city vs countryside

Which one do you prefer? I have a bit of experience living on both environments and I can tell you that they both have their advantages. The countryside is nice and quiet, the neighbors are extremely friendly, you have a lot of space outside your house that you can use to do whatever the fuarrrk you want, and is overall pretty comfy. The downside is that you won't have quick and easy access to certain things, such as whatever latest tech you want to get your hands on (even if you order something online, it will probably take longer to reach your house if you live in the countryside), and you'll also have to drive to get anywhere. That's where you start to see the advantages of the city. Everything is close enough to you that you can walk there (stores, ect.), you have more job opportunities, you have more things to do during the night, and (this is a bit of a personal bias), there's something oddly comfy about sitting in the balcony of a building at night and just staring at the city lights. The downside is that you'll feel really "cramped" living so close to so many people, your neighbors won't be anywhere near as friendly or hospitable and because of this, despite living in such a highly populated area, you'll mostly likely start to suffer through feeling isolated, loneliness, depression, ect. and to top it all off, whenever a crisis happens (like a protest or a pandemic), you're going to be standing right at the center of the crossfire,

I prefer countryside. Smallish towns are nice too. Big cities give me sensory overload, makes it hard to fuarrrking think with all the lights and loud cars and constant activity.

>>19273 I live in the suburbs but I guess compared to the actual countryside, it's pretty much "city". As you outline, some of the pros of living in the city includes accessibility to stuff(especially at unorthodox hours) and economic opportunity. Another thing also is the ability to be anonymous. There's so many people that you are a blip in the bucket. Being able to blend in and unable to be singled out by hostile people is pretty great. You just move to another part of the city if one area doesn't work out for you. In the countryside or smaller towns I imagine gossip can destroy your life. Everyone will know who "that guy" is and make his life a living hell. You won't be able to find a job, if there are any. To that end, I'm at the point where I still wish everyday to live in a small town or something to that effect though. I feel alone and isolated where I am. Maybe I'd be just as alone and isolated in the countryside. But I feel like there's more of a fighting chance there, you know? Maybe not actually, since there's less people to go around.

If your countryside consists of "villages" where you have to drive everywhere, there's a huge possibility of your cities being as equally damaged by modernism. E.g: Las Vegas. Good luck walking somewhere in that hellhole, but eh, hustle and bustle of the big city, roit?

used to think countryside is healthier but then i read a paper about cancer caused by pesticide clouds. Farmers spay and wind pushes it from fields into the village. Gone was the idea of going to the countryside to escape the smog. Right now i think being at the edge of the city away from the smog heavy sectors is the best option unless you can afford going totally remote.

Thing is, country side is nice when you are born there. Going out of your way to live far way from your home to live in the country side you're not gonna blend in easily with the townsfolk, and honestly hook-ups and shops are hard to comeby when you live in the middle of nowhere, so i'll go for city anyday of the week.

Ironically, country folk move to the city and work their asses of just so they can afford to (you guessed it) move out to the country.

>>19284 so do a lot of people from suburbs or "the wrong city". Hell you will get people from Malibu wanting to move to SF.

I love cities, because I can just disappear in them while not also living like a hermit.

Countryside gives better chances of achieving happiness or peace of mind, that kind of state. Nature and less people which increases your chances of bonding with them. It's not like I take a lot of advantage of the resources a city can offer besides high speed internet to be honest

Good countryside > good city > okay city > okay countryside > bad countryside >>>>>>>>>> bad city

>>19291 yeah, reminds me of schopenhauer's hedgehog dilemma, you wanna get close when it's "cold", but not too close, in order to not get hurt, totally get it

>>19293 pretty good tier list. At least in "bad countryside" you don't have to live next to an open sewer.

I'd say small suburban towns, or living on the outermost edge of a city, is the sweet spot. This is why I really like the city of Phoenix in Arizona, cause although it's a "big city", everything is so spaced-out that it doesn't "feel" like one. You get the advantages of a city without sacrificing your personal space.

