Summary Of Planet Of Slums

In Planet of Slums, Davis discusses the roots of slums in relation to urban poverty in the post-modern era as well as its social, political, economical and ecological consequences. This essay might ring a bell to many as a duplication of the famous UN-HABITAT’s report in 2003 on the challenge of slums; however in my opinion, what Davis is attempting to do here is an exploration to the roots of urban poverty on a global scale rather than within local state governance, and also with references to the historical context instead of current conditions. Chapter four of this reading basically looks into the approaches taken in tackling with slums as an urban problem over the past decades. The essay presents itself in a rather despairing manner, identifying
the various opportunities for self-help attempted for the people living in the slums, of which none has ever succeeded. The writer seems to suggest that the hope of improving the current state of slums is bleak.

Hodson and Marvin on the other hand, takes on a different perspective in Urbanism in the Anthropocene. The term ‘anthropocene’ is being introduced as being more reflective of the current geological era and the impact of humans in reshaping planetary ecology. Points of argument are presented in clear sections throughout the essay, namely a review of the challenges of cities in the anthropocene, the approaches taken at various scales, critical questions on ecological enclaves versus ecological urbanism, identification and discussion of the critical implications and also further challenges. Today, an approach to the subject on slums seems to become a must to start with urbanization as the starting point to the story. Critics are writing about how more than half of the world population is living in cities and that for the first time in history, the urban population is set to outnumber the rural. However, as we take a step back to look at this whole picture, should we not ask ourselves these questions – What is wrong with rapid urbanization? Isn’t it natural that the rural habitants have the right to choose urban areas with much more facilities to live in? Is rural poverty in any way even better than urban poverty? Planet of Slums touches on the issues of urbanization, poverty and slums in third-world countries with case studies from various regions. However, Davis’s attempt at generalizing the different countries without a clear categorizing criteria might result in misleading the reader with his/her failure to recognize the existence of these harsh differences, such as slums of a rich developing country as opposed to a third world country. In my opinion, the reality in society here is being distorted and generalized in that Davis simply divides society between the rice and poor, middle class and squatter, formal and informal. It is a bifurcation of the world into two giant categories, urban and rural, with the picture of one overarching urban informal sector spanning the globe being too simplistic and distorted from reality. Our urban socio-cultural and economical networks are far too complicated to be generalized into just the above two categories.
First, the concept of anthropocene.
The human imprint on the environment has become so active that it rivals some of the great forces of nature in its impact on the functioning of the earth system. The late nineteenth Century saw scientists becoming more aware of the extent of human influence on planet earth. Changes of the Earth’s climate, oceans, land and biosphere are now great and so rapid that the concept of a new geological epoch defined by the action of humans is widely debated. ‘Anthropocene’ here refers to the geological episode in Earth history caused by the action of humans. Higher levels of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels are one feature of what many call the Anthropocene, a new geological era dominated by humans. Yet regulatory approaches to managing carbon in the Earth system are going in the wrong direction. This is because the rise of carbon dioxide levels is taking place at the scale of the Earth system itself. Humans are inside of that system, CO2 emissions are coupled to energy use, and increasing energy use is central to economic progression. It is hence simply not possible to manage energy usage from the scale of households to that of the planet itself using regulatory
methods.
Rather than attempting to manage carbon through brute force at scales never achieved (managing carbon is completely different from managing ozone-destroying substances), we need to shift our focus to the system itself. In particular, we need to effect a system change that is comparable to the change brought on by improvements in the steam engine and the related business models. We need to shift the Earth system into a state in which human development is decoupled from CO2 emissions. The change we need will not simply be a technology; it will be a fundamental shift in how we think about, deploy and manage energy on the scale of the planet.
We need to shift the Earth system into a state in which human development is decoupled from CO2 emissions. The change we need will not simply be a technology; it will be a fundamental shift in how we think about, deploy and manage energy on the scale of the planet. Just as milk is reliable, safe, and reasonably cheap in New York City, a new energy infrastructure will emerge in the context of markets and human intentionality at the individual and small group scale. The daunting element here is that we need something, but we do not know what it is. But it should not be imagined to being planned in detail in a top-down manner. All of this calls for a policy framework that focuses more on innovation and social processes surrounding change than on regulation of carbon itself. Regulatory and policy frameworks are going to be very important, but they need to shift from direct emphasis on carbon to emphasis on system change. We need something that is highly disruptive and that will allow the poorest of Earth’s inhabitants to improve their quality of life, because as they improve their quality of life they will consume markedly more energy. Rooftop solar may be part of that, but in order to address the energy challenges in the poorest parts of our planet, we will need to invent new economic and infrastructural models to support deployment in those parts of the world.
Second is the issue of equity and sustainable development. The ethical principle of equity is fundamental to the concept of sustainable development. However, governments across the world are adopting sustainable development policies that reinforce existing inequities and creating new ones. Such policies often involve monetary valuation of the environment and the use of financial incentives aimed at using market mechanisms to allocate scarce environmental resources. They remove decision-making power from the grassroots and sadly, result in certain communities bearing more than their fair share of environmental burdens

