4 ms·

Living in a remote area is much worse for the environment because of all the energy need to deliver goods out there for a tiny amount of people

varelse 5y ago
Tell that to the Amish anytime.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  L'exception confirme la règle.
tuatoru 5y ago
A high consumption, high travel lifestyle is bad for the environment wherever you are. Living in a remote environment limits your income. (Or used to, anyway. I guess we'll see in five or ten years.) Nearly everyone's spending closely follows their income.
- yesimahuman 5y ago
  Living remote and working in tech definitely does _not_ limit your income these days. You can live like a king outside of major cities on a engineer or higher-up tech salary these days.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Yes, but 'tech' workers are a minority. For an ordinary person, not so much. The pendulum might swing back in five or ten years -- companies might start requiring their staff to be on site. I'm suspending judgement for a while.
- fakedang 5y ago
  Living remote does not limit your income. And in fact, from reduced spending (due to lower CoL), you get way more bang for your buck. Living rural can work if you reduce your consumption and travel. If you're getting your water from a well in your land with electricity from natural renewables, and you also grow your own vegetables and raise your own chicken, you're self-sufficient.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
retrac98 5y ago
Out where?
hagbard_c 5y ago
Living in a remote area can be as low-impact as you want it to be. The grandparent post said he was going off-grid so he should be energy self-sufficient. assume he'll grow some crops, hunt, fish and/or get locally produced/hunted/fished goods and you're left with whatever "luxury" he'll want to have which he can not take with him while moving out to the countryside. If you want to live the life of a city-dweller, getting commercial goods delivered at your doorstep at a moments' notice, yes, in that case you'll be doing everyone a favour by staying put in the city. Most people who plan on living off-grid in the boonies do not crave for that lifestyle, they tend to aim for self- or local-sufficiency as much as possible.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  >he should be energy self-sufficient. assume he'll grow some crops, hunt, fish and/or get locally produced/hunted/fished goods If you shared the farm and solar panels with a few friends you trust, is this close enough? Because you can have that in a city (search for Enercoop in France for the energy, and AMAP for _Association Pour une Agriculture Paysanne_). Local, clean, self sufficient, etc. but with a minimum of solidarity. Also, you have a much smaller footprint by living in a city so it's a scalable model (i.e not one man for himself and après moi le déluge).
  - hagbard_c 5y ago
    On a small scale this might work in a city but it is not feasible to build a city (as in a densely populated area, traditionally enclosed by walls but this is not a necessity, multi-story multi-tenant housing with the ground floor often used for business-related activities) where everyone lives like that. Agriculture takes space, this can be reduced by moving to vertical horticulture but that either requires artificial light sources or free exposure to sunlight - which is hard when those vertical growth beds have to compete for space with PV panels, wind generators, housing, business and infrastructure. It might be possible to create a less densely populated city-like structure which works like this, the question is whether it is worth the effort. For those who see this as a fulfilment of some ideological drive it might, just like living off-grid in the middle of nowhere does for others. For the general population this is unlikely to be true though.

varelse 5y ago

Tell that to the Amish anytime.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
L'exception confirme la règle.

tuatoru 5y ago

A high consumption, high travel lifestyle is bad for the environment wherever you are. Living in a remote environment limits your income. (Or used to, anyway. I guess we'll see in five or ten years.) Nearly everyone's spending closely follows their income.

yesimahuman 5y ago
Living remote and working in tech definitely does _not_ limit your income these days. You can live like a king outside of major cities on a engineer or higher-up tech salary these days.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Yes, but 'tech' workers are a minority. For an ordinary person, not so much. The pendulum might swing back in five or ten years -- companies might start requiring their staff to be on site. I'm suspending judgement for a while.
fakedang 5y ago
Living remote does not limit your income. And in fact, from reduced spending (due to lower CoL), you get way more bang for your buck. Living rural can work if you reduce your consumption and travel. If you're getting your water from a well in your land with electricity from natural renewables, and you also grow your own vegetables and raise your own chicken, you're self-sufficient.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

retrac98 5y ago

Out where?

hagbard_c 5y ago

Living in a remote area can be as low-impact as you want it to be. The grandparent post said he was going off-grid so he should be energy self-sufficient. assume he'll grow some crops, hunt, fish and/or get locally produced/hunted/fished goods and you're left with whatever "luxury" he'll want to have which he can not take with him while moving out to the countryside. If you want to live the life of a city-dweller, getting commercial goods delivered at your doorstep at a moments' notice, yes, in that case you'll be doing everyone a favour by staying put in the city. Most people who plan on living off-grid in the boonies do not crave for that lifestyle, they tend to aim for self- or local-sufficiency as much as possible.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>he should be energy self-sufficient. assume he'll grow some crops, hunt, fish and/or get locally produced/hunted/fished goods If you shared the farm and solar panels with a few friends you trust, is this close enough? Because you can have that in a city (search for Enercoop in France for the energy, and AMAP for _Association Pour une Agriculture Paysanne_). Local, clean, self sufficient, etc. but with a minimum of solidarity. Also, you have a much smaller footprint by living in a city so it's a scalable model (i.e not one man for himself and après moi le déluge).
- hagbard_c 5y ago
  On a small scale this might work in a city but it is not feasible to build a city (as in a densely populated area, traditionally enclosed by walls but this is not a necessity, multi-story multi-tenant housing with the ground floor often used for business-related activities) where everyone lives like that. Agriculture takes space, this can be reduced by moving to vertical horticulture but that either requires artificial light sources or free exposure to sunlight - which is hard when those vertical growth beds have to compete for space with PV panels, wind generators, housing, business and infrastructure. It might be possible to create a less densely populated city-like structure which works like this, the question is whether it is worth the effort. For those who see this as a fulfilment of some ideological drive it might, just like living off-grid in the middle of nowhere does for others. For the general population this is unlikely to be true though.