5 ms·

I wouldn't. I've looked into it. There are lots of places where you can get a free place in the US. They're nice places, pretty, if you like being outside like

I wouldn't. I've looked into it. There are lots of places where you can get a free place in the US. They're nice places, pretty, if you like being outside like me it's got a lot going for it. Still, I don't want to move to a place with nothing going on and bet on a town that may just get worse. And Kansas in particular, I wouldn't want to pay those taxes. I did abandon cities though. Cities are sirens. They attract you with the promise of lots of economic and social activity, then you wind up locked on a treadmill full of people navigating around you like an obstacle. You wind up isolated, having to wait in traffic for extended periods to go anywhere, paying outrageous sums to live. The natural world is mostly dead in them. I can get Netflix and tinder and all that other virtual stuff anywhere, which seems to be all there is in cities anyway, plus when I go outside there are butterflies and fire flies and weird birds everywhere and people leave me alone about my business, they're not used to being packed like sardines so they don't navigate around you like an obstacle, they are usually eager to be friendly. And you can make a decent life happen with very little money.

pkdpic 5y ago
Yeah, there're a lot of factors you dont see coming that make poetic middle of nowhere life feel not super sustainable long term. Me and my partner lived in the CA desert for a long time for reasons similar to what you list about problematic big cities and benefits listed in the post but once we felt like we conquered it (?) we ended up wanting to return to family / friends / civilization / 6 dollar cappuccinos / brick oven pizzas / walkable resources etc. That said I wouldnt trade that time for anything and theres a strong chance Ill be back when im done futilely participating in humanity.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  What sort of factors? If it's going to suck for me in the coming years I could use a heads up. What's not sustainable about it?
  - alar44 5y ago
    Lack of culture and education mostly. Lack of anonymity. Tribalism. Gossip. Conservatism. Racism. Good ol boys. Local government corruption. Brain drain. Shrinking populations. Low wage jobs. Tiny or non-existent dating pool. Hospital far away, possibly no ambulance service. No childcare. No decent stores other than Walmart or Dollar General. Have to drive literally everywhere. The only thing "small town living" has going for it is the scenery.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- adamauckland 5y ago
  This is the problem with moving rural. Unless you own a lot of it, you're still just penned in, and now there's no local amenities or support. I moved into the countryside 12 years ago from a large town where I never had to drive, suddenly my commute was hours a day and there's nothing around
probably_a_gpt 5y ago
What do you eat though? It sounds like the diverse mix of cultures one finds in cities may not be something that adds value for you, but it certainly does for me. Also, one of the reasons people enjoy cities is because of the proximity to stuff. Living in a city I can walk to everything from the grocery store and a plethora of restaurants, to the local theatre. Living in a city those things are often at most a 15 minute walk. Living somewhere deeply suburban or rural, you often have to drive more than 15 minutes to reach a single one of those things. Sure you have tinder, but just doing the math based on population density one can see that cities have an advantage if you like a diverse dating pool. Yes living in a city costs more, but it’s because there is more demand. That demand is sustained by real world individuals deciding cities have value for them.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I cook mostly. I eat pretty good. I come from a diverse background with a diverse friend group in a very large city. By diverse, I mean at least a dozen nationalities and largely immigrants from every continent. I'm no stranger to it, and it does hold value to me. But it's overrated, it's not worth being packed into an apartment building like a sardine and getting stuck in traffic going anywhere that isn't the corner store. That said, where I live isn't exactly a monoculture. There are Indians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Philippino, Norwegians, Germans, Mexican and assorted other central american people, Cubans, and of course your usual white and black american people. All in a town with a 4 digit population. The places I can get to in a 5 mile car ride where I live might not be places to buy stuff, but I can have a lot of fun out here. There's water, woods, lots of little food shacks and taco trucks and a couple of grocery stores, a few bars (I've grown out of bars mostly). It's low stress to get around, and when you get where you're going there's usually some people that aren't jaded by the smell of the masses and are eager to be friendly. I wouldn't say the dating game is easier in cities. You've got just as much competition as options, and people in cities are more judgmental and unforgiving. And also, in my opinion, out here the quality of the people is just better in general. I think largely the majority of people in cities are there because they're stuck there. Very few people anywhere moved there because they wanted to, most people are just born where they live, and in cities there's just more people in a smaller space. I don't think it's indicative of an advantage, and I think largely the desire to live there is driven by ideas like life outside of one is a waste, there's nothing to do, country bumpkins are bad neighbors, etc. Most of the selling points of densely populated environments are overstated, if they're true at all anymore IMO.
tjr225 5y ago
> The natural world is mostly dead in them. I live in the Seattle metro(Tacoma) and can walk to a 900 acre old growth forest with 20 miles of trails, or quickly drive to several beaches and watch for whales, seals, etc. Seattle and Portland, and likely many places on the West Coast have similar amenities- not to mention being surrounded by multiple national forests and national parks. I’m curious if the cities you abandoned work back east or European?
- redisman 5y ago
  Puget Sound area is kind of an exception. I would say most European, Asian, Midwest, East coast big cities I’ve been to have almost no nature within an hours drive. Maybe a few manicured parks
  - jen20 5y ago
    Perhaps that’s true in some places of the places you list, but I can barely think of a European city that does _not_ have nature within an hour drive. Or, for that matter and east coast city. Even New York City has plenty of nature within an hour (the Ramapo mountains in one direction, plenty in most others too).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    More counter-examples: Berlin: Grunewald, accessible by S-Bahn Philadelphia: Wissahickon Valley, actually inside the city, with 21 miles of single-track in a wild river valley. London: Epping Forest, accessible on the Underground; north Surrey hills, just under an hours drive. Montpelier (France): Verdon Gorge, about an hours drive, and lots of nice stuff before you get there. Chicago: yeah, ok. You got me.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I've been to that metro area, a long time ago. It is a beautiful place, in my opinion that region of the world is the most beautiful place on earth, and I've been to a few beautiful places worldwide. I have walked through an evergreen forest and seen whales spouting on the Puget sound all within a mile walk. If it weren't so damn expensive and urban in that area I'd live there in a heartbeat. I'm not entirely talking about reserved places like parks. Cities have those, they're nice. What I mean is, in your immediate environment, outside of your door, the ground is paved, sprayed for mosquitoes (and consequently every other arthropod) with neurotoxins, it is built entirely for humans and yet somehow not ergonomic. I live under a giant oak tree in an oak forest. There are multiple wild creatures living their lives within a 10 foot radius of where I'm sitting right now. I don't have to go to a designated outdoorsy place, it is my every day environment. That's something very valuable to me.
rootusrootus 5y ago
A part of me keeps my eyes open for opportunities to move somewhere more remote. Once I have Starlink, I can be just about anywhere. I don't really want to be truly remote, though, so I have a lower limit. I want to be within, say, 30 minutes of 1) a walmart, at least (not my favorite place, but there are a lot of them), and 2) a legitimate hospital. That is probably rural enough so I can escape most of the traffic stupidity.
- octoberfranklin 5y ago
  Don't forget that Starlink is geo-locked to within ~1mile. Just because they aren't enforcing it 100% of the time right now doesn't mean it will stay that way.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Is it really that tight? I was hoping the polygons on this page were accurate: https://satellitemap.space/ https://satellitemap.space/ I do see a reference from a thread a long time ago that suggests a cell is perhaps 15 miles diagonally. I'm hoping the geo locking is removed at some point soon so I can take it with me when I go RVing in the sticks. But back to my original comment, I meant I can probably get Starlink at any rural location, as a fixed site, so I can work from anywhere.
    - octoberfranklin 5y ago
      It will definitely never be removed. The system simply doesn't have the capacity to serve lots of people in a small area. It only works if they geo-fence people into sparse, widely-spaced cells. Starlink is very upfront about this. There is very limited bandwidth per square kilometer of earth-surface. It isn't meant for cities.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  That was basically my criteria, and I hopped around a little bit like that until I found it. Where I'm at it a little busier than I'd like, but nice altogether.

