5 ms·

Oh no, living in a fully nuclear/solar-powered Amsterdam-Tokyo, the horror. This sounds great.

teakettle42 5y ago
> This sounds great. I’m sure it does — to you. It sounds like a one sentence horror story to me. I enjoy living somewhere small enough that I have an active role to play in my community’s basic needs, including serving as a volunteer firefighter, while still being remote enough that I don’t need to intrude on my neighbors (or request their approval) to largely live the way I want to live — and vis versa.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Agreed. Simple life. This is the way. These megacities aren't sustainable and have consumed so many resources that could have sustained untold generations.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    Don't city dwellers use fewer resources per capita than suburban, rural, and town dwellers? e.g. more efficient transport, shorter trip distances, more efficient heating and cooling, less resource-intensive construction per resident.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welcome harsh review and criticism. Read full thread for details. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733
      - mlyle 5y ago
        So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?
        TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        Not exactly. My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. Where we go from there I leave to the reader but at least dispelling the myth allows us to see the world with open eyes and move forward.
        mlyle 5y ago
        > My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able to walk more, having practical public transportation, having in some cases centralized heating, etc --- are all wins that rural households can't have. Yes, food has to get transported into the city, but most people even in rural environments don't eat food produced close to them (and doing so isn't really compatible with modern expectations, either, for various reasons). But instead we just have an assertion from you that it all doesn't count, because maybe city dwellers do more energy intensive stuff elsewhere-- and gesturing to a long thread with you gesticulating that concrete is resource intensive? (town and rural users use more concrete and other building materials per capita... longer roads per house, less efficient foundations, big storm drainage systems, etc, per occupant, etc. e.g. rural Wyoming used 280,253 tonnes of portland cement in 2020; this is 0.28% of US use while Wyoming is 0.17% of the US population, vs dense New Jersey used 1,392,667 tonnes representing 1.4% of US use and had 2.7% of the population). You have not dispelled any myths: you've just made unsupported statements.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  Yeah it sounds like we have a large gulf of personal experience on this matter, so it makes sense that my description doesn't resonate with you. IMO these sorts of conversations tend to fall down because we don't have the appropriate context to talk about our experiences. For example, I've lived in cities, car-dependent suburbia, and a bike-centric university town. Of those, the city and bike-centric university town were orders of magnitude better to live in. However, I haven't lived in a rural environment, which seems like a very different experience, so I can't speak to the relative quality of the rural vs other-options lifestyle. I like to think, though, that if we had an actual conversation (instead of an ephemeral textual exchange), I could probably explain why city living would likely facilitate many/all of the elements you are looking for in a community. Sadly, nearly all Americans simply haven't gotten to experience living in a city for themselves, and so don't have the context required to understand how cities facilitate community. America has precious few non-car-dependent cities (car-dependent cities don't count as cities IMO, since car-dependency is incompatible with the requisite transportation structure necessary for city communities to thrive).

> This sounds great. I’m sure it does — to you. It sounds like a one sentence horror story to me. I enjoy living somewhere small enough that I have an active role to play in my community’s basic needs, including serving as a volunteer firefighter, while still being remote enough that I don’t need to intrude on my neighbors (or request their approval) to largely live the way I want to live — and vis versa.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Agreed. Simple life. This is the way. These megacities aren't sustainable and have consumed so many resources that could have sustained untold generations.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Don't city dwellers use fewer resources per capita than suburban, rural, and town dwellers? e.g. more efficient transport, shorter trip distances, more efficient heating and cooling, less resource-intensive construction per resident.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welcome harsh review and criticism. Read full thread for details. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733
    - mlyle 5y ago
      So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?
      - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        Not exactly. My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. Where we go from there I leave to the reader but at least dispelling the myth allows us to see the world with open eyes and move forward.
        mlyle 5y ago
        > My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able to walk more, having practical public transportation, having in some cases centralized heating, etc --- are all wins that rural households can't have. Yes, food has to get transported into the city, but most people even in rural environments don't eat food produced close to them (and doing so isn't really compatible with modern expectations, either, for various reasons). But instead we just have an assertion from you that it all doesn't count, because maybe city dwellers do more energy intensive stuff elsewhere-- and gesturing to a long thread with you gesticulating that concrete is resource intensive? (town and rural users use more concrete and other building materials per capita... longer roads per house, less efficient foundations, big storm drainage systems, etc, per occupant, etc. e.g. rural Wyoming used 280,253 tonnes of portland cement in 2020; this is 0.28% of US use while Wyoming is 0.17% of the US population, vs dense New Jersey used 1,392,667 tonnes representing 1.4% of US use and had 2.7% of the population). You have not dispelled any myths: you've just made unsupported statements.
danny_codes 5y ago
Yeah it sounds like we have a large gulf of personal experience on this matter, so it makes sense that my description doesn't resonate with you. IMO these sorts of conversations tend to fall down because we don't have the appropriate context to talk about our experiences. For example, I've lived in cities, car-dependent suburbia, and a bike-centric university town. Of those, the city and bike-centric university town were orders of magnitude better to live in. However, I haven't lived in a rural environment, which seems like a very different experience, so I can't speak to the relative quality of the rural vs other-options lifestyle. I like to think, though, that if we had an actual conversation (instead of an ephemeral textual exchange), I could probably explain why city living would likely facilitate many/all of the elements you are looking for in a community. Sadly, nearly all Americans simply haven't gotten to experience living in a city for themselves, and so don't have the context required to understand how cities facilitate community. America has precious few non-car-dependent cities (car-dependent cities don't count as cities IMO, since car-dependency is incompatible with the requisite transportation structure necessary for city communities to thrive).