Controversial Discussions

[Farmer Mike S]

The way our society is currently set up, and just assuming there's no possibility of some crazy economic collapse, there really is no right or wrong answer on which lifestyle is better. So I would say it really balances out. Even though some of us go back and forth between country, city, and we can even throw in suburbs; most of us choose one. Some people are forced to choose one over the other, but for the most part, we choose where we like to live and the kind of lifestyle we follow. So once we get into personal opinion, everyone's obviously going to choose their lifestyle as the best because it's the best for them. You can probably tell, but I am pro-country, and this is what I prefer so I'm obviously going to think it's better because it's better for me. We already brought up arguments on sustainability, but if we go back to the original argument of city life vs. country life in the current situation we are in, there is no true answer on better lifestyle. Like I said, that's based in individual opinion.

If we base on sustainability, city life is unsustainable by itself, but most country life is. Even some country life is unsustainable for large populations, because it relies on things like fossil fuel equipment and fertilizers and pesticides. But there would likely be enough food capable of being produced to support a family and even a community. Now this is a completely different topic. Like someone pointed out, I wouldn't be using the internet without city life. That's also a different argument too, but just like mine, it does have a point. I'm relying on the internet as a tool, but I likely wouldn't have it in a society where we are self reliant and trades people. But then again, if I did live in that society, I may not even have need for the internet. Very interesting discussion, you guys go the gears in my head turning

 

[Fierlin1182]

Who missed history class?!

*raises hand and grins maniacally*
You are obviously quite knowledgeable on this subject. I am not, I was just putting my ideas out there, so thank you for taking the time to enlighten those of us who never learnt these things, or didn't learn them comprehensively.

However, I am horrified by the suggestion that things should go back to the way they were in ancient history, as if all the advancements of the past few millenia have been a load of bollocks.

Bens-Hens makes a good point: "The old way is history" through progression, if it worked for everyone we would still be doing it that way.

However, I feel that my presence in this discussion will no longer be of much merit to anyone involved, as nobody's opinion is going to change overnight just because some random stranger on the internet has provided arguments to the contrary. I have nothing to contribute to the conversation about farming or rural life and issues they involve, sustainability in a farming context or the evolution of civilisation. I could contribute oodles about cities, industry and technology but I have a feeling nobody really wants to hear about these things.

However, I will read along as I think it's important to be aware and consider other people's viewpoints (would we have accomplished anything if nobody thought about things differently? We'd still be living primitive lives, although it appears that this suggestion isn't all too shocking to some. While I can understand some arguments for the lifestyle of the 'olden days', I will never be able to support this opinion because it goes against almost everything I believe in about the world today.) and I might learn more interesting facts along the way.

(Besides, I kind of need to study... no more hours spent bantering on internet forums about something which will only make me unpopular on a forum I enjoy being a part of. Even with all the country people here. )

 

[Fierlin1182]

This brings me to another point, the whole idea of rural people 'needing' city people. Rural folks don't need city folks. Now it's all tied together economically, but if worst came to worst, people wouldn't die for want of money, they'd die for want of food. Farm > city in terms of importance.

We're not all self-righteous ignorant folk in the city (WOW, when did this stereotype get reversed?! BYC must really be something special. ) - see my long post on page 4, where I acknowledged this point exactly. Things get a bit hazy when it comes to my knowledge on history, but I might actually know a few things about the world today, along with my city-dwelling comrades. However much of a surprise this comes as!!!

 

[Fierlin1182]

Everyone producing everything for themselves isn't really something that happened in most societies. People traded and bartered for extras while producing all their own staples. For example the people farming lush land had all the vegetables etc they needed but also needed salt, seaweed, etc from other places and would share their produce with those who harvested those natural products from such places. People exchanged goods so everyone had what they needed.

If you're talking about a family of 6 people providing their own necessities, it's not the case that every single person plants their own patch of every vegetable they need, and keeps their own flocks, in most cases there was a single family garden and a family group of animals tended in part by everyone, kept for everyone's benefit, but usually with everyone having their own specific roles and areas of expertise. For those things they couldn't obtain themselves they would trade or barter or use some kind of financial system to obtain from traveling merchants.

Doctors were paid likewise, and of course worked for 'free' within their own families, because it was just another job around the place that had to be done. Nobody really worked for free because everything was in common; everyone worked for everyone's benefit. Everyone used to be a jack of all trades. Nobody was 'just' a farmer, which actually is many jobs rolled into one anyway. Only comparatively recently have trades separated and become so specialized, compartmentalized and totally money oriented.

