Cities Objectively Better than Rural Areas?

[Guest xMikex]

My first post. Not sure where to post it so picked this area of the forum. This post is a result of discussion in the chat room. I said in the chat room that densely populated cities are objectively better than rural areas. Absolutely everyone in the chatroom disagreed with me. They said it was just my personal preference.

What do people here think?

By applying the principles of Objectivism, are cities objectively better than rural areas?

I would say that cities are objectively better than rural areas, in the same way that computers are objectively better than typewriters. Yes someone could have a personal context for preferring to live in a rural area (ie they are a farmer) or for using a typewriter (they grew up with them), but that doesn't change the nature of the fact that cities and computers are better for man's survival than rural areas or typewriters.

What I found strange was that the people in the chat room had up until that point in the conversation been intrinsicists, but then when i said that cities are better than rural areas they became subjectivists and said that my preference for cities was just my personal opinion.

Anyway, there is a chance I am wrong on this issue, which is why I post it here for clarification by people more knowledgeable about Objectivism than myself.

Looking forward to your replies.

[KevinDW78]

What I found strange was that the people in the chat room had up until that point in the conversation been intrinsicists

Please provide an example of this.

[Zip]

I'll ask again...

objectively better for whom?

by what standard?

By who's values?

Define "better"

[aleph_0]

I'm amazed at the number of Objectivists who seem indifferent or who dislike cities, but I can't argue that cities are the best for everyone at all times of their life. For an economist whose highest goal would be to work on Wall Street, living in a city with a large stock exchange would be best--but even then, if he's too young and can't afford to live there, it might not be the right decision. For a mechanic on the other hand, who does not have the intelligence or the will power to design new cars with a manufacturer, for example, might not be best served by being in a city. There is a demand for mechanics in rural areas too, though they may not be the highest caliber. But generally, if you're one of the best at something, it's good to congregate with others in your field and this is easiest in a city. Also, in my experience, cities have so many more activities that you cannot get anywhere else.

On the other hand, I also do a lot of rock climbing, and since I moved to New York I haven't been able to do any of it. Part of it is because I'm so busy (which is not unrelated to being in a city), and part of it is because rocks are far away. So it has some disadvantages to the person who likes outdoors stuff. But really, if you're truly amazing and you can invent something like a new mathematical system or discover some new theoretical physics, it would be irrational to just stay in a small town isolated from everything that can foster such accomplishments.

I suppose there could be (and are) small communities of intellectual elites outside of cities, and if these are appropriate for someone's life then that is perhaps what's best.

Painting with broad strokes, though, I would say cities are better.

[Capitalism Forever]

I have to second Zip: When you say "better," you have to say by what standard. The ultimate standard of value is man's life qua man, but that isn't specific enough to give an obvious answer to the question of whether cities or rural areas are better. I'm sure that given your personal circumstances and hierarchy of values, cities are objectively better, but you have to keep in mind that other people may have other circumstances in their lives that may make rural areas objectively better for them.

Also, you seem to imply that there is a a dichotomy here where there is in fact a trichotomy: You can live in the inner city, in a suburb, or in the rurals. A suburb is very different from the inner city, and as far as I'm concerned, a much better place to live. (And most of the wealthier people seem to agree with me!)

[D'kian]

I'm amazed at the number of Objectivists who seem indifferent or who dislike cities, but I can't argue that cities are the best for everyone at all times of their life.

Since Man is a being who adjusts the environment to adjust himself, the modern city is the ultimate expression of what environment Man finds ideal. Living in a city, especially a large city, is very convenient. You have almost everything you can possibly want within easy reach and at reasonable prices. If you consider the suburbs a part of the city, then you even have wide open spaces and tranquil areas (not that I find cities to be overly noisy during night-time).

then again there are a myriad problems unique to cities as well. Traffic being the foremost. Every citizen, in the original meaning of the word, knows almost every possible route to frequent destinations, and uses every one of them sooner or later in an effort to beat the traffic. I estimate the success rate at about 50%. And sometimes traffic just can't be beaten (hell, last night it took me 1 hour and 40 minutes to go 6 miles). There are noisy areas, dirty areas, air pollution tends to collect, a hazy atmosphere is common, there's too much lighting at night if you want to see the stars, etc etc.

But I still prefer cities. I've lived in a large city all my life (one of the largest cities in the world in fact). I've visited smaller cities and found them just as good. Small towns, though, I find lacking. Less so than in the past, but still so. For examle, traveling from a small town to almost anywhere first requires a trip to a city's airport or even a bus station. Certain products are harder to find, if they can be found at all. And there are less oprions for leisure activities such as museums, theaters, symphonies and even movies.

But there are other factors to consider. One's career is a very important one. If you want to raise sheep, then living in a city is a terrible idea. Small rural towns also tend to be quiet, without traffic, and less stressful overall.

