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).