[Pants-of-dog]

Oh shit, you made me laugh so hard I started crying.

Yes, because ALL environmental impact boils down to how much you drive...

No. Energy use also counts.

[Daktoria]

Yes, good job PoD.

Now tell me. Who uses more energy? City or country dwellers?

[Pants-of-dog]

Country dwellers, obviously.

Most live in single family dwellings built by themselves. they are typically larger than a dwelling used by the same size family in the city. A larger volume of home means more to heat and cool. More to heat and cool means more energy use.

I have never met a rural person without a deep freeze. I have never met few urban people with one.

And I am not even discussing infrastructure investments.

[myrmeleo]

Either fascists don't have a sense of humor, or I have a distorted sense of reality. Nice talking to you guys...

This whole "urban people can't relate to nature" meme is foolish.

It's not that urban people can't relate to nature, it's that most of them don't.

Rural people don't live in caves, using every single part of each animal they hunt. They drive to the supermarket like the rest of us.

So if you don't use every single part of an animal that you hunt, you buy everything in a supermarket? Agrarian and rural society is closer to the land and generally far more in touch with the wild. The city life is necessarily divorced from the environment. Think about how many steps away a financial analyst in New York is from the wild he was born from. I remember not that long ago listening to a report on the radio about a summer camp that took urban youth to a garden to learn, and an interviewee saying something along the lines of, "Why are the carrots so dirty?" There is no survival-based need for someone from the inner city to connect with the environment -- at best, they do it in a recreational manner.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not that urban people can't relate to nature, it's that most of them don't.

The same can be said of rural and suburban people.

So if you don't use every single part of an animal that you hunt, you buy everything in a supermarket? Agrarian and rural society is closer to the land and generally far more in touch with the wild. The city life is necessarily divorced from the environment.

That is the myth, yes.

Think about how many steps away a financial analyst in New York is from the wild he was born from. I remember not that long ago listening to a report on the radio about a summer camp that took urban youth to a garden to learn, and an interviewee saying something along the lines of, "Why are the carrots so dirty?" There is no survival-based need for someone from the inner city to connect with the environment -- at best, they do it in a recreational manner.

There is no survival based need for someone from a rural or suburban environment to connect with the environment either.

[Daktoria]

Country dwellers, obviously.

Most live in single family dwellings built by themselves. they are typically larger than a dwelling used by the same size family in the city. A larger volume of home means more to heat and cool. More to heat and cool means more energy use.

I have never met a rural person without a deep freeze. I have never met few urban people with one.

And I am not even discussing infrastructure investments.

/facepalm

OK, let's get this straight.

When you live in the country, yes, you go to supermarkets, yes, you drive on the highway, and yes, things are otherwise decentralized.

However, it is that decentralization which leads to LESS energy consumption, and let me tell you why.

When you live in a densely populated community, two things happen:

One, information overload.

Two, social hypercompetition.

These two influences REQUIRE you to be willing to live economically inefficiently in order to socialize optimally. You have to be willing to be redundant and excessively clear in order to get a point across in relating with people.

This is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to consuming consumer goods, and the quantities of manufacturing and distribution of those consumer goods OVERWHELMINGLY dominates the quantity of manufacturing and distribution of consumer goods in rural environments. Likewise, in line with what I said about socializing optimally, you're LESS encouraged to reuse and recycle in urban environments because it's unseemly.

Even from a consumption perspective, country people can actually ENJOY THEMSELVES OUTSIDE instead of having to fuel some sort of artificial entertainment.

[myrmeleo]

There is no survival based need for someone from a rural or suburban environment to connect with the environment either.

Yes, actually, there is. And I'm not talking about white picket fence suburbia, so don't bother trying to distort my point. If you grow your own food or know the farmer who does, or you hunt animals and actually have walked in the woods, you have a significantly better idea of what is going on than kids in the inner city who think vegetables grow out of the shelves of the supermarket.

[Daktoria]

Also, even among those of us who don't grow up on farms, many country people do have gardens.

