what's your issue with people in rural areas did you get everything you know about us from the film deliverance or something. stops in rural areas allow trains to changeover and adds redundancy in the system
Im from bumfuck west virginia, we had to drink untreated ground water, we burned our trash, I was homeschooled for a significant portion of my childhood. Stop romanticising rural living, raising a kid in those conditions is child abuse, that's why I don't think where you live should be a choice. Where I was I couldn't just take a train or a bus or a taxi, you had to own a car or a horse. And the horse thing has to do with the Amish who I hate with a passion and are no different from the Russian kulaks. Confiscate all their land, relocate the hill people to the city.
it sounds like you had a personal terrible experience growing up in poverty in a rural area and that's massively affecting how you think about the whole issue. I have to say though you get some pretty bad situations in urban areas too the issue is the poverty
And wouldn't it be easier to solve all those urban problems if EVERYONE had to live in an urban area? I'm not saying f urban living is cheap or close to nature or the apartments are very big but it's for the benefit of the collective why I support it. Because the only way human society can change is if we live in the same material conditions and that can only happen by destroying rural and suburban areas.
someone has to grow the food, maintain the railways and other infrastructure that passes between the cities, etc.. we can't all live in cities. like dense housing is good and I prefer city life but I also get why some people prefer the peace in the valleys and in the mountains.
They prefer it because they exhibit anti social behaviors, living outside a city is bad for your health. No emergency services nearby, it's isolation. It should be illegal to build a house in the boonies.
as it stands, living inside a city is also bad for your health and, again, not everyone can live in a city. cities have a wide footprint that support them - this will only get worse as global supply chains collapse and localities are forced to become more self-sufficient in the wake of climate change.
All human habitation has a footprint, it's best just to concentrate it into a single area than have it spread out. It's not that living in a city is bad for your health, it's from the fumes of vehicles. Take that out of the equation it's better.
the point is that large footprint requires people living outside the city to sustain it. "concentrating" it doesn't reduce the acreage required to grow the food to support the population living inside the city.
Yeah and it's bad cities require people outside of them to sustain them, they should be completely self sufficient and that requires increasing density and moving agriculture into urban areas. It would be significantly easier if we cut out farm animals and specific crops like sugar or coffee from people's diets.
But again, in realms of fantasy - it just doesn’t have to be this way. It’s easier to manage rural, eh, reactionary tendencies, then just wave a magic wand and burn the whole thing while completely redesigning agriculture.
TRAINS. Why should we make them stop for rural backwaters? Just move, it's the state's job to aid you in that.
what's your issue with people in rural areas did you get everything you know about us from the film deliverance or something. stops in rural areas allow trains to changeover and adds redundancy in the system
Im from bumfuck west virginia, we had to drink untreated ground water, we burned our trash, I was homeschooled for a significant portion of my childhood. Stop romanticising rural living, raising a kid in those conditions is child abuse, that's why I don't think where you live should be a choice. Where I was I couldn't just take a train or a bus or a taxi, you had to own a car or a horse. And the horse thing has to do with the Amish who I hate with a passion and are no different from the Russian kulaks. Confiscate all their land, relocate the hill people to the city.
it sounds like you had a personal terrible experience growing up in poverty in a rural area and that's massively affecting how you think about the whole issue. I have to say though you get some pretty bad situations in urban areas too the issue is the poverty
And wouldn't it be easier to solve all those urban problems if EVERYONE had to live in an urban area? I'm not saying f urban living is cheap or close to nature or the apartments are very big but it's for the benefit of the collective why I support it. Because the only way human society can change is if we live in the same material conditions and that can only happen by destroying rural and suburban areas.
someone has to grow the food, maintain the railways and other infrastructure that passes between the cities, etc.. we can't all live in cities. like dense housing is good and I prefer city life but I also get why some people prefer the peace in the valleys and in the mountains.
They prefer it because they exhibit anti social behaviors, living outside a city is bad for your health. No emergency services nearby, it's isolation. It should be illegal to build a house in the boonies.
as it stands, living inside a city is also bad for your health and, again, not everyone can live in a city. cities have a wide footprint that support them - this will only get worse as global supply chains collapse and localities are forced to become more self-sufficient in the wake of climate change.
All human habitation has a footprint, it's best just to concentrate it into a single area than have it spread out. It's not that living in a city is bad for your health, it's from the fumes of vehicles. Take that out of the equation it's better.
the point is that large footprint requires people living outside the city to sustain it. "concentrating" it doesn't reduce the acreage required to grow the food to support the population living inside the city.
Yeah and it's bad cities require people outside of them to sustain them, they should be completely self sufficient and that requires increasing density and moving agriculture into urban areas. It would be significantly easier if we cut out farm animals and specific crops like sugar or coffee from people's diets.
ok when this fantasy tech actually exists we can have this discussion
gonna grow food on the sidewalks chief? have you heard of "carrying capacity"?
I can't believe I'm hearing the grow food argument here of all places.
yeah why tf would people want to eat? Fucking libs, amirite?
:le-pol-face:
I’m sorry you’ve had this experience :meow-hug:
But again, in realms of fantasy - it just doesn’t have to be this way. It’s easier to manage rural, eh, reactionary tendencies, then just wave a magic wand and burn the whole thing while completely redesigning agriculture.
deleted by creator