Equity means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality, below which nobody falls. Within a community it usually also means that everyone should have equal access to community resources and opportunities, and that no individuals or groups of people should be asked to carry a greater environmental burden than the rest of the community as a result of government actions. Nonetheless, environmental inequities exist in all societies. Poorer people tend to suffer the burden of environmental problems more than others do. This is because more affluent people have more choices about where they live: they can afford to pay more to live in areas that have not had their environment degraded. Also, these people are better able to fight the imposition of a polluting facility in their neighbourhood because they have better access to financial resources, education, skills and the decision-making structures.

Inequities are a cause of environmental degradation because poverty deprives people of the choice about whether or not to be environmentally sound in their activities. As quoted from the Brundtland Commission, “Those who are poor and hungry will often destroy their immediate environment in order to survive: They will cut down forests; their livestock will overgraze grasslands; they will overuse marginal land; and in growing numbers they will crowd into congested cities. The cumulative effect of these changes is so far-reaching as to make poverty itself a major global scourge.” Nonetheless, it is important to identify that high levels of affluence are perhaps even more damaging to the environment as they are accompanied by high levels of consumption. Many environmental problems are the result of affluence rather than poverty.

Naturally, people’s willingness to pay, whether measured directly or inferred, will be intimately linked with their ability to pay or their incomes.
It will also be shaped by their perceptions of monetary value. People’s willingness to pay may be dependent on their incomes, and this may distort the outcomes in favour of the choices of rich people. Although affluent people are willing to pay more to protect their local environment, they do not necessarily value their local environment more than poorer people value theirs. Clearly methods which depend on willingness to pay underrate the values of people with low incomes.
The market is a system which advantages those most able to pay. Using the market, whether an actual market or an engineered one, to value the environment tends to produce values that reflect the prevailing distribution of income and denies people an equitable influence over their environment. If equity is to be taken seriously then new ways of decision-making must be found that enable the multifaceted values associated with the environment to be fully considered and heeded. Clearly, merely extending market values to incorporate the environment into existing economic systems will not achieve
this.

We have reached a point where humans are dominant. Up to now we have crashed around with little attention to the fact that we are pushing up against the buffering capacity of our planet; but we differ from cyanobacteria in that we can imagine the future. Our challenge now is to recognize that as much as we enjoy the illusion of command and control, we are inside a very complex system that will respond in unforeseen ways. We need to shift our approach from reductionist management of our impact inside of that system to a stance that recognizes the need to change the system itself. We should not interpret Davis’ ‘urbanisme noir’ as an irreversible fate. It is based on facts which are not the least constructed with the help of the auto poetic imaginery power of architects. The questions that we should pose ourselves should instead be whether architecture is powerless in the face of urban poverty or if it is currently headed in the incorrect direction to address it.