De-urbanisation - is it time to go back to the country?

[Sagarmatha]

No one here is talking about forcing people into the wilderness or onto farms at gun point. I am however against the very anti-rural policies that exist. Again, the vey economic system of America makes it very difficult to just live without having to depend on corporations and urban environments. Corporate welfare, artificially inflated currency, intentional globalization. Neoliberals have been working for decades and decades to solidify the power of corporations and corporate interest and it had worked.

I want policies that make it easier to just pick up and go provide for myself and my family by my own hand, and also a cultural shift away from the socially ingrained prejudices people have against rural people.

Again, I grew up in a rural, small town environment. The "prejudices against rural people" thing doesn't really exist.
One of my friends in uni asked me if I had a tractor back home and that was it, really. And guess what? As undergrad uni students? We all shittalked each other. FFS that was hardly the most offensive thing a friend of mine has ever said to me

I can agree that I would like more support for rural communities, but "more support for rural communities" does not mean de-urbanization has to, or should, happen. Given how old the first cities are? Urbanization seems like a natural trend among human beings. People congregate in areas that are central to trade and commerce.

In short I'm perfectly willing to agree that we need more of a focus on helping our revitalize our rural communities but you know what? I'm not willing to go from that point to "we need to de-urbanize."

As shocking as this might be, anecdotes are not a valid argument.

De-urbanisation in a natural and organic trend is very necessary. As I said above total depopulation of cities is not realistic or desired. Towns and cities should exist, but they shouldn't exist as they do right now. Once upon a time, you lived in a city because it took a week to travel to the countryside and back and there were highwaymen and bandits. Now I can drive from California to New York in a week. We have the ability to safely and reliable transport ourselves from commercial hubs. Now people live in cities because that's where the only feasible work is. That is because corporate lobbyists have made it that way.

[Orostan]

I said that with complete de-urbanization and de-industrialization you'd destroy quality of life by any measurement. Even if everyone just voluntarily chooses to destroy industrial society like that, how would a surgeon conduct surgery without tools or proper equipment? How would an astronomer do anything without a telescope? Knowledge like this is only useful if you can apply it to the real world.

Who in here has at all brought up total de-urbanization and de-industrialization as a feasible or desirable policy or outcome? Put the strawman away and address the issues at hand, that there is an intense negative prejudice against rural people ingrained into our society, that urbanization has decidedly led to a reduction self-reliance, and that corporate lobbyists push the government to incentivize urban living because they want more workers.

So let's picture this. Densely populated urban areas start emptying out because city-dwellers want to live in rural areas. But there's so many of them that everyone having 20 acres and living far apart in the countryside becomes impossible. So eventually the rural area becomes a suburb. And then everyone starves because there's no farmland, which means no food.

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

The literal Roman Empire had an age expectancy similar to ours adjusted for infant mortality and war. Holy **** you guys.

You certainly imply that you want de-industrialization and de-urbanization. There is absolutely nothing wrong with urbanization, and big corporations don't need to back politicians to urbanize society. They just build their offices and whatever where people are. There isn't any prejudice against rural people in society, and you sure are one to claim there's prejudice while denouncing urban areas in the way that you do.

[Sagarmatha]

This is the prejudice I'm talking about. The equation of rural living with ignorance and backwardness.

And you know what? You've been spewing anti-urban prejudices this entire thread. Claiming cities are dens of drug use, that there are needles sticking out of gutters, that they're nothing but crime-ridden "hellworlds," and that urban people are wage-slaves and zombies.

You're self-righteously demanding everyone stop adhering to unfair stereotypes about rural people but you're more than willing to deal in unfair stereotypes about urban people. The parts of what you're advocating that I agree with (more of a focus on helping our rural communities) depend on mutual trust and understanding between urban and rural communities. Your hypocritical approach is a turnoff to anyone on the other side of the fence who might otherwise agree with you.

Sincerely,
Someone who grew up in a small town who enjoys the amenities of a big city

https://www.google.com/search?q=San+Fra ... e&ie=UTF-8

Educate yourself in your own time at your own pace, but I encourage you to be educated before lashing out in embarrassment only to make things worse for yourself.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

Love the nation name. Hate the crappy condescending post. There's nothing about being in a city that means you have to eat microwaved shit. And you won't be eating well as a farmer with the minimum amount of land, especially not if you are trying to juggle cultivating the land and working another job to earn the money to buy everything else you need. You'll be limited by what crops grow locally in your area, what is in season at any given time, the risk of crop failures...

[Abarri]

De-urbanization? No. Let individuals and families decide for themselves whether to live in somewhere rural, suburban, or urban.

