5 ms·

Modeling rural communities as remotely self-sustaining economically is a fantasy. They "manage" to maintain these roads through heavy subsidization by more eco

Modeling rural communities as remotely self-sustaining economically is a fantasy. They "manage" to maintain these roads through heavy subsidization by more economically-productive cities. Obviously dense cities (in their current form) aren't completely self-sustaining either, given that they need food. But this is universally-understood, while for some reason many people seem to be unaware how much of a closed-loop rural communities _aren't_ when they talk about the sustainability of sparse living patterns at modern standards of living.

jimmaswell 7y ago
Sounds like farm towns could self-sustain with a sacrifice in some luxuries and tax money from cities, but cities would starve.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  Luxuries like what? Roads? Fire departments? Police? Schools? There’s a floor, and often they don’t generate it, instead relying on state and county funds. The economics at the state level, play out just like how they do at the national level. The high population, economically vibrant parts generate tax revenue, which is redistributed to the sparsely populated, economically depressed areas, of which are not self sustaining, no matter how much the net receivers think they are.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Compared to food and water those things are luxuries. Obviously both types of regions need each other to maintain the modern style of living as mentioned, but in some kind of societal collapse situation you'd probably rather be on some isolated farm that could theoretically sustain itself. And I feel like if those areas chose to go on with less subsidy money they could do so, but it's not a bad trade for food and everything else that comes from them. If one really wanted to hold the other hostage the one with the food would win.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      When did we go from 'self-sustaining' to societal collapse? It seems to be some weird fantasy where these isolated towns are somehow more self-sustaining because they could vaguely survive in the case of a societal collapse. That doesn't make them self-sustaining in modern society. And saying that roads are a luxury seems to be incredibly ignorant of how society evolved and how important trade routes (as well as ocean access, something cities generally have) for getting resources you otherwise don't have access to. Such as materials, spices and meds. Something that, you know, an isolated farm wouldn't readily have access to. Especially since salt is kind of a big deal for food preservation.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      The original comment you replied to explicitly mentions "at modern standards of living".
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Many rural areas don't have fire departments in the same way that cities have fire departments. They have "volunteer" fire departments, who do receive public funding but who are not expected to put out any particular fire. There aren't enough fires to justify anything more. Your "state level" explanation seems to ignore states that don't have major metropolitan areas.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Luxuries like roads and power?
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Ruralites can (and often already do) drive 4WD vehicles and run generators (or nowadays solar + batteries) for power. In an extreme case, they'd be at least somewhat willing to revert to horses and candles (hell, quite a few might even consider that fun). It'll take adjustment, but it ain't an insurmountable problem. The far bigger concern is that very few (if any) rural towns in the US have self-sustaining food supplies. Cut off their access to the outside world, and there's a very high probability that they'll starve just as quickly as a larger city will. American agriculture has shifted hard from diversified/robust subsistence farming to large-scale industrialized monocrop farming, so you'd have to rewind a century or so of "progress" in order for a rural town to be able to feed itself. This is also not an insurmountable problem, but the effects are quite a bit more dire.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Cities would starve from...what? This narrative always seemed remarkably short-sighted because cities have enough economic bargaining power that they can just import the goods they need. Farm towns would quickly fall apart the moment they had to pay for all of their infrastructure (meaning power, internet, gas, transportation) because all of that is heavily subsidized.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    The unrealistic hypothetical seemed to be essentially that a city or a farm town was moved to an island on its own or otherwise barricaded. The city would suffer a big population loss and have trouble making the land usable for growing food again, while the farm area would have an easier transition to a frontier-town-like lifestyle.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      Yea, my original comment implied this unrealistic hypothetical because I wanted to avoid the conversation getting derailed by the inevitable rural fetishists pretending that cities are irredeemable cesspits instead of "what makes modern standards of living possible, for both urban and rural areas". Don't get me wrong, as much as I prefer dense urbanism, there are plenty of things about sparse living that appeal to me, and I fully understand how many people would choose suburban or rural life. Hell, I'm not even supposed to some degree of subsidization from more efficient communities, just on grounds of diversity and anti-fragility. It just gets frustrating how committed sparsity advocates are to pretending that these lifestyles aren't heavily subsidized. A self-sustaining rural community (despite having its charms) would be appealing to far fewer people than one that gets to have its cake and eat it too, by redistributing some of the societal advantages of urban living (like economic efficiency).
  - makomk 7y ago
    Just importing the goods they need works fine until there's some global crisis that disrupts food supply chains so much that you can't anymore. Say, a pandemic so disruptive to global trade and economic activity that a bunch of less wealthy countries just decide to say they're going to keep their food to themselves so their people don't starve. You know, like the one happening right now.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from either my comment or contact with the real world. I chose my words pretty precisely to avoid my point getting buried by a tangential conversation about the other direction of dependency: "dense cities in their current form" depend on rural areas. It's pretty easy to imagine an almost-fully urbanized society that grows food without having to sustain a significant amount of population spread sparsely. On top of that, the idea that rural areas' standard of living without urban subsidization would amount to losing "some luxuries" is so out of touch with reality that I don't even know where to start (though the sibling comments do a good job).

