4 ms·
> In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few places. That's an interesting perspective. I've heard (and believe) the exact opposi
by wutbrodo 12y ago
> In 2015, there is less need than ever for us to all live in the same few places.
That's an interesting perspective. I've heard (and believe) the exact opposite. In 2015, there's no need to incur the (well-studied) economic, environmental, and cultural costs of low population density. Not to mention it's kind of bizarre to assume that it's clearly _better_ that having a population of only 2,000 people from which to meet people and make friends.
Your environment is what you make of it. I used to live in a smaller town and now that I live in a dense metropolis, I meet people and make new friends CONSTANTLY (not even joking, just this week I've (platonically) gotten 2 people's numbers based on meeting, finding mutual interests, and both of us wanting to hang out).
- mrec 12y ago> Your environment is what you make of it. Alternatively, maybe different people genuinely prefer different environments. You appear to be an extreme extrovert, so it's no great surprise that you enjoy living in a metropolis. Other people aren't, and don't.
- lmm 12y agoI think that's backwards from the usual definition of "extrovert". I don't like making small-talk with relative strangers, whether that's the store clerk, someone waiting for the same train, or what have you. So I love living in a big city.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mrec 12y agoYes and no. I absolutely get where you're coming from; I'm an extreme introvert living in London, and the anonymity is about the only thing that makes it bearable. The flip side here, and in many (but not all) metropoles, is the near-impossibility of finding quiet, either at work (expensive commercial property pushing employers toward open-plan bedlam hell) or at home (expensive residential property pushing people into tiny thin-walled apartments). I think the small-talk-with-everyone-you-meet thing is a characteristic of very small towns and villages. I've lived in medium-sized places that didn't have it. The introvert ideal of a blissful hermitage miles from anywhere is probably impractical, for many reasons, but I still have some faint hope of finding a liveable middle ground someday.
- lmm 12y agoModern buildings in London seem to have got the soundproofing right; of course you'll pay for it but it's worth it IMO. I live in a shared ownership (housing association owns 75%, me 25%) flat and it's completely quiet (the tradeoff is that I'm living in Tottenham as that's the only way to make it even vaguely affordable).
- mrec 12y agoSounds nice. I'm a bit further in (N4) and in an older conversion, and it's not even a tiny bit quiet.
- wutbrodo 12y ago>Alternatively, maybe different people genuinely prefer different environments. I fully agree. My comment was in response to the fact that the person I was responding to was casting a smaller town ad unequivocally better from a social perspective (ie saying that the economic benefits of big city life have been removed so now everyone is free to enjoy the social superiority of a small town). > You appear to be an extreme extrovert That's a fair assumption but believe it or not I consider myself quite far from extroverted. I just kinds go through moods where I feel more social and other times enjoy being alone more. The nice thing about the city is that it offers more freedom in both directions. For those days where I don't feel like socializing, I can still go wherever I want without recognizing anyone or bumping into anyone (for the most part) if that's what I choose to do.
- eigenvector 12y agoSmall towns aren't unequivocally better, but they are better for some people, such as people like the GP who might prefer not to be constantly thrust into large groups of unfamiliar people. For a long time they weren't really an option unless you wanted to do menial work you whole life. I'm merely pointing out that they are once again an option, if the small town lifestyle is what you prefer.
- wutbrodo 12y agoI guess I misinterpreted your comment. The last sentence sounded like you were making the claim that small towns' natural advantages are no longer necessarily balanced out by their economic cost (due to remote work), and thus implying that small towns are inherently better socially than big cities. I see now that an alternative interpretation (evidently the one you meant) is that you were saying that small towns' social advantages _for GP_ are no longer necessarily balanced out by an economic cost.