4 ms·
On the contrary, cities allow people to live efficiently. If you spread into suburbs and single-family housing, you need more area per person, motorized indivi
by danuker 4y ago
On the contrary, cities allow people to live efficiently.
If you spread into suburbs and single-family housing, you need more area per person, motorized individual transport (because walking becomes impractical), more spread out roads and utility lines, and so on.
Cities are not divorced from nature, they allow us to preserve it more easily.
- peatmoss 4y agoThis is correct, though paradoxically people who live in cities tend to use more energy in practice, largely due to the larger average wealth in the cities. That said, I (I think like you) believe cities are the solution. We just have to opt out of using our surplus wealth, borne of efficiency, for ecologically destructive purposes.
- mikodin 4y agoNothing is divorced from nature, we are nature. With that said, I think people who live in cities tend to feel plants, animals and ecosystems that are not ours less, and therefore we may be quite ignorant to the destruction we are causing. It's one thing to know in the mind that we are destroying other life forms and it's another to live in that destruction. Sure, depending on the measuring stick cities are more efficient. But I think most importantly, they likely aren't conducive to creating the sorts of empathy required for us to make decisions that are more in line with preserving other forms of life. I don't quite know the answer, like many things existential...it's complex, confusing, nuanced and hard to grasp. I hope that we figure it out and I hope that I answer the call within me to join in that figuring out.
- Xylakant 4y agoI live in the city, my parents live in a suburb/village. But the village is all mowed lawn, it’s surrounded by intense farming. I see more wild animals than they do. There’s a breeding pair of some bird of prey in the park next door, there’s falcons and skylarks on the Tempelhofer Feld, I regularly see foxes in the greener parts of town. It’s not like in a nature park, but suburbs are a desert compared to what I have.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y agoThey're horrible places to live, though. Pollution, noise, light pollution, they're crowded -- it's impossible to get away from others even for a few minutesb-- and the stench is just awful. Efficient, yes, but quality of life is unacceptably low.
- danuker 4y agoI deal with light pollution using blackout curtains. About pollution, where I am is not particularly bad, but if it were, I'd use a heat recovery ventilator and filters. As for noise, it can be a problem. My most trouble has been with cars. Move away from large roads. But some cities started addressing it as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/noise-radar-in-paris-will-catch-raucous-cars-and-motorbikes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/noise-radar-in...
- benj111 4y agoI don't disagree with you. For what it's worth I was contrasting living in the country v living in the city. I suspect living in the suburbs has much the same problem as living in the city. Theres a paradox where city living is a more efficient way of living a first world lifestyle, but doing so divorces you from what you're trying to protect.