Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#141

Post by lmm »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #118
davidw wrote: post #87

This is, in reality, probably less 'green' than living in a city. Multi-family homes tend to require less energy to heat and cool, because you share walls. You can also walk to many things, bike, or take transit. My bet is that most of the people living in these rural places aren't so into the 'rural lifestyle' that they don't own a couple of cars that they use for ... pretty much everything in life.

Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story. Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are st…

Sounds like you're throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping some of them stick rather than trying to figure out what's true. Wealth is presumably fixed at first-order, so comparing equally wealthy rural or urban residents seems fairest (unless you're trying to argue that cities are bad because they increase economic growth?); if the argument is something like "emissions are only higher in rural areas because rural residents are more likely to own cars because they're wealthier", that doesn't really refute the notion that rural is worse for the planet, it just means that poor people can't afford rural lives. I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim.

The post you were replying to gave an argument for why GHG emissions would be lower in urban areas that, while not necessarily proven, at least passes the sniff test.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#142

Post by nickthemagicman »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #131
schnevets wrote: post #56

I love my backyard garden (even though my Brussels Sprout experiment this year proved to be a huge waste of time). I also love the aesthetic that cottagecore is revitalizing. I love drinking at local wineries, buying stuff at my local farmer's market, brewing beer and swapping bottles with homebrew friends, etc... But holy shit am I repulsed by the influencer aspect that is growing with this "movement". Ways of Seein…

Or maybe you're losing your edge to better-looking people with better ideas and more talent who are actually really really nice.

Does anyone want nice people? Or do they want real people?

Give me a chubby 35 year old nerd who knows tons of stuff over a nice attractive couple who take good pictures to sell advertising.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#143

Post by 3grdlurker »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #135
3grdlurker wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To participate in consumerism and capitalism, correct?

Lack of opportunity? Poverty? Disease? Broken homes? War? Sexual/physical/emotional/spiritual abuse? To make new connections? To find a partner? To explore the wider world? Surely not!

You can’t have lack of opportunity, poverty, diseases, broken homes, war, and domestic abuse in a city? I don’t get your point and the blind defensiveness.

If I’m not being a hypocrite I certainly moved to the city for the comforts of the modern world, but I’ve learned a lot since to learn that consumerism is wrong and there’s much that needs to be changed about capitalism.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#144

Post by iamthemonster »

mey wrote: post #93
JohnWhigham wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the time-honored tradition of the rich LARPing as the commoner is as alive as ever.

And I am reminded of Common People by Shatner https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cMXhWf0vE7c

As a British person, I am delighted and amused that Shatner's cover is better known to many people than Pulp's original.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

asdff wrote: post #102
davidw wrote: post #87

This is, in reality, probably less 'green' than living in a city. Multi-family homes tend to require less energy to heat and cool, because you share walls. You can also walk to many things, bike, or take transit. My bet is that most of the people living in these rural places aren't so into the 'rural lifestyle' that they don't own a couple of cars that they use for ... pretty much everything in life.

One of the worst things we did in the past century is paint the idea of an apartment high rise full of decent sized family apartments overlooking a green shady courtyard as some communist evil, to be actively outlawed. We haven't gotten past that sentiment towards apartment living to this day. Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units. If you want to have a family, th…

> Even what we do build in terms of apartments is only really studios or 1 or 2 bedroom units.

In suburbia, sure. In urban areas, 3+ bedroom apartments are definitely a thing, as are relatively spacious apartments for their bedroom count, and overlooking luxurious courtyards.

They are as expensive as you’d expect from places where studios are more expensive than suburban 3 bedroom single-family homes, though.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#146

Post by giantg2 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #125
giantg2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The zoning here is such that a homeowner can do any repair work they please on their own without having to get a permit or licensed contractor." Wow, that's pretty strict for a "small town". Most places allow you to make repairs without a permit or contractor as long as you're not making changes. For example, I needed a permit to put in an interlock and receptacle for a generator. If something breaks the receptacle,…

It's not about the law, it's about what's enforced. Where I live you theoretically need to permit the typical stuff but the official unofficial policy is that they don't expect anyone who isn't a professional to pull permits.

Many pros don't even bother with permits for smaller jobs, like installing a generator (my neighbor's experience).

One thing to consider is that most insurance companies will not cover a house if it had unpermitted/uninspected work on it that could even possibly be the cause.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#147

Post by gruez »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #118
davidw wrote: post #87

This is, in reality, probably less 'green' than living in a city. Multi-family homes tend to require less energy to heat and cool, because you share walls. You can also walk to many things, bike, or take transit. My bet is that most of the people living in these rural places aren't so into the 'rural lifestyle' that they don't own a couple of cars that they use for ... pretty much everything in life.

Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story. Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are st…

>They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials).

If this is true, wouldn't it lead to ridiculous conclusions like a cow farmer being responsible for the GHG emissions of all his cows?

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#148

Post by giantg2 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #126
giantg2 wrote: post #53

I dream of quitting my job and living on some land. My wife refuses to "live in the middle of nowhere, where there's nothing to do". I guess I shall continue to work a job I hate in order to live in this expensive area.

>nothing to do Buy her a dirtbike?

Those were her words, not mine. I know there are plenty of outdoor things to do.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#149

Post by 7thaccount »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #130
wonderwonder wrote: post #78

Its the result of complete burnout of a large portion of society. So many people feel they work too much and dream of just getting away to something simpler. I think its a reflection of so much going wrong currently with society and the way we live in general. But I'm just some guy on the internet; I am probably projecting :) Edit: I often think about buying a cheap old isolated house on a couple acres in Italy, fixi…

> So many people feel they work too much and dream of just getting away to something simpler. I agree that this the popular sentiment, but I think work is a smaller part of it than we like to think. I think people are simply overwhelmed with the always-on, always-connected lifestyles that fill our every waking moment with outrage-bait headlines and more entertainment media than we could possibly ever consume. Anyone…

You're right that surviving on a homestead sounds very... unromantic to me. I planted a bunch of apple trees, berry bushes..etc, over a year ago. I fertilize and water, but somehow blight took it all. It seems like nature is constantly trying to fight you on everything.

Re: 'Cottagecore' and the rise of the modern rural fantasy

#150

Post by 7thaccount »

giantg2 wrote: post #46
octokatt wrote: post #2

Heidi came out in 1881 [0], right around when the phone was invented and after Switzerland had a decade or so of political turmoil [1]. When things get complicated, nostalgia for the simplicity of rural life, without things like dirt or economic scarcity, tend to come to the fore [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi [1] http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/timeline-sw... [2] https://en.wikipedia.o…

Sometimes the economic scarcity is relatively less scarce than in urban areas. For example, at least during the depression those with farms had to ability to grow their own food. To be fair, sometimes the government would allow urban households to garden in a 1/4 acre or so plot in designated areas as part of a program to help people be more self sufficient. Although my grandfather said not many people took advantage…

My great grandmother lived on a farm during the great depression. They had plenty to eat, but she said that what hurt them the most was the city folks couldn't buy their produce or eggs, so they lost their ability to largely make additional cash for odds and ends.
Post reply on HN