4 ms·
I see this not changing the fact that genuinely rural populations genuinely need an automobile. Yes, American urban population, and city builders can certainly
by baybal2 6y ago
I see this not changing the fact that genuinely rural populations genuinely need an automobile.
Yes, American urban population, and city builders can certainly consider going without a car, and building cities without making car ownership a prerequisite to live in.
- mcv 6y agoYeah, but this works both ways: people live in rural places where they absolutely need to have a car, because they have access to cars. Without cars, less people would live there. Society adapts to the existence of the car.
- luckylion 6y agoThey've lived there before there were cars though. They just didn't have options to go to the next town, or the hospital when they'd need it. People lived before modern medicine as well. Without modern medicine, less people would live. Society adapts to the existence of modern medicine.
- joe_the_user 6y agoI don't think "genuinely rural" means anything. Plenty of places in the US and around the world have been abandoned when no economic opportunities existed. As I said, the cities of 100 years ago are abandoned - rural population of that era has moved - some a short distance, some a long distance. The US has made decision (consciously or by default) to encourage dispersed rural/exurban/suburban development fueled by the private automobile. It probably can't reversed entirely but there's no "genuine, authentic rural thing-in-itself" that cries for automobile without history.