A hmmm thought on a friday night

[crazycanuck]

One of my uni classes this semester is " Transportation & Society" and the following question arose on the first day(today):

Has society evolved around transport or has transport evolved around society? (don't worry, i'm not writing a report about this...It's just a question!)

why i chose a friday afternoon class i'll never know...

[Veronica]

It's only Friday morning, so I can't think about this yet. :D

Veronica

[crazycanuck]

Ok, you're off the hook til tomorrow morning my time ;)

[OakLeaf]

I think the answer is "yes."

Not sure how that would fly with your professor, though. :cool:

[bmccasland]

If you look at the spread of the sub-urbs, post-WWII, especially in those countries that weren't directly affected (I.e. USA), I would say ....

Oh crap, now I re-read your original question and I'm confused. I need more coffee.

Society has evolved around transport. You'd be hard pressed to get most of us Norte Americanos out of our cars.

Are you asking about over time in general - from the horse cart era through railroads - think about how rail roads affected the settling the western US. I'm not so sure about Australia. Don't you have RR towns - that existed because there's fuel/water? Farmers and ranchers bring their stock to the closest RR town?

I noticed when I was on a trip across the Sierra Madres in northern Mexico that there were no power lines, or rail roads to link the little villages - and how time seemed to have stood still. Where my experience with American History was that there was still a unifying effort to link the country. And I didn't see that in Mexico.

[TsPoet]

round transport. You'd be hard pressed to get most of us Norte Americanos out of our cars.

.

I think that's how I'd approach the question - compare NA to EU to Africa - NA personal transportation (cars), EU personal but more public (yes?), Africa - mostly public. So, what does that say about those societies? Did the form of transportation lead to the society or visa versa? (I know, that's the original question), but I think looking at different combos from different parts of the world might sort of give an answer.
Then there's the Amish in the US - I'd say in their case the transport evolved around the society. But, I think you look at LA and the society evolved around the transport!
Where I live we have a huge beautiful bus transportation center built right on the bypass. they built it for a gazillion dollars right before I moved here 11 years ago. It has never opened. At least it's parking lot has become a good place for car and motorcycle training classes.

[nolemom]

I would have to say transport evolved as a result of technology. Society evolved around the new opportunities provided by transport. Entire regions thrived or withered away based on the location of railroad tracks or later, interstate highways. The women's movement was impacted by the bicycle and the freedom of movement it provided to women. In order to ride the bike, new styles of clothing became acceptable, etc. I love a thought-provoking question right after a long, hard ride. I hope I am making some sense.:)

[OakLeaf]

I'm going to say transport evolved around society.

The USA was founded on individual transport. Families set off all on their own, or maybe with small groups of a few other families, each in their own wagon, to settle on isolated homesteads from which they'd need individual transport to have any contact (social or business) with other human beings.

Our means of transport may have gotten much faster and dirtier, but the idea that we all need individual transport has been stable over the centuries, I think.

From what I've seen of Italy and the Netherlands, they simply have a more collectivist way of going about things, transport included. Farmers seem to live in small villages, of which there are many, and travel a short distance to work their land. An arrangement that's probably been in place since feudal times. Other than that, people simply don't have the idea in their heads that they need individual transport for every journey.

Other countries, I have no idea.

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

[SadieKate]

Both over time, but the beginnings were "Society around Transport". Societies that evolved faster and further had domesticated (or domesticatible) beasts of burden.

May I recommend Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpazee? See Chapter 14.

[TsPoet]

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

mmm - didn't you just prove my point? Transportation has evolved around the Amish society, not the other way around. Exactly what you said. I think they are a perfect example of society driving transport, I can't think of any other case where it is that clear-cut. Every other case I can think of is a mix, at least in the 21st century.
Which is another point - if you asked this question 100 years ago, would the answer be different?

[spokewench]

I'm going to say transport evolved around society.

The USA was founded on individual transport. Families set off all on their own, or maybe with small groups of a few other families, each in their own wagon, to settle on isolated homesteads from which they'd need individual transport to have any contact (social or business) with other human beings.

Our means of transport may have gotten much faster and dirtier, but the idea that we all need individual transport has been stable over the centuries, I think.

From what I've seen of Italy and the Netherlands, they simply have a more collectivist way of going about things, transport included. Farmers seem to live in small villages, of which there are many, and travel a short distance to work their land. An arrangement that's probably been in place since feudal times. Other than that, people simply don't have the idea in their heads that they need individual transport for every journey.

Other countries, I have no idea.

I don't think the Amish are a good example (because their transport is dictated by church dogma, not by "evolution"), but even so, the reason they rely on horse and buggy is specifically to keep the communities united - to make it difficult for people to travel and interact outside of the sphere in which they themselves are directly affected - so that would be another example of transport being dictated by society and not the other way around.

I'm not really sure that the Amish use horses for transportation to keep their community people isolated. It is more of a choice, i.e. like buying locally grown food, and living a simple life and riding a bike rather than a car. The choice is not driven by technological advances. Not such a bad choice in many ways.