Yes, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, etc. do give you considerable insight as to the realities of the outdoors as well...

...and you have to shovel the snow, AND you have to chop firewood...

...the list goes on and on.

[Pants-of-dog]

When you live in a densely populated community, two things happen:

One, information overload.

Two, social hypercompetition.

These two influences REQUIRE you to be willing to live economically inefficiently in order to socialize optimally. You have to be willing to be redundant and excessively clear in order to get a point across in relating with people.

This is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to consuming consumer goods, and the quantities of manufacturing and distribution of those consumer goods OVERWHELMINGLY dominates the quantity of manufacturing and distribution of consumer goods in rural environments. Likewise, in line with what I said about socializing optimally, you're LESS encouraged to reuse and recycle in urban environments because it's unseemly.

Even from a consumption perspective, country people can actually ENJOY THEMSELVES OUTSIDE instead of having to fuel some sort of artificial entertainment.

Please provide evidence for this. This seems like a whole bunch of armchair pop-psychology garbage.

Now, let is get back to the discussion. What do you think is more energy efficient: one cable supplying electricity to one apartment building with five families, or five separate cables going to five separate smaller buildings?

Which is more energy efficient: a mall with many storeys with internal pedestrian space, or a series of large big box outlets all separated by huge parking lots?

Which is more energy efficient? A centralised light rail system, or everybody having their own car?

Yes, actually, there is. And I'm not talking about white picket fence suburbia, so don't bother trying to distort my point. If you grow your own food or know the farmer who does, or you hunt animals and actually have walked in the woods, you have a significantly better idea of what is going on than kids in the inner city who think vegetables grow out of the shelves of the supermarket.

How is any of that survival based?

Also, even among those of us who don't grow up on farms, many country people do have gardens.

Yes, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, etc. do give you considerable insight as to the realities of the outdoors as well...

...and you have to shovel the snow, AND you have to chop firewood...

...the list goes on and on.

Urban people do all this as well. And you don't need to chop firewood. Even the rustic cottage owned by a pretentious friend of my ex had central heating (though there was a huge fireplace).

[Daktoria]

Please provide evidence for this. This seems like a whole bunch of armchair pop-psychology garbage.

Now, let is get back to the discussion. What do you think is more energy efficient: one cable supplying electricity to one apartment building with five families, or five separate cables going to five separate smaller buildings?

Which is more energy efficient: a mall with many storeys with internal pedestrian space, or a series of large big box outlets all separated by huge parking lots?

Which is more energy efficient? A centralised light rail system, or everybody having their own car?

It's called real life. No, I'm not going to prove it to you. Why would I care to do the research? You're not personable, and you don't appreciate the dynamics of what it takes to socialize with people. The only thing you're concerned about is the surface level of distributing consumer goods. You don't consider the rebound effects of how the very increased density of distribution INCREASES demand FOR those consumer goods themselves because of the increased amount of noise and increased amount of relationships.

Also, I think it's more energy efficient to not live your life indoors all day or make trips over the finickiest of things just to prove your worth, and country people have higher tolerances for greater variation in temperature than city people.

______________________________

Okay [Daktoria], when are you planning to visit a developing country?

Maybe later in my life if I have the time and money for it, but all manufacturing and distribution doesn't take place in the developing world. We do have concrete, asphalt, timber, and glass industrial plants and distribution centers around here.

[myrmeleo]

Okay [Daktoria], when are you planning to visit a developing country?

Honestly, the things used more often and in higher quantity that are produced in the developing world are used in high-density cities, not rural areas.

Now, let is get back to the discussion. What do you think is more energy efficient: one cable supplying electricity to one apartment building with five families, or five separate cables going to five separate smaller buildings?

Suppressing the human spirit in the name of efficiency, where have I heard that before... Ah yes. Do you find it ironic that the liberal position criticizes capitalism for its ruthless efficiency in resource distribution yet would love nothing more than to cram as many people as it can in high-density urban housing in the name of "energy efficiency?"

How is any of that survival based?

