8 ms·

In cities sure, but there’s plenty of us who do not want to live in cities. Heck, I don’t even want to live within eye sight of neighbors, stores, or really any

by koolba 8y ago

In cities sure, but there’s plenty of us who do not want to live in cities. Heck, I don’t even want to live within eye sight of neighbors, stores, or really anything else except some pristine woods. That’s not possible without a car.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Amen.
adrianN 8y ago
There won't be many pristine woods left if everybody lives like you though.
- twoodfin 8y ago
  I think you’re underestimating the total acreage of “pristine” wilderness in the United States. Any realistic demand for a lifestyle like koolba‘s would find ample supply.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - iainmerrick 8y ago
    I’m not so sure. How much land would you need to be completely isolated, no other houses in sight? A square mile? More if you live high on a hill (which many people would like to do). Wikipedia says the area of the USA is only 3,794,100 square miles, so there aren’t very many square-mile patches to hand out compared to the size of the population.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Pristine woods is probably a bit of a high bar but you can get plenty of separation from neighbors with a lot less land, especially if some of the land is shared conservation space such as near where I live. A square mile is 640 acres which is a lot of land. Between myself and a couple neighbors we're on about 75 acres much of which is orchard, a Christmas tree farm, and adjacent woodland. We can see each other but we're pretty separated.
    - deelowe 8y ago
      Generally speaking, about 2-5 acres is enough. Most rural build to suit lots are in this range. A square mile is a ludicrous amount of land and not at all typical for rural living. If you have that much land, you're a farmer, have had it given to you, a significant portion is unuseable, there's a large pond/lake on the property, or you're just eccentric. Even out in the country, there's an amount that's practical and beyond that is just a waste. Once you get over 30 acres, it really starts to become silly.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      If you were to distribute all people in the US uniformly, everybody would have about four soccer fields of space. If you distributed them over the forest area of the US everybody would have about one soccer field of space. In either case if you account for yards and access roads you wouldn't have what I'd call pristine woods anymore. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2F+population+density+us https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2F+population+densi...
      - goobynight 8y ago
        I feel like we should at least exclude people under 18. We can then, in addition, account for couples, and perhaps even prisoners/institutionalized, college kids, the military, and so on.
    - minkzilla 8y ago
      A square mile is way more than needed. it is 640 acres. My parents recently retired out to a small farm in Missouri with 60 acres. With even 1/5th of that you would not have to see or hear neighbors. And assuming everyone around you has an equal amount, that is quite a buffer.
  - evilolive 8y ago
    To quote koolba: "That [lifestyle] is not possible without a car." Living in a dense urban area, taking trains, walking, and biking. Goods delivered all in close vicinity. Large building with the opportunity to be more energy efficient than your single family home. All that, I'm convinced makes the carbon footprint of the average urbanite much lower than someone who often drives miles for errands I know this must feel contrary to the intuition to those who live very close to nature
dagw 8y ago
Sure there are always going to be people like us who want an 'archaic' life style which require an archaic mode of transportation, but the world shouldn't be optimizing for these people, and I see nothing wrong with making these people pay extra for the externalizes their lifestyles impose.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  But in the US, it is the (vast) minority who wants to live a pedestrian lifestyle. If you look around the US you will see that even today, investment in suburbia far outpaces investment in "urbanism". Trucks and SUVs are slowly cannibalizing sedan sales in the US. So not only do people like driving, the vehicles they tend to purchase are increasing in size. If you are suggesting that society somehow prioritizes the 0.3% of young single males who want to live as pedestrians in urban cores...put it to a vote and watch what happens. This entire thread is about optimizing cities for young single males. I can't wait until HN turns a median age of seventy...everyone will be in here screaming about a society that punishes the aged.
  - jeromegv 8y ago
    Society built around cars isn't too optimal for the elderly, quite the opposite. I think the issue is that people don't know what they are missing until they get it. If your city is built around car, no proper public transport exists, why on earth wouldn't you want a car? For me the mind shift switched when I moved from a car city to a higher-density city (Toronto) for work reason. That's when I realized that I actually didn't want to use my car every day.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    Well, that's the problem with the tyranny of the majority. The fact that people want unsustainable living doesn't mean unsustainable living should be encouraged. See also Hume's guillotine [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
    - briandear 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
collyw 8y ago
Get a horse. People managed without cars for the vast majority of human existence.

