> That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most

> That's a glib assessment of course - it would imply no communities other than farms themselves. But I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Presumably there's some economic value, otherwise the population would drop even further, but its certainly not just food, and food by itself isn't a justification. It's not just food, to be sure. Gas, electricity, water, minerals and all sorts of other resources largely come from rural areas and are transported to urban areas. > I don't think its reasonable to assume or claim that most of the rural population is involved in things of direct importance to cities. Excluding the elderly, unemployed and children I'd say a vast majority of the rural population are very much involved in things of direct importance to cities.