Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah and we get to learn about crappy parking even in front of your own apartment. That is if there is parking.
We get to learn about really high taxes. This is just our fair share to live in a city paradise. And all us country bumpkins will get some culture too. WE get to live in pollution both air and noise. And even more exciting is that joy of needing multiple dead bolts on all of our doors because it is so safe. If you are really lucky because you are poor you get to live in crime infested low income high-rises.
Seriously though. Cities aren't for everyone. Certainly not for me. I like to visit, it's fun. I love the variety of foods, the convenience of public transit, which in my experience is perfectly safe. The Museums are amazing, and I even like NYC people. I have found them to be very helpful and undeserving of the reputation.
And those places outside of cities exist - no one is forcing you to move to them. As I said in my post.
On a per capita basis, cities like NYC have one of the best carbon footprints in the country. The 'burbs consume inordinate amounts of energy per capita because houses are bigger, people drive everywhere, and they're much less efficient. Resources are limited. People will have to move to more urban centers in order to move towards efficiency.
Of course a place where people are living in smaller spaces and driving less (or not at all) is going to be a more efficient at using resources than sprawled out suburbia where people live in larger homes and drive more.
There is no conspiracy here - no one is forcing you to move anywhere.
But from a sustainability perspective, yes, cities are much more efficient. And if you care about our precious open spaces, centralization in a city will always be better than sprawl.
The only thing centralization does is make people more dependent on the government. Centralization makes people weak and lazy. Then they can tell you what to do, when to do it and what to believe. The weak among society will lick it up like lap dogs.
But in America most of us value our freedom and don't want to live like rats in cages.
The only thing centralization does is make people more dependent on the government. Centralization makes people weak and lazy. Then they can tell you what to do, when to do it and what to believe. The weak among society will lick it up like lap dogs.
But in America most of us value our freedom and don't want to live like rats in cages.
LOL...ok. How about actually addressing my points?
And you should probably look into welfare and government social program enrollment in many of our rural areas of this country - how do you explain those high numbers?
I mean, in part,it's part of the UN's "Sustainable Development" goals. In another part, most of the jobs in rural areas are being destroyed by the globalists and offshoring and coal mining, etc, is being killed by the Enemies of Progress Association (EPA).
Also, the cities tend to be more radical and liberal and so they tend to tilt the voting for the rest of the state.
I actually believe that the rural people are the resistance to the globalists. Those moving to the cities for "better" opportunities are walking right into a trap.
At least, that's what I'm thinking.
Umm...
People move to the cities for more opportunity. Factory farming is killing rural America.
Nobody is destroying coal. The price of natural gas makes it a superior option.
There is no conspiracy here - no one is forcing you to move anywhere.
But from a sustainability perspective, yes, cities are much more efficient. And if you care about our precious open spaces, centralization in a city will always be better than sprawl.
I care about our "precious open spaces" so much, that I prefer to be in those open spaces.
Leaving for them soon.
The logic of the bolded statement escapes me. Only IF you allow others to do your thinking for you, can you continue to believe that you care about something, because they tell you that you do, because they keep you from what you supposedly care for.
I care about our "precious open spaces" so much, that I prefer to be in those open spaces.
Leaving for them soon.
The logic of the bolded statement escapes me. Only IF you allow others to do your thinking for you, can you continue to believe that you care about something, because they tell you that you do, because they keep you from what you supposedly care for.
CN
Eh - the logic is clear.
Glad you care about open spaces - I do, too (so much so that I spend my weekends and vacations in them).
But you'll never change the basic fact that it is a more efficient use of resources to live densely than spread out.
I'm not telling you this so that you feel guilty or so that you move - it is literally just a statement of reality.
Not everyone can or should live in cities. But if we all decided to live in our open spaces, there would be no open space left.
Glad you care about open spaces - I do, too (so much so that I spend my weekends and vacations in them).
But you'll never change the basic fact that it is a more efficient use of resources to live densely than spread out.
I'm not telling you this so that you feel guilty or so that you move - it is literally just a statement of reality.
Not everyone can or should live in cities. But if we all decided to live in our open spaces, there would be no open space left.
OK, you convinced me.
I think everybody should move to the nearest big city.......more open space for me.
And if the UN's agenda 21 forces it, so much the better.
CN
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.