This is not some guess at how humans used to live, it's known and proven history, and still is the way some more primitive tribes live. A further self-education in primitive societies would benefit some people enormously and answer these sorts of basic historical questions, as well as provide some fascinating views into history. In some places the educational system is a literal joke and you must educate yourself, because the system certainly won't.

Interesting facts. We can definitely learn things from history, but I think that it's important to realise the majority of the world aren't and won't be returning to this sort of life anytime soon. Even if there were a way, there certainly wouldn't be a will. (I'm not including the case of the economic meltdown here). In many places, the country lifestyle is seen as undesirable and a mark of the poorest of the poor, and people only farm and live rurally out of necessity. It's the biggest dream of some families to send their children to the city so they can "become something bigger" and join the modern age. We have to look to the future and plan based on what we have now while taking lessons from history, not throw away everything we've gained over the history of civilisation and start again.

While I don't doubt that this sort of society did exist - certainly not a wild guess! - I wasn't actually referring to it in my post, I was attempting to elaborate on what would happen in a society where it really was each family for themselves, and there was no trading or bartering. If we do include trade in the discussion, then all of my points in the posts you quoted would of course be rendered invalid.

"In some places the educational system is a literal joke and you must educate yourself, because the system certainly won't."
Good point! I agree with this, on more aspects than history. I think it's the case with all subjects and topics. The education system isn't controlled by the majority of people. What students learn and how they learn it isn't up to them or some sort of unbiased observer. It's up to people who control the system, and they of course would want future generations to grow up not having the capability to challenge the system and throw them out of power.

 

[Fierlin1182]

The modern concept and lore of health care is developed from the ancient and primitive, not pulled out of thin air like a magic trick, or recently invented. There are many recent discoveries but medicine itself is ancient.

I think I vote for modern medicine though. I for one am glad that medicine has come as far as it has, and many ailments can be treated with increased success rates and ease.

It's interesting to see how so many scientific advances these days are based on phenomena found in nature. There's certainly a wealth of knowledge to be gained from putting more resources into studying (and protecting!) nature.

Western medicine is even very different from others such as Chinese medicine, which is based more predominantly on plants and natural substances. There's a lot of variety, and it's a good thing that medicine has developed in many different directions over the centuries.

 

[Fierlin1182]

I can't speak for every country, but currently, if every city here was wiped out, the farming industry would shrivel and die quite quickly.

Ironic how this would happen but the iron ore industry probably wouldn't. So much of it goes overseas as it is.

Your post was good, I agree with a lot of the things you said.

 

[Chickerdoodle13]

I do have to laugh sometimes when people talk about how good things were in the "old days". I guess maybe some people would have to live in the old days to see they weren't really that great at all. Medicine was rudimentary. People lived short lives. No air conditioning. No heat. No cars in many cases. I think people take a lot for granted these days, and really don't know what they have until they lose it all. I know I very much enjoy all the comforts of modern life, even if it means I have to shop at a grocery store instead of raising my own food.

I do think it would be good for people to learn how to plant their own veggies and fruits and how to keep some animals for food - even if its just on a hobby scale. I would love to see chickens in every yard.

 

[Rosa moschata]

The way our society is currently set up, and just assuming there's no possibility of some crazy economic collapse, there really is no right or wrong answer on which lifestyle is better. So I would say it really balances out. Even though some of us go back and forth between country, city, and we can even throw in suburbs; most of us choose one. Some people are forced to choose one over the other, but for the most part, we choose where we like to live and the kind of lifestyle we follow. So once we get into personal opinion, everyone's obviously going to choose their lifestyle as the best because it's the best for them. You can probably tell, but I am pro-country, and this is what I prefer so I'm obviously going to think it's better because it's better for me. We already brought up arguments on sustainability, but if we go back to the original argument of city life vs. country life in the current situation we are in, there is no true answer on better lifestyle. Like I said, that's based in individual opinion.