Do you just photosynthesize or something? Is it that hard to conceive how a rural family that kills a deer for the meat, or raises chickens, or plants a big garden and cans its food, does it for purposes of surviving?

[Figlio di Moros]

Urban people do all this as well. And you don't need to chop firewood. Even the rustic cottage owned by a pretentious friend of my ex had central heating (though there was a huge fireplace).

Only Rural families with enough money to camp, hike, etc. do, and those who shovel snow either do it for a living or live in the suburbs. And, yes, we spend our summers cutting up firewood for the winter, wood furnaces are the cheapest means of heating around here. My house has a kerosene furnace that runs us as much as the mortgage in the winter, but I still cut firewood with my family for their houses.

Hell, even without a wood-burning stove, I cut up logs for bonfires every weekend. When was the last time someone in the city had a bonfire that didn't include a rusted oildrum and garbage?

[ThereBeDragons]

Transportation

Despite hosting regular traffic jams, cities win the head-to-head efficiency matchup in transportation thanks to their mass transit systems and denser layouts, which promote walking and bicycling. Small-town and suburban residents usually have to drive themselves to get around, which isn't cheap.

According to EIA data, urban U.S. households own an average of 1.8 vehicles each, compared with 2.2 for each rural household. Urban families also drive about 7,000 fewer miles annually than their rural counterparts, saving more than 400 gallons of gasoline and roughly $1,300-$1,400 at current gas prices.

Housing

On the EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Surveys, respondents identify whether they live in a city, town, suburb or rural area. It's self-reported and unscientific data, but it does offer an idea of how the four demographics consume energy. Urban households are the largest group, with 47.1 million represented, and they use the most total energy, about 4 quadrillion Btu per year.

But a different picture emerges when you look at per capita consumption rates — cities have the lowest annual energy use per household (85.3 million Btu) and household member (33.7 million Btu) of all four categories. Rural areas consume about 95 million Btu per household each year, followed by towns (102 million) and suburbs (109 million).

These two influences REQUIRE you to be willing to live economically inefficiently in order to socialize optimally. You have to be willing to be redundant and excessively clear in order to get a point across in relating with people.

If you and all the urban friends you have are retarded, maybe.

It's called real life. No, I'm not going to prove it to you.

The discussion really could have ended there.

[myrmeleo]

If you and all the urban friends you have are retarded, maybe.

Truly impressive analysis. Where did you get that line, the toilet store? It's truly not that hard to imagine that an urban, consumption heavy environment creates a positive feedback loop of greater and greater energy draw to "keep up with the Joneses." Of course, that's all missing the point that I made earlier -- that sacrificing human nature for brute efficiency is no different whether the gauge is economic or "environmental" (that is, overly-simple energy analysis).

[ThereBeDragons]

Where did you get that line, the toilet store?

Same place you got yours.

It's truly not that hard to imagine

It's not hard to imagine a wide variety of things but that doesn't make them true.

But it is actually fairly hard to imagine that I am REQUIRED to buy fifteen thousand dollars worth of consumer goods every year to have friends if I live in a city.

Or maybe if I don't spend enough money, all my friends will be low-quality, inferior imitations of genuine friends to which I could upgrade if I spent more money.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's called real life. No, I'm not going to prove it to you. Why would I care to do the research? You're not personable, and you don't appreciate the dynamics of what it takes to socialize with people.

Yes, Daktoria, you have seen my innermost soul. What a great reason to avoid supporting your arguments.

The only thing you're concerned about is the surface level of distributing consumer goods. You don't consider the rebound effects of how the very increased density of distribution INCREASES demand FOR those consumer goods themselves because of the increased amount of noise and increased amount of relationships.

Actually, I am fairly sure that rural people purchase more consumer goods based simply on the fact that they have more places to store them. ATVs can get stored in barns or sheds, and urbanites do not have nearly the same amount of those.

Also, I think it's more energy efficient to not live your life indoors all day or make trips over the finickiest of things just to prove your worth,

Well, then it's a good thing that urbanites do not do these things.

and country people have higher tolerances for greater variation in temperature than city people.

