Whenever I see people saying something like "we'll always need small towns to exist because agriculture" or something to that effect I wonder: are they trying to convince me, or themselves?
-
Show this thread
-
Put it another way: if it weren't for widespread rural depopulation and economic stagnation, would they even be talking about it? Or at least--would they be talking about the "necessity" of small towns rather than the appeal or advantages of them?
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
It reminds me of the rhetoric of "needing" public transit etc--it's not hard to conclude that the rhetoric comes from a fear that maybe it's not necessary after all, and that the world would keep turning without it.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @380kmh
Public transportation seems self evidently necessary. Having a city in which millions of people each drive their own car to work and back just doesn't seem practical on any level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Those aren't the only choices though. What about walking etc? More to the point: this is about *rhetoric* rather than facts. I'm inclined to think large-scale production will always necessitate small rural communities, too--but that doesn't make it good rhetoric to say so!
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.