pkdpic 5y ago

Yeah, there're a lot of factors you dont see coming that make poetic middle of nowhere life feel not super sustainable long term. Me and my partner lived in the CA desert for a long time for reasons similar to what you list about problematic big cities and benefits listed in the post but once we felt like we conquered it (?) we ended up wanting to return to family / friends / civilization / 6 dollar cappuccinos / brick oven pizzas / walkable resources etc. That said I wouldnt trade that time for anything and theres a strong chance Ill be back when im done futilely participating in humanity.

betwixthewires 5y ago
What sort of factors? If it's going to suck for me in the coming years I could use a heads up. What's not sustainable about it?
- alar44 5y ago
  Lack of culture and education mostly. Lack of anonymity. Tribalism. Gossip. Conservatism. Racism. Good ol boys. Local government corruption. Brain drain. Shrinking populations. Low wage jobs. Tiny or non-existent dating pool. Hospital far away, possibly no ambulance service. No childcare. No decent stores other than Walmart or Dollar General. Have to drive literally everywhere. The only thing "small town living" has going for it is the scenery.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
adamauckland 5y ago
This is the problem with moving rural. Unless you own a lot of it, you're still just penned in, and now there's no local amenities or support. I moved into the countryside 12 years ago from a large town where I never had to drive, suddenly my commute was hours a day and there's nothing around

probably_a_gpt 5y ago

What do you eat though? It sounds like the diverse mix of cultures one finds in cities may not be something that adds value for you, but it certainly does for me. Also, one of the reasons people enjoy cities is because of the proximity to stuff. Living in a city I can walk to everything from the grocery store and a plethora of restaurants, to the local theatre. Living in a city those things are often at most a 15 minute walk. Living somewhere deeply suburban or rural, you often have to drive more than 15 minutes to reach a single one of those things. Sure you have tinder, but just doing the math based on population density one can see that cities have an advantage if you like a diverse dating pool. Yes living in a city costs more, but it’s because there is more demand. That demand is sustained by real world individuals deciding cities have value for them.

