Comment on Resources
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 hours agoSurely there’s a way of having people living rural, a totally valid life choice and also must needed for agriculture, having a good life, and not having a planet wide global extinction.
I get that in the US and some other countries one of the biggest divisions in voting is rural/urban, thus some people really feel vindicated on hating people that live rural and wanting to impose some penalties on them.
But if we cannot find an economic system that would lead to every person having a good life, regardless on where they live… Do we really want to have a future as a species?
astutemural@midwest.social 14 hours ago
Whether ‘a good life’ is possible in rural areas depends on your definition.
Is it living like the Amish? In that case, yes.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
No. I think humanity should aim for absolutely every single human in every country in every single region, urban or rural could have a level of life quality comparable to what’s consider middle-high income level in USA/Europe.
If we cannot achieve that we’d better give up as an intelligent species and leave room for que squids to try.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
You can give up all you want.
The biggest issue with your argumentation is that it takes one extreme (“farmers need to live in rural areas”) and use that as a justification for everyone who is not covered by that rule.
For example, all of suburbia can go. Close to nobody living there is a farmer and people only live in the suburbs because they can use a car to get to city center quickly.
But also in more rural areas there are a lot of people who commute to their office job in the next city.
That is not a totally valid life choice by far. If you want to work in the city, move to the city.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
not everyone have to live the way you enjoy living. Diversity is good.