Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 23:57:09 UTC No. 16158366

because we still have land we can sit on

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 00:01:32 UTC No. 16158369

>>16158366
This. It's like asking why we're not making soda cans out of moon aluminum (almooninum). We could if we really wanted, but it's harder and the cons outweigh the pros.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 01:22:49 UTC No. 16158423

Cities are a meme. They produce zero resources, and in Western cities frequently have zero industries outside of a subsidized remnant - if that. Financialization has destroyed any purpose for cities and they are nothing more than a real estate scam. We'll see the collapse of large urban centers in the near future.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 07:47:45 UTC No. 16158679

>>16158423
Major urbanism has been the great evil throughout history, not just since financialization. Cities are population sinkholes that depend on importing migrants to sustain themselves. Sounds familiar? That's how it's always been. That's how it was in Rome, that's how it was in Constantinople, that's how it will always be, no matter how "trad" you are and how matter pro-fertility policied you try to enact. The cities are evil.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 07:49:57 UTC No. 16158682

>>16158423
>They produce zero resources
you must be brainded. the city environment makes for getting more resources to be possible. if you don't understand that get a brain transplant

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 07:54:12 UTC No. 16158685

>>16158682
Only when compared with the technical old definition of ruralism, which is an isolated country house. Wyoming is 65% urban according to the Census.
The evil lied in the major mega-cities. In those areas, stuff is consumed, but not produced.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 07:56:34 UTC No. 16158686

>>16158365
sea water is extremely corrosive and there are next to no functional advantages big enough to living on water vs. land to justify the maintenance cost. Also niggers.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 07:57:09 UTC No. 16158687

>>16158685
well I wanted to fight you on it but indeed thinking about it the purpose was for people to be closer to work and shit. but with the job loss to AI and remote work, I guess super dense mega-cities are not as required, functionally speaking. I'll think about it.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 08:11:16 UTC No. 16158692

>>16158687
It's always been like this. Cities in general have enabled genuine growth, but mega-metros are sinkholes that rely on constant migration. The effect has been exacerbated by financialization, digitalization, industry offshoring, and the shift to a service economy.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 09:09:03 UTC No. 16158729

>>16158365
Its called Mexico Venice and Chingchong latenight TV on the discovery Channel S.E.A.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 09:57:54 UTC No. 16158759

>>16158423
>They produce zero resources
Don't have to. A minority of the global population produces enough for the whole world to consume. The rest of humanity is kept busy providing services and gets a piece of paper in return to trade rations of these resources. What's the problem with skyscrapers full of bookkeepers living in pods kept alive by a factory farm a hundred miles away? Oh let me guess: you want each person have his own mini-farm? But what about the doctor? How does such specialization exist in amish utopia?

>We'll see the collapse of large urban centers in the near future.
On the contrary: mass immigration will make suburbs of rural towns and any land outside the megacities will be heavily regulated and unaffordable. Only farmers and elites will live rural. Everyone else will live in a pod.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 10:31:21 UTC No. 16158785

>duuudddee!! omg!!! i want to live in this picture i saw in a comic book!!!
>i need this!!!
this is like when a little kid sees an ad for some hfcs sweetened goyslop on tv and cries to it's mommy to buy it

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:30:38 UTC No. 16158879

>>16158785
tell us more about how your subconscious mind works. it's fascinating.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:37:30 UTC No. 16158886

>>16158365
like tenochtitlan? ask the spaniards.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 12:55:14 UTC No. 16158911

Plenty of unused land means building over water rarely makes sense. Once in a while a dense city will need to either fill in some water to expand land or build a floating structure but those are outliers.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:13:14 UTC No. 16158926

>>16158911
>uninhabitable mountain ranges
>negative 50 degrees arctic forests
>the fucking sahara desert

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:20:26 UTC No. 16158934

>>16158911
>actually we need even more density!!
fuck off, and stay out.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 13:45:14 UTC No. 16158956

>>16158365
We do.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 15:28:01 UTC No. 16159165

>>16158365
>Why can't we have cities that float on water?

We can... but WHY?
It is deliberately making everything harder.. why?
Until you have a good solid reason for it, there is no reason to do it.