betwixthewires 5y ago
I cook mostly. I eat pretty good. I come from a diverse background with a diverse friend group in a very large city. By diverse, I mean at least a dozen nationalities and largely immigrants from every continent. I'm no stranger to it, and it does hold value to me. But it's overrated, it's not worth being packed into an apartment building like a sardine and getting stuck in traffic going anywhere that isn't the corner store. That said, where I live isn't exactly a monoculture. There are Indians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Philippino, Norwegians, Germans, Mexican and assorted other central american people, Cubans, and of course your usual white and black american people. All in a town with a 4 digit population. The places I can get to in a 5 mile car ride where I live might not be places to buy stuff, but I can have a lot of fun out here. There's water, woods, lots of little food shacks and taco trucks and a couple of grocery stores, a few bars (I've grown out of bars mostly). It's low stress to get around, and when you get where you're going there's usually some people that aren't jaded by the smell of the masses and are eager to be friendly. I wouldn't say the dating game is easier in cities. You've got just as much competition as options, and people in cities are more judgmental and unforgiving. And also, in my opinion, out here the quality of the people is just better in general. I think largely the majority of people in cities are there because they're stuck there. Very few people anywhere moved there because they wanted to, most people are just born where they live, and in cities there's just more people in a smaller space. I don't think it's indicative of an advantage, and I think largely the desire to live there is driven by ideas like life outside of one is a waste, there's nothing to do, country bumpkins are bad neighbors, etc. Most of the selling points of densely populated environments are overstated, if they're true at all anymore IMO.

tjr225 5y ago

> The natural world is mostly dead in them. I live in the Seattle metro(Tacoma) and can walk to a 900 acre old growth forest with 20 miles of trails, or quickly drive to several beaches and watch for whales, seals, etc. Seattle and Portland, and likely many places on the West Coast have similar amenities- not to mention being surrounded by multiple national forests and national parks. I’m curious if the cities you abandoned work back east or European?

redisman 5y ago
Puget Sound area is kind of an exception. I would say most European, Asian, Midwest, East coast big cities I’ve been to have almost no nature within an hours drive. Maybe a few manicured parks
- jen20 5y ago
  Perhaps that’s true in some places of the places you list, but I can barely think of a European city that does _not_ have nature within an hour drive. Or, for that matter and east coast city. Even New York City has plenty of nature within an hour (the Ramapo mountains in one direction, plenty in most others too).
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  More counter-examples: Berlin: Grunewald, accessible by S-Bahn Philadelphia: Wissahickon Valley, actually inside the city, with 21 miles of single-track in a wild river valley. London: Epping Forest, accessible on the Underground; north Surrey hills, just under an hours drive. Montpelier (France): Verdon Gorge, about an hours drive, and lots of nice stuff before you get there. Chicago: yeah, ok. You got me.
betwixthewires 5y ago
I've been to that metro area, a long time ago. It is a beautiful place, in my opinion that region of the world is the most beautiful place on earth, and I've been to a few beautiful places worldwide. I have walked through an evergreen forest and seen whales spouting on the Puget sound all within a mile walk. If it weren't so damn expensive and urban in that area I'd live there in a heartbeat. I'm not entirely talking about reserved places like parks. Cities have those, they're nice. What I mean is, in your immediate environment, outside of your door, the ground is paved, sprayed for mosquitoes (and consequently every other arthropod) with neurotoxins, it is built entirely for humans and yet somehow not ergonomic. I live under a giant oak tree in an oak forest. There are multiple wild creatures living their lives within a 10 foot radius of where I'm sitting right now. I don't have to go to a designated outdoorsy place, it is my every day environment. That's something very valuable to me.

rootusrootus 5y ago

A part of me keeps my eyes open for opportunities to move somewhere more remote. Once I have Starlink, I can be just about anywhere. I don't really want to be truly remote, though, so I have a lower limit. I want to be within, say, 30 minutes of 1) a walmart, at least (not my favorite place, but there are a lot of them), and 2) a legitimate hospital. That is probably rural enough so I can escape most of the traffic stupidity.

octoberfranklin 5y ago
Don't forget that Starlink is geo-locked to within ~1mile. Just because they aren't enforcing it 100% of the time right now doesn't mean it will stay that way.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Is it really that tight? I was hoping the polygons on this page were accurate: https://satellitemap.space/ https://satellitemap.space/ I do see a reference from a thread a long time ago that suggests a cell is perhaps 15 miles diagonally. I'm hoping the geo locking is removed at some point soon so I can take it with me when I go RVing in the sticks. But back to my original comment, I meant I can probably get Starlink at any rural location, as a fixed site, so I can work from anywhere.
  - octoberfranklin 5y ago
    It will definitely never be removed. The system simply doesn't have the capacity to serve lots of people in a small area. It only works if they geo-fence people into sparse, widely-spaced cells. Starlink is very upfront about this. There is very limited bandwidth per square kilometer of earth-surface. It isn't meant for cities.
betwixthewires 5y ago
That was basically my criteria, and I hopped around a little bit like that until I found it. Where I'm at it a little busier than I'd like, but nice altogether.