Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to Proof of your "urban vs. non-urban" point

re: Proof of your "urban vs. non-urban" point
Robert — (archived)

City and country do have different values, and they're the values that people have developed that suit their circumstances. Values transplanted from one environment to the other are almost guaranteed to be destructive applied out of context.

I'd prefer to live in a small town or the country, for the peace and clean air. I'm stuck in the city because that's where the money is, but as long as I'm here, I do appreciate the opportunities for variety and diversity. Culture thrives in the cities, where there's constant change and an ever-shifting cast of characters, and cities are the engines of innovation; the static culture of rural areas is deeply impoverished by comparison. Can you name any innovation that's improved life that's come from a rural area? Not likely. It may be ideologically hard to accept, but the fact is that America owes more of its place in the world to the efforts of city-dwellers than to those of country folk.

It all depends on your values, of course. If you value the security of an unchanging world and knowing your place in society, then the city's not for you. Conversely, if you feel stifled in the country, you can move to the city. The point is not whether either one is better than the other, the point is that preserving both, and avoiding the demagogic temptation to try and impose the values of one on the other, preserves for people the freedom to choose one or the other.

The cynical Republican campaign to stir up divisiveness along rural versus urban lines is a profound disservice to America. The country is composed of both, and both need to be able to get along. City people can never accept country values, and vice versa, and demanding national conformity to one or the other is simply wrong.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (91 posts)