But, I do agree that this is an example of society driving transportation choice. I think this is sort of a chicken before the egg concept. Transportation is first chosen by society or driven by technological advances. However, then you have the reverse reaction of a certain choice causing a society to grow in a certain way; so then the choice drives a change in the society, i.e. for instance, the development of the suburbs in America.

spoke

[OakLeaf]

I'm not really sure that the Amish use horses for transportation to keep their community people isolated.

No, not isolated. To keep them from becoming alienated. Like the chapter in Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, remember? Which talked about using horses for farmwork, not transport, but same thing: if you plow faster than horses can walk, you can't see what's going on in the soil. If you do business or have regular social interactions farther away than a horse can travel round trip in a day, you're having effects in a community that might not redound to yourself.

And maybe it's the horse-and-buggy Mennonites who make it so explicit that that's the reason for their form of transport, more than the Old Order Amish, who forego much more technology; but I think it's both.

[crazycanuck]

Sk-i'll see if the Curtin library has that book.

Have any of you read " The Geography of Nowhere"?

I'm on my way out but a large part of our uni tutorial discussion yesterday was from a video called " End of Suburbia", should you feel like finding it.

[SadieKate]

Have any of you read " The Geography of Nowhere"? That's the second time in 2 days I've heard it mentioned. Hmm.

[OakLeaf]

Dang, sounds really interesting, but I'm so behind on my reading right now. :(

Just yesterday I picked up a copy of An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Standage.

I'm sure it'll have some discussion of the relationships between food and transportation... whenever I get around to reading it. :rolleyes:

[Red Rock]

CC- this is an intresting question and following disscussion.

I had never thought about transporation and Society being linked together. I will have to check out some of the books mentioned here. I guess I better get reading!

Keep asking us anything intresting that you come across CC. You have my intrest in this whole subject matter.

Red Rock

[OakLeaf]

Just read this (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010206.html) and thought of this thread...

[shootingstar]

When I worked out in the suburbs in last job over 40 kms. away from home in the downtown core, some employees asked me if I was going to relocate closer to work. :eek:

They knew of my long, daily non-car commute (blend of bike, light rapid train, bus, then walk). But for me, it was a temporary situation because job was contract. We currently live close within a 15-20 min. walk to many stores, services, restaurants, community centre, transportation choices. They didn't understand how I could live downtown. But then they haven't walked around in our area to appreciate how convenient things were.

The suburb is quite sprawly in a way that was mind-numbing every time we piled into someone's car occasionally and had to spend half an hr. to find a restaurant to eat, other than McDonald's. It really felt like the title of one of the referenced books, "Geography to Nowhere" except the mountains nearby and small historic area (Hudson's Bay fur trading station).

A few employees who were long-time residents now complain the quaint rural pace is being stripped out by the faster, denser car traffic ...and convoys of large transport trucks due to light industry on its edges and being close to the U.S.-Canada border. I had mixed feelings being part of a engineering company that building more highways/major roads to add to further urbanization. The agricultural land in my opinion, huge chunks will disappear over next few decades once new roads are "fixed"/situated permanently on land.

Methinks people get freaked out by photo of this aerial view with highrises, etc., not knowing how community services and other amenities are organized in various neighbourhoods.


Then when you get closer, in photo2. The green rail areas are bike lanes on various road bridges downtown. It is normally used alot by cyclists. Summer weekends tend to be abit quieter especially statutory holidays. Photos are part of downtown Vancouver. So bike, car, walking, water transportation and in distance near the geodesic round structure is aboveground light train system. Ringed all around the water body is a 25+ km. bike-pedestrian route that's well-known and well-used. (And probably will be even more heavily used once the Olympic athletes' village is done and converted to condos after the Olympics.)

[tulip]

Transportation and society are intimately linked, evolving together and informing each other along the way. Any segment of society can be linked to transportation, from the distance of cities from one another (used to be a day's walk would be a good distance), the location of cities (on water routes, rail--why else would Chicago exist?), segregation, the form of cities and the resulting societies that grew up within those cities.

Take Paris. The broad boulevards were established in the 19th century as military routes to prevent any future revolutions. The French Revolution was largely successful because of the intricate web of medieval streets and paths. Only the poor who lived there could figure them out, so the Revolution was not stamped out. Something to think about for the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo (as two examples). Now, however, the grands boulevards of Paris are intricately associated with the culture and society of the city.

Or Chicago. Nature's Metropolis is a wonderful book (if you are a planning and transportation geek like me, that is) about the growth of Chicago and the midwest, all stemming from the railroads and associated economic activities, like meat packing and agricultural trading. That required lots of workers, drawing immigrants from all over the world, and makes Chicago Chicago. Without the railroads, Chicago would not have developed.

And New Orleans--Mississippi River, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Not to mention Rome and most European towns and cities, all connected by the Romans. Oxford is the place where the oxen forded the river...on their way to market in the agricultural transportation system of the day.

There's no questioning the role of the interstate highway system on American culture and society. And then there are cities like Davis, California and Portland Oregon, which proactively planned their transportation system to encourage the kind of society that they wanted.

This is so much fun! Thanks, CC!