> Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society.

That's fine, but cities like New York are not sustainable either. Ditto for commercial air travel, so the entire conversation is unproductive and pointless. It just degenerates into wealthy urbanites saying something along the lines of "You terrible suburb dwellers need to give up your unsustainable lifestyle and embrace our unsustainable lifestyle instead".

I'll take all of this more seriously when I start seeing environmentalists swear off things like commercial flight or eating food and wine that's been shipped halfway around the world. Until then, I'll enjoy my suburb and my car and my lawn with the picket fence.

> That's fine, but cities like New York are not sustainable either

CO2 emissions for households living in cities are noticeably lower (just goggle it).

> I'll take all of this more seriously when I start seeing environmentalists swear off things like commercial flight or eating food and wine that's been shipped halfway around the world

This is pure whataboutism and you know it. Just look at the co2 emissions of your lifestyle versus those of wine shipped from across the world.

And cities externalizing their problems to suburbia and ruralia, that’s just the way things have always been. Sure, ruralia cannot support vibrant and dynamic labor market, but cities cannot feed themselves, can’t get natural resources, and cannot even reproduce, fertility rates in cities being utterly abysmal, and depending on suburbia and ruralia to constantly replenish its human stock.

This kind of network of mutually codependent systems is just the way things are.

> Ruralia and Suburbia are not financially or environmentally sustainable, not as modern society.

You think your city is sustainable? Just two simple questions to put that lie to rest:

1. Where does your food come from?

2. Where does your water come from?

Food and water benefit from bulk transport to cities up to the last mile or less. Outside of cities everyone needs to travel individually to get food (growing up it was 5 miles and for some often much more!)

Who pays for that food and water?

It's all about money. More people have more money.

Is this a sustainability argument?

Well, yes. More people bunched up together use less CO2 for doing stuff and can pool expenses better.

The fact that we've pulled people out of agriculture and we can grow food for 100 with just 1-2 actually growing it is great for the planet, for the economy, for human development.

You cannot satisfy your most fundamental need for food and water.

“Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable.

If you don’t want to subsidize rural infrastructure through your tax dollars, then frankly, we should just charge you exorbitant rates for our food and water, and then — by your metric — we’ll be entirely financially sustainable, too.

> “Ruralia” is already entirely ecologically sustainable.

If you live largely "off the grid", grow much of your own food, don't go out much (since any going out means a lot of driving, if you're in the country), and rarely order goods delivery... sure.

I have some buddies who now make their own biodiesel. That makes the driving carbon neutral. I hope to do the same in the next few years, once I get my next vehicle (probably a diesel).

You say derisively that rural citizens expect urban technology to just come to them, but don’t forget that urban citizens expect the same of rural food.

Expect? I'm pretty sure they pay for it.

That urban technology is made by 10x the number of people rural food is made by.