7 ms·

Am I the only one who sees depopulation of rural areas as a good thing? It's an opportunity to rewild large parts of the continent. We don't need humans dominat

Am I the only one who sees depopulation of rural areas as a good thing? It's an opportunity to rewild large parts of the continent. We don't need humans dominating every last square metre of the globe. That's part of what is causing most of our problems in the first place.

flippyhead 8y ago
https://gizmodo.com/what-if-the-entire-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city-1787022943 https://gizmodo.com/what-if-the-entire-worlds-population-liv...
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  That was quite interesting. I knew Tokyo was big but wow! I live in Singapore. I think it's a sweet spot for high density cities.
  - samstave 8y ago
    I was dumbfounded just the other day when i learned that tokyo is 38 million... So basically that one city has the population of caifornia. If i were a wantrapeeneur id be seeing what app services tokyo specifically from and economic and cultural perspective as if you can monitize just fraction of tokyo businesses......
    - Hamuko 8y ago
      Tokyo is not a city. It's a metropolitan area and one of the 47 prefectures in Japan. It contains a bunch of special wards, towns and cities inside it with their local governments. The special wards of Tokyo are even called cities in English by the wards themselves. One example is Shibuya City: http://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp http://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp
      - grzm 8y ago
        I don't think the point your parent is making hinges on the definition of city. The Tokyo metropolitan area is smaller and more populous than than all of California. One can refer to LA or New York as cities and mean to include their metropolitan areas. Washington, DC is a separate political jurisdiction which is usefully and colloquially referred to as a city as well.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ng12 8y ago
        Greater Tokyo is roughly the same size as the LA metro with 3x the population.
    - goodcanadian 8y ago
      So basically that one city has the population of ca[l]ifornia. The population of Canada!
      - twic 8y ago
        Twice the population of the Netherlands. Almost seven times the population of Scotland.
      - prawn 8y ago
        Almost double Australia!
jankotek 8y ago
Not everyone hates humans ;-)
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Why did you say that?
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    Not the GP, but I'd say humans are not meant to be cooped up in these piles of boxes we call "cities". I've lived in both rural and urban areas, and strongly prefer the former; the latter may be more "efficient" mathematically, but at the cost of a substantially-worse quality of life in my opinion.
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      I grew up in a rural area and now live in one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods of the most densely populated cities in earth. I strongly prefer the latter even though I still love visiting nature for relaxation. You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there.
      - yellowapple 8y ago
        > You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there. There's a difference between "countryside" and "wilderness". I think you're talking about "wilderness", because "countryside" is kinda defined by agricultural use (which traditionally implies people living on their farms/ranches). Houses and barns are - IMO - understandably okay in a countryside. Wilderness, not so much; I agree with you 100% that it's better to not actually live in places that we should be conserving for future generations (or at least not build permanent structures; camping is fine, IMO). Regardless, you don't have to stick to the extremes. Smaller cities/towns that allow for close proximity to either countryside or wilderness (or both!) without outright sprawling onto it would give you the benefits of both. Reno, NV is a perfect example of this: urban living in the valley, surrounded by mountains and deserts where it's easy enough to entirely avoid civilization if you so choose.
mmjaa 8y ago
No, I completely disagree with you. Having travelled the world, I feel the worst thing we can do is continue with the big cities. They need to be dismantled, and replaced with smaller, lighter, more local communities that do not require so much energy to maintain - very big city requires immense resources to keep it running, every single day. More rural living is what will save us, imho.
- baursak 8y ago
  Rural areas have a much larger ecological footprint than urban areas, per capita. There's no way around that.
- chx 8y ago
  Do you know what the most energy efficient people moving device is? The counterweight elevator. It's true. Cramming a village worth of people into a highrise, surrounding it with walking distance amenities is by far the most efficient, environment friendly way of supplying said populace. Yes, you need trucks to stock said stores but then again, no matter where they live you'd still need those trucks and this way a) economies of scale apply b) they don't go anywhere in single use cars. Instead of going rural, cities with mass transit is the way to live if we are this many. Reducing the populace slowly would be a strategy but it's not what the reality is.
  - samstave 8y ago
    This is why i hate cars. Cars should be the most taxed and difficult to obtain. Cars are why humans in dense to be areas suck. Work backward from eliminating cars from daily life.
  - mmjaa 8y ago
    Bollocks. It takes amazing amounts of oil to get the cheap stuff to the cities. The only reason these are more 'efficient' is because of arbitrary pricing - if we placed a higher value on oil-consumption, in terms of cost to the Earth, the cheap plastic junk wouldn't be being subsidised by our childrens future. I know its not a popular opinion, but the things that take so much oil to make and transport and deliver to the people, are there so that city people can live another day without pitching into the abyss. Rural living is better for the Earth. If I can walk to my neighbour and get butter, instead of driving to a shopping mall (air conditions) to buy it from a source originally half a country away, please explain to me how this is 'more energy efficient'. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is simply so enamoured by the luxuries of city life that one can't see the forest for the trees. Cities are expensive to build, maintain, and they are destroying our future. Abandon!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AdrianB1 8y ago
No, you are not alone. I see this happening on a smaller scale in my country and I see the villages that are depopulated are having poor infrastructure, very old buildings, no hospital reasonably close, no stores reasonably close. It is nice if you live on a mountain valley, not nice if the cost of rebuilding the houses costs more than building new ones and the society is hours away and the first snow of the winter will isolate you from the world till spring because it is simply too costing to open the road just for 3-4 people.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

flippyhead 8y ago

https://gizmodo.com/what-if-the-entire-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city-1787022943 https://gizmodo.com/what-if-the-entire-worlds-population-liv...