by koolba 8y ago

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Amen.

adrianN 8y ago

There won't be many pristine woods left if everybody lives like you though.

twoodfin 8y ago
I think you’re underestimating the total acreage of “pristine” wilderness in the United States. Any realistic demand for a lifestyle like koolba‘s would find ample supply.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  I’m not so sure. How much land would you need to be completely isolated, no other houses in sight? A square mile? More if you live high on a hill (which many people would like to do). Wikipedia says the area of the USA is only 3,794,100 square miles, so there aren’t very many square-mile patches to hand out compared to the size of the population.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Pristine woods is probably a bit of a high bar but you can get plenty of separation from neighbors with a lot less land, especially if some of the land is shared conservation space such as near where I live. A square mile is 640 acres which is a lot of land. Between myself and a couple neighbors we're on about 75 acres much of which is orchard, a Christmas tree farm, and adjacent woodland. We can see each other but we're pretty separated.
  - deelowe 8y ago
    Generally speaking, about 2-5 acres is enough. Most rural build to suit lots are in this range. A square mile is a ludicrous amount of land and not at all typical for rural living. If you have that much land, you're a farmer, have had it given to you, a significant portion is unuseable, there's a large pond/lake on the property, or you're just eccentric. Even out in the country, there's an amount that's practical and beyond that is just a waste. Once you get over 30 acres, it really starts to become silly.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    If you were to distribute all people in the US uniformly, everybody would have about four soccer fields of space. If you distributed them over the forest area of the US everybody would have about one soccer field of space. In either case if you account for yards and access roads you wouldn't have what I'd call pristine woods anymore. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2F+population+density+us https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2F+population+densi...
    - goobynight 8y ago
      I feel like we should at least exclude people under 18. We can then, in addition, account for couples, and perhaps even prisoners/institutionalized, college kids, the military, and so on.
  - minkzilla 8y ago
    A square mile is way more than needed. it is 640 acres. My parents recently retired out to a small farm in Missouri with 60 acres. With even 1/5th of that you would not have to see or hear neighbors. And assuming everyone around you has an equal amount, that is quite a buffer.
- evilolive 8y ago
  To quote koolba: "That [lifestyle] is not possible without a car." Living in a dense urban area, taking trains, walking, and biking. Goods delivered all in close vicinity. Large building with the opportunity to be more energy efficient than your single family home. All that, I'm convinced makes the carbon footprint of the average urbanite much lower than someone who often drives miles for errands I know this must feel contrary to the intuition to those who live very close to nature

dagw 8y ago

Sure there are always going to be people like us who want an 'archaic' life style which require an archaic mode of transportation, but the world shouldn't be optimizing for these people, and I see nothing wrong with making these people pay extra for the externalizes their lifestyles impose.

claydavisss 8y ago
But in the US, it is the (vast) minority who wants to live a pedestrian lifestyle. If you look around the US you will see that even today, investment in suburbia far outpaces investment in "urbanism". Trucks and SUVs are slowly cannibalizing sedan sales in the US. So not only do people like driving, the vehicles they tend to purchase are increasing in size. If you are suggesting that society somehow prioritizes the 0.3% of young single males who want to live as pedestrians in urban cores...put it to a vote and watch what happens. This entire thread is about optimizing cities for young single males. I can't wait until HN turns a median age of seventy...everyone will be in here screaming about a society that punishes the aged.
- jeromegv 8y ago
  Society built around cars isn't too optimal for the elderly, quite the opposite. I think the issue is that people don't know what they are missing until they get it. If your city is built around car, no proper public transport exists, why on earth wouldn't you want a car? For me the mind shift switched when I moved from a car city to a higher-density city (Toronto) for work reason. That's when I realized that I actually didn't want to use my car every day.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  Well, that's the problem with the tyranny of the majority. The fact that people want unsustainable living doesn't mean unsustainable living should be encouraged. See also Hume's guillotine [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
  - briandear 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

collyw 8y ago

Get a horse. People managed without cars for the vast majority of human existence.