[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 18, 2004, at 10:07 PM, Spike wrote:

>
> Most would agree that there is a growing threat to
> western civilization of an attack by some sort of
> weapons of mass destruction: bio, gas or nuke.

Sure since the west is insisting on throwing its weight behind 
blatantly irrational and oppressive acts.

> We
> are developing antimissile tech, but seems to me
> another parallel defense would be to encourage
> urban sprawl.  An enormous smeared out suburbs
> would be far less vulnerable to attack than an
> enormous highly concentrated city, would it not?
> The argument is made that urban sprawl is bad for
> wildlife, but the alternative may encourage an
> attack which would be bad for both humans and
> wildlife.  Perhaps cities have outlived their
> usefulness.
>

Solves the wrong problem.  Being more peaceable and civilized with 
others would reduce the risk a lot faster.    And no, changing our 
behavior does not mean "the terrorists won".  It means we decided to 
act according to our own supposed standards and take some 
responsibility.   Rebuilding our cities, yanking our freedoms, treating 
everyone as a suspect terrorist, even citizens, just so we can "show 
em" that we are untouchable and can and will do whatever we please and 
there isn't a thing "they" can do about it is insanity.

- samantha