jimmaswell 7y ago

Sounds like farm towns could self-sustain with a sacrifice in some luxuries and tax money from cities, but cities would starve.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jonathankoren 7y ago
Luxuries like what? Roads? Fire departments? Police? Schools? There’s a floor, and often they don’t generate it, instead relying on state and county funds. The economics at the state level, play out just like how they do at the national level. The high population, economically vibrant parts generate tax revenue, which is redistributed to the sparsely populated, economically depressed areas, of which are not self sustaining, no matter how much the net receivers think they are.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Compared to food and water those things are luxuries. Obviously both types of regions need each other to maintain the modern style of living as mentioned, but in some kind of societal collapse situation you'd probably rather be on some isolated farm that could theoretically sustain itself. And I feel like if those areas chose to go on with less subsidy money they could do so, but it's not a bad trade for food and everything else that comes from them. If one really wanted to hold the other hostage the one with the food would win.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    When did we go from 'self-sustaining' to societal collapse? It seems to be some weird fantasy where these isolated towns are somehow more self-sustaining because they could vaguely survive in the case of a societal collapse. That doesn't make them self-sustaining in modern society. And saying that roads are a luxury seems to be incredibly ignorant of how society evolved and how important trade routes (as well as ocean access, something cities generally have) for getting resources you otherwise don't have access to. Such as materials, spices and meds. Something that, you know, an isolated farm wouldn't readily have access to. Especially since salt is kind of a big deal for food preservation.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    The original comment you replied to explicitly mentions "at modern standards of living".
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Many rural areas don't have fire departments in the same way that cities have fire departments. They have "volunteer" fire departments, who do receive public funding but who are not expected to put out any particular fire. There aren't enough fires to justify anything more. Your "state level" explanation seems to ignore states that don't have major metropolitan areas.
jandrese 7y ago
Luxuries like roads and power?
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Ruralites can (and often already do) drive 4WD vehicles and run generators (or nowadays solar + batteries) for power. In an extreme case, they'd be at least somewhat willing to revert to horses and candles (hell, quite a few might even consider that fun). It'll take adjustment, but it ain't an insurmountable problem. The far bigger concern is that very few (if any) rural towns in the US have self-sustaining food supplies. Cut off their access to the outside world, and there's a very high probability that they'll starve just as quickly as a larger city will. American agriculture has shifted hard from diversified/robust subsistence farming to large-scale industrialized monocrop farming, so you'd have to rewind a century or so of "progress" in order for a rural town to be able to feed itself. This is also not an insurmountable problem, but the effects are quite a bit more dire.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Cities would starve from...what? This narrative always seemed remarkably short-sighted because cities have enough economic bargaining power that they can just import the goods they need. Farm towns would quickly fall apart the moment they had to pay for all of their infrastructure (meaning power, internet, gas, transportation) because all of that is heavily subsidized.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  The unrealistic hypothetical seemed to be essentially that a city or a farm town was moved to an island on its own or otherwise barricaded. The city would suffer a big population loss and have trouble making the land usable for growing food again, while the farm area would have an easier transition to a frontier-town-like lifestyle.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    Yea, my original comment implied this unrealistic hypothetical because I wanted to avoid the conversation getting derailed by the inevitable rural fetishists pretending that cities are irredeemable cesspits instead of "what makes modern standards of living possible, for both urban and rural areas". Don't get me wrong, as much as I prefer dense urbanism, there are plenty of things about sparse living that appeal to me, and I fully understand how many people would choose suburban or rural life. Hell, I'm not even supposed to some degree of subsidization from more efficient communities, just on grounds of diversity and anti-fragility. It just gets frustrating how committed sparsity advocates are to pretending that these lifestyles aren't heavily subsidized. A self-sustaining rural community (despite having its charms) would be appealing to far fewer people than one that gets to have its cake and eat it too, by redistributing some of the societal advantages of urban living (like economic efficiency).
- makomk 7y ago
  Just importing the goods they need works fine until there's some global crisis that disrupts food supply chains so much that you can't anymore. Say, a pandemic so disruptive to global trade and economic activity that a bunch of less wealthy countries just decide to say they're going to keep their food to themselves so their people don't starve. You know, like the one happening right now.
wutbrodo 7y ago
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from either my comment or contact with the real world. I chose my words pretty precisely to avoid my point getting buried by a tangential conversation about the other direction of dependency: "dense cities in their current form" depend on rural areas. It's pretty easy to imagine an almost-fully urbanized society that grows food without having to sustain a significant amount of population spread sparsely. On top of that, the idea that rural areas' standard of living without urban subsidization would amount to losing "some luxuries" is so out of touch with reality that I don't even know where to start (though the sibling comments do a good job).