3 ms·

> It really depends on the style of rural living we're talking about. It also depends on the style of urban living we're talking about. People living in single

> It really depends on the style of rural living we're talking about. It also depends on the style of urban living we're talking about. People living in single-family houses and driving everywhere consume much more resources per person than those living in high-rise apartments and taking public transportation or walking. High population density, in general, means low per-capita consumption. I'm not sure how this argument applies to people living completely off the grid and raising their own food. But many parts of the world have too many people to make that a practical option for more than a tiny minority.

secstate 7y ago
Except that as my sister discovered after moving to the Loop in Chicago, public transportation is great until you need to depend on it. Work doesn't care if you're chronically late because of chronically late trains. Maybe other cities are better here, but before long she was spending 45 minutes commuting 20 miles in a car because at least then she could choose to give herself more time, and swing by the store on the way home. Full caveat, I live on a homestead much like this story (except we still haven't gotten around to taking down the two dilapidated structures on our property). I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. This is especially true when I think about the number of SUVs and trucks I see when I go to Boston, sigh.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  > I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. This is especially true when I think about the number of SUVs and trucks I see when I go to Boston, sigh. The efficientcy is in the number of SUVs and Trucks that you don't see relative to the population. Even in a traffic jam of them you couldn't see an "equal" ammount of them because they wouldn't fit in the area in a per capita homogenized area. Well unless they were literally all stacked up.
- tkgally 7y ago
  > I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. Chicago and Boston are valid examples, of course. But I had more in mind cities like Seoul, Shanghai, Mumbai, Manila, Paris, and Dhaka.
pengaru 7y ago
> People living in single-family houses and driving everywhere consume much more resources per person than those living in high-rise apartments and taking public transportation or walking. Neither of those fall into what I'd consider a rural "homesteading" scenario. In my experience rural living conditions involve such an inconvenient drive to town that you make shopping lists and coalesce needs for the infrequent trip. It's necessarily a bulk-mode operation with substantially improved efficiency over what you're describing which strikes me as the typical suburban American home. Of course if rural folks are commuting to a city by car every day for work, it's not great.
- sp332 7y ago
  Neither of those fall into what I'd consider a rural "homesteading" scenario. Well no, those were both examples of urban living.

secstate 7y ago

Except that as my sister discovered after moving to the Loop in Chicago, public transportation is great until you need to depend on it. Work doesn't care if you're chronically late because of chronically late trains. Maybe other cities are better here, but before long she was spending 45 minutes commuting 20 miles in a car because at least then she could choose to give herself more time, and swing by the store on the way home. Full caveat, I live on a homestead much like this story (except we still haven't gotten around to taking down the two dilapidated structures on our property). I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. This is especially true when I think about the number of SUVs and trucks I see when I go to Boston, sigh.

Nasrudith 7y ago
> I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. This is especially true when I think about the number of SUVs and trucks I see when I go to Boston, sigh. The efficientcy is in the number of SUVs and Trucks that you don't see relative to the population. Even in a traffic jam of them you couldn't see an "equal" ammount of them because they wouldn't fit in the area in a per capita homogenized area. Well unless they were literally all stacked up.
tkgally 7y ago
> I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. Chicago and Boston are valid examples, of course. But I had more in mind cities like Seoul, Shanghai, Mumbai, Manila, Paris, and Dhaka.

pengaru 7y ago

> People living in single-family houses and driving everywhere consume much more resources per person than those living in high-rise apartments and taking public transportation or walking. Neither of those fall into what I'd consider a rural "homesteading" scenario. In my experience rural living conditions involve such an inconvenient drive to town that you make shopping lists and coalesce needs for the infrequent trip. It's necessarily a bulk-mode operation with substantially improved efficiency over what you're describing which strikes me as the typical suburban American home. Of course if rural folks are commuting to a city by car every day for work, it's not great.

sp332 7y ago
Neither of those fall into what I'd consider a rural "homesteading" scenario. Well no, those were both examples of urban living.