World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Can one live on 1 square meter (10 sq.f.)?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't call existing in such conditions 'living'. I would rather call that 'surviving'.
Back when we lived in California, my wife and I knew an Indian from New Delhi. He said having an education got you a job. The problem was, too many people eyeing the same job. India has work benefits: vacations, sick leave, etc., but you don't take advantage of them because there is someone to take over your job if you leave. That's the problem with over population, people have no value.
Nik, the strip might be 1 m wide, but to lie down and sleep would take more than 1 m in length, so you would have to lie along the strip, which means more than 1 m^2. I would argue getting run over by cars is not living.
The thought of 10 square feet does make one appreciate what they have. The idea of many people living in such close quarters, though, what kind of shelter is there; maybe a tent? What would the structure be socially? Assuming people have to get up and leave at some time, is there someone to watch their stuff? Even in that small space they would accumulate something. So there would need to be alliances, cooperative effort.
Come to think of it, as I remember, seeing some of these bag-people in LA, they live in a box roughly a square meter. But, LIVING is another question.




http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/1...
A friend returning from business trip to Pune, India, tells that India is the place one really feels what over -population is. In some high -end cafes it seems there are 3 waiters on each visitor. In the office building you have sort of 'servants/ porters/whatever' standing along the corridors, whom one can entrust carrying his bag or ordering a tea or anything really...
Often a place of extreme poverty and often a place of extreme wealth, as the most expensive living compound is also somewhere there in Mumbai..
Are these situs solvable or not really?