The extent of an alignment between what we want and what we get from our cities depends on how far into the future we plan to continue on our current trajectory, and by what standard of a quality life. It no secret that there is growing alarm concerning the issues of global extractivism (Klein, 25) and the perilous effects that loom somewhere in the misty future; but the most frightening issue is the amount of resignation that our managing entities and our populace exhibit. “For any of this to change, a worldview will need to rise to the fore that sees nature, other nations, and our own neighbors not as adversaries, but rather as partners in a grand project of mutual reinvention” (Klein, 23); however, any level of change that happens comes as a direct result of tension, which has been pushed away as far as possible by virtue of our collective acceptance of indulgence and indolence.
The very function of cities, as I understand it, has been used as a means: (1) to foster stability amongst a body of people who wish to be involved with one another, and (2) to escape the uncertainty, and freedom, that comes with living in subservience to the laws of nature. This reflects the cultural shift in the dynamics between humanity and environment, where we turn to each other for nurturing and protective instead of our surroundings. Currently in its most mature form, this ideology has led to a complete and purposeful kinesthetic divorce of planetary forces and its contribution to our survival. It would seem that we have grown, as a society, into the equivalent of a malignant tumor; and unless we can once again become a productive part of this ecosystem (from doing no harm, to doing more good) we will no doubt be responsible for its end.