3 ms·

Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical

Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)

strogonoff 6y ago
You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a decentralised way. It is obvious that currently there are people who’d just like to live in sparse areas, planet be damned—I bet that'll change.
        mulmen 6y ago
        No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
        6y ago

strogonoff 6y ago

You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.

fogihujy 6y ago
Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a decentralised way. It is obvious that currently there are people who’d just like to live in sparse areas, planet be damned—I bet that'll change.
      - mulmen 6y ago
        No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
        6y ago