Looks like, for all practical purposes, humanity’s tryst with the future is doomed. From scientists to the ordinary person walking the street, the general agreement is that the road to living a life of ecological sustainability is sealed and there is nothing much that we can do about it. We are on an irreversible forward gear and between the vagaries of climate change and the volatility of capitalism as we know it, are about to vanish into a cloud of dust or drown in floods.
Then there are also those few people who have decided to go down fighting, against all odds against the face of such a doomed future. From those who feel that they should still spend their retirement funds to purchase a spot of land somewhere in the middle of nowhere to regenerate a perma-forest, to millennials who prefer living a life more consciously in terms of the land they occupy beneath their feet, such ‘eccentrics’ seem to be multiplying as well.
Yet, if you look at any moment in human history, in any part of the world, you will find examples of such ‘drop-outs’ that have always existed. From sages to hippies, from monasteries to walled campuses, the messy world has always produced its own critics who have created their own refuge amidst very real possibilities of doom.
Is there really much difference between the generations of people who produced utopias in the past and those that do so today? For that matter, is there really much difference between those who produce and execute utopias of any kind — from the ecological ideal to the kingdom of egalitarian dreams? Or a haven for objects of desire? What exactly is the point of difference between producing an ideal city by erasing all that exists on the ground and someone who wants to build a natural sanctuary from scratch in which only those who share that vision have a right to stay?
Claiming the future
Everyone seems to be pushing ahead their own ideal and are claimants on the future for humanity at large. From the billionaire who has decided that the future ought to be on planet Mars since Earth is doomed. To the valiant eco-warrior who is ‘planting’ her sustainable forest. To each of them, the other appears fragile, waging a pointless battle.
The point is that both have emerged from an ancient tradition of place making — of producing an ideal based on controlling as many parameters as possible. This tradition was expressed most potently in town planning — ancient, medieval and modern — and all were inspired by the agricultural model, which turns messy forests into neat fields.
Perfectly timed and planned
The metaphors and models of civic life were the obedient unfolding of natural life, from a seed that was nurtured, planted in straight lines, shaped by systematic grids and predetermined cycles, harvested and then cleared for a new batch.
In many ways, this old form of managing space and time predisposed humans to modern life, with its industrial rhythm and desperate attempt at planning cities on functional basis. It shaped more or less disciplined humans who were ready to repeat procedures till the end of times.
Losing control
For the restless spirit, this planned habitat was always a prison and the ideal of the wilderness an attractive alternative. It was not about the forest as habitat as much as what it embodied — the sense of freedom from control.
If we recognise this then perhaps we don’t have to swing between extremes as we go about navigating our doomed future. We could recognise that it is not about producing another ideal, but drawing on new metaphors for place making. Perhaps the future could be neither about the pristine forest nor the planned city that projects idealistic expectations on its citizens.
Places that break rules, like habitats growing against the grid, or those that have allowed a variety of different forms to flourish should be the ones to emulate. No one has to wait for an ideal moment, or space. The right time is now and the right place is the mess we are in.
The writers are co-founders of urbz.net, an urban network that’s active in Mumbai, Goa and beyond.