The reason that persons in small towns are friendly to each other is that if they weren't, it'd be like Dogville. >you won't have quick and easy access to certain things, such as whatever latest tech you want to get your hands on (even if you order something online, it will probably take longer to reach your house if you live in the countryside), New technology I can live without. My computer is almost a decade old---still does everything I need. Even if I wanted the latest technology, there's not much difference between last years and this years tech. If you're so impatient that a few weeks of shipping is too long, it's an expensive psychological problem. Of course, if it's because of a business, that's a different thing. Ask yourself: what am I gaining by having the latest technology? What I can't live without are having many local services to select from. Of course it still peeves me greatly that there's only one fire department, only one police service, but there are competing medical services (many of each of hospitals, doctors, ambulances,,) which are quite important to me. The other thing I can't live without is the fact that, in a big city, I don't have to work too hard to make friends that I like---I can just be myself, and after those that don't like me stop hanging out with me, the persons that are left are really good friends (well, some are pushovers, but I encourage them to be less so). Another thing is that, even if the ratios of different types of persons are the same, there are `more diverse persons' just because there are more persons of each type. And of course those that might exist at all in a smaller city/town/countryside, in a city there might be a whole one of them, or a few. What this means practically is that there are more different goods that can be bought. In terms of public emergencies (protests, epidemics,,): I always have at least a 2 weeks' supply of all necessities. And I never accept an apartment near street-level. As you probably have guessed, I live in a city. I like cities. But I pine for the countryside. Having a house I'm in full control of. Being a few hundred meters away from any other person. The fresh air. (O fresh air, how I miss thee!) But foremost, the cheapness of living there. Not enough to give up the large selection of certain local services or potential friends (or the very close friends I already have). >>19279 photo could have been a haiku: >I live in concrete >The air is cigarette smoke >But there's good cafés

>>19326 How do you even "make friends" in the city? You probably attend a university or work for some soulless corp in a huge office with many employees. Just alike you'd be friends with villagers working in fields or repairing their tractors.

Country side all the, modern civilization is a cancer, the only city i would like living in would be a deserted one.

>>19358 I make friends the usual way. I go out. I talk to persons---about my, and only my, interests: if they're not interested, we're not compatible; if they are, then we might be. The more persons there are to choose from, the more compatible persons there will be. The more compatible persons, the more available compatible persons. Then, I just have to discern which compatible persons would be the best friends for me. This can be done pairwise. The first friend is someone---anyone---that I'm compatible with. So is each next friend until I have enough friends. Then, It's a matter of comparing my friends with other available compatible persons. Eventually, I find friends who are difficult to get rid of in this way---that means they are near a local optima. When that happens, I might try looking for someone very different, to see what it's like. At first, this local optimum is probably fairly far from the global optimum. Later, as I find better local optima, there are fewer better local optima. After a couple years, I've settled on the friends I have now, but I'm pretty sure that these pretty damn close to my global optimum (within this city). I still go looking for very different persons, as a matter of principle, and I maintain sparse relations with persons that are almost as compatible as my present friends, so that if any friend leaves, I can soon replace them. Also, as a personal rule, for my own sanity, I don't socialize with colleagues. Work is for work. No need making it complicated by mixing my life and my slavery.

>>19360 >I go out Drop these eloquent americanisms, please. You go to a bar, a public event or just talk random people in the street using your +100 charisma cheat codes? Those are completely different ways of "going out", how do you raise chances of finding similar people? I hardly believe I'd find a person like myself even online, doing so IRL, in a city seems even less probable.

>>19358 >How do you even "make friends" in the city? Hobbies, sports and meetups (e.g. study groups, boardgames, etc.). Start with meetup.com, facebook groups and google. >>19360 >I don't socialize with colleagues. Work is for work. That's a bit shortsighted. Even if they're boring their friends or friends' friends might not be. Colleagues are a valuable first step in expanding your network.

>>19362 You might have a better chance if you work on your attitude. I'm not trying to be rude, just helpfully realistic, so I hope you don't take it you wrong way.

Looking back on it, the friends I've had were people I was randomly in contact with... work, school, neighbors... Most people have a natural tendency to socialize. All you really have to do is hang out where people are and kind of let it happen and have a thick skin to put up with the jerks.

>>19382 I do agree with the other anon that it is far too broad a description. I spent over a year living downtown, taking daily walks, frequenting a local bar and didn't really end up with any non-work long-term acquaintances. --- To answer OP's question, I prefer cities because public transport schedules are less impractical, and delivery of things other than mail is not all that great outside cities. Semi-decent internet access and access to an electrical grid that doesn't wildly fluctuate on warm or windy, nevermind stormy, days.

>>19370 >Start with meetup.com, facebook groups and google. I don't own government tracking device to even sign up to those places.