[bluey]

Mike

I think that if you look closely at your analogy with the typewriters you'll see where your argument breaks down. You said:

I would say that cities are objectively better than rural areas, in the same way that computers are objectively better than typewriters. Yes someone could have a personal context for preferring to live in a rural area (ie they are a farmer) or for using a typewriter (they grew up with them)

It seems that from your perspective, cities are equated with "modern life" and rural areas are "old fashioned". I definitely know a lot of people who feel this way, who live in cities and just cannot imagine life any other way. Cities at other times in history were clearly a lot more "rural", before electricity and other things that really are trademarks of modern cities, so it's easy to see how people who are bored in the country just can't see how anything could be better. You see city life as the awesome new version of civilization - and once you have a newer awesomer version of something, who wouldn't rather upgrade?

Of course it's not really like that. The living standard across the board has increased with advances in technology. Depending on what you do you might make more or less in the city or the country, and for someone who's more comfortable with a few acres between them and the neighbours it makes perfect sense to go into a career they can pursue in a rural area.

The reason why it's a personal preference is because two people could make completely opposite decisions based on their values and make equally rational choices. The reason why people are disagreeing with you is that you are actually arguing that cities are intrinsically better than rural areas, presumably because that's how you feel about it. If this were so it would follow that everyone who was making a rational choice would choose rural life. Since there are many, many people who rationally choose rural lives, you can't say that one is any better objectively than the other. Even though, to you, cities are clearly better.

If I'm reading you wrong let me know. Basically the question to ask to see where your argument fails is "objectively better for whom", but I think that sometimes a choice just so obviously suits your values that you never bother to think through any other alternatives (and I think that's perfectly reasonable) and you can't help but want to answer "everyone!" However, that answer doesn't happen to reflect the reality that some people objectively think cities are awful (and not even just the awful cities).

[K-Mac]

There are things I love and hate about big cities and there are things I love and hate about rural areas, and I have lived in both in different states. That's why I choose the suburbs where everything is relatively new and nice, and crime and taxes are relatively low, real estate is affordable, commerce is plentiful, etc., and I'm 30 mins from city and 30 mins from country (or less.) The best of both worlds.

And many people have tried to explain their positions to you very nicely in chat, Mike, you just refuse to play nice.

[Jake_Ellison]

What I found strange was that the people in the chat room had up until that point in the conversation been intrinsicists, but then when i said that cities are better than rural areas they became subjectivists and said that my preference for cities was just my personal opinion.

I wasn't in the chatroom, so maybe you could provide an example of when they were intrinsicists, and we can discuss that.

In the mean time I think we can all agree that whether cities or rural areas are better depends on the definition of "better" in this case. If by better you mean better for people to live in, then I would say it depends on the person, and on what that person's purpose or goal is while living there.

For instance, if you want to be carrying a gun, hiking, fishing, hunting etc. a rural area is better for you. That is not a matter of personal opinion. Objectively, you don't want to be walking around with a gun in Chicago or New York, there also aren't any fish or game around, etc.

So, in this case, the problem wasn't that they are intrinsicists, the problem is twofold:

1. you haven't defined the word "better" correctly for them to make a choice, so they should've refused to make a choice and asked for clarification, instead of saying it is a matter of personal taste (even though, depending on your definition of better, it could be a matter of taste).

2. You may be confusing being principled with being an intrinsicist.

Objectivists believe that it is important to act on principle, but not that objects have intrinsic value, independent of men.(given to them by some kind of deity)

Value is not a primary concept: for us to grasp that something is a value, we have to see it as a value to something, relative to some goal that thing is pursuing. For instance a city is a value to people ( the something), if they wanna be close together to do business, party, communicate (the goals) etc.

In conlusion a city cannot be objectively better than a village, because "value" is not a primary concept.

As far as the intrincisism in the chatroom, i'd love to discuss that if you give us an example.

[Myself]

cities and computers are better for man's survival than rural areas or typewriters.

Man's survival? What are you talking about?

[eriatarka]

Ive always lived in a big city and while I'm pretty adapted and would choose city-life over rural, theres a lot of problems with them (which to be fair may not be intrinsic to cities, and probably have more to do with modern Western 9-5 lifestyles). In particular, the dehumanizing effects of navigating the city in rush-hour (especially on public transport which is the only feasible way to get around anyway), and the isolation and total lack of any local community spirit that comes from not knowing your neighbours.

In general I think that cities are better from the standpoint of economic prosperity and increased access to consumer goods, job opportunities, nightlife, and (non-rural) leisure activities, but the trade-off is the risk of objectification/dehumanization. But again, I think its important to distinguish the things which are intrinsic to cities from the things which are specific to modern life and are changable.

Edited October 17, 2008 by eriatarka

[RationalBiker]

I would say that cities are objectively better than rural areas,

I bet there are a few farmers who would disagree with you.

As has been stated, values are subject to a valuer and a context. Cities do not have intrinsic value that is the same for everyone.

