3 ms·
It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. Mostly correct. However, not everyone choos
by reaperducer 3y ago
It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas.
Mostly correct. However, not everyone chooses to live in a remote area. The Navajo, referenced above, are among the people who were forced to settle in a particular area, at the point of a government gun.
Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food. We need to be careful with the words here. Not much in the way of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "remote" areas. Lots of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "rural" areas. We can and should and must provide improved communications services to rural areas - I think we have a moral imperative to do so. The remote areas, however, are a different story. If they happen to end up being serviced by e.g. Starlink then great, but I don't think we have the same moral imperative there.
- jandrewrogers 3y agoMost food is produced in rural areas with infrastructure, not remote areas. Farmers frequently live in town. Agricultural production costs are sensitive to logistics, so doing any kind of intensive agriculture in genuinely remote areas is expensive. You don't want to be too far from a rail spur if you are a farmer. The only agriculture on remote land at scale is cattle ranching, which has the advantage that cattle can move themselves.