Swarm Theory and Organic Urbanism
In National Geographic this month I read an interesting article about swarm theory and self organising systems. It describes how for example a school of fish is able to make quick decisions by making use of collective intelligence. Basically they apply to three basic rules: 1) avoid crowding nearby fishes, 2) swim in the average direction of nearby fishes, and 3) stay close to nearby fishes. This results in the typical behaviour of a school of fish (or a swarm of birds) that we know from TV. Robots that were operated by the same rules showed similar behaviour, and the logarithm is now being used for animation too.
It would be interesting to see what swarm theory would mean to informal urbanism (slums) as a self organising system. Previously I already concluded that slums show fractal behaviour, and that slum structures, when they connect to an existing urban grid, have more chance to grow into mature city neighbourhoods. We could stimulate the self organising tendency of slums development to impose some basic rules to the dwellers when they build their homes. Connecting to the existing urban street grid could be one of them, as well as connecting to a main street of a certain minimal dimension for easy access of sanitary and emergency services (or police for that matter). Also, maximum dimensions of a city block could be defined as well as a percentage of green or open spaces. This way, swarm theory could provide in a basic framework that can potentially grow into a mature city, without too much policy or pre-investment.
19 reacties:
Dear Maurits, I think this is a great idea. To make it work, I think these slum dwellers must have an incentive to abide by such basic rules. As you already mentioned, they have. Their living conditions will improve, as well as the value of their property.
Hi Erik. Property is an interesting issue in this context. Usually the slum dwellers occupy the land illegally. This does not mean that the slum dwellers have no rights. If the land is not being claimed, after some time the slummers gain the right to stay and legalize their situation. For me this kind of pragmatism is a good example of sustainable policy.
Gents,
I remember an old Indian who said "this land is not for sale". Why is it that men want to buy land and maybe in the future air?? Hey, this is my space. People with no right to live someplace, because some rich fellow owns the land??? We are like animals...
I like the theme of property issues... Mankind should have some basics for living: house, bed and some breakfast..
The Duke
Duke, that indian was Chief Seattle. This is another quote of his: "This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. Sustainability in its essence.
Duke & Maurits,
Get a live! You're staying over in HISTORY. Maybe in the old days this were some good ethics.. the Indians, Jesus, Buddha and so on. But we are living in 2007 now. Money took over the world since good old Marx died..
Look for example at China, investing around the world (I'm sure its not for free ;-).
I appreciate noble ideas, but to where do they lead???
Hi Jacky. You are right if you say the past is the past. I do not plea for some archaic, pre-industrial model, but some reconsideration is undeniable. Illegal land occupation is a real problem in the world's biggest cities. To send large numbers of people away just because some investor needs the land for speculation is just not realistic. We should look for a pragmatic solution, and though it might sound like a paradox, the past could provide a new perspective.
In my country, if a building stays empty for more than a year, a squatter has the right to claim it as his house. Similarly, land that is not being used responsibly by the few should be available to the many. Of course money and property are undeniable and vital components of modern life, but as we believe in democracy, wealth should not be available to the happy few only.
Yeah Maurits,
I know you're right. But it contains still some morals in your reply.. What can they do in Brasil about it?? There is not the Netherlands... they probably had some history in this, witch Brasil don't have.. There are different laws and habbits everywhere.
Big money spenders (and takers) have made old countries rich (like the Netherlands in Japan&China et cetera). Brasil is a poor country, they need those people to grow. It still doesn't make it right, but that's how it goes..
Yo Jacky, and then??
Let just everything happen?? For the sake of what?? Progress??
I think the idee of Maurits seems well..
Enabling the poor to gain some wealth does not automatically mean taking that wealth from rich people. A modern market economy should enable both to gain.
I suggest for example to give slum dwellers the right to occupy undeveloped land. Slum dwellers should only be allowed to be evicted if they are compensated by the landowner for part of their losses, namely a percentage of the added value that resulted from their occupation.
In this way slum dwellers are motivated to make the best out of their dwellings. Above all, both landowner and occupant will benefit from the gain.
Hi folks! It is obvious Brazil is not The Netherlands. Brazil for a start is much younger and doesn’t have a colonial past. But this in a way puts Brazil in advance, as it does not have to make the same mistakes the ‘developed’ countries made before.
As a result, Brazil has already shown an interesting new approach to development on several issues. The open source model was embraced as a new model for development, and there was a new approach on patents for Aids medicine. Also, as my latest post shows, there are pragmatic solutions to problems that common property laws cannot solve.
I have to agree with Erik: it is not a matter of choice between capitalism and socialism. It is merely about pragmatism, without judgment, and this is what makes it most fascinating.
Hi Folks,
Eric I think you are wrong. If one group get richer, the other one gets less rich! All the money in the world is related to the amount of gold.. if something changes, than we get inflation (as well as for other reasons). The amount of gold is stable in a way. This means that if we want the poor to be richer, we as rich people give in something.
Then you get exactly to the real problem... We (western people) want to help, but not on our losses.. Give and take ,useally is take!
Are we in the world prepared to give in in order to help those who have nothing???
-- Communism pur sang is not so bad at all ;-)
Dear Pottovski,
I agree we differ in opinion here. One can see the economy as a giant cake and discuss how to divide it. I however think the size of the economy is not fixed. I think we can make the cake grow.
