deepcutsinsideme [she/her]

Yeah and it’s bad cities require people outside of them to sustain them, they should be completely self sufficient and that requires increasing density and moving agriculture into urban areas. It would be significantly easier if we cut out farm animals and specific crops like sugar or coffee from people’s diets.

All human habitation has a footprint, it’s best just to concentrate it into a single area than have it spread out. It’s not that living in a city is bad for your health, it’s from the fumes of vehicles. Take that out of the equation it’s better.

Proper management would include picking up half the population of the southwest and moving them east.

I can’t believe I’m hearing the grow food argument here of all places.

They prefer it because they exhibit anti social behaviors, living outside a city is bad for your health. No emergency services nearby, it’s isolation. It should be illegal to build a house in the boonies.

So like mao or lenin? Because they did relocate the massive feudal population to city to improve the quality of life.

And wouldn’t it be easier to solve all those urban problems if EVERYONE had to live in an urban area? I’m not saying f urban living is cheap or close to nature or the apartments are very big but it’s for the benefit of the collective why I support it. Because the only way human society can change is if we live in the same material conditions and that can only happen by destroying rural and suburban areas.

That’s not rural, was there apartments of any kind? How far is the spread between buildings?