collapse

I recently saw this online debate about whether cities are the most sustainable or the least sustainable ways of living.

I could be convinced either way.

However, if you allow that lifestyle choices could be up for grabs, I can't imagine that rural living wouldn't be potentially more sustainable.

If you live in the country but live the way people live in the city with a 5000 mile diet, imported goods, daily commutes, shopping trips etc, then you have a city life with an even worse supply line that takes more resources.

However, living that way inside a city is obligatory. No matter what you are part of a giant factory that moves people and goods and energy and has to constantly bring in water and remove waste and so on, all adding tons of energy.

A country life at least offers the possibility of actually living locally with local resources but city people can never do this.

Of course nobody is really sustainable and we probably don't know what it really looks like.

I once thought about the Amish people in Pennsylvania and wondered if they could be like a model for a way of living. They have an interesting set of choices around technology. Just getting rid of electricity, powered vehicles and making most items by hand you reduce your resources so much. But how many people are going to switch to horses if they aren't forced to for survival?