>>19273 After being in a highly urban environment for almost ten years I went back to the countryside, where I grew up, and man it feels liberating. I have the time and psychological power to do so much more. I feel less dependent on the system and also more impactful in my community. I don't have to care so much about grinding in works I don't like, since I can cultivate my food at an extend, and the less stressful life makes me have less needs. So I have the time and energy to cook, fix my house. I can be in the nature for resetting my brain a lot easier. Cities are good and all but then I always felt they sucked all my energy. Maybe it's just me. On the other hand I miss the hackerspaces, the people we like the same things, the whole "always moving" attitude. But given I can socialize with such people on the wired, makes the loss a lot more bearable and I think I want to spend the rest of my life in a less populated place. Then again, only time will tell.

>>19384 I've been living in a very wealthy area of a major urban center with multiple restaurants etc. that I frequent regularly for 3 years. I probably walk around this area for 2 hours a day, minimum. In that time, I have had conversations with four people other than service personnel, all of whom were at least 20 years older than me. Sad fact is, if you don't have a "group" by, say, 25, you're probably never going to. Being alone marks you in an invisible way, and once you have the mark, society sort of naturally rejects you like white blood cells reject viruses. There really is no point in "going out" unless you're doing it with a group- because if you're on your own, you automatically start at a staggering disadvantage every time, just purely in terms of your position relative to the "ingroup." You have to understand- especially if you're a man, that tens of thousands of years of biology have programmed your fellow humans to view someone who is on their own as - broken - dangerous - untrustworthy - evil Even if people say this isn't true, or that they don't believe it, that's meaningless- it's hard-coded into the deepest parts of our most primitive tribal brain. If you are a loner, you are outcaste- associating with you is taboo. No one is going to help you, no one is going to care about you, you will live a hard life, you will be abused, you will be taken advantage of, you will experience a disproportionate amount of pain compared to others, and you will probably die alone. There's no point in getting mad about it, I guess- it's only natural for humans to "circle the wagons" when hard times come along; but we all have to be realistic, and admit that there probably isn't going to be any sort of opportunity for the overwhelming majority of us to become a part of any of "the circles." Take a moment to look objectively at the present situation: - Almost all locations and events where one might meet new people (concerts, bars, sporting events, conferences, clubs) are shut down indefinitely. - In most places, everyone must cover their face when around strangers. Not only is it extremely difficult to develop rapport with a masked individual, let alone attraction, the primitive brain automatically reacts to masked individuals as threats. - Even in places which are open (restaurants, bars, cafes), almost all individual seating has been closed- the presence of individuals is still tacitly allowed, however there is a marked negative social pressure attendant with being the only person sitting at a 4 or 6 person table in a room filled exclusively with groups of 2-6 people. - Governments and corporations are doing their best to incite "fear of the Other-" i.e. encouraging the "social marking" of people who are not in alignment with the "prevailing conditions" of the system. For example, people who are not wearing masks, people who are not traveling in a group, people who have not had a COVID test, people who have (or have not) virtue-signaled in a particular way, etc. - The overwhelming majority of society, spanning generations and economic segments, have opted to embrace "social media" as a replacement for "social interaction." The current conditions have exacerbated this problem by driving almost all "group activities" into a purely virtual space. To all appearances, nobody is particularly bothered by the fact that this has occurred. - Attendant to the above point, persons who are not "on the grid" in the common sense are entirely cut off from these "(para)social activities." Since these people do not generate data which can act as "proof of social stake," they are viewed with suspicion by all participants. As "social credit" systems (up to and including the proposed "universal ID" chips) gain ever more power and traction (keep in mind that ALMOST ALL human interaction occurs via the wired now), this problem will only get worse, until the critical point where being alone is made functionally illegal. There's a lot more to be said on the subject, but my overriding point is that I've yet to find a ray of hope in this, and I really don't know how many more years I can spend staring at the silent horror of it all. Let me tell you younger folks out there- it does not get better for most; many of you will spend another decade in an unfeeling world with nothing and no one to show for it. It's all luck- 100%, and if you're sitting here reading this, chances are you're not one of the lucky ones, and you should try to come to terms with that, if that's even possible. -Robinson Crusoe

>>19453 I pretty much had the same exact experience at community college, where it was pretty much it was either you had your friends from high school or none. also many of them just seemed to not like being there lol I tried for half a semester to see if i could even talk to anyone since i did get bored of the usual routine and yea the only luck i had were only a couple girls who thought i was hitting on them(wasnt interested) and a nerdy dude(shouldve actually tried hanging out with him after class ended/was not thinking). I will say though i did get some amusement from time to time and i was never really a social person to begin with So it really cant be helped......

>>19524 Its a shame you didn't try hanging out with the nerdy dude, you could have made a genuine long lasting friendship out of that.

