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

211–220 of 274 posts

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

#211

Post by xxs »

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.

HN is really bad at sarcasm...

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

#212

Post by forgotmypw17 »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #138
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…

Van lifers feel your pain. The instagram influencer skinny young cute blonde girl with painted toenails and backdoors open to reveal the grand canyon is a far cry from the reality that's 90% pooping in a composting toilet in a walmart parking lot and spending your entire weekend trying to install a water tank to supply a shower.

I lived the van life for a bit, and did not find myself pooping more frequently than usual... Usually I went in a toilet, which are numerous almost everywhere with a road. In the few occasions one was not available, I was in the woods, and I did the classic "dig a hole and cover it after" maneuver. I must say, there was something very primal and distinct from pooping in a toilet in that, the smell was different, and I was able to gain some kind of indicators from it.

Anyway, that covers the number one question most people ask me about that, showers probably a close second. I just didn't shower as frequently, but did not mind it, since I was alone or with others who didn't mind. For showers, I went to gyms, dance studios, friends' showers, public showers, and so on.

It always seemed to me overkill to try to do all that yourself, when all you really need is a bit of personal space where you can lie down flat and sleep...

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

#213

Post by javagram »

ramesh31 wrote: post #157
jchanimal wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your link is to a public housing project. It discusses the reasons why it became a slum, such as white flight and desegregation.

Not sure if you have ever lived in an apartment if you think grocery shopping is a “Herculean” task. You just take the elevator and walk a block or two to the grocery store. Furniture is actually easier than in a SFH because you don’t have to struggle to move it up stairs, you just pop it in an elevator. Package deliveries go to a concierge at the front desk rather than being stolen or getting wet on the porch if you’re not home, etc.

In general looking at trends of the 1960s to predict behavior today won’t work - there’s been a trend toward reurbanization in the last 30 years and white flight has reversed and been replaced with gentrification. The “slums” are now being pushed into city outskirts and suburbs themselves.

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

#214

Post by rsj_hn »

javagram wrote: post #213
ramesh31 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your link is to a public housing project. It discusses the reasons why it became a slum, such as white flight and desegregation. Not sure if you have ever lived in an apartment if you think grocery shopping is a “Herculean” task. You just take the elevator and walk a block or two to the grocery store. Furniture is actually easier than in a SFH because you don’t have to struggle to move it up stairs, you just pop it i…

Personally, I do see a relationship between crime and people fleeing the cities, for obvious reasons. What is concerning is the increase in homicide rates combined with an epidemic of DAs that refuse to prosecute crimes, all against a backdrop of remote work making outmigration much easier. That may well reverse the gentrification trend and we could see a repeat of the 1970s-1980s.

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

#215

Post by edem »

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…

I agree 100%. We also have this local vibe where I live and it is mostly composed of 40+ people who have no idea what TikTok is. By the way...you can make the jump from Web 2 to Web 3 and skip Tik Tok altogether.

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

#216

Post by morsch »

sjwalter wrote: post #166
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.

Making large life decisions based on your own personal GHG emissions is living as though you are already dead. I moved out to the country. Bought a big diesel. Started a farm. My GHGs went way up. And yet, my lifestyle change has zero impact on climate change. It's like voting--if you know game theory at all, you know it's a waste of time, just like it's a waste of a life to spend your time calculating and optimizing…

Your impact is not zero. Small numbers exist. Unfortunately physics doesn't round down before aggregating individual numbers. You and your kids not living "a lesser life" just means your grandkids will. Mine, too. It's that easy.

Maybe people who don't think voting is a waste of time will generate an environment where these decisions are made on a societal level and individual responsibility is less important. Which presumably you'd welcome. It's unlikely.

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

#217

Post by verve_rat »

yaitsyaboi wrote: post #178
sjwalter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making large life decisions based on your own personal GHG emissions is living as though you are already dead. I moved out to the country. Bought a big diesel. Started a farm. My GHGs went way up. And yet, my lifestyle change has zero impact on climate change. It's like voting--if you know game theory at all, you know it's a waste of time, just like it's a waste of a life to spend your time calculating and optimizing…

I can understand the argument that individual consumer changes are not enough to stem the tide of climate change. But I’m not sure that means individual choices have zero real impact. I think the voting analogy is good, but I take a different lesson from it. Not that voting is pointless. Individual actions matter a great deal in their cumulative effect.

Nope. Individual actions are pointless. The only thing that might impact climate change is large scale government regulation.

The only action an individual can take to have an impact at all is to lobby their government.

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

#218

Post by theodric »

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.

I've been saying since at least 2016 that I expect a moralizing campaign to guilt people into moving to the city "for the environment" as interests continue to pressure their pocket politicians to shift all responsibility for controlling climate change to individual consumers. "People who live outside the city use X times more fuel to heat and commute and contribute Y more to climate change! Do the right thing: move to the city." Devalue burb/rural housing with a glut of supply, indenture millions with enormous city mortgages or perpetual rent, profit, retire to island in South Pacific-- job done.

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

#219

Post by nicbou »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #138
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…

Van lifers feel your pain. The instagram influencer skinny young cute blonde girl with painted toenails and backdoors open to reveal the grand canyon is a far cry from the reality that's 90% pooping in a composting toilet in a walmart parking lot and spending your entire weekend trying to install a water tank to supply a shower.

Motorcycle travel seems fortunately impervious to it. Nobody's cool in full mismatched gear on a bike that's peppered with dead insects and mud.

Except Ewan McGregor, you sexy bastard.

That, the average age of adventure motorcyclists, and the cost of this seasonal vehicle are enough to keep influencers out.

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

#220

Post by lmm »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #176
lmm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

I am not thowing things. There are two primary forms of measuring GHG: -- A. Territorial GHG emission accounting B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting -- A. Measures GHG released with in the territorial borders. B. Measures upstream GHG released outside the territory but consumed within. -- Moving a coal plant across state lines doesn't reduce the GHG impact of a state, it merely removes the accounting from the stat…

I agree that including upstream GHG is important, but you've got to compare like with like - is there any evidence that upstream-included GHG emissions are higher for urban than for rural? What would the mechanism for that be - are urban people consuming more things (or more energy), are things for urban markets produced less efficiently than things for rural markets (why?), ...?
Post reply on HN