3 ms·

Towns have no future in a collapse. Too hot, too water/fossil fuel dependent, too unsustainable.

• vkou 3y ago
  No, it's the other way around. Towns and cities are actually far more resource efficient than rural and suburban sprawl. The only inefficient thing in them is highrises. But five-story buildings are incredibly infrastructure-efficient. Walking through a midrise neighborhood puts you past more people per minute, than driving 120 mph through a suburb.
  • myshpa 3y ago
    > No, it's the other way around When everything works as intended. In a collapse everything changes. Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future.
    • vkou 3y ago
      > Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future. Unless you're a subsistence peasant, which 99.9% of rural and semi-rural (suruban) people aren't, you're going to have the same exact problems from a lack of all those things.
      • myshpa 3y ago
        Yes, it's gonna end up badly for most.