The aspirations which some people manage to realise of living in modest, simple, more biostable, more biophillic surroundings dont deserve to be categorised as

The aspirations which some people manage to realise of living in modest, simple, more biostable, more biophillic surroundings dont deserve to be categorised as retrograde. The glamour and possibilities of an intimate experience with natural materials and settings is part and parcel of cultural and technological development towards the goal of mass coexistence with natural systems, through a variety of places and architectures. Even ignoring the benefit of investing attention and sense of identity in biophillic aesthetic and ideology, the typical enthusiast of yurt living or similar is at this stage no less ecologically viable than the rest of us - who are currently occupying space and resources and polluting directly and indirectly plenty. Rural biodegradeable cabin dwellers might not be able to live quite as eco-lightly as urban dwellers might be able someday in a specially arranged ecologically optimised municipality, but such optimised municipalities dont exist yet. Experience reveals we dont all benefit from living with plumbed water and toilets -all of the time. Poverty is more complex than the presence or absence of such facilities. The history and development of permaculture technology does not deserve special cynicism and is never criticised with representative data.