Sicarius' opinion on sustainability is beyond ludicrous, but if he would actually try living this life he'd at least have some credibility.

Go up in the mountains and start living you Neolithic fantasy and then you'll sound at least a little reasonable, Biff. Not that you can ever polish a turd, however.

at jerkface.
its not that no one is in power
it's that everybody is

ok I dont seem to be explaining this very well. sustainability, in the sense I've been using it means to be able to continue your lifestyle on a given landbase forever. I say cities are unsustainable because the landbase cannot support the number of people living there. the country, while not sustainable now, can be made sustainable, where as cities cannot. yes they can support themselves with trade or theft, but when your needs exceed what the landbase can give, that is unsustainibility.

game theory looks at humans as machines, with only a few simple buttons to push. game theory has alot of strange ideas.
if you really believe in game theory, if you believe that love and compassion and friendship are done out of selfishness, and that all people are constantly plotting and planning against each other, then I'm sorry you live such a lonely existence.

"whether or not a particular city is sustainable is contingent on many factors - the productive capability of the supporting land-base being one of them." being the only one. trade arises when you need more resources than you have (or sometimes if you need something not found in your area, and this type of trade is not what I'm talking about) so trade cannot equal sustainibility.
say new york needs food. if the food for all the new yorkers were grown in gardens and greenhouses arcross the city, as well as surrounding countryside it would be sustainable. (this is of course leaving out many factors that could contribute to unsustainability, like pollution etc.) if new york needs more food than it can grow itself, and needs grain from africa and rice form china etc then it is unsustainable.

jerkface, I have no interest in letting a documentary tell me what freedom is. neither do I think the director even bothered to try to say what it is. what he did describe is that our governments are using a flawed system that leaves out altruism and love and generousity.

of course sword. I'm not suggesting we all pick a 2'x2' spot to stand forever.
you think I'm anti-life? what are you retarded? I'm opposed to this culture of death and devastation, I dont think its right that we kill millions of humans and innumerable non-humans to continue leading a failed lifestyle. anti-life... are you not listening to anything I'm saying? I want pollution and deforestation to stop so I must be anti-bird and anti-tree and anti-salmon right? that makes sense.

look It's not my dream to live in the stone age. I really have no desire to go live in the mountains. I like records, and coffehouses and laptops.
but I see what coffehouses and laptops and electricity contribute to and it must be stopped. me living in the mountains would have zero effect on industrial civilization as a whole. it's not that I dont want to use electricity, I want there to be none (at least unsustainably) I dont want to refrain from driving, I want there to be no cars.

Hey... you ignored my post?

Being able to sustain yourself on a given plot of land forever isn't something that technology makes impossible... if anything technology makes it more possible. It's population growth that might make us unsustainable. Technology is the good guy in this fight because it progresses in order to meet the demands of a growing population.

Trade happens not when you need more resources than you have... it happens when you need different resources from what you have. You don't get more resources through trade you get different ones... precisely your second definition of trade. The city unit can be though of to comprise the city and the country around it... that in itself is sustainable. It's just that in our modern time we can afford to import food from all around the world, not just out of necessity but out of preference. You're drawing arbitrary lines here... if a city is not sustainable because it draws resources from outside itself... then the point that we've all been making is equally valid. And that is, that life itself is not sustainable by your definition because I have to take resources outside of myself. My footprint, even not including all the unnecessary stuff is still much larger than myself.

Game theory doesn't have theoretical limits... it's just that our practical understanding of humans limits the predictions of game theory. You can easily factor in all of humanity's buttons into game theory if you understood them all... I have no idea what strange ideas you're referring to... but game theory treats humans as selfish and as understanding that other humans are also selfish. This is mostly true... from an evolutionary standpoint, altruism aside from kin altruism is heavily penalized. There might be a few "mutants" who truly are altruistic, but by definition they will quickly be rooted out of the gene pool. Until our technology breaks us free of the bonds of biological evolution, this will be the case... once again, it would be technology that frees us. Love is a useful tool to encourage reproduction and fidelity... compassion is a useful tool to understand the emotional states of others... friendships are indispensable to us as social creatures because to be alienated from humanity is your own evolutionary doom... generosity is highly conditional (you admitted this yourself when we discussed a gift economy) upon reciprocal generosity (not necessarily in direct form). That's not to say I live a lonely existence... I still absolutely appreciate the fantastic world in which we live, and I absolutely appreciate the opportunity given to me to exist. Just because I don't cloud my understanding with pretty flowers of words doesn't mean I don't feel these emotions... I just take what knowledge the world has to offer and I build my worldview around them. If it comes out that oh, turns out altruism is very much possible in organisms that are the result of evolutionary processes, then I'll certainly take that into account, and so will game theory!

I totally agree that it's terrible how we damage the Earth and cause so much ecological destruction while still engaging in needless (in the broad view) conflicts with each other. I just find that it's far more useful to talk about more efficient technology than it is to talk about reducing technology, because it's not technology that's to blame, it's us. Technology is what will solve our problems...

no I didnt ignore your post. theres like 3 paragraphs in response to you.

@spyman: whether or not a particular city is sustainable is contingent on many factors - the productive capability of the supporting land-base being one of them."
@Sicarius: being the only one.

There are many other factors: level of technology, political situation, environmental management issues, the habits of the people (such as, are they water wise?) etc.

@Sicarius: trade arises when you need more resources than you have (or sometimes if you need something not found in your area, and this type of trade is not what I'm talking about) so trade cannot equal sustainability.

Trade by itself does not *equal* sustainability. Trade is one factor that can contribute to sustainability.

Sicarius we might actually agree on a few areas.
I think that our civilization does consume resources faster than they can be replaced, and that if we keep on down the same path then we are heading for big trouble. We do need to change our ways. However we definitely disagree with the details.
Are you advocating that we abolish cities?
If so, what time scale do you conceive that this transfer from the city to the country take place over?
Will we better off at the end of it? Or will it end in catastrophe? Remember they tried this in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and it ended in disaster.

If you haven't read it already here an excellent book on the subject of environmental sustainability: Collapse: How societies choose to succeed or fail by Jared Diamond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

whether we're better off in the end will be pretty dependent on how we handle the middle. we're already in the beginning and it's not looking too promising.

I think the fall will be horrific, soley because those in power will try to hold on to their lifestyle

Sicarius, did it ever occur to you that you are in power?

I have authority over myself. if this is not what you mean then no it has never occured to me

You are in power over more than just yourself. Your actions have impacts elsewhere and you exercise power in many many ways. You are in a great deal of power, as am I.

uh oh ... jerkface is having delusions of grandure again - first sign of schizophrenia

What are you talkin about? We are all in so much POWER! It's amazing!

I am a master with no slaves, a king with no subjects, a god with no adherents. we all are, we just have to realize it.

I agree we are powerful, but I dont think we mean the same thing

Yeah... just some of us are masters with slaves, kings with subjects, and gods with adherents... worse yet some of us are masters with masters, kings with kings, and gods with gods. Power is relative.

Well how much power did you expect to get out of this life? I almost have more than I know what to do with!

to what specifically are you referring jerkface

Are you asking about my power? Well, for starters, I have the power to transport my body all sorts of crazy distances with technology that I can pay for (which, by the way, I had to buy via several hours of very rewarding, fun, and engaging, if occasionally dull, work). For a few hundred dollars, I can fly across the country! This is far more than my two piddly little legs could do on their own.

I cant take planes =[

Sorry dude. Trains are still a wonderful (and fun!) mode of rapid transit.

oh yeah I know. I love taking trains. unless I end up having to run from the yard bull