If we base on sustainability, city life is unsustainable by itself, but most country life is. Even some country life is unsustainable for large populations, because it relies on things like fossil fuel equipment and fertilizers and pesticides. But there would likely be enough food capable of being produced to support a family and even a community. Now this is a completely different topic. Like someone pointed out, I wouldn't be using the internet without city life. That's also a different argument too, but just like mine, it does have a point. I'm relying on the internet as a tool, but I likely wouldn't have it in a society where we are self reliant and trades people. But then again, if I did live in that society, I may not even have need for the internet. Very interesting discussion, you guys go the gears in my head turning

This brings me to another point, the whole idea of rural people 'needing' city people. Again, before there were cities, there were family groups supporting themselves. Rural folks don't need city folks. Now it's all tied together economically, but if worst came to worst, people wouldn't die for want of money, they'd die for want of food. Farm > city in terms of importance.

If you think current "country life" without technology would allow "sustainable life" you're either not thinking your argument through, or you're kidding yourself. "Oh, but we can raise our food." Cool -- where are you getting the seeds? How are you planting them? How are you irrigating them? How are you harvesting them? Oh, and livestock -- what will you use to keep them contained? Are you going to start mining and refining metals to make your own nails for your fences? How will you begin that task -- digging with rocks?

We are interdependent at this stage of the game. As a "city person", it gets rather tiresome to keep seeing all these claims about "country people are better". You're not. I'm not. We're all equal. I can do things you can't, and vice versa. Together, we make life livable.

P.S. I wonder how a thread like "The funniest thing a country person ever said to you" would go over here. Being a "city person" member who answers a lot of questions for "country people" on this forum, I have a lot of material. But I am secure enough with myself not to feel the need to put down other people for things they don't know.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/161061/funniest-things-a-city-slicker-has-ever-said-to-you

 

[Fierlin1182]

Like I said earlier, what concerns me about society is that you have people that don't know how to work a lawn mower, can't identify 10 plants, etc. I see more and more of this as time goes on.

The educational system I can go on a rant about all day. I already mentioned earlier how they're taking people out of the trades, so I won't go off on that. I find most of what I do learn in school useless because we are simply taught something and tested on it; it's never really applied to real life. I can memorize a math problem and write it on a test, but how's that gonna help me if I don't really know what it does?

I feel completely useless right now (just kidding, I don't sell myself short like that, just as I'm sure others don't who can't do complicated maths problems but can build things with their hands) You're pretty much describing me. I can do and know a lot of maths and science, some of which hasn't even been around for more than a few decades, but I'd have no idea how to run a petrol lawn mower (ours is electric, you just plug it in and press the button so I can do that, lol) or build anything out of wood. However, by no means am I, or people like me, disadvantaged in any way because of it, due to people with such a wide variety of knowledge and skills having an important place in society. The builder needs an engineer to design and maintain a building/plant and the engineer needs someone with the skills to carry out his plans. Rosa moschata is absolutely right, there are a lot of things which simply wouldn’t be possible without those people who sit in offices all day, write papers and consume resources. I find maths and science fascinating and I have little or no interest (or knowledge) in trades. I think it's good to have a variety of people in society; people who can make things and make them work as well as people who know the theory behind things, as this is so relevant to developing new technology and keeping what we have running.

 

[Fierlin1182]

They also tell us "what to think" rather than how to open up your mind and figure something out. Schooling is based on taking facts and memorizing, less of actually finding the facts. I really like the way my residential construction teacher teaches his class; we are working on SIP panel dog houses, and he basically told us how to make the panels and how they are put together. But all I'm given is two 4x8 panels, and I have to figure out how to turn these two panels into a doghouse. It actually requires me to think more rather than just be given plans, and I feel I learn more this way.

I'm not sure about what course or school you're doing/in, but I did the IB Diploma and this most certainly involved a great deal of critical thinking. An emphasis was actually placed on teaching students how to think, and how to stay open-minded and consider all evidence for a particular argument. Of course, the nature of some subjects such as maths or physics, or even geography, meant that we needed to memorise lots of facts. But research into these facts and discussion on new or alternative theories was also an important part of the syllabus.

Needless to say, the most "outside the classroom" subject offered by my school was Dance, and only two or three people took that. We are a snotty bunch by some standards, but I value my education! I think it's shown me a lot about the world I wouldn't know otherwise, had I been doing self-directed learning. (there was a colossal amount of material involved, I'd never have found it all myself, even if I had the time.)

Your class sounds great, those things are very important to learn too! There are technical colleges like Tafe here, and we have an agricultural high school in the city (they learn about crops and animals and the economics of farming, and do things like raise cows for the Show ).

Good luck with your studies and your goals.