I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc.

For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go for a hike, and a garden in my backyard.

If you are a city person, that's great, fantastic and I hope that you can stay there but if you have to move out to suburban/rural spaces, don't bring the city with you. Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.

> Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.

"The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.

> Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.

While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.

Cities aren't loud. Cars are loud.

Sirens and garbage trucks going all night are loud.

> a chance of dying every time I go for a hike

Sold where did you go

> way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment

What does that refer to?

Trouble is, wild areas are being destroyed to make room for suburbia.