[Sagarmatha]

There isn't any prejudice against rural people in society

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_bias

If you tell a lie often enough...

[Orostan]

Again, I grew up in a rural, small town environment. The "prejudices against rural people" thing doesn't really exist.
One of my friends in uni asked me if I had a tractor back home and that was it, really. And guess what? As undergrad uni students? We all shittalked each other. FFS that was hardly the most offensive thing a friend of mine has ever said to me

I can agree that I would like more support for rural communities, but "more support for rural communities" does not mean de-urbanization has to, or should, happen. Given how old the first cities are? Urbanization seems like a natural trend among human beings. People congregate in areas that are central to trade and commerce.

In short I'm perfectly willing to agree that we need more of a focus on helping our revitalize our rural communities but you know what? I'm not willing to go from that point to "we need to de-urbanize."

As shocking as this might be, anecdotes are not a valid argument.

De-urbanisation in a natural and organic trend is very necessary. As I said above total depopulation of cities is not realistic or desired. Towns and cities should exist, but they shouldn't exist as they do right now. Once upon a time, you lived in a city because it took a week to travel to the countryside and back and there were highwaymen and bandits. Now I can drive from California to New York in a week. We have the ability to safely and reliable transport ourselves from commercial hubs. Now people live in cities because that's where the only feasible work is. That is because corporate lobbyists have made it that way.

Where do you think those cars came from? Those cars took thousands, if not millions, of people to make. Someone had to mine the iron, refine that iron, turn it into steel, form that steel into car components, do the same for the electrical components and anything that wasn't steel, and assemble it. Not to mention all the related industries that involve building the equipment to do this, powering the equipment, and providing for the people that do all this. You owe what you believe makes your anti-urban ideology possible to the urban centers that you don't like. De-urbanization will never be natural, nor ogranic anyways. The only time in recent history where there has been any kind of real de-urbanization, the modern suburb was produced. I can name nothing that is worse from an urban planning perspective than the low density, low efficiency, suburb. The suburb relies on urban centers to exist, anyways.

[Prydania]

As shocking as this might be, anecdotes are not a valid argument.

Nah, but neither is an insistence that something is true without proof. Even if I granted that there are ingrained prejudices against rural communities and people exist? You're not any better given how you willingly deal in anti-urban prejudices.

Educate yourself in your own time at your own pace, but I encourage you to be educated before lashing out in embarrassment only to make things worse for yourself.

"Educate yourself." Always the mark of a true Internet Warrior.
Look. Are there drug issues in cities? Yeah. And you know what? Alcoholism and opioid abuse are real issues facing rural communities. I grew up in one. I saw it first hand. So don't try to sell me this line of bs that rural communities are free from the problems cities have.
It's almost like some human beings have body chemistry that draws them to addictive substances? It's not a matter of cities or small towns driving anyone to anything. It's a combination of body chemistry and social anxieties that exist ANYWHERE humans live that drive people to substance abuse.

Regardless. Don't peddle prejudices against urban communities while DEMANDING people get over prejudices against rural communities. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

[Sagarmatha]

AN not going to say it again. Anecdotes are not valid. Drug use is more prevalent in urban environments than rural ones, and until recently rural areas were more or less a safe haven from many of the hard drugs that localised in cities. All of criticisms of urban environments have been legitimate, and most everything anti rural has been "hurr but if ya get a splinter you might die!". Maybe you don't see the difference but it's there.

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

Love the nation name. Hate the crappy condescending post. There's nothing about being in a city that means you have to eat microwaved shit. And you won't be eating well as a farmer with the minimum amount of land, especially not if you are trying to juggle cultivating the land and working another job to earn the money to buy everything else you need. You'll be limited by what crops grow locally in your area, what is in season at any given time, the risk of crop failures...

The only reason it isn't currently a widely affordable option is because the current economic system is viciously anti-rural and anti-self reliance. There is no incentive to be self reliant and every incentive to sell yourself to whatever megacorporation of your choosing. Even skilled labor is starting to wane in the wake of the service industry.

Yes, it does limit the amount of foods you can eat, but not having exotic hour derves is a decent price to pay for not living under the thumb of Wall Street and global corporate entities. In a culture where communities took care of one another and the government cared about people over profit, this system would succeed.

[Orostan]

There isn't any prejudice against rural people in society

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_bias

If you tell a lie often enough...