I would like to compare this with traffic. Suppose we build a road. Pretty soon the road is full of traffic. This does not mean that there is now less traffic on other roads. No, there are just more vehicles, the sign of a growing economy.
Beeing convinced of this, I think the point is not sharing cake but giving people an honest opportunity of growing their own cake.
Bon apetit!
Hi Pottovski, I have to agree with Erik.
To assume there is only one form of capital, is quite simplistic. Any kind of property is capital. Land is capital. Workforce is capital. Even time is capital. You don't have to connect to mainstream economy to build your own. In fact this is happening in the Favela's in Brazil. They are more and more functioning as states within the state.
Next to that I don't believe that action comes from principle. Principle rather comes from action. To design an ideology and than act to it, just doesn't work, as history has proven. This is the very reason why the communistic MST movement in Brazil doesn't win popular support. They are just not realistic.
Communism is dead. Deal with it.
Gents,
You can't eat air. Maybe it gives some enlightment on the first two bites, but it doesn't fill the stomach...
It looks fine what you're saying, but reality shows different. Please tell me on what economy is based on??
According to me it is based on hard cash, money. in other words GOLD. (cake is often yellow, so maybe thats the confusion ;-)
You can't make more gold. The National banks are build on gold.If they print more money,the money will be worthless.
IF there are in the world 10 apples you can only make one cake. The richest get the biggest piece. If they want a poorer guy to have a bigger piece, they have to cut their own...
Look at history there are always poor and rich people. There can't be only rich... The rich can only be rich because of the poor. Like there are no saints if there are no sinners..
ofcourse Maurits there is not only one form of capital. That's not what I said. Social capital etc can be important and relevant, but this doesn't undermine what I just said.
Bye the way: Elvis is dead and God is dead to...
Moral(es) lives???
Commy bastards and socio-economic idealists.. what a match on this blog! I like that c|:-)
I wounder what the slumdwellers themself might say about this..
Like air, you cannot eat gold as well.
I’ll tell you what economy is based upon. It is about the enforcement and protection of one’s property, and through it of one’s liberty, independence and self-sufficiency, either by means of the law or by force. Economy is about power.
Power can be achieved in many ways. Like apples, you can grow your own economy. The Internet economy did not exist 20 years ago. Now some of the world’s biggest companies are related to the Internet. It is about the power of ideas.
If you speak of just one cake, you speak of a fixed reality. The consequence would be that one day the cake will be eaten. Then what? But reality is ever changing. By suggesting there is only one cake, you erase the value of human creativity.
Consider this: "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' " – Phelps Adams
Maurits,
You're right, economy is about power. But Power and Money are very close linked to eachother. At this point we share views.
But I don't understand your point of erasing the value of human creativity??? If everything is related to power, then in the essense there is only 'one cake'..
There are many forms of human action and interpretation, but it is based on one thing --> power & money
I don't mean to discuss communism, because I now in the presents forms it doesn't work (still I believe in valueable lessons from it). But one thing I don't understand: You critice communism based on historious facts and place it in the past... But you don't seem to understand that history has proven for a much longer time that some humans are poor and abused and other humans abuse and get rich... It started very soon in the history of mankind.. There was never a point in history that all men made their own cake. Probably it will never happen in the future..
To strive to a friendly human policy is a hell of job for the government and it's inhabitants..
You’re wrong, in history there has never been a status quo. Wealth came and went like the tides of the sea, you just have to look at the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Russians. Your argument just doesn’t hold. Suggesting there’s only once piece of cake is suggesting there’s only one truth that doesn’t change. But a world that doesn’t change is a dead world. Sustainability is about a world that lives.
To get back to the subject of this blog I’ll take a Brazilian example. Our economy is dominated by gold, black gold that is, a.k.a. oil. Our dependency has lead to crises in the 1970s and continues to influence our lives today. Instead of being submissive to the whims of the market, Brazil opted to use ethanol as you could already have read here. As a result of creative thinking Brazil could claim itself independent on foreign oil in 2006. Instead of trying to get their piece of the cake, they baked their own.
I'm not wrong, you didn't read right.. I never said it is a status quo. But your argument underlines mine. Through history (Greek, Egypt, Romans and so on) there were poor and rich people. It switched but in the essense there were poor and rich. This doesn't change.. Indeed the world changes in form, but not in essense.
Then again back to your cake. Brasil made indeed there own recepy. But it doesn't mean there is a massive cake change. Let I explain through basic principles:
If I have the only cows in Holland, I will be a rich man and the price is mine to decide. In other words I have the only acces to the giant cake. Then if you find a new way to economy and breed pigs and people start to eat them, you get a piece of the market. People will eat cows or pig. My share will get less and the prices will go less because I have to compete with you. In this way you found a way to get a bigger peace of the cake. Mine will go less.
The same with Brasil. If they don't need oil from the arabic countries there piece will go lesse and the invention of Brasil will make place for the bigger piece..
One get richer, the other not. You can't drive your car at oil en benzine in the same time...
That's what I tried to explain.
Finding new ways on the market is good, but it means that something else will go less or even disappear.
The world will always be changing, cultures, powers, nation will come, rise and disappear. But it doesn't change that there will be always people with more and people with less. There is no good if there is no evil..
The job of the poor is to get better. The job of ethics is to gain access for all. The job of the evil is to get as much as possible regardless of others.
Post a Comment