Skip to main content

View Diary: A scary but enlighting map that gives me hope on second thoughts (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have always thought about rural as primarily (12+ / 0-)

    being closer to the natural rhythms which is nowhere near the definition being used in this diary. It has been a problem for me because I love being places where the natural earth features are more evident, but I don't always enjoy the folks who live there.

    Yeah, it's sort of a pointless comment I guess. But you enlarged my understanding of the word.

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:33:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good point (5+ / 0-)

      Depending on where you live, many rural people take great pride in living with the agricultural calendar. I suspect that one of the reasons a lot of rural people are resentful of urbanites is that the cities are growing do fast and take up so many resources that the environment and working conditions families have been used to for generations have been upended in a world of factory farms, pollution, exotic plant diseases, and aberrant weather patterns. They look to the suburbs that spread over formerly green fields like mushrooms after rain and feel resentful.
      Country people are conservative with a small c, and think their world has been turned upside down. What more fertile place to plant the big C conservatism, racism, and resentment of professional rabble rousers like Limbaugh. It's a pity that city folks blame them for listening. They don't understand that cities have been dirty and teeming with people and also interesting, exciting, and diverse since ancient Rome. They haven't changed that much.  The countryside, on the other hand, has done so profoundly.

      "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

      by northsylvania on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:57:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ironic thing, I suppose, is that rural (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        dwellers have a way worse environmental footprint compared to their urban counterparts.

        But whatever, their whole lifestyle is built on deliberate or at least blissful ignorance about the realities of life.

        •  Oh for pete's sake. If you are going to be (6+ / 0-)

          that ignorant, why don't you join the right?  

          I am amazed at the arrogance and ignorance of many of these posts.  Clearly many of the people posting on this thread haven't been in "rural" areas as defined by that map.  The idea that rural=farms is ridiculous.  Most people in those areas aren't farmers.  Their lives aren't "built on deliberate or blissful ignorance of the realities of life."  SOME of them have their political views built on the far right media bubble but that is a far cry from what you are saying.

          A big factor in people living in rural areas is that they are BORN there and their FAMILIES live there and most of them stay there for that reason.   There are university towns, zillions of small businesses, schools and so much more than you simply ignore with your vision of the farmer couple with their pitchforks.  Give me a break.

          I was born and raised in one of those red areas and live in one now.  I also lived in Pittsburgh, PA, Cincinnati, OH and Arlington, VA for much of my life - deep in those cities, not in the burbs.  

          •  It's not so much ignorance, but science . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, Killer of Sacred Cows
            City lights may burn bright, but overall the greenhouse gas emissions of large cities are far below those of rural areas, a new report finds.
            from City dwellers 'harm climate less'
            •  I didn't challenge the environmental footprint (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NotGeorgeWill

              statement but the following one.  I think that is pretty clear from what I wrote.

              •  Well, you went on and on about farms (0+ / 0-)

                I didn't say a single word about farms so I had no freakin' idea what you were talking about then.

                Because what I just re-posted was spot on consistent and corroborating of my initial post.

                •  Sorry the farm stuff confused you. It actually (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NotGeorgeWill

                  referred to other posts in this thread from people who clearly have no experience with rural areas.  The part that was specifically responding to your statement was this and what followed it:

                  Their lives aren't "built on deliberate or blissful ignorance of the realities of life."  SOME of them have their political views built on the far right media bubble but that is a far cry from what you are saying.

                  •  Rural people, as a whole, do tend to be (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Killer of Sacred Cows

                    blissful unaware of the most important thing in their lives - namely that they are considerably more dependent on government than city dwellers.  Yet they maintain the myth of "rugged individualism" which - IMHO - is the main reason they vote GOP.

                    •  I suspect the most important thing in . . . (0+ / 0-)

                      life is probably family and friends.

                      There are some services that cost more to build on a per person basis in rural areas -- e.g. energy generation, communication, perhaps even some transportation infrastructure, but the rugged individualism bit is not entirely a myth.  If some cataclysm hit, I have no doubt that many people with some experience living in more rural areas would be more self-sufficient than people who live in communities with a high degree of specialization.

                      Also, the bit about "carbon foot prints" is absurd.  Obviously some people in rural areas might consume more energy per person, but much of this is in service of producing goods that are consumed in more densely populated areas.  The carbon foot print bit may take transportation into consideration, but it doesn't factor in all of the factors involved in the production of things like agricultural products.

            •  Yes . .. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NotGeorgeWill

              For one thing, the countryside has always supported the cities.  Now not only does it practice widescale industrial-style farming, utilizing all the tools of modern technology to wring every last ounce of profit out of each acre of soil, but it is also the location for the cities' refuse, the mining and extraction industries, and the power plants which make those city lights gleam.  All of these productive activities, which must support the large populations of the cities, emit both carbon and other pollutants, none of which are created IN the cities, but all of which are necessary so that the cities might live.

              A Thanksgiving dinner is neither the fault nor the fun of the turkey and the pig you eat.

              •  On a per capita basis, some of those things (0+ / 0-)

                are pretty much a wash.  

                For example, a rural and urban person pretty much eats a similar amount of food, so their agricultural footprint will be the same in that regard.

                But when there is a divergence, it is usually in the disfavor of the rural person.  For example, an urbanite can walk over to a neighborhood restaurant, a rural person has get in her pick up truck and drive 17 miles.   An urban person requires 18 feet of copper wire to get his home connected to the grid, a rural person requires 100x as much, and so forth.

                Of course, if you had read the study I posted, you'd already know all this . . .. .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site