This "Urban bias" wiki page is economic in nature and, if it exists at all, would exist because developing urban areas are more profitable to be in than rural areas. And if that is the case, it means that by the capitalist measure of efficiency urban areas are less efficient than urban areas. By the socialist measure of efficiency, which is satisfaction of human need, you'd still get the same thing. In any developing country moving people from rural areas into urban areas is going to be desirable. You want one man driving a tractor instead of one hundred working in fields. You want ten men working in a steel mill instead of working on a small farm.

[Orostan]

Love the nation name. Hate the crappy condescending post. There's nothing about being in a city that means you have to eat microwaved shit. And you won't be eating well as a farmer with the minimum amount of land, especially not if you are trying to juggle cultivating the land and working another job to earn the money to buy everything else you need. You'll be limited by what crops grow locally in your area, what is in season at any given time, the risk of crop failures...

The only reason it isn't currently a widely affordable option is because the current economic system is viciously anti-rural and anti-self reliance. There is no incentive to be self reliant and every incentive to sell yourself to whatever megacorporation of your choosing. Even skilled labor is starting to wane in the wake of the service industry.

Yes, it does limit the amount of foods you can eat, but not having exotic hour derves is a decent price to pay for not living under the thumb of Wall Street and global corporate entities. In a culture where communities took care of one another and the government cared about people over profit, this system would succeed.

Capitalism is only pro-capital and is only 'against' anything that stands in the way of capital's expansion. That's how capitalism works. Under your idea of a system, communities taking care of each other would seem to mostly consist of famine relief and giving each other whatever limited industrial supplies are on hand. It's in the interest of literally all of humanity that the world become increasingly urbanized and allow for a higher standard of living for all. An urbanized world means you've got people living within walking distance of their workplace, other people, markets, and schools or within public transit distance (ideally). The more people you've got in the urban parts of your country, the more your country's ability to produce grows. Not to say that rural areas are not economically necessary in some regard though.

[Sagarmatha]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_bias

If you tell a lie often enough...

This "Urban bias" wiki page is economic in nature and, if it exists at all, would exist because developing urban areas are more profitable to be in than rural areas. And if that is the case, it means that by the capitalist measure of efficiency urban areas are less efficient than urban areas. By the socialist measure of efficiency, which is satisfaction of human need, you'd still get the same thing. In any developing country moving people from rural areas into urban areas is going to be desirable. You want one man driving a tractor instead of one hundred working in fields. You want ten men working in a steel mill instead of working on a small farm.

You have a corporatist brain. "It's more faster so it's better". Profit, profit, profit my dear Neoliberal, never forget why you exist. Profit, profit, profit.

[Orostan]

This "Urban bias" wiki page is economic in nature and, if it exists at all, would exist because developing urban areas are more profitable to be in than rural areas. And if that is the case, it means that by the capitalist measure of efficiency urban areas are less efficient than urban areas. By the socialist measure of efficiency, which is satisfaction of human need, you'd still get the same thing. In any developing country moving people from rural areas into urban areas is going to be desirable. You want one man driving a tractor instead of one hundred working in fields. You want ten men working in a steel mill instead of working on a small farm.

You have a corporatist brain. "It's more faster so it's better". Profit, profit, profit my dear Neoliberal, never forget why you exist. Profit, profit, profit.

I quote fucking joe stalin in my sig and you call me a neoliberal? What world do you live on? I've told you repeatedly that it is undeniable that urbanization means industrialization, and industrialization means more agricultural output, more medicine output, more output to satisfy human need.

[Prydania]

AN not going to say it again. Anecdotes are not valid.

Hey, guess what? You don't get to go "lalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Alcoholism. Opioid abuse. Rampant marijuana addiction. This is just stuff I saw. Now was my small town growing up a den of this sort of behaviour? No. Far from it. It was a nice community, but there were problems. Just like the big city I now live in is a nice, but with problems.
You're so desperate to believe this bs that rural communities are free from these issues. I wonder where exactly you get your perception of rural life from.

Drug use is more prevalent in urban environments than rural ones, and [url=drugabuse.com/country-vs-city-addictions-differ-says-samhsa/] until recently rural areas were more or less a safe haven from many of the hard drugs that localised in cities.

"Until recently." Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your own link states...

Though urban areas still see a larger portion of drug abuse, city dwellers aren’t at a higher risk of developing an addiction. In fact, since the disease of addiction is not location-specific, rural and urban citizens are equally susceptible.

https://drugabuse.com/country-vs-city-a ... ys-samhsa/

All of criticisms of urban environments have been legitimate, and most everything anti rural has been "hurr but if ya get a splinter you might die!". Maybe you don't see the difference but it's there.