[Maximus]

As for myself, rural or suburban areas are better. I value open space, the peace and quiet, the lack of the glare of city lights (they make astronomy a bitch), and the ready access to hunting and fishing. I'm twenty minutes from a large metro area (Nashville) and fifteen from my uncles two hundred acre farm. My small city has plenty of commerce, resturaunts, and nightlife (if your interested in that, which I am not), and a major university (MTSU - largest student body in the state). I enjoy my privacy, and would live further out, but my wife likes it here, so I compromised. I don't care for big cities, the noise and bustle gets on my nerves quick.

[Jake]

I would say that cities are objectively better than rural areas, in the same way that computers are objectively better than typewriters. Yes someone could have a personal context for preferring to live in a rural area (ie they are a farmer) or for using a typewriter (they grew up with them).

A "personal context" does not entail subjectivism or preclude an objective valuation. Objective values are inextricably linked to their proper contexts. You could similarly argue that engaging in regular aerobic exercise is objectively better than not, but this would be wrong in the generalized context of all humans. There are people with heart conditions for whom such exercise is life-threatening; for them aerobic exercise might be objectively worse. If you narrow the context (e.g. to humans with healthy hearts), then it might be true. In this example, the heart condition is not a subjective whim, but a metaphysical fact about certain people which is contextually integral to how they value aerobic exercise.

[Guest xMikex]

Thanks for the replies. You guys are right.

The city is way better for me. Take tomorrow - I have a whole day planned of art museums and war museums. Followed by Thai food and then a comedy club. Cities rule.

[Guest xMikex]

On a related question,

Rand obviously liked cities more. I in an interview she was asked something like "Don't you like to look up at the stars?" and she replied something like "No. I never have."

Is not liking the stars another of Rand's optional values? Ie this is not a part of Objectivism, but only her personal opinion based on her specific context?

[Jake_Ellison]

On a related question,

Rand obviously liked cities more. I in an interview she was asked something like "Don't you like to look up at the stars?" and she replied something like "No. I never have."

Is not liking the stars another of Rand's optional values? Ie this is not a part of Objectivism, but only her personal opinion based on her specific context?

I think you may be cofusing Ayn Rand with God, or some kind of Messiah.

Again, objects do not have intrinsic value (not even if they had value to Ayn Rand personally, or Jesus, Al Gore, Aristotle, or some made up God for that matter), not to mention that even if you leave the problem up to personal preference, cities are very different: you might like New York or Vancouver, if you're the cosmopolitan type, but I doubt you'd care much for Jalalabad, Karachi or the charming Kinshasa, DRC.

[Capitalism Forever]

I in an interview she was asked something like "Don't you like to look up at the stars?" and she replied something like "No. I never have."

I think it may be the Phil Donahue interview that you have in mind, where when they talked about belief in God, Donahue asked her if the stars didn't fill her with awe, apparently thinking that that ought to serve as an "inspiration" to believe in a supernatural creator. Miss Rand replied that she was much more in awe of great man-made achievements. (I'm writing this from memory, so it's much more of a paraphrase in my own words than an exact quote.)

It's odd that some people like to derive faith from the stars, since I've always seen them--given what we know of them thanks to science--as a refutation of the Christian worldview. At least of the primitive, pre-Copernican worldview that put God into the heavens, literally above our heads. The knowledge achieved by science that the space above us is not occupied by God and angels but by the Moon, the Sun (during daytime), by spaceships and satellites, and by distant stars which are themselves like our Sun, inspires me with an admiration for science and the principle that science is based on--the Primacy of Existence and the Law of Identity--and to a dismissal of the superstitious, irrational mentalities that invent fictitious entities to put into the sky.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Just realizing what we had to do to figure all that out is itself awe-inspiring. Look what we started with: working eyeballs, a brain, and (on the grand scale of things) a very unusual environment that is going to prejudice us. Just for instance, Newton's three laws are *very much* counter to our daily experiences which include an atmosphere, friction, and gravity, all of which will prevent objects in motion from continuing in motion along that line. It is only by realizing these are forces that one realizes those laws actually do apply.

[K-Mac]

Here's an intereseting quiz and Pew research study on whether or not people are happy where they live.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/communityquiz/

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1096/community...tion-top-cities

I am very happy with the suburban town I live in. It happens to be just south of the city ranked number one. I thought that was kinda interesting.

[Jake]

I've said for years that Denver is the only city in a land-locked state to which I would consider moving.

[K-Mac]

This is about states rather than cities, but still an interesting poll. I noticed New York is last in attracting people. I guess most don't care for the Big [fat, bloated, dirty, socialist] Apple or the rest of the state.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/stickystate.php

[JMeganSnow]

Interesting that Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all low attractiveness but very high stickiness--and West Virginia is the only dead-even state.

[KendallJ]

Interesting that Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all low attractiveness but very high stickiness

Maybe that means they attract only a very certain, unique sort of individual.

[Greebo]

*poof*

Never mind

I see how the bases are derived now.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Greebo