Do you actually believe these things?

Suppressing the human spirit in the name of efficiency, where have I heard that before... Ah yes. Do you find it ironic that the liberal position criticizes capitalism for its ruthless efficiency in resource distribution yet would love nothing more than to cram as many people as it can in high-density urban housing in the name of "energy efficiency?"

Nice strawman. Now, instead of pretending that I advocated for mandatory apartment housing, can you please respond to my actual argument?

Do you just photosynthesize or something? Is it that hard to conceive how a rural family that kills a deer for the meat, or raises chickens, or plants a big garden and cans its food, does it for purposes of surviving?

How many rural families do this? All of the ones I know of who actually use their land to provide their sustenance use it as a business. So, instead of communing with nature in their vegetable garden, they are spraying whole orchards of apple trees with pesticides and sectioning off meadows for meat cattle. Their relationship with deer is not one of hunter and hunted but about how to keep them from eating the buds off the apple trees. It is no more survival based than my job.

Only Rural families with enough money to camp, hike, etc. do, and those who shovel snow either do it for a living or live in the suburbs.

Thank you for agreeing.

And, yes, we spend our summers cutting up firewood for the winter, wood furnaces are the cheapest means of heating around here. My house has a kerosene furnace that runs us as much as the mortgage in the winter, but I still cut firewood with my family for their houses.

That's awesome the way you have to cut down and burn so many hardwood trees. Very eco-friendly. Again, thank you for providing more evidence of how urban people make less of an environmental impact.

Hell, even without a wood-burning stove, I cut up logs for bonfires every weekend. When was the last time someone in the city had a bonfire that didn't include a rusted oildrum and garbage?

So, you burn wood even when you don't need to heat anything. Great.

It's truly not that hard to imagine that an urban, consumption heavy environment creates a positive feedback loop of greater and greater energy draw to "keep up with the Joneses."

I think rural and suburban areas are more consumption heavy.

[Daktoria]

Actually, I am fairly sure that rural people purchase more consumer goods based simply on the fact that they have more places to store them. ATVs can get stored in barns or sheds, and urbanites do not have nearly the same amount of those.

/facepalm

How does inventory space have anything to do with inventory?

Does a vacant bathroom make you wanna go?

Do you actually believe these things?

Yes. Among the city people I've been around, they complain far more easily over the hot and cold while inside.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does inventory space have anything to do with inventory?

The more inventory space you have, the more inventory you can have. This is really very simple.

Yes. Among the city people I've been around, they complain far more easily over the hot and cold while inside.

That's because we use less energy heating and cooling our internal environment. Rural people, instead of complaining, just get their machine to use more energy.

[Daktoria]

The more inventory space you have, the more inventory you can have. This is really very simple.

Can =/= must. Also, inventory space isn't necessary the bottleneck when it comes to demand either.

That's because we use less energy heating and cooling our internal environment. Rural people, instead of complaining, just get their machine to use more energy.

This is question begging since the discussion itself is about who uses less energy.

[Figlio di Moros]

Only Rural families with enough money to camp, hike, etc. do, and those who shovel snow either do it for a living or live in the suburbs.

Thank you for agreeing.

That was actually a typo- dirt poor country folk still have more access to camp, hike, hunt, and have to shovel snow. Hell, my first time was in the woods after school. It should have read that "only Urban families with enough money to..."

You realize it doesn't cost a lot of money to get out to the woods when they're five feet away and you don't have to pay for admittance, right?

That's awesome the way you have to cut down and burn so many hardwood trees. Very eco-friendly. Again, thank you for providing more evidence of how urban people make less of an environmental impact.

Hell, even without a wood-burning stove, I cut up logs for bonfires every weekend. When was the last time someone in the city had a bonfire that didn't include a rusted oildrum and garbage?

So, you burn wood even when you don't need to heat anything. Great.

Ever heard of a dead tree? No, doesn't seem like you would. One more reason this highlights how rural people are closer to nature than a city-dweller with enough money to vacation in it every once in a while....