> : I have lived in the "woods" my entire life, so I have no dog in this fight. Do we seriously support shitty logic like the OP mentions? Anecdatae is not data.

If you've lived in the woods, you have no anecdata to support your conclusion either. However, there have been a raft of papers and other material related to governance in the past 15 years that describe the benefits of urban living and how to make it better. Further, the historical reality is that seeing Nature as better in the West is a strictly post-1800 phenomenon, being based out of the Romantic philosophical movement ( http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness... ). Historically, nature was untamed; the proper place for man was in the cities.

Look: we have n billion people on this planet. Do you want them all up in the woods, paving it over, adding gas stations, walmarts, and so forth - polluting it with french fries, used condoms, and the detrius of modern society? Or would it be better for us to build a sustainable world only in the cities, and leave the woods to go walking in for refreshment and experience? I choose the second.

> I choose the second.

Bully for you. But not everyone wants to live in cities. If you want to, fine. Personally, I'm no fan of suburbs and prefer either a Tier 1 city or the country (or at least exurbs).

I can certainly appreciate that. It seems to me that American suburbia as such has none of the virtues of either a first-rate city or of can-see-the-stars roll-in-the-hay countryside, but the downsides of both. It's a worst-practical antipattern.

Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that relying on my anecdatae was as fallacious as your conclusion that "the suburbs are unpleasant"?

Our limited data set is not enough to make any useful conclusions. My only gripe is making decisions with obviously shitty data.

Blanket statements are ignorant. Stop being so absolutist.