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

151–160 of 274 posts

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

#151

Post by giantg2 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #97
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.

Have you ever lived off of the land? If you haven't, you should question how well your visions of the lifestyle match with what actually happens in reality. Just like you might see a beautiful picture of a beach and dream constantly of going there, but once you get there you are swarmed by mosquitos, cut your feet on sharp rocks, and get poisoned from the industrial runoff that was cleverly cropped out of the picture…

"Have you ever lived off of the land?"

Not quite. I understand how hard it can be. It also depends on just how off the land one wants to be, like a guy I know living in a self built log cabin in Alaska. I'm not going that far. It would be nice to have land for my wife's horse, to expand my beekeeping, and to expand my garden/fruits/mushrooms/etc. And like most people on small farms, I'd probably need another job to make ends meet.

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

#152

Post by beerandt »

codezero wrote: post #109
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people on this site have plenty of resources to buy into a lifestyle like the one you are describing. But for some reason they don't. To me, it seems likely that there are some serious drawbacks to that lifestyle that you're leaving our, which if further probed would change the equation.

If I were to guess, it's the choice of community HNers want to engage with on a regular basis. It's not other people who live in the country, it's other nerds who live in the country, which once you leave a city starts to have very low density!

I don't remember nerds being the ones worried about what's socially popular and fitting in.

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

#153

Post by giantg2 »

7thaccount wrote: post #150
giantg2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. My grandpa worked in the mines and a quarry to help make money in addition to the farm. I think some farmers were lucky enough to have the government pay for food (or even the destruction of food) so that they could distribute the food and drive up prices for the people who did have money.

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

#154

Post by Rebelgecko »

iamthemonster wrote: post #144
mey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even though Shatner's "singing" is pretty mockable, I think in this case he brings a tone of working class anger that elevates the cover above the original.

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

#155

Post by ollifi »

gruez wrote: post #147
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it.

Oil industry spinned us to calculate personal carbon foot prints [1]. That’s a good tool, but at the same time it dissolves the responsibility. In one hand the people actually producing the harm get to blame consumer demand and consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture.

If you go to work somewhere and release lots of gasses heating the planet you should probably think long and hard why you are doing that.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

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

#157

Post by ramesh31 »

jchanimal wrote: post #116
ramesh31 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. How many large apartment blocs have you lived in? It's not a very enjoyable way to live, particularly with a family. People want houses, garages, yards, and cars. Don't try to paint the selfish realit…

How many are constructed to be desirable? Would a nice apartment complex be legal in most jurisdictions? Luckily, the First Nations in Vancouver don't have to worry about NIMBYs, so they can show us a good example: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senakw-in-van...

20th century history is littered with these types of developments [0]. They all turn out the same way. Decrepit and abandoned within 20 years. No one wants to live like that. Living your life in a 30th story studio apartment is a dystopian nightmare. You are completely disconnected from your environment, and daily needs like grocery shopping, package deliveries, buying furniture, all become herculean tasks. It's why these places very quickly become slums. The only people willing to live like that are those with no other choice.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-h...

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

#158

Post by Danieru »

tharkun__ wrote: post #115
silicon2401 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a good resource to learn about septic? I'm interested in moving somewhere more rural at some point in the future but have no idea how septic works. I admit a slight squeamishness at the thought of our waste accumulating in a tank, but the part that I'm more concerned about is not knowing what the risks or processes involved are.

Is this somehow different in the rural US? I'm in Canada and while part of a large metro area I am far enough out to have a septic tank. I never so much as spent a second of thought on it. We just get the tank cleaned out every two years. The city even has a by law requiring that and you have to send in the invoice to prove you had it done.

My theory is most people do not realize just how much of their "water" bill is actually sewage costs. Pumping clean water is nothing compared to sewage. Yet most cities present the water bill as a split cost between water and sewage.

We are on septic despite being 100meters from the border of tokyo. Our costs for quatery inspections, and a yearly pumping are about 220 dollars. In exchange our water bill is about 40dollars every two months, so twenty a month. This is half what we paid in Tokyo while using much less water.

Now compare to many water bills in the states where many towns have over built sewage systems and you often year families spending a hundred or more a month. I strongly suspect cities hide the cost of sewage behind the water supply charge. They run the departments as one and assume all supplied water is drained.

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

#159

Post by dasil003 »

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.

Wait, did you just attempt to reframe the conversation under the axiom that "instagrammable" === "better"?

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

#160

Post by gruez »

ollifi wrote: post #155
gruez wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it. Oil industry spinned us to calculate personal carbon foot prints [1]. That’s a good tool, but at the same time it dissolves the responsibility. In one hand the people actually producing the harm get to blame consumer demand and consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture. If you…

> Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it.

Are you saying this is actually how GHG calculations are done with respect to rural/urban, or that's how it should be counted?

>consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture.

a single consumer can't make a difference because they're one person out of 7 billion. consumers in aggregate can make a difference.

Post reply on HN