3 ms·

No one wants to live in the middle of Wisconsin. Urbanization is a global phenomenon. It's happening everywhere - in rich countries and poor. Resisting urbaniz

No one wants to live in the middle of Wisconsin. Urbanization is a global phenomenon. It's happening everywhere - in rich countries and poor. Resisting urbanization is expensive and ultimately a wasted effort. Instead we should be doing what the Japanese are doing and thinking carefully about how to gradually decommission small towns in the most humane way possible for the few people still living there - how do we provide them with medical services and utilities while they're still alive? And we need to cut the bullshit, implement land reform, and let everyone who wants to live in one of our nice big cities live in one.

throwawaysea 8y ago
Actually lots of people want to live in smaller places; you may just not know them personally. "No one" is clearly hyperbole, as I know many such people myself. I find that a lot of people who live in big cities have little idea what life in a smaller place is like. It's looked down upon, and even feared, irrationally so. I bet a lot of folks who favor urbanization actually have a wider range of communities in which they would thrive than they think. What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs. It doesn't have to be only a small number of big cities. It can be some big cities, some medium cities, some small cities, some rural areas.
- CountSessine 8y ago
  What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that The humane save people, not cultures. All the culture in the world isn't worth the suffering of a young working couple who have to live out of their car because of NIMBYism and our continuing efforts to subsidize small towns. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs If more people really wanted to live in small towns, they would be expanding, not contracting. Clearly some people want to live in small towns, but many of these small towns won't be able to pay for their own hospitals and community services at some point. Some small towns will survive - after all, you seem to want to live in one. And no one is stopping you. But you are now a part of a small minority, and we need to have a plan to care for the last of the old people who live in some of these towns as they fade away. The most unjust thing we could do is ask for young people living happily in their cities to subsidize a 'culture' they have no meaningful connection to or interest in. The real culture is where the people are, and soon that won't be small towns.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    I don't understand this sentiment of being jealous of subsidies (city vs town, UK vs EU). Those communities are not billion dollar companies like Amazon that don't treat their workers with respect and then use their market power to eliminate competition. The subsidies are spent on things that help the people living there, they are not spent on dividend payments or higher compensation for executives (something you apparently do not consider as unjust). They get subsidies because they need them, they didn't steal them.

throwawaysea 8y ago

Actually lots of people want to live in smaller places; you may just not know them personally. "No one" is clearly hyperbole, as I know many such people myself. I find that a lot of people who live in big cities have little idea what life in a smaller place is like. It's looked down upon, and even feared, irrationally so. I bet a lot of folks who favor urbanization actually have a wider range of communities in which they would thrive than they think. What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs. It doesn't have to be only a small number of big cities. It can be some big cities, some medium cities, some small cities, some rural areas.

CountSessine 8y ago
What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that The humane save people, not cultures. All the culture in the world isn't worth the suffering of a young working couple who have to live out of their car because of NIMBYism and our continuing efforts to subsidize small towns. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs If more people really wanted to live in small towns, they would be expanding, not contracting. Clearly some people want to live in small towns, but many of these small towns won't be able to pay for their own hospitals and community services at some point. Some small towns will survive - after all, you seem to want to live in one. And no one is stopping you. But you are now a part of a small minority, and we need to have a plan to care for the last of the old people who live in some of these towns as they fade away. The most unjust thing we could do is ask for young people living happily in their cities to subsidize a 'culture' they have no meaningful connection to or interest in. The real culture is where the people are, and soon that won't be small towns.
- imtringued 8y ago
  I don't understand this sentiment of being jealous of subsidies (city vs town, UK vs EU). Those communities are not billion dollar companies like Amazon that don't treat their workers with respect and then use their market power to eliminate competition. The subsidies are spent on things that help the people living there, they are not spent on dividend payments or higher compensation for executives (something you apparently do not consider as unjust). They get subsidies because they need them, they didn't steal them.