3 ms·
Being a large city should no longer be seen as a positive attribute. It just looks like a bigger wound in the middle of a forest and natural terrain. Packing mi
by zkmon 11mo ago
Being a large city should no longer be seen as a positive attribute. It just looks like a bigger wound in the middle of a forest and natural terrain. Packing millions of people into a vast paved area does no good. It socks all life from country due to concentration of work and services.
Early human settlements had an objective of collective strength against the predators, invaders and shared help for all problem. Cities no longer have these goals or characteristics. They exist only due to a vicious cycle of jobs and worker availability which propel each other because of each other.
- School-Cotton 11mo agoDense cities use up a lot less resources and land than the same number of people spread out in smaller cities or suburbs.
- yourusername 11mo agoThere's probably a point where that stops scaling. Is there any proof a city of 40 million uses less resources per capita than a city of 1 million? 40 cities of 1 million seems preferable because then you can actually get outside the city once in a while without it being 2+ hours of travel.
- chengiz 11mo agoIt is unclear what leaving the city quickly has to do scaling or resources per capita. You seem to value this; most big city dwellers do not.