3 ms·
> Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society. You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions
by teakettle42 5y ago
> Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society.
You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions to put that lie to rest:
1. Where does your food come from?
2. Where does your water come from?
- oblio 5y agoWho pays for that food and water? It's all about money. More people have more money.
- teakettle42 5y agoIs this a sustainability argument?
- oblio 5y agoWell, yes. More people bunched up together use less CO2 for doing stuff and can pool expenses better. The fact that we've pulled people out of agriculture and we can grow food for 100 with just 1-2 actually growing it is great for the planet, for the economy, for human development.
- teakettle42 5y agoYou cannot satisfy your most fundamental need for food and water. “Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable. If you don’t want to subsidize rural infrastructure through your tax dollars, then frankly, we should just charge you exorbitant rates for our food and water, and then — by your metric — we’ll be entirely financially sustainable, too.
- brimble 5y ago> “Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable. If you live largely "off the grid", grow much of your own food, don't go out much (since any going out means a lot of driving, if you're in the country), and rarely order goods delivery... sure.
- collegeburner 5y agoI have some buddies who now make their own biodiesel. That makes the driving carbon neutral. I hope to do the same in the next few years, once I get my next vehicle (probably a diesel).
- jwagenet 5y agoFood and water benefit from bulk transport to cities up to the last mile or less. Outside of cities everyone needs to travel individually to get food (growing up it was 5 miles and for some often much more!)