<HTML>In a message dated 8/19/2002 10:35:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, dhenwood@panix.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>OK, but if the population needs to be "dispersed" to get us all out of our >"unsustainable" cities, who's going to do the dispersing? People can be very shy about answering that question. You often hear "cities are unsustainable," and "there are too many people," without the speaker taking responsibility for the resettlement and the herd thinning.</BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, cities themselves are not necessarily that unsustainable. The flight from cities and the creation of urban sprawl, and the "paving of the wilderness" have proven to be much more destructive to the environment. Far more river, soil, and air has been tainted as a result. Plus, the need for transport of commodities (including workers) to and from the cities. Remember, that in an advanced communist society (or anarchist, if you prefer)-- or even a society transitioning away from capitalism to communism-- technology and public works can be produced for social rather than fiscal reasons. Thus, cities would have massive public transportation systems run on electricity, hydrogen, or whatever more sustainable technologies come along. Socialized production and distribution would ensure that resources weren't diverted away from rural places and other countries, so cities wouldn't be the bastions of rampant consumerism and waste that you see today in places like New York, L.A., etc. Also, there could be lots of agriculture in and around the cities themselves, i.e. urban gardens. This is the way it was at the turn of the last century, when the transportation industry wasn't nearly as huge. Best, David  </HTML>