846
Anon notices the "grass is always greener" trope in movies
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
846 points (95.7% liked)
> Greentext
7550 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rural life can not be austainable.
move out of city for cheap house etc - than complain about no wifi, no doctors etc - force government to have fiber internet - yadda yadda
people who advocate rural areas are just big egoists and ignorant
You literally cannot grow sufficient food to feed the population of the city within the city. Every city requires massive rural areas for sustenance.
Rural areas have sufficient abundance to both sustain themselves and the cities.
can you give me any source for that?
i heard paris is considered a beautiful city. if all humans lived in a city as dense as paris we could all live in an area the size of germany.
growing population says it is impossible to feed the world with conventional farming as this will further reduce nature.
rural areas are whats destroying the planet.
also, were i lived the farmer has an ipad and the machines do all the work. nobody really needs to live there anymore as you can easily check from the number of employees in farming. constant decline. it is bs to think people need to be in thos rural areas but you can wait till it is 100% machine made.
Rural areas provide food and raw materials for the cities. That's their entire purpose.
If all people lived in a city as dense as Paris, they would all starve: Paris does not have a single farm producing food.
If all people lived in a city as dense as Paris, every manufacturer would be out of business due to lack of raw materials: Paris does not have a single mine.
If rural areas are destroying the planet, it is because the cities are demanding from those areas more than the planet can provide.
It's not cities doing that, it's capitalism.
Socialist cities make the same demands on rural areas that capitalist cities do. It's primarily a function of population density, not economic model.
At best, a square mile of farmland can feed about 6000 people. That's under ideal conditions and assuming vegetarians. Want a little meat in your diet, and 2500 is a more realistic number.
A square mile of Chicago contains about 12,000 people. That's 2 to 4.8 square miles of farmland for every square mile of city. Chicago is about 230 square miles.
A square mile of New York contains about 30,000 people. That's 5 to 12 sq miles of farmland for every square mile of city. New York is about 300 square miles.
A square mile of Paris contains about 53,000 people. 8.8 to 21.2 sq miles of farmland for every square mile of city. Paris is about 40 square miles.
Cities need farms to feed the inhabitants of the cites, farms can't exist without farmers (yet) and there's plenty of types of businesses farmers need to visit fairly frequently in order to live. This creates and sustains the small farm communities the dot the rural landscape between large cities
Farmers need services too. Are you just saying everyone unlucky enough to be born outside of a major metropolis must go without medical care or access to modern services?
Also fiber is literally cheaper in the long term. It has effectively infinite bandwidth, requires no maintenance except repairing damage by excavation/natural disasters/wildlife (which any kind of utility line requires) and can run literally hundreds of kilometers without any repeaters or anything else to maintain the signal inbetween.
ISPs were (and still are in many places) utilizing worn out, sometimes over a century old telephone and cable television infrastructure to deliver internet to places that hadn't yet gotten fiber, and it perpetuates a digital divide that prevents kids growing up on farms from accessing services that might help them be the most productive members of society that they can be
I think you're the ignorant one in this case
assumptions assumptions.
look at the facts.
co2 -> rural homes cause way more emissions
...so does their commute.
they cost, we pay
internet...extremely expensive to get fibre everywhere. ...so is public transport.
the cost, we pay
i do not see how a planet with growing numbers of ppl could allow rural areas really
Fibre cost per kilometer is much cheaper than copper. Fibre is cheapest way to get internet everywhere.
starlink not cheaper?
the point is that it costs money to get infrastructure anywhere. and those ppl that just want to live out their fantasy to build their own ugly home somewhere in the woods just care about themselves.
Starlink is actually extremely expensive and slow. About $600 for the dish and about $100 for speed slower than my cable plan in 2003 as slow as 25Mbps. Worse even though rural areas are spread out a good chunk of people tend towards smaller clumps close enough to be sharing the same bandwidth. The entire constellation doesn't scale to supporting a reasonable experience to even a fraction of rural America let alone planet earth.
You still basically need to run fiber into every town however small.
thanks. i hoped it was faster really.
I literally provided facts and linked on the ones that are not common knowledge
WHERE WILL THE FOOD BE GROWN THEN?! WHERE WILL THE RESOURCES TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THE CITIES COME FROM?!
https://www.fastcompany.com/1665327/infographic-if-7-billion-people-lived-in-one-city-how-big-would-it-be
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1blprl/til_that_if_the_the_entire_world_population_of_69/
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/vertical-farming
all caps does not make anything right