6 ms·

The increased economic opportunity is part of the crowd package. Why don't you think it counts?

keiferski 7y ago
In the late 19th and early 20th century, millions of people moved to industrial centers like London, Manchester (U.K.) and Pittsburgh (USA) for work. These cities were extremely polluted, often to the point where you couldn't see the sun during the day. The exact same thing happened over the past few decades in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China It seems pretty absurd to suggest that anyone neutrally "chose" to live in such miserable surroundings. Clearly they moved there for lack of economic opportunities elsewhere.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I'm impressed but also confused that the calim nobody would chose to do something is being supported only with evidence that millions of people chose to do that thing despite exposing themselves to the negative effects you cite. This is how powerful the draw of cities are. People will happily sacrifice seeing the sun for an opportunity to live and work in a city - if the alternative was living in the country. And I think it is pretty obvious that between city-no-sun, country and city-sun the ranking is going to be: 1) City-sun 2) City-no-sun 3) Country By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Your counterargument is essentially that people have good reasons to live in the city - yeah, that is obvious. That is why they are making the choice that they are. I dunno what this 'neutral choice' concept is but I don't believe it is a real thing. Yeah they move for economic opportunities. That is why sterilising large areas is irrelevant. People have been tested and nobody cares about the environment when the economy is on the line; they are all going to be crammed together in cities.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    Prior to the modern age, it was considered more desirable to live in the country. > By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Again, by the contemporary numbers. Contemporary trends cannot be translated into broad sociological statements about human beings. This is basic historical knowledge. In the US alone, the return to cities is a fairly recent phenomenon. Cities were considered undesirable and suburbs were heralded as having a better quality of life as recently as the 90s. Historically, movement to cities has been driven almost entirely by economics. No one wanted to live in a cramped city slum and there was no "choice" between two equal options, one in the city and one in the country. It was more a choice of continued rural poverty, bordering on starvation, or a polluted, miserable, economically-better existence in a city.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, millions of people moved to industrial centers like London, Manchester (U.K.) and Pittsburgh (USA) for work. These cities were extremely polluted, often to the point where you couldn't see the sun during the day. The exact same thing happened over the past few decades in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China It seems pretty absurd to suggest that anyone neutrally "chose" to live in such miserable surroundings. Clearly they moved there for lack of economic opportunities elsewhere.

roenxi 7y ago
I'm impressed but also confused that the calim nobody would chose to do something is being supported only with evidence that millions of people chose to do that thing despite exposing themselves to the negative effects you cite. This is how powerful the draw of cities are. People will happily sacrifice seeing the sun for an opportunity to live and work in a city - if the alternative was living in the country. And I think it is pretty obvious that between city-no-sun, country and city-sun the ranking is going to be: 1) City-sun 2) City-no-sun 3) Country By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Your counterargument is essentially that people have good reasons to live in the city - yeah, that is obvious. That is why they are making the choice that they are. I dunno what this 'neutral choice' concept is but I don't believe it is a real thing. Yeah they move for economic opportunities. That is why sterilising large areas is irrelevant. People have been tested and nobody cares about the environment when the economy is on the line; they are all going to be crammed together in cities.
- keiferski 7y ago
  Prior to the modern age, it was considered more desirable to live in the country. > By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Again, by the contemporary numbers. Contemporary trends cannot be translated into broad sociological statements about human beings. This is basic historical knowledge. In the US alone, the return to cities is a fairly recent phenomenon. Cities were considered undesirable and suburbs were heralded as having a better quality of life as recently as the 90s. Historically, movement to cities has been driven almost entirely by economics. No one wanted to live in a cramped city slum and there was no "choice" between two equal options, one in the city and one in the country. It was more a choice of continued rural poverty, bordering on starvation, or a polluted, miserable, economically-better existence in a city.