• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 months ago

    People are interesting. People produce culture. Cities are where people are. Cities are always going to be more interesting and more cultural.

    You want to start a band in nowhere, Utah? Ok, well, you’re going to have a lot fewer people interested in joining or watching than a city of any size.

    Some stuff might move online. But I’m reminded of an interview I read during the pandemic. Someone was asked “what can I do at an in person party I can’t do online?”. The other person replied, “fuck people.” So there’s that. In-person social stuff matters.

    So like yeah I guess it might be cheaper but it’s probably going to be less interesting just because there’s fewer people around.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      If you feel that way, then you probably should live in a city. Some people prefer city life; there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not for everyone. I have no desire to be around other people, and the “cultural” aspect of urban living holds no interest to me. I get enough human interaction through work. At home, I want to be un-bothered by other people and go about my business in solitude.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        I do live in a city and wouldn’t have it any other way.

        You don’t consume movies books television music art? Variety of food?

        I recognize that some people want to be hermits but that makes me uneasy. But like, whatever, it takes all kinds I guess. Not a fan of subsidizing anti social behavior though. Lots of roads and highways and shipping and such to support people living in isolation.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          I think you might be misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. I’m not discounting the value of human culture. I enjoy various types of art, and I am grateful for the people who produce it.

          What doesn’t interest me in the slightest is urban “culture.” By that I mean going to restaurants, attending parties, seeing live music, walking to the corner pub, etc. I haven’t done any of these things in years, and I’m happy. If I discover a musician I like, I’m going to spend some money and buy their record, but I don’t need to be surrounded by a crowd of people listening to them live.

          You mention the term “anti-social behavior,” but that doesn’t describe everyone who’d rather live in a rural area than a city. Some of us just like our peace and quiet. As far as subsidizing roads and shipping to rural areas, you like to eat, right? Where do you think the food came from? You live in a house or an apartment, right? Where did the wood, concrete, and raw materials come from? A huge amount of agriculture and production comes from rural areas, and it’s always going to be necessary to have roads and infrastructure to support this. The fact that I live in the same area that supplied your food doesn’t mean that your tax dollars are paying for roads solely so that I can drive on them.

          I understand that people like you enjoy the busy life of a city and that you can legitimately take advantage of what a city offers. I’m not like that. Large gatherings of people don’t make me happy; they just make me want to leave. My original argument was that a lot of people live in cities because they have to for work. Some of them, like you, live in cities because it makes them happy. For the people that live in urban areas because they have to, I was speculating that many of them might move to more rural areas given the option. I’m not trying to shit on your lifestyle (although I do have strong negative opinions about bicycles on roadways), and I would hope that you extend the same courtesy. Life is short, and in a perfect world, everyone could live in a place that they enjoy.