The implication is that there will always be the same amount of people, in truth cities promote massive population growth whereas rural towns have much slower growth rates
-
-
-
lmfao where do you think city population growth comes from? they're fertility sinks; even during London's rise in the 19th century it was *rural migration* which kept it growing, not urban fertility
-
In the 19th century and earlier migration was the main cause absolutely this is not the case today however
-
this is absolutely still the case today, did you think San Francisco and Tokyo are just hotbeds of fertility?
-
this is as true in the developing world as the developed world--compare fertility rates for Indian villages vs Indian cities
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Urban sprawl is literally the opposite of what you want though.
-
desho? but to people who don't like cities in the first place, anything urban is sprawl
-
Unless they want to go full
#FrogTwitter on urbanites, they should welcome people being packed like sardines
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
beginning all quote tweets with “imbecile;” in the future
-
New conversation -
-
-
Proper use of the Talebian here
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have you ever heard of Jeffersonian Democrats? These were free people who were the only independent citizens, being entirely self sufficient. The were intelligent, multi-skilled, and honest. I support this belief 200%, as tiny lot dwellers seem to contribute to lower IQ/honesty.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the choice isn't urban sprawl vs countryside, it's urban sprawl and countryside vs nomad pastoralism
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.