3 ms·

Your points don't help your argument. - That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but considerably more North Americans already live in ve

by jariel 7y ago

Your points don't help your argument. - That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but considerably more North Americans already live in very remote and rugged areas, definitely more than in Europe. There is almost no 'open country' in Europe, whereas maybe 1/2 of North America is wide and vast. Living in rural Montana has essentially no parallel in Europe. - That trucks are 'status symbols' is beside the point - 'everything' is a status symbol (even back in the day), certainly cars are in Europe. The point is they are trucks not cars and they are by and large used quite a lot for 'moving stuff', and travelling on somewhat more rugged terrain. - Obesity rates are irrelevant. Obviously New England has been as urban as Europe since basically the Englightenment, but most of the rest of America is barely tamed. My grandfather was born at the start of the 20th century, most of his relatives and family elders would have lived in the late 19th century when much of North America was still very wild. So much of 'frontier' and 'far rural' North America is just beyond living memory, it wasn't that long ago. My great-grandfather was still clearing trees on the family farm, before plumbing, electricity, radio. They were several days ride from the nearest village of more than 1K people and there were no waterways or rail. He passed away not that long before I was born. The ethos of 'way away from civilization, on the family-owned farm, you'd better be self-sufficient' still colours much of the North American attitude today.

craftinator 7y ago
Ah I see, you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge. My points do help my argument, but from a different point of view than you were arguing from. And obesity rates are not irrelevant; they demonstrate how able people are to keep surviving, both mentally and physically. I think if a governmental collapse occurred in the US, 60-70% of the US population would be dead within 5 years. The major population centers entirely dependent on government infrastructure, regardless of how close to the "frontier" they live. Yes, there is much farmland here, but it is very reliant on water and equipment that only come from a functional economy. I was a bit hasty in my first comment; I read your argument as "the US is made of frontiersmen, they tamed the continent, and they are hardier and more skilled at survival for it." At this point it is apparent that was not your intent, and I do agree that we'd be better off than many places. One county in the Americas that would do a lot better is Mexico though; full of off-the-grid peoples who are fully self sufficient and happy to be so. Much of the US is just functional because of money.
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  Mexico is only functional because of US money. The US would rebuild but Mexico can barely function even under normal circumstances.
- jariel 7y ago
  "you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge." No, I'm focused on the individualist/self-sufficient mentality of Americans, due to their history of being on the frontier, and very remote rural areas. Sometimes this mentality exhibits itself in material behavior, i.e. building isolated plumbing/water/sewage systems. Owning tractors and such machinery for working around the large plot. Sometimes the mentality is expressed in behaviour that is really irrelevant, like buying SUVs or Trucks that are not needed and uses for 'status'. Sometimes it's purely ideological, like voting for a Republican when such individuals might be better served by a specific social policy. Sometimes it's both - like 'gun laws'. Prevalence of guns makes them easily available to idiots leading to more gun violence. But it also theoretically might save you in a specific circumstance, and, there's that whole thing about 'tyrannical governments'. The 'attitude' definitely exists.
kristianc 7y ago
> That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but considerably more North Americans already live in very remote and rugged areas. We can argue a bit over what’s meant by ‘very remote and rugged’ but 82% of the US population live in urban areas, compared to 81% in the United Kingdom. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?most_...

by jariel 7y ago

craftinator 7y ago

Ah I see, you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge. My points do help my argument, but from a different point of view than you were arguing from. And obesity rates are not irrelevant; they demonstrate how able people are to keep surviving, both mentally and physically. I think if a governmental collapse occurred in the US, 60-70% of the US population would be dead within 5 years. The major population centers entirely dependent on government infrastructure, regardless of how close to the "frontier" they live. Yes, there is much farmland here, but it is very reliant on water and equipment that only come from a functional economy. I was a bit hasty in my first comment; I read your argument as "the US is made of frontiersmen, they tamed the continent, and they are hardier and more skilled at survival for it." At this point it is apparent that was not your intent, and I do agree that we'd be better off than many places. One county in the Americas that would do a lot better is Mexico though; full of off-the-grid peoples who are fully self sufficient and happy to be so. Much of the US is just functional because of money.

captainredbeard 7y ago
Mexico is only functional because of US money. The US would rebuild but Mexico can barely function even under normal circumstances.
jariel 7y ago
"you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge." No, I'm focused on the individualist/self-sufficient mentality of Americans, due to their history of being on the frontier, and very remote rural areas. Sometimes this mentality exhibits itself in material behavior, i.e. building isolated plumbing/water/sewage systems. Owning tractors and such machinery for working around the large plot. Sometimes the mentality is expressed in behaviour that is really irrelevant, like buying SUVs or Trucks that are not needed and uses for 'status'. Sometimes it's purely ideological, like voting for a Republican when such individuals might be better served by a specific social policy. Sometimes it's both - like 'gun laws'. Prevalence of guns makes them easily available to idiots leading to more gun violence. But it also theoretically might save you in a specific circumstance, and, there's that whole thing about 'tyrannical governments'. The 'attitude' definitely exists.

kristianc 7y ago

> That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but considerably more North Americans already live in very remote and rugged areas. We can argue a bit over what’s meant by ‘very remote and rugged’ but 82% of the US population live in urban areas, compared to 81% in the United Kingdom. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?most_...