Life in modern times

I apologise in advance for the following rant, but I feel that I need to vent.

:ranton:
A little background information:
I live in a small coastal village about 70K's out of Melbourne (1¹/₂ hrs on the train) and since giving up wood turning due to health reasons my main interest now is photography.
I used to love photographing the architecture and laneways in Melbourne, but now the place disgusts me. The beautiful Flinders Street Station is home for beggars and low lifes, as is Swanston Street. It seems you can't go anywhere without being accosted by lowlifes begging for money. There is litter and rubbish everywhere in the streets and the once beautiful laneways stink of urine. I honestly don't feel safe in the city after dark any more if I am on my own. I am angry at the gangs that roam the city, they have taken away from me something I loved doing. I find myself having no sympathy for homeless people, whenever I see a news report of someone getting shot I feel that they must have brought it on themselves, probably drug related. When I see reports of a fight in the city I figure both parties are at fault.
I am becoming a bitter and miserable person and I don't like it, I fear for the future of my two beautiful granddaughters.
:rantoff:

I've been doing a bit of research on how/why communities "break down"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory


"Theoretical explanation

The reason the state of the urban environment may affect crime may be three factors:

social norms and conformity,
the presence or lack of routine monitoring, and
social signaling and signal crime.

In an anonymous, urban environment, with few or no other people around, social norms and monitoring are not clearly known. Individuals thus look for signals within the environment as to the social norms in the setting and the risk of getting caught violating those norms; one of the signals is the area's general appearance.

Under the broken windows theory, an ordered and clean environment, one that is maintained, sends the signal that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated. Conversely, a disordered environment, one that is not maintained (broken windows, graffiti, excessive litter), sends the signal that the area is not monitored and that criminal behavior has little risk of detection.

The theory assumes that the landscape "communicates" to people. A broken window transmits to criminals the message that a community displays a lack of informal social control and so is unable or unwilling to defend itself against a criminal invasion. It is not so much the actual broken window that is important but the message the broken window sends to people. It symbolizes the community's defenselessness and vulnerability and represents the lack of cohesiveness of the people within. Neighborhoods with a strong sense of cohesion fix broken windows and assert social responsibility on themselves, effectively giving themselves control over their space.

The theory emphasizes the built environment, but must also consider human behavior.[17][page needed]

Under the impression that a broken window left unfixed leads to more serious problems, residents begin to change the way they see their community. In an attempt to stay safe, a cohesive community starts to fall apart, as individuals start to spend less time in communal space to avoid potential violent attacks by strangers.[1][page needed] The slow deterioration of a community as a result of broken windows modifies the way people behave when it comes to their communal space, which, in turn, breaks down community control. As rowdy teenagers, drunks, panhandlers, addicts, and prostitutes slowly make their way into a community, it signifies that the community cannot assert informal social control, and citizens become afraid of that worse things will happen. As a result, they spend less time in the streets to avoid these subjects and feel less and less connected from their community if the problems persist.

At times, residents tolerate "broken windows" because they feel they belong in the community and "know their place." Problems, however, arise when outsiders begin to disrupt the community's cultural fabric. That is the difference between "regulars" and "strangers" in a community. The way that"regulars" act represents the culture within, but strangers are "outsiders" who do not belong.[17][page needed]

Consequently, what were considered "normal" daily activities for residents now become uncomfortable, as the culture of the community carries a different feel from the way that it was once.

With regard to social geography, the broken windows theory is a way of explaining people and their interactions with space. The culture of a community can deteriorate and change over time with the influence of unwanted people and behaviors changing the landscape. The theory can be seen as people shaping space as the civility and attitude of the community create spaces, used for specific purposes by residents. On the other hand, it can also be seen as space shaping people with elements of the environment influencing and restricting day-to-day decision making.

However, with policing efforts to remove unwanted disorderly people that put fear in the public’s eyes, the argument would seem to be in favor of "people shaping space" as public policies are enacted and help to determine how one is supposed to behave. All spaces have their own codes of conduct, and what is considered to be right and normal will vary from place to place.

The concept also takes into consideration spatial exclusion and social division as certain people behaving in a given way are considered disruptive and therefore unwanted. It excludes people from certain spaces because their behavior does not fit the class level of the community and its surroundings. A community has its own standards and communicates a strong message to criminals, by social control, that their neighborhood does not tolerate their behavior. If however, a community unable to ward off would-be criminals on their own, policing efforts help.

By removing unwanted people from the streets, the residents feel safer and have a higher regard for those that protect them. People of less civility who try to make a mark in the community are removed, according to the theory.[17][page needed] Excluding the unruly and people of certain social statuses is an attempt to keep the balance and cohesiveness of a community."

Not a bad theory Grumpy... but it doesn't go into the Technology factor. Being in my early 30's, i think I've been in both camps in terms of growing up in both a largely Tech Free (by todays standards at least) time and in a largely Tech dominated environment.

When i was a child, we still rode bikes in the streets, played with other kids from the neighborhood, went to the park etc. As i reached my mid teens, the internet and playstations started to to be more common place. So we spent more time indoors playing on those and less time interacting with our neighbors. Then there's the internet. Unscrupulous activities by a minority dominated the news and social media, and we hear/read about it multiple times throughout the day. This breeds fear and parents are reluctant to let children run around outside and play with others that they don't know exceptionally well.

