Cities Objectively Better than Rural Areas?

[RachelColoredGlasses]

Let me complicate matters by interjecting idea of how cities *could* be. If there weren't things like zoning laws and building codes and such like, what sort of wonderful imaginings would have been realized in our cities?

People often prefer the solitude and serenity that only a rural home can give, currently. But how about if someone came up with a way to give the illusion of isolation in the center of the city?

People like their views and vistas, and what kind of views would be available if the skyscraper hadn't gone out of vogue?

The well-to-do, today, prefer to reside in the suburbs to escape from the grime and grind of city congestion. Is the city doomed to be eternally congested?

I see the question of who has it better, city-mouse or country-mouse as one without a satisfying answer as long as we regulate the economy.

(Oo, oo, oo! And what about cities in space? I want to ride the bean-stalk up to my home in orbit! Would a wagon wheel habitat be purely a city, or would it have aspects of country living?)

[rebelconservative]

Unless I have grossly misunderstood Objectivism, there is no 'Objective' standard of the "good life" only the principle that each person should live what he/she considers to be a good life? Thus if follows that cities can not be said to be objectively better than rural areas, it is a matter of preference.

However, I guess that it could be argued that cities are better places to maximise human potential and creativity, as specialisation is more easily achieved with a larger population and there are more cultural and economic options?

[Jake_Ellison]

However, I guess that it could be argued that cities are better places to maximise human potential and creativity, as specialisation is more easily achieved with a larger population and there are more cultural and economic options?

Nah, even that depends on the specialization one wishes to achieve. It would be tough to be a marine biologist for instance while living in Phoenix, AZ.

It's a silly title. There can only be a subjective answer to the question.

[rebelconservative]

Nah, even that depends on the specialization one wishes to achieve. It would be tough to be a marine biologist for instance while living in Phoenix, AZ.

It's a silly title. There can only be a subjective answer to the question.

But that is about the preferences and facilities of one city over another, the question was about cities vs rural areas and a generic city is much more likely to enable you to be a marine biologist than a generic rural area. There are significantly more options in "cities" than "rural areas" - even dry, arid Arizona State University in Phoenix has classes on oceanography, aquatic insects and marine conservation biology.

[Maximus]

Hard to be a farmer in the middle of New York City. Unless you want to plow up Central Park. Look Mommy, corn!