They've been legitimate by your prejudiced standard. Just like people who engage in prejudiced behaviour against rural people see their criticisms of rural life as legitimate.


In short? People are people, regardless of where they're from. People are wonderful, awful, and everything in between. And you'll find a bit of everything anywhere you live, be it a huge city or a small town. Live wherever you want to, wherever you'll find fulfillment. As I said earlier in this thread though? Just don't come to me and tell me how I need to live my life. You SO don't have the right or moral authority to do so.

[Sagarmatha]

You quote a state capitalist. How relevant.

[Kowani]

You quote a state capitalist. How relevant.

Would you like some sugar for that porridge?

[Orostan]

You quote a state capitalist. How relevant.

I and millions of people around the world beg to differ.

[Sagarmatha]

AN not going to say it again. Anecdotes are not valid.

Hey, guess what? You don't get to go "lalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Alcoholism. Opioid abuse. Rampant marijuana addiction. This is just stuff I saw. Now was my small town growing up a den of this sort of behaviour? No. Far from it. It was a nice community, but there were problems. Just like the big city I now live in is a nice, but with problems.
You're so desperate to believe this bs that rural communities are free from these issues. I wonder where exactly you get your perception of rural life from.

Drug use is more prevalent in urban environments than rural ones, and [url=drugabuse.com/country-vs-city-addictions-differ-says-samhsa/] until recently rural areas were more or less a safe haven from many of the hard drugs that localised in cities.

"Until recently." Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your own link states...

Though urban areas still see a larger portion of drug abuse, city dwellers aren’t at a higher risk of developing an addiction. In fact, since the disease of addiction is not location-specific, rural and urban citizens are equally susceptible.

https://drugabuse.com/country-vs-city-a ... ys-samhsa/

All of criticisms of urban environments have been legitimate, and most everything anti rural has been "hurr but if ya get a splinter you might die!". Maybe you don't see the difference but it's there.

They've been legitimate by your prejudiced standard. Just like people who engage in prejudiced behaviour against rural people see their criticisms of rural life as legitimate.


In short? People are people, regardless of where they're from. People are wonderful, awful, and everything in between. And you'll find a bit of everything anywhere you live, be it a huge city or a small town. Live wherever you want to, wherever you'll find fulfillment. As I said earlier in this thread though? Just don't come to me and tell me how I need to live my life. You SO don't have the right or moral authority to do so.

Sorry your anecdotes mean nothing here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

You literally cropped out the part that proved my point.

"A decade ago, rural areas served as a kind of sanctuary from widespread city drug abuse."

And then had the balls to be like 'nah it doesn't say that'.

[The Sherpa Empire]

AN not going to say it again. Anecdotes are not valid. Drug use is more prevalent in urban environments than rural ones, and until recently rural areas were more or less a safe haven from many of the hard drugs that localised in cities. All of criticisms of urban environments have been legitimate, and most everything anti rural has been "hurr but if ya get a splinter you might die!". Maybe you don't see the difference but it's there.

Love the nation name. Hate the crappy condescending post. There's nothing about being in a city that means you have to eat microwaved shit. And you won't be eating well as a farmer with the minimum amount of land, especially not if you are trying to juggle cultivating the land and working another job to earn the money to buy everything else you need. You'll be limited by what crops grow locally in your area, what is in season at any given time, the risk of crop failures...

The only reason it isn't currently a widely affordable option is because the current economic system is viciously anti-rural and anti-self reliance. There is no incentive to be self reliant and every incentive to sell yourself to whatever megacorporation of your choosing. Even skilled labor is starting to wane in the wake of the service industry.

Yes, it does limit the amount of foods you can eat, but not having exotic hour derves is a decent price to pay for not living under the thumb of Wall Street and global corporate entities. In a culture where communities took care of one another and the government cared about people over profit, this system would succeed.

You talk about self-reliance and literally the next paragraph you're talking about taking care of one another.

You say people would eat better, but the next post you talk about giving up the luxury of a varied diet.

You're not going to be convincing if you can't even get it straight what you're arguing for or how your proposed system would function.

[Sagarmatha]

You talk about self-reliance and literally the next paragraph you're talking about taking care of one another.

You say people would eat better, but the next post you talk about giving up the luxury of a varied diet.

You're not going to be convincing if you can't even get it straight what you're arguing for or how your proposed system would function.

Concept: You can try and take care of yourself and also have your neighbor's back when they need you.

Axiom: A diet of lean proteins and vegetables is better than what most Americans eat. The occasional dining out at an exotic restaurant doesn't make up for this.

