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

261–270 of 274 posts

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

#261

Post by fsckboy »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #112
giantg2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such is life

That doesn't sound like a life at all.

your comment takes on a different sense if we guess that your partner shares giantg's sentiments, which in many cases could well be true. Without saying anything personal about you (I don't know you and have not researched your comment history, for example), a narcissist would be highly likely to bristle at the idea of giving-in to another person's preference, maybe even to the point of being moved to comment on an internet forum!

my point is, there is a lot of complexity to different personalities interacting that is not captured by your somewhat idealistic view of giantg's life.

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

#262

Post by knownjorbist »

asdff wrote: post #187
knownjorbist wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...while ignoring the reasons people headed in that direction in the first place.

Which was to have labor close to the factory and then the office, which now exists on zoom.

Gosh, no. It's because roughing it actually sucks if your survival is truly at stake.

Right now you don't have to know anything about how to survive in order to survive. You just need to trade some of your time for money, somewhere, somehow.

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

#263

Post by lmm »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #240
lmm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?), ...?

Concrete usage is sufficient to illustrate the mechanism. - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-ce...

OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive far shorter distances, I would've thought those living outside would end up being responsible for more cement use.

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

#264

Post by rsj_hn »

lmm wrote: post #263
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete usage is sufficient to illustrate the mechanism. - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-ce...

OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive f…

For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods into the city. There is not a single city anywhere that is self-sufficient in any of these areas, but there are rural regions which are self-sufficient in one or two of these categories (but rarely all four).

So I very much doubt that road networks linking the cities with each other and with the surrounding rural areas are for the benefit of the rural areas more than for the benefit of the city, although certainly both sides obtain some benefit.

This goes all the way back to Rome. Why did all roads lead to Rome? For the benefit of the provinces, as an act of generosity on the part of Rome, or so that a stream of goods can be brought into Rome and consumed there?

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

#265

Post by lmm »

rsj_hn wrote: post #264
lmm wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive f…

For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods int…

> For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive.

Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?), and rural areas benefit from the things produced there (otherwise why would they buy them?).

If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false. You're putting the cart before the horse: why do people go to the city to seek their fortune? Because it's impossible for them to make a living in the country. Why are all the homeless people in the cities? Because in the countryside they'd starve.

The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources (land area, water, permitted GHG emissions, ...), how can we support as many people as possible. Having the majority follow efficient urban lifestyles does a lot better on that metric.

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

#266

Post by rsj_hn »

lmm wrote: post #265
rsj_hn wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods int…

> For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producer…

> cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?)

Let's be careful with our terms. Money is produced in the Bureau of Engraving. What you mean is that people within cities earn a higher income, which is true. Urban populations have higher incomes and consumption. But that means that money is flowing into the city from outside. Every time you swipe your credit card, someone in Manhattan gets a cut. Every time you buy an online ad, someone in Silicon Valley takes a cut. When you buy insurance, someone in Hartford takes a cut. Money from all over the country flows into cities.

So why does money flow into the city? For the same reason that a marketplace makes money or a platform makes money. It is a schelling point, helping to bridge the gap between intrinsic worth and market worth. The app you wrote is great but it wont make any money without a platform to run on. The baseball player may be a hall of famer but his pay will be determined by the stadium he plays in. Cities are generally where various professionals, managers, and administrators concentrate, and these earn higher incomes as they provide support services or organizational services to the rest of the economy.

> If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false

I don't mean parasitical in a moral sense, but in the sense of the flow of real quantities (as we are talking about transportation along roads), because the value add of cities is organizational in nature rather than productive in nature. What we see is that if you create a high population rural area, a bigger city will spring up somewhere in the middle of it, just like if there are more producers, a bigger marketplace will emerge to be the focal point of those producers.

> why do people go to the city to seek their fortune?

Because that is where higher income/higher consumption opportunities lie. Just like why every company wants to be a platform. Or why ambitious corporate types want to be near the HQ. If you are a budding manager or would-be corporate lawyer, do you set up your shingle in Bullhead City, AZ, or in NYC? You want to be where all the money flows so you can be there to receive a cut. That's not to say you are stealing or being lazy. Obviously the competition to get that cut is fierce.

> The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources how can we support as many people as possible.

There is not a single pattern. You need a market place and you need producers to meet in that marketplace. Life is heterogeneous.

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

#267

Post by lmm »

rsj_hn wrote: post #266
lmm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producer…

> cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?) Let's be careful with our terms. Money is produced in the Bureau of Engraving. What you mean is that people within cities earn a higher income , which is true. Urban populations have higher incomes and consumption. But that means that money is flowing into the city from outside. Every time…

> What you mean is that people within cities earn a higher income, which is true. Urban populations have higher incomes and consumption. But that means that money is flowing into the city from outside. Every time you swipe your credit card, someone in Manhattan gets a cut. Every time you buy an online ad, someone in Silicon Valley takes a cut. When you buy insurance, someone in Hartford takes a cut. Money from all over the country flows into cities.

I assumed money was shorthand for value. If cities are running a balance-of-payments surplus compared to rural areas, that's because they're producing more value (I guess people move into the city when poor, do a bunch of valuable work that makes them rich, and then move out of the city), so it's weird to frame that as "parasitical on money".

> I don't mean parasitical in a moral sense,

Then why use such a morally loaded term?

> but in the sense of the flow of real quantities (as we are talking about transportation along roads), because the value add of cities is organizational in nature rather than productive in nature.

You're drawing an artificial distinction between "real" and not. The farmer who grows the food, the engineer who produced the fertilizer, the chemist who did the fundamental research, the banker who loaned them the capital... you can portion out the crop yields between them, but no-one's contribution is more real than the other, given that at the end of the day without any of them there'd be fewer kilos getting grown. If you want to compare the value of things that different parts of a society are producing, your measurement for that should be, well, value.

> There is not a single pattern. You need a market place and you need producers to meet in that marketplace. Life is heterogeneous.

Sure, but there are better and worse ways to do it. Put it this way: for someone on the margin at the moment, if they switched from a rural to an equivalent (and that's a whole other can of worms) urban lifestyle or vice versa, in which they were equivalently productive for society, would they be consuming more or less resources/GHG emissions/...?

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

#268

Post by giantg2 »

fsckboy wrote: post #260
fsckboy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing she wants the status of the more expensive neighborhood, and the better schools are just a lever to get there.

just to add on, not that anybody's still reading :) and a ritzy private school not only would not get her into the higher status neighborhood, it would potentially expose the family to more scorn for not living there

It wouldn't be a ritzy one.

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

#269

Post by beerandt »

codezero wrote: post #256
beerandt wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Socializing with people/a community is different from socializing with in-groups vying for popularity.

No- it's really not, but that's irrelevant.

Sacrificing your personal interests and goals because you want to be in a place with people where you fit-in is the very definition of popularity, regardless of your social rank within the group.

That's not necessarily bad, but it's not nerdy.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

beerandt wrote: post #269
codezero wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socializing with people/a community is different from socializing with in-groups vying for popularity.

No- it's really not, but that's irrelevant. Sacrificing your personal interests and goals because you want to be in a place with people where you fit-in is the very definition of popularity, regardless of your social rank within the group. That's not necessarily bad, but it's not nerdy.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN