You must log in or register to comment.

F_x wrote

I think so, first of all, cities can't be what they are today, that just doesn't work. So if we go by cities being "a bunch of people living at close proximity" and maybe using some of the structure we already have. There is nothing stopping some form of agreement between farmers to give surplus of food. City folk can produce good that farmer would want.

I'm pretty sure farmer wouldn't waste food so if they have too much and can't conserve it, they would give it to others regardless of agreement/disagreement.

One big problem (capitalism obviously) right now is the wasting of food, people buy too much, throw what's bad. Store buy too much and throw what's bad, and of course price stopping people in need to actually buy the food. Also farmer forced to send their land resources to other countries. So without that system I think some form of cities can exist, but depend on farmers. People in the city can always help at the farms.


gamebox3000 wrote

While it's not a total fix hydroponics and rooftop gardens could help cities be partially independent.


freel0ve wrote

I think that they could but they would probably have to become much more autonomous. Indoor farming, hydroponics, and a 100% vegan diet would probably get you there. My only problem is that often, cities form from global capitalist business' like banks, corporate headquarters, and centralized government. An anarchist city, without hierarchy, would be much different. The focus would be on things like education, mutual aid allocation, union houses, and larger scale cooperation.


KentTheramine wrote

I would like to argue instead that either, there would be no farmers & instead Machines making food for us. OR, there will be a development of a Middle Peasantry where they don't sell their crops but they aren't forced to give to people too. They just have themselves food & the excesses given to us. This is more likely to happen in an anarchist environment