this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
851 points (95.7% liked)

> Greentext

7549 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rural areas provide food and raw materials for the cities. That's their entire purpose.

If all people lived in a city as dense as Paris, they would all starve: Paris does not have a single farm producing food.

If all people lived in a city as dense as Paris, every manufacturer would be out of business due to lack of raw materials: Paris does not have a single mine.

If rural areas are destroying the planet, it is because the cities are demanding from those areas more than the planet can provide.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the cities

It's not cities doing that, it's capitalism.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Socialist cities make the same demands on rural areas that capitalist cities do. It's primarily a function of population density, not economic model.

At best, a square mile of farmland can feed about 6000 people. That's under ideal conditions and assuming vegetarians. Want a little meat in your diet, and 2500 is a more realistic number.

A square mile of Chicago contains about 12,000 people. That's 2 to 4.8 square miles of farmland for every square mile of city. Chicago is about 230 square miles.

A square mile of New York contains about 30,000 people. That's 5 to 12 sq miles of farmland for every square mile of city. New York is about 300 square miles.

A square mile of Paris contains about 53,000 people. 8.8 to 21.2 sq miles of farmland for every square mile of city. Paris is about 40 square miles.