3 ms·
If people want to live in remote areas This is an easily solved problem. Just stop eating. Once you stop eating, then we don't have to have farmers and their
by reaperducer 4y ago
If people want to live in remote areas
This is an easily solved problem. Just stop eating. Once you stop eating, then we don't have to have farmers and their remotely-located support communities growing food for you.
For bonus points, stop using computers. Electronics are made up of all kinds of metals that are mined in remote locations. So, stop using electricity at all, if you're really concerned about this.
And while you're at it, give up toilet paper. It comes from trees that are waaaay out in the forest. If you stop wiping, then we don't have to truck trees to paper mills to make toilet paper for people in the city to use.
Do your part.
- s5300 4y agoLot of strawmans here.
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoThe OP suggesting rural living is entirely to blame is a strawman and absurd, and was presented with no evidence that removing all rural areas would fix any problem.
- epistasis 4y ago88,000 people in a town isn't rural living.
- inferiorhuman 4y agohttps://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur... Sometimes population density is the defining concern, in other cases it is geographic isolation. Small population size typically characterizes a rural place, but how small is rural? Population thresholds used to differentiate rural and urban communities range from 2,500 up to 50,000, depending on the definition. So yeah 88,000 people could be rural if your primary factor is population density.