>>19453 Its a good analysis, i dont think it will be better, in urban areas especially. Id say around 30 life is locked on its track in most aspects, especially social. Id rather bet things will get a lot more online and social groups will be even more locked in, i observed this with my "friends". My only hope is that humans lock themselfs in their little bubble that the urban cancer doesnt grow further out of control and they slowly die down. Seriously though being a loner may suck, but the grass is always greener on the other side, i have friends but now that i have grown wiser over the years id say people are soykaf. Obviously if people werent such close minded egomaniacs soykaf like what is going on would have never happened nor would anyone allow this to happen. This is just gonna get a lot worse, unrest, disease and famine will only increase while the means of survival will decrease massively. Not to mention now that the covid scare is out of control smart cities will control measures everywhere will be popping up like mushrooms.

>>19526 personally nerdy dudes tends to be in some trash stuff on the side. If it's not crossdressing/traps/lolis/furrys/nerd TV then color me suprise

I was raised in the country. I know how to churn butter and milk a cow and raise chickens and fix a tractor and all that good soykaf. I'm glad I moved around through cities, though. As long as there's some scrap of it that's cheap enough to become a little underbelly with that city culture, I'm fine. Condo towns with nothing but faggy breweries and coffee shops and artisanal bullcrap do not count. I've lived in NYC, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Mexico city. Bangkok is the best imo. I love the sprawl. I never got lonely. You have to know how to move through such a place. One can always find a pickup basketball game or get laid somewhere. There's always a way to make some cash. If you screw it all up, it's big enough to blend right back in and start over. Drugs are way better, too. Sure got tired of meth and crappy backyard weed in the country. And even during covid or other disasters, it's just too dense and convoluted to shut down everything. There's still places to find and explore. I still go out to the country often. If things got truly bad, I have the option of hiding out there. I could raise livestock and sit on the porch with my papaw's old Thompson gun (he had one grandfathered in from before the full auto ban) and ride out whatever. Life is an adventure. Do both. Don't choose.

small country towns easily. living in the city our whole lives, people really lose their touch with nature. considering that, it's no wonder so many people are suicidal or are so dysfunctional. if the apocalypse came, no one from cities would survive because they don't know how. but that's just a hypothetical anyway. the greatest threat to a human today is another human

>>19531 What is a nerd in your view? My friendgroup was into mtg, wh and other nerdshit but also were going to the gym together and some did combat sports. I think those stereotypes are just tv memes because the people i met fit none. I admit i have my own prejudices though, group offered me to make a zombie game with them because i was one of the few who already finished a game project but i thought zombies were such generic crap and didn't try. In hindsight the experience itself would have been good to make further connections.

>>19629 Sounds like a bad city. There's lots of different types of nature within walking distance from my place. And I've spent time in other cities that feel similarly. Most of which aren't even known for having nature.

>>19453 Dog bless USA

>>19647 i'll assume you go to parks or similar nature oases which are in pretty much every city. this to me is not nature at all. i hate parks. nature should not be surrounded by concrete and smell like gas. i probably just live in a larger city than you. there are some 40k people in my general area.

>>19674 There should be general understanding separating artificial parklets and parks, natural but human-managed urban forests, and last the regular forests with very low human presence. Which one is yours? And well, a big highway or busy street makes every piece of greenery equally miserable due to noise pollution.

>>19678 >There should be general understanding separating artificial parklets and parks, natural but human-managed urban forests, and last the regular forests with very low human presence. there are even tiers within the 'regular forests with very low human presence' group. E.G. in Yellowstone there are some parts that are pretty much permanently inhabited and have electricity, 24/7 lighting, parking lots, that kind of thing, other parts (called 'bear country' I think) where there are no official trails and humans are encouraged not to enter. I tend to agree that parks are not a connection to the natural world except in the case of very large parks, and even then the connection is very shallow. Better than nothing but nowhere near the feeling of going up to the backcountry and watching things actually behave how they would with almost no human intervention. I really wish noise pollution was more widely recognized as a problem. If I had my way, I would turn off every noise-producing device in my home for at least 5 hours a day and live at least 1 km from the nearest busy street.

>>19680 Not only that, but light pollution is a huge problem. most people today have never seen a genuine night sky

>>19689 yes indeed. I was just talking about this with my friend recently, actually. He grew up in a big city and had never been camping far from a city until recently.

>>19689 >>19694 I didn't know what the Milky Way was until I was 25 thanks to living in an urban area.

>>19698 i was in the exact opposite situation. growing up i always wanted to see it but never had the chance to. i say definitively that that killed all my ambitions for space even if i was still deathly interested in it