Community is becoming a redundant term. People are living withing their 4 walls and not interacting with others outside of their family and close friends anymore. There is no more public space because the public don't use it, it's simply space. "If i don't use it why would i maintain it" is the mantra.

And with everyone being piled on top of each other in cities, those spaces aren't open and are tucked away in corners further breeding fear in those that don't interact with those living around them.

Unfortunately, its seems to be irreversible. I've always lived in Sydney and just bought a townhouse here (don't ask me why, i now only have 1 kidney and no testicles as i had to sell them for the deposit!). As my son gets older and i more wise (thats debatable if you ask my wife), I start to feel the pull of regional NSW. Unfortunately I'd struggle to find employment so at this stage in my life its not feasible which is a problem the vast majority of people will face so we're just going to keep piling people higher and higher and community will become more and more a redundant term.

Thanks for your response Dibbers.
I think that you have a valid point about technology playing a part. On line shopping is an obvious factor, if you're not going out shopping you're not seeing what is happening at street level. The other thing I notice when/if I travel in to the CBD is that everyone seems to have their faces buried in the phones. It's almost as if they don't want to see what is going on around them.
My wife and I recently got back from a 6 week holiday through outback Australia and the East Coast (from Mackay to Port Stephens). If it wasn't for my wife wanting to be near the grand daughters we would move to Bargara, or Fingal Head in a heartbeat.

It is no theory, it's a fact. Giuliani of New York applied this with vigour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Even Canberra to a great extent has allowed this to creep in.

Social cohesion is changing and there are many reasons why: politics, technology, debt...

I never liked Melbourne.

John I hear what you are saying and do agree to a point, but, I remember reading something very similar, written by a bloke in about 1925 about Sydney. His words were nearly the same. I think that now that you are in your 60s your perception and views change from when you were younger.

We live 18 miles from the town of Tamworth (50,000 population). on the edges of town are 4 large near housing estates going in at a furious pace. I am not happy seeing oceans of house roofs where there was only animals grazing or farming going on. The Tamworth I knew is changing and I don't like it. Crime is up as well as littering and there are any number of low lifes. Its the sign of the times. I am more than happy to stay home with my shed and rural views. The less I have to go to town the better

My personal thoughts are that it's the breakdown of the family union. I feel it started when the first migrants/convicts arrived, they lost the personal contact with family, their offspring lost the contact with the Grandparents. Children have lost the respect for their elders, this was stated apparently, back in the days of Julius Caesar. Back in his day, it would have been a very very gradual decline, but lately it seems to be a sharp drop.
Children/youths wandering about aimlessly, parents unaware/uncaring as to where they are, police being basically powerless to do anything with them, as they have "rights", they're out on bail before the officers have finished the paperwork. If they're creating mischief in front of your property, you tell them off for something and the result is a mouthful of foul language, or rocks being thrown through the windows, or worse, you're too frightened to do something about it, as they threaten you with violence. As someone said earlier, they fear for their grandchildren.
What's this beautiful country going to be like in 100 years time, I'm glad i won't be around to see it.
I know I'm going to get some flack from this, but as I said in the start it's "My personal thoughts".

I believe that the origins of this phenomenon lay in the Industrial Revolution 1760 - 1840. Previous to this people for the most part lived on the land and were raised by the village. Even the city dwellers had larger extended families. The elders expected to die in their homes surrounded by family. Life then was far from idyllic with high child mortality rates, poverty and pestilence, but everyone had a role to play and knew their place in the family hierarchy. Once the families moved to the cities for work the father (usually) and often the mother went to work in the factories. This led to the creation of a new form of human, the Teenager. There's plenty of stuff written about these gangs of disaffected youth causing carnage in and around the industrial cites of Europe. It led to the formation of two significant youth movements, the church based group The Boys' Brigade 1883 and the Boy Scouts 1907. It's no coincidence that both were founded in England which was the the driver of the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in a different form of economics and the boom-bust cycle. There were lots of benefits to society from this with great advances in medicine and an improved standard of living and the plethora of trades arising as a result of new technologies. But with every revolutionary innovation there are winners and losers. When I left school there was work available for anyone that wanted it. A person who was not as gifted as some could always find work in factories, the railways or the PMG. They paid their taxes and contributed significantly to their communities. My soccer coaches during the 60's were tradies who could knock off at 3:30 twice a week and get to the local ground to run us around. They didn't work Saturdays as a rule.

What we are seeing now are some huge losers from the new innovation - Economic Rationalism. This is a type of economic Darwinism which is seeing our jobs going offshore to the cheapest bidder. Families are going backwards big time and trying to find a parent who can afford the time off work to run a footy or netball team is difficult because people a fearful of losing their jobs. Many families are working 2-3 jobs just to pay the mortgage. Their credit is maxed out to the limit. The Salvation Army, St Vinnies report a rise in the amount of middle class families seeking financial help with food, rent and power bills. It's no surprise to me that drug use and its concomitant issues are on the rise. Family violence is on the rise to. The problem isn't welfare bludgers that's just a political distraction. The biggest drain on welfare in Australia is the aged pension, and in my opinion corporations avoiding tax and paying their CEO's exorbitant bonuses while driving down the weekly wage.

In short, it aint over yet.

TT