You don't want to be "convinced" and quite frankly, you probably don't care at all. You're content, as most people are, with an abundance of comfort and materialism. The fact is though, if you're an American, you're most likely overweight and your poor diet is likely a part of that. Most likely, you don't have a close relationship with your neighbors, and would like a little more room. But don't worry, you can go get sushi or spaghetti at Olive Garden whenever you like so it's all good.

[Page]

No, we should urbanize more, for the sake of preserving the environment and mitigating climate change. A densely packed urban area means more people walking and cycling, more commutes covered by buses and trains. And in this age of everything being delivered to everyone's doorstep all the time, urbanization also means those delivery drivers are burning through less fuel too.

Take a look around your home and ask yourself how much of your stuff could have realistically been made in your own town and how much more you'd have paid for it if that were the case. Of course we should buy as much locally as possible but realistically, we can't all live on the countryside without the infrastructure connecting us inflicting far worse environmental damage.

[Prydania]

Sorry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Maybe I wouldn't have to keep telling you about my experiences growing up in a rural environment if you didn't continue to peddle a fairyland-like depiction of rural living.

You literally cropped out the part that proved my point.

"A decade ago, rural areas served as a kind of sanctuary from widespread city drug abuse."

And then had the balls to be like 'nah it doesn't say that'.

Yeah, drug use in small towns was unheard of among the faire folk of the countryside. Please. The thing about that study that it doesn't take into account is, well, alcoholism. Alcohol was the drug of choice for rural communities until relatively recently.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26450773

CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents from rural areas were at higher risk of alcohol use. Parents in rural areas were more likely to use alcohol in ways that encourage adolescent drinking.

https://www.ruralhealthresearch.org/projects/100002140

Previous research has shown that rural adolescents are more likely to use alcohol than those in urban areas adolescents and that the more rural the area, the higher the use.

https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/substance-abuse

Rural adults have higher rates of alcohol abuse, tobacco use, and methamphetamine use, while prescription drug abuse and heroin use has grown in towns of every size.

Though that's not the only quote from ruralhealthinfo.org I want you to focus on. This one is telling...

Though often perceived to be a problem of the inner city, substance abuse has long been prevalent in rural areas.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying via my anecdotal evidence you so desperately want to dismiss. I suppose the people at the Rural Health Information Hub are just blowing smoke too, eh?

So in short save me your bs line about how rural communities were havens from drug abuse. No, they weren't. It's just that the fancy crap didn't get out there until relatively recently. We were quite content to drink our sorrows way though, rather than shoot up.

Again, I wonder where you're getting your fairytale version of rural life from. Life in a rural community is far from bad. Not at all. It's just not this perfect utopia you so desperately want to insist it is.

[Sagarmatha]

"Yeah, ok, so maybe there wasn't heroin and coke but uh... Um... They drank and that's just as bad!"

My guy...

[Petrolheadia]

"Yeah, ok, so maybe there wasn't heroin and coke but uh... Um... They drank and that's just as bad!"

My guy...

"Rural adults have higher rates of alcohol abuse, tobacco use, and methamphetamine use, while prescription drug abuse and heroin use has grown in towns of every size."

This "Urban bias" wiki page is economic in nature and, if it exists at all, would exist because developing urban areas are more profitable to be in than rural areas. And if that is the case, it means that by the capitalist measure of efficiency urban areas are less efficient than urban areas. By the socialist measure of efficiency, which is satisfaction of human need, you'd still get the same thing. In any developing country moving people from rural areas into urban areas is going to be desirable. You want one man driving a tractor instead of one hundred working in fields. You want ten men working in a steel mill instead of working on a small farm.

You have a corporatist brain. "It's more faster so it's better". Profit, profit, profit my dear Neoliberal, never forget why you exist. Profit, profit, profit.

Some people care more about what they can get in their place of residence than where they live.

[Petrolheadia]

So let's picture this. Densely populated urban areas start emptying out because city-dwellers want to live in rural areas. But there's so many of them that everyone having 20 acres and living far apart in the countryside becomes impossible. So eventually the rural area becomes a suburb. And then everyone starves because there's no farmland, which means no food.

Fact: with arable land you can feed a family of four with two acres. Meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Two acres to eat better than most people in their tenements, stuffing themselves with preservatives and shelf stabilizers. Yummy yummy microwave meals.

You literally need one acre and decent soil to feed your family. No one is asking for 20 acres for every individual. Stop being dramatic because you got embarrassed. Literally every single family could have that, but even if it were a 60:40 or 80:20 split there is even more arable land. But thats not good for the consumerist machine and GDP so >>>:(

Two acres and a shitload of time.