3 ms·

If all of the urbanites changed their minds and moved to rural areas, there would be no more rural areas. The suburban sprawl would just end up creeping in and

by RIMR 3y ago

If all of the urbanites changed their minds and moved to rural areas, there would be no more rural areas. The suburban sprawl would just end up creeping in and destroying the nature that exists there. Feel as irked as you want about it, you're free to continue whatever lifestyle you please, but the ecological footprint of rural living is an order of magnitude higher than that of urban living. Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable.

bequanna 3y ago
I'm not saying that urbanites should move to rural areas, I'm saying they should stop trying to legislate against development and stop blocking job-creating projects in rural areas because they are worried it will disrupt a biking trail they visit once every few years. > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. I have no idea what you mean by this. Everyone outside of the city isn't a rancher or farmer. Ag is a huge industry with a lot of opportunity, but not the only game in town. If you're talking about population density, we could easily double the number of people in my area with very little change in observable density. In the sq mile that I live there is only one other family. Combine remote work with low property taxes and lower real estate values, living in a rural area is increasingly attractive and makes a hell of a lot of sense to those interested in that lifestyle.
- boplicity 3y ago
  Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. This is a real issue. Not that it can't be solved, but it is something that should be taken seriously.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    As far as I can tell, unless an energy source as convenient, cheap, and portable as fossil fuels is discovered, the additional carbon footprint of moving more mass further distances (rural living) is unavoidable.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    > Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. Ugh... I want to assume the best about comments like this, but what is the point of citing this metric without context? It just feels like the only point is shaming and virtue signaling.
    - boplicity 3y ago
      My post was in response to this: > > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. > I have no idea what you mean by this. It was an attempt to explain how rural living is not scalable or sustainable. Maybe you do understand how unsustainable carbon emissions are, especially in terms of the rural versus urban footprint. I don't know.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Rural industries that supply the urban areas, agriculture especially, tend to be incredibly carbon intensive. But he asks why rural living? I have to question that too. The thing I love most about rural living is everything is right there. I can literally watch my food being grown, my electricity being produced (wind turbines), etc. just by looking out the window. I only need a vehicle like once a month. My feet get me to anything else I would need on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, all I ever hear from city dwellers is how their whole world is coming to and end because they don't have the best transit known to man. And, based on my time living in a city, I get it. You can't hardly live a day without needing access to some kind of vehicle in the city. There is nothing in your backyard except more people. Granted, some cities have better planning – putting jobs, and services, etc. in your backyard – but, especially in North America, that is rare. As such, it is counterintuitive to hear that rural living is the more carbon emitting option.
        wk_end 3y ago
        > I only need a vehicle like once a month. My feet get me to anything else I would need on a day to day basis. I don't have anything beyond anecdata here, but this is wildly out of sync with my perception of how most people who live in rural areas live. That is, what you're describing, I think, goes beyond what most people consider "rural". Yes, it's possible to live a relatively low-carbon rural existence if you're in a nearly entirely self-sustaining compound, but lots of (most?) people who aren't "urbanites" don't do that - they instead, routinely, drive vast distances on a near-daily basis to go to the store, secure healthcare, visit friends, head to the bar, go hiking/hunting/fishing, just for fun, etc.
  - TrispusAttucks 3y ago
    I wouldn't put too much stock into personal carbon footprint estimates. It's just a way of re-framing the carbon problem away from those actually responsible for it and turn it into to a battle between folks arguing who is more virtuous. -- Thought experiment: What if we removed the "people" from the problem and just looked at the geographic area? Does a rural 10 square mile produce as much GHG as an urban 10 square mile? -- When you analyze it based on personal carbon footprint you are ignoring business and industry and focusing on residential. This is by design, so those responsible aren't even included in the equation.

by RIMR 3y ago

bequanna 3y ago

I'm not saying that urbanites should move to rural areas, I'm saying they should stop trying to legislate against development and stop blocking job-creating projects in rural areas because they are worried it will disrupt a biking trail they visit once every few years. > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. I have no idea what you mean by this. Everyone outside of the city isn't a rancher or farmer. Ag is a huge industry with a lot of opportunity, but not the only game in town. If you're talking about population density, we could easily double the number of people in my area with very little change in observable density. In the sq mile that I live there is only one other family. Combine remote work with low property taxes and lower real estate values, living in a rural area is increasingly attractive and makes a hell of a lot of sense to those interested in that lifestyle.

boplicity 3y ago
Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. This is a real issue. Not that it can't be solved, but it is something that should be taken seriously.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  As far as I can tell, unless an energy source as convenient, cheap, and portable as fossil fuels is discovered, the additional carbon footprint of moving more mass further distances (rural living) is unavoidable.
- bequanna 3y ago
  > Rural living has a huge carbon footprint compared to city living for many people. Ugh... I want to assume the best about comments like this, but what is the point of citing this metric without context? It just feels like the only point is shaming and virtue signaling.
  - boplicity 3y ago
    My post was in response to this: > > Rural living, outside those with careers in agriculture, is not scalable or sustainable. > I have no idea what you mean by this. It was an attempt to explain how rural living is not scalable or sustainable. Maybe you do understand how unsustainable carbon emissions are, especially in terms of the rural versus urban footprint. I don't know.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Rural industries that supply the urban areas, agriculture especially, tend to be incredibly carbon intensive. But he asks why rural living? I have to question that too. The thing I love most about rural living is everything is right there. I can literally watch my food being grown, my electricity being produced (wind turbines), etc. just by looking out the window. I only need a vehicle like once a month. My feet get me to anything else I would need on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, all I ever hear from city dwellers is how their whole world is coming to and end because they don't have the best transit known to man. And, based on my time living in a city, I get it. You can't hardly live a day without needing access to some kind of vehicle in the city. There is nothing in your backyard except more people. Granted, some cities have better planning – putting jobs, and services, etc. in your backyard – but, especially in North America, that is rare. As such, it is counterintuitive to hear that rural living is the more carbon emitting option.
      - wk_end 3y ago
        > I only need a vehicle like once a month. My feet get me to anything else I would need on a day to day basis. I don't have anything beyond anecdata here, but this is wildly out of sync with my perception of how most people who live in rural areas live. That is, what you're describing, I think, goes beyond what most people consider "rural". Yes, it's possible to live a relatively low-carbon rural existence if you're in a nearly entirely self-sustaining compound, but lots of (most?) people who aren't "urbanites" don't do that - they instead, routinely, drive vast distances on a near-daily basis to go to the store, secure healthcare, visit friends, head to the bar, go hiking/hunting/fishing, just for fun, etc.
- TrispusAttucks 3y ago
  I wouldn't put too much stock into personal carbon footprint estimates. It's just a way of re-framing the carbon problem away from those actually responsible for it and turn it into to a battle between folks arguing who is more virtuous. -- Thought experiment: What if we removed the "people" from the problem and just looked at the geographic area? Does a rural 10 square mile produce as much GHG as an urban 10 square mile? -- When you analyze it based on personal carbon footprint you are ignoring business and industry and focusing on residential. This is by design, so those responsible aren't even included in the equation.