3 ms·
Rural folk are already a relatively small portion of the population in developed countries (<15% in the US) and that trend will only continue. We should be opti
by jobs_throwaway 4y ago
Rural folk are already a relatively small portion of the population in developed countries (<15% in the US) and that trend will only continue. We should be optimizing for the areas where the vast majority of people live, and where car-free lifestyles are absolutely feasible with proper infrastructure.
- LeftHandPath 4y agoI do agree that we can optimize for the cities, but the general attitude towards the people who are going to be worst affected by the ban of ICEs is to look down at them and laugh - as Colbert exclaimed, "I don't care if gas goes to $15 a gallon, because I drive a Tesla!" That's not a healthy approach (and note, I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just explaining the way this issue is being approached by the upper class at large). 15% of the US is about 50,000,000 people. To reduce the fraction, that's 3 in 20 Americans. That's a lot of people to just hand-wave away and leave behind. These are people, not dinosaurs. They also control our food supply. I think it's in our best interest to account for them in our plan for the future, and treat them well.
- dylan604 4y agoI think Texas continues to defy this, especially in politics. Dallas, Houston, Austin/San Antonio all tend to be more liberal and are the larger concentration of population, however they always get out voted by the rural populations. (gerrymandering has really done a number here) So in this case, the rural adds up to be large enough numbers to not be ignored. The sheer size of Texas is unique though, so it is kind of an edge case, but definitely not one to be ignored.