rorykoehler 8y ago
That was quite interesting. I knew Tokyo was big but wow! I live in Singapore. I think it's a sweet spot for high density cities.
- samstave 8y ago
  I was dumbfounded just the other day when i learned that tokyo is 38 million... So basically that one city has the population of caifornia. If i were a wantrapeeneur id be seeing what app services tokyo specifically from and economic and cultural perspective as if you can monitize just fraction of tokyo businesses......
  - Hamuko 8y ago
    Tokyo is not a city. It's a metropolitan area and one of the 47 prefectures in Japan. It contains a bunch of special wards, towns and cities inside it with their local governments. The special wards of Tokyo are even called cities in English by the wards themselves. One example is Shibuya City: http://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp http://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp
    - grzm 8y ago
      I don't think the point your parent is making hinges on the definition of city. The Tokyo metropolitan area is smaller and more populous than than all of California. One can refer to LA or New York as cities and mean to include their metropolitan areas. Washington, DC is a separate political jurisdiction which is usefully and colloquially referred to as a city as well.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ng12 8y ago
      Greater Tokyo is roughly the same size as the LA metro with 3x the population.
  - goodcanadian 8y ago
    So basically that one city has the population of ca[l]ifornia. The population of Canada!
    - twic 8y ago
      Twice the population of the Netherlands. Almost seven times the population of Scotland.
    - prawn 8y ago
      Almost double Australia!

jankotek 8y ago

Not everyone hates humans ;-)

rorykoehler 8y ago
Why did you say that?
- yellowapple 8y ago
  Not the GP, but I'd say humans are not meant to be cooped up in these piles of boxes we call "cities". I've lived in both rural and urban areas, and strongly prefer the former; the latter may be more "efficient" mathematically, but at the cost of a substantially-worse quality of life in my opinion.
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    I grew up in a rural area and now live in one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods of the most densely populated cities in earth. I strongly prefer the latter even though I still love visiting nature for relaxation. You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there.
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      > You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there. There's a difference between "countryside" and "wilderness". I think you're talking about "wilderness", because "countryside" is kinda defined by agricultural use (which traditionally implies people living on their farms/ranches). Houses and barns are - IMO - understandably okay in a countryside. Wilderness, not so much; I agree with you 100% that it's better to not actually live in places that we should be conserving for future generations (or at least not build permanent structures; camping is fine, IMO). Regardless, you don't have to stick to the extremes. Smaller cities/towns that allow for close proximity to either countryside or wilderness (or both!) without outright sprawling onto it would give you the benefits of both. Reno, NV is a perfect example of this: urban living in the valley, surrounded by mountains and deserts where it's easy enough to entirely avoid civilization if you so choose.

mmjaa 8y ago

No, I completely disagree with you. Having travelled the world, I feel the worst thing we can do is continue with the big cities. They need to be dismantled, and replaced with smaller, lighter, more local communities that do not require so much energy to maintain - very big city requires immense resources to keep it running, every single day. More rural living is what will save us, imho.

baursak 8y ago
Rural areas have a much larger ecological footprint than urban areas, per capita. There's no way around that.
chx 8y ago
Do you know what the most energy efficient people moving device is? The counterweight elevator. It's true. Cramming a village worth of people into a highrise, surrounding it with walking distance amenities is by far the most efficient, environment friendly way of supplying said populace. Yes, you need trucks to stock said stores but then again, no matter where they live you'd still need those trucks and this way a) economies of scale apply b) they don't go anywhere in single use cars. Instead of going rural, cities with mass transit is the way to live if we are this many. Reducing the populace slowly would be a strategy but it's not what the reality is.
- samstave 8y ago
  This is why i hate cars. Cars should be the most taxed and difficult to obtain. Cars are why humans in dense to be areas suck. Work backward from eliminating cars from daily life.
- mmjaa 8y ago
  Bollocks. It takes amazing amounts of oil to get the cheap stuff to the cities. The only reason these are more 'efficient' is because of arbitrary pricing - if we placed a higher value on oil-consumption, in terms of cost to the Earth, the cheap plastic junk wouldn't be being subsidised by our childrens future. I know its not a popular opinion, but the things that take so much oil to make and transport and deliver to the people, are there so that city people can live another day without pitching into the abyss. Rural living is better for the Earth. If I can walk to my neighbour and get butter, instead of driving to a shopping mall (air conditions) to buy it from a source originally half a country away, please explain to me how this is 'more energy efficient'. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is simply so enamoured by the luxuries of city life that one can't see the forest for the trees. Cities are expensive to build, maintain, and they are destroying our future. Abandon!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

AdrianB1 8y ago

No, you are not alone. I see this happening on a smaller scale in my country and I see the villages that are depopulated are having poor infrastructure, very old buildings, no hospital reasonably close, no stores reasonably close. It is nice if you live on a mountain valley, not nice if the cost of rebuilding the houses costs more than building new ones and the society is hours away and the first snow of the winter will isolate you from the world till spring because it is simply too costing to open the road just for 3-4 people.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]