4 ms·

Cities would starve from...what? This narrative always seemed remarkably short-sighted because cities have enough economic bargaining power that they can just

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.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Yes, and you're saying that smaller towns would be immune to this effect? Because again, despite what people seem to think, smaller towns rely a lot on cities as part of their supply chain for things such as medical supplies, gasoline and infrastructure. Isolated farms are not self-sufficient no matter how much you may believe it to be so, because once the power runs out, once the water stops flowing and the supplies stop coming in, said isolated farm is far and away from other natural resources that are rather important for farming and survival. I'm wondering if people have ever been to the midwest?
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Anti-fragility of supply chains is (mostly) orthogonal to the urban/rural question. Some big parts of why we subsidize rural areas is 1) an emergent property of allowing people to live where they choose and providing a base standard of living for every community, and 2) romanticism for our pastoral past, and an implicit belief that societies should provide the opportunity sparser living with more exposure to nature. I don't want to brush off these aesthetic concerns as "wrong": the 100% urban megalopolises of science fiction always carry at least a tinge of dystopia, because a desire for nature and open spaces is to some degree hardwired in us. But they have nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is sustainability. The kind of robustness you're talking about doesn't have a whole lot to do with the urban/rural divide. It's entirely possible to have an almost-universally urban population and still maintain domestic food production, either by changing agricultural practices to fit cities better or at worst by having a "skeleton crew" instead of entire communities (the number of people living in sparse communities right now is _far_ below the minimum number of people we'd need to grow food). Again, I'm not suggesting we do this, or that there's a clear path from point A to point B. I'm just illustrating how your point is a non sequitur.

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.

fzeroracer 7y ago
Yes, and you're saying that smaller towns would be immune to this effect? Because again, despite what people seem to think, smaller towns rely a lot on cities as part of their supply chain for things such as medical supplies, gasoline and infrastructure. Isolated farms are not self-sufficient no matter how much you may believe it to be so, because once the power runs out, once the water stops flowing and the supplies stop coming in, said isolated farm is far and away from other natural resources that are rather important for farming and survival. I'm wondering if people have ever been to the midwest?
wutbrodo 7y ago
Anti-fragility of supply chains is (mostly) orthogonal to the urban/rural question. Some big parts of why we subsidize rural areas is 1) an emergent property of allowing people to live where they choose and providing a base standard of living for every community, and 2) romanticism for our pastoral past, and an implicit belief that societies should provide the opportunity sparser living with more exposure to nature. I don't want to brush off these aesthetic concerns as "wrong": the 100% urban megalopolises of science fiction always carry at least a tinge of dystopia, because a desire for nature and open spaces is to some degree hardwired in us. But they have nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is sustainability. The kind of robustness you're talking about doesn't have a whole lot to do with the urban/rural divide. It's entirely possible to have an almost-universally urban population and still maintain domestic food production, either by changing agricultural practices to fit cities better or at worst by having a "skeleton crew" instead of entire communities (the number of people living in sparse communities right now is _far_ below the minimum number of people we'd need to grow food). Again, I'm not suggesting we do this, or that there's a clear path from point A to point B. I'm just illustrating how your point is a non sequitur.