Great meditation on the cross. Herr Luther would approve.
Isn't it amazing that the impact of Christ in history was so significant that even his mode of death was slowly turned into a metaphor, because men increasingly shunned making a spectacle out of it? I'm not completely sanguine about using M.D.s to devise modern capital punishments, as that goes against their oaths, but it heartens me that the civil authorities no longer view it as a means to frighten the citizens into worshipping power, as it was used in Rome.
Now we can talk about bearing our cross even if it's an illness, or family conflict. It retains its humbling and somewhat public character. A means to suffer something faithfully while doing good and serving as an example to the world.
That was a delight to read. Thank you. Venice is now slightly demystified for me, and I'm even more eager now to visit someday.
To me, cars don't represent dehumanization, so much as frontier economics. The internal combustion engine and plentiful fuel were effective solutions in certain places to the boom of human growth and what that naturally does to real estate values. As an American, of course, my perception is colored by the western expansion. The car is essentially the horse. The Methodist circuit riders couldn't have done what they did without the horse, or, in another day and age, the car.
But there is no denying the delight of a pedestrian dominated cosmopolitan landscape. I wonder if perhaps these landscapes will emerge more and more as the earth becomes more cosmopolitan, as the bible seems to predict, and newer, more cost effective solutions are developed.
Some extol trains, which have their allure. But it's difficult to imagine those in Venice!
It will be fun to see in 100 or 200 years if even the relatively economically modest demographic set are able to enjoy delightful walking cities. Even some stereotypical sprawling car built cities in the USA, founded after the ICE, are now wealthy enough to install numerous delightful walking and biking greenbelts.
My issue is not with the automobile per se, which is immensely valuable in its place. As you note, that place is chiefly on the frontier or in the countryside, between settlements. My issue is with the ordering of towns and cities around the automobile.
It's an interesting social issue to be sure. I've lived in car-domimated US cities and found good things in them, but have also lived in some large scale mass transit and enjoyed that as well. (Yet those towns still had crazy freeways).
An interesting sample is the city of Houston. Known for its freeways and car dominance and ostensible lack of zoning, it's also known for being highly affordable, compared with other cities. Therefore it's a mecca for immigrants, because the affordability gives growth rather than stagnation. And, once they arrive, they buy a car and join the car culture.
I struggle to see how younger cities could not be engineered around cars, by logical and economic default.
But there are interesting developments!
I've read someone who conjectured that the rise of self driving cars will totally transform the CBDs of car cities, as the real estate once necessary for all the car parks will no longer be necessary. Imagine hailing a robot car for your commute which doesn't need to be parked all day at your work anymore, it can go out and do taxi work in the hinterlands during the day, yielding that old car park space to different needs.
And I found this interesting write up on walkable cities in the developing world where, ironically, the forcing of planning may actually drive them toward more car orientation. Something to be avoided?
Great meditation on the cross. Herr Luther would approve.
Isn't it amazing that the impact of Christ in history was so significant that even his mode of death was slowly turned into a metaphor, because men increasingly shunned making a spectacle out of it? I'm not completely sanguine about using M.D.s to devise modern capital punishments, as that goes against their oaths, but it heartens me that the civil authorities no longer view it as a means to frighten the citizens into worshipping power, as it was used in Rome.
Now we can talk about bearing our cross even if it's an illness, or family conflict. It retains its humbling and somewhat public character. A means to suffer something faithfully while doing good and serving as an example to the world.
Speaking as a privileged westerner, of course...
That was a delight to read. Thank you. Venice is now slightly demystified for me, and I'm even more eager now to visit someday.
To me, cars don't represent dehumanization, so much as frontier economics. The internal combustion engine and plentiful fuel were effective solutions in certain places to the boom of human growth and what that naturally does to real estate values. As an American, of course, my perception is colored by the western expansion. The car is essentially the horse. The Methodist circuit riders couldn't have done what they did without the horse, or, in another day and age, the car.
But there is no denying the delight of a pedestrian dominated cosmopolitan landscape. I wonder if perhaps these landscapes will emerge more and more as the earth becomes more cosmopolitan, as the bible seems to predict, and newer, more cost effective solutions are developed.
Some extol trains, which have their allure. But it's difficult to imagine those in Venice!
It will be fun to see in 100 or 200 years if even the relatively economically modest demographic set are able to enjoy delightful walking cities. Even some stereotypical sprawling car built cities in the USA, founded after the ICE, are now wealthy enough to install numerous delightful walking and biking greenbelts.
My issue is not with the automobile per se, which is immensely valuable in its place. As you note, that place is chiefly on the frontier or in the countryside, between settlements. My issue is with the ordering of towns and cities around the automobile.
It's an interesting social issue to be sure. I've lived in car-domimated US cities and found good things in them, but have also lived in some large scale mass transit and enjoyed that as well. (Yet those towns still had crazy freeways).
An interesting sample is the city of Houston. Known for its freeways and car dominance and ostensible lack of zoning, it's also known for being highly affordable, compared with other cities. Therefore it's a mecca for immigrants, because the affordability gives growth rather than stagnation. And, once they arrive, they buy a car and join the car culture.
I struggle to see how younger cities could not be engineered around cars, by logical and economic default.
But there are interesting developments!
I've read someone who conjectured that the rise of self driving cars will totally transform the CBDs of car cities, as the real estate once necessary for all the car parks will no longer be necessary. Imagine hailing a robot car for your commute which doesn't need to be parked all day at your work anymore, it can go out and do taxi work in the hinterlands during the day, yielding that old car park space to different needs.
And I found this interesting write up on walkable cities in the developing world where, ironically, the forcing of planning may actually drive them toward more car orientation. Something to be avoided?
https://reason.com/2024/02/18/indonesias-free-market-superblocks/