?

I suppose there is a connection with avoiding eye contact in a big city and getting asked for money, help, or time. I would argue it's less about the separation of face to body, and more about people protecting their current agenda without interruption.

Where I live in small town Ontario it is expected for you to greet strangers you pass on the sidewalk. In toronto I do that out of habit now and people for some reason seem to hate it. Its weird and too bad.

Part of the issue might be that if eye contact is not the default, it's sort of an 'active' message you're sending. In many cases it's a friendly message and I guess that in the example above it's not so clear what kind of message it is, leading to misunderstandings etc.

I like Thucy's point.

People in rural areas, or in more modern (less dense) cities, are much more likely to make eye contact or even nod when they pass you than in highly urban areas, at least in my experience. High density has a lot of known advantages, but I think it has some big disadvantages to human pscyhe, and is arguably not a very natural or healthy environment for humans to be in.

So, piggy-backing on Thucy's point (not necessarily in a way he would endorse) I would encourage lower-density development, and/or (much less likely) try to find a way for high-density living not to impact the human psyche as it does.

It has nothing to do with cities or villages. You make eye contact if you're curious. The eye-contact scale, from least likely to most likely recipients of your glance:

- old people
- weak/short guys
- children
- strong/tall guys
- well-dressed people
- hot babes (eye-to-eye contact followed by eye-to-ass contact)

This was off the top of my head, of course there are subtler nuances...

" more about people protecting their current agenda without interruption."

This is it exactly. You hit it on the head. But, that is also precisely the problem. Because doing that all the time is impolite, not to mention selfish. I think it's a real problem

i support lower density development, but not the kind we currently do eg suburbs. lower density habitation along the lines of rural sri lanka is more appropriate

Let me put it this way. In the US we sometimes boast that less than 1% are farmers. All that empty land, farmed by machines, with a few folks overseeing them. That's "modern" farming. Is that a good thing? Maybe not.

I would like to finish my train of thought by reminding everyone that 2014 is the International Year of Family Farming

Thucy,

Personally I do support and laud the suburbs (though also the urban cores), but I agree that more rural life would probably also be a good thing.

The suburbs are to blame for the mistrust and anti-social behavior of people, they're not the solution.

Not to mention they suck up resources and are unsustainable. Lower densities are already occurring, with disastrous results.

http://www.monu.org/monu4/SuburbsDemocracy.pdf