4 ms·

Eh, "heavily frowned upon" in certain small (but incredibly vocal) urban pockets along the US coastline, sure. The rest of the nation... not so much.

Kadin 7y ago
Those "urban pockets" contain a very large percentage, if not the majority (depending on how you measure and with what granularity), of the US population. One could just as easily say that it's "heavily frowned upon" by all but the retrograde inhabitants of the country's depopulated and backwards interior. But we won't, because that's rude.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  I'm a liberal but I still have to point out that "the country's depopulated and backwards interior" (your own words) provides the food, agricultural products, and mineral plus other natural resources that cities depend on. Until urban areas manage to figure out how to conjure their food and industrial input out of thin air, rural areas are as important (and arguably more important) than cities. It's also worth noting that a large portion of the armed forces come from rural areas. Need I point out the potential problem with a military that doesn't hold the same values as the civilian populace it's supposed to protect and obey? Bear in mind that history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself.
- belorn 7y ago
  The number of people living along the U.S. coast is currently 123 million (https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/population-along-coast-hit-134-million-2020-noaa-report.htm https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/popul...). With a population of more than 327 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the coast is a bit more than 1/3 but significant less than half and quite far from being majority. (This is not a comment about calling it urban pockets. 123 millions is a lot. Just a note in regard to the statement that it could be called the majority.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Kadin 7y ago

Those "urban pockets" contain a very large percentage, if not the majority (depending on how you measure and with what granularity), of the US population. One could just as easily say that it's "heavily frowned upon" by all but the retrograde inhabitants of the country's depopulated and backwards interior. But we won't, because that's rude.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
I'm a liberal but I still have to point out that "the country's depopulated and backwards interior" (your own words) provides the food, agricultural products, and mineral plus other natural resources that cities depend on. Until urban areas manage to figure out how to conjure their food and industrial input out of thin air, rural areas are as important (and arguably more important) than cities. It's also worth noting that a large portion of the armed forces come from rural areas. Need I point out the potential problem with a military that doesn't hold the same values as the civilian populace it's supposed to protect and obey? Bear in mind that history does have a nasty habit of repeating itself.
belorn 7y ago
The number of people living along the U.S. coast is currently 123 million (https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/population-along-coast-hit-134-million-2020-noaa-report.htm https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1022/20130326/popul...). With a population of more than 327 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the coast is a bit more than 1/3 but significant less than half and quite far from being majority. (This is not a comment about calling it urban pockets. 123 millions is a lot. Just a note in regard to the statement that it could be called the majority.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]