4 ms·

Why should the world focus on cities? Those who are born and raised in rural areas can't just uproot their lives the moment they turn 18 and start to afford, o

Why should the world focus on cities? Those who are born and raised in rural areas can't just uproot their lives the moment they turn 18 and start to afford, or even enjoy city life. Because the commute is closer? It's still at least as slow in many places, because of traffic problems generated by tighter clusters of people. The idea that cities are the most optimal is an idea, not a proven fact. Your experience may support the idea, but mine certainly does not. The point here is that there are more people living in cities than in rural areas, simply because that has been true for a few generations, and people don't tend to change lifestyles. People who grow up with one lifestyle realize the advantages it provides, and grow up with a bias toward that lifestyle. That bias coupled with the population difference is the real reason the majority of people don't care about rural areas. Personally, I think we should fight that bias.

Retra 9y ago
I grew up in a rural town. I left right when I turned 18, and so did most everyone I know. Maybe they shouldn't have let WalMart come in and destroy all the local businesses. Maybe they shouldn't have sold the paper mill to 4 different conglomerates with significant lay-offs each time. And maybe now they shouldn't vote republican in every election like they truly don't give a shit about anybody. Nobody is going back. Nobody is going to help that community recover. The people in charge of that community did everything in their power to make it unappealing for their children, and it will stay that way.
- rpvnwnkl 9y ago
  Are you from Mexico?
bllguo 9y ago
because it's more efficient? The services will help more people because of population density. I mean, the math is obvious. I'm not sure what the argument is. Nobody is saying city folk are more important. There are simply more of them.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >The services will help more people because of population density. You're assuming a centralized distribution model and that the overhead of centralization is more than made up for with economics of scale. edit: is that not the implied assumption?
  - bllguo 9y ago
    Well I didn't downvote you if that's the implication :) Sure, I suppose it is.. do you mean to suggest that the assumption is false?
- hermitdev 9y ago
  Yet, tight population densities also have detrimental environmental effects, such as heat islands, higher levels of noxious gasses, modification or pollution of natural drainage, losses of open green spaces just to name a few. Rural areas typically don't modify the local drainage (you're not likely connected to a sewer, you have a septic system). They don't become heat islands are there's relatively little pave or concreted. The noxious gasses aren't usually a problem due to lower traffic, usage and density, except in some mountain valleys where you get temperature inversions over winter that trap some of that. The problems are technological/economical. Getting power is a pain in the ass, yet we've mostly solved that, likewise with traditional phone land-lines. Internet access is abysmal. I get better internet connectivity on my cell phone than my parents can get in their house because local providers won't run cable/fiber because it's too expensive for too few subscribers, but the federal government mandated access to both power & phone and we have those.
- eric_b 9y ago
  I've lived in cities - they typically failed to provide better services than lower density suburbs, despite having a bigger tax base and "efficiencies". There are many reasons for this, but cities do not become magically more efficient or well run with more people. Sadly, the opposite is usually true. I think you've bought a bill of goods that a certain group of people are selling, without actually having lived it.

Retra 9y ago

I grew up in a rural town. I left right when I turned 18, and so did most everyone I know. Maybe they shouldn't have let WalMart come in and destroy all the local businesses. Maybe they shouldn't have sold the paper mill to 4 different conglomerates with significant lay-offs each time. And maybe now they shouldn't vote republican in every election like they truly don't give a shit about anybody. Nobody is going back. Nobody is going to help that community recover. The people in charge of that community did everything in their power to make it unappealing for their children, and it will stay that way.

rpvnwnkl 9y ago
Are you from Mexico?

bllguo 9y ago

because it's more efficient? The services will help more people because of population density. I mean, the math is obvious. I'm not sure what the argument is. Nobody is saying city folk are more important. There are simply more of them.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>The services will help more people because of population density. You're assuming a centralized distribution model and that the overhead of centralization is more than made up for with economics of scale. edit: is that not the implied assumption?
- bllguo 9y ago
  Well I didn't downvote you if that's the implication :) Sure, I suppose it is.. do you mean to suggest that the assumption is false?
hermitdev 9y ago
Yet, tight population densities also have detrimental environmental effects, such as heat islands, higher levels of noxious gasses, modification or pollution of natural drainage, losses of open green spaces just to name a few. Rural areas typically don't modify the local drainage (you're not likely connected to a sewer, you have a septic system). They don't become heat islands are there's relatively little pave or concreted. The noxious gasses aren't usually a problem due to lower traffic, usage and density, except in some mountain valleys where you get temperature inversions over winter that trap some of that. The problems are technological/economical. Getting power is a pain in the ass, yet we've mostly solved that, likewise with traditional phone land-lines. Internet access is abysmal. I get better internet connectivity on my cell phone than my parents can get in their house because local providers won't run cable/fiber because it's too expensive for too few subscribers, but the federal government mandated access to both power & phone and we have those.
eric_b 9y ago
I've lived in cities - they typically failed to provide better services than lower density suburbs, despite having a bigger tax base and "efficiencies". There are many reasons for this, but cities do not become magically more efficient or well run with more people. Sadly, the opposite is usually true. I think you've bought a bill of goods that a certain group of people are selling, without actually having lived it.