4 ms·
Sure. I think that's a really reasonable choice. Regarding the original point, I think it's important to highlight that without the industrial revolution human
by throwaway09223 4y ago
Sure. I think that's a really reasonable choice.
Regarding the original point, I think it's important to highlight that without the industrial revolution humans wouldn't be able to live closely together in cities. Living in a city is a choice, and you've chosen the modern option because it's superior.
This doesn't seem like a disaster as much as a net-positive with some fairly mild tradeoffs.
- paskozdilar 4y ago> Regarding the original point, I think it's important to highlight that without the industrial revolution humans wouldn't be able to live closely together in cities. Note that settlements have naturally occurred around rivers because of agriculture (e.g. Mesopotamia), so "cities", in some sense of the word, have existed long before the industrial evolution. I am aware that civilization brings good stuff with it - it's hard to not be aware of it - but I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. I think it can be, and ought to be, much better than this. It is my opinion that each and every human deserves to (be able to) live in an environment that is pleasant to them. I see it as a fundamental human right.