Why do some "radical traditionalists" complain about urbanization and blame it on Modernity?

Why do some "radical traditionalists" complain about urbanization and blame it on Modernity?

Urbanization has been a problem since neolithic times.

Because they're autistic and have only the shallowest of knowledge about real history.

Urbanisation IS a problem. Cities encourage decadence and inhuman treatment of your fellow man.

Look at this happy little farmer, imagine if everyone lived a perfect agrarian life, wouldn't that be amazing?

>Urbanization has been a problem since neolithic times.
>urbanization is a problem

Yeah, I too hate specialists like surgeons, physicists, architects, engineers and such.
I wish we could all just grow grass and sleep under trees.

Because before modernity 75% of the population in Europe were living in a rural setting. As modernity took hold this number grew lesser and lesser. Going down a few percent every 200 years or so ( and occasionally going up majorly due to things like Rome's fall) is not nearly as severe as going from 75% of the population being rural to 75% Urban in the matter of a few hundred years.

Those aren't possible in small settlements?

Much of Western scientific, medical and cultural achievements were preserved and innovated in monastic settings.

Do some math. Whats percentage of the population are surgeons? 1 in 200000?
Well, if you have a village of 800 people, you probably won't have a surgeon.
And you most definitely won't have the full kit of specialists.

They accomplished all that because they had plebs running around doing the pleb work.

why is modernitiy viewed as the problem then? if city life is so bad, wouldn't 0 percent be ideal? also, urbanization was basically inevetable after the population growth caused by centuries of agricultural developement. seems to me that the root of the problem was the neolithic revolution, modernity is just a byproduct.

You do realize that not everyone thinks in "all or nothing" styled dichotomies right ? You can think that having a certain degree of something is bad without thinking that you should have absolutely none of it. For example, thinking that having 75% of your population in the military is bad does not entail thinking that having any military at all is bad.

> urbanization was basically inevetable after the population growth caused by centuries of agricultural developement

There was still room to spread out farms when mass urbanization took place. Our population growth has been far more insane since urbanization, and now it probably isn't possible to go back due to it.

Everything is so interconnected now that you probably dont have to live so close together anymore.

Which is why so many people complain they have to drive 2 hours to work every morning - because they chose to live further away from the rest.

Most traffic is in the inner city and more and more people work from home.

>more people work from home

Yeah, the amount tripled, from 0.0000001%, to 0.0000003%.
We are getting there. Utopia awaits.

Urbanization isn't a problem unless you have everyone living in big cities packed like lab rats.

The popularization of consumerism and middle class lifestyle in the past century has led to everyone wanting to pursue the urbanized middle class lifestyle instead of living off land like their ancestors did for numerous generations.

This will eventually lead to oversaturation of opportunities in the cities and pendulum will swing back to the countryside. Either that or we'll see the return or ancient Roman latifundias with the countryside being exclusively in the hands of oligarchy and corporations, with cheap rural wageslave workforce who owns no land and lives off its meager wages.

The quotas for settling in big cities should've been instituted long ago, now it's too late. You simply cannot have a well functioning society without well-developed rural areas.

13% of the working population in my country works from home.

>shortage of agricultural products because nobody lives in the country
>wages in the country rise
>people move to the country until a new equilibrium is reached between supply and demand

Have you ever taken an economics class?

There aren't as many people needed in the countryside because of mechanized farming and the pendulum is already swinging back with cities being seen as dirty more and more. Take a look at the UK where countryside housing is so expensive because hipster adults from the cities want to live there one month a year to write some shitty book.

You're assuming that A) the owners of the latifundia/government will LET them move to the countryside at all and B) being poor in the city won't cost less than living in the countryside.

As far as the US is concerned, we technically have a surplus of farm labor. We're a net exporter of food not out of altruism but because we just have so much fucking agricultural output that it will rot if we don't do something with it.

Not that I advocate a mass exodus to the big city (cities in the US are garbage for a lot of reasons) of course.

>You're assuming that A) the owners of the latifundia/government will LET them move to the countryside at all and B) being poor in the city won't cost less than living in the countryside.

Both of these are true, being how much lower cost of living is in the countryside.

It costs more per square foot to build a 10 story building than a 1 story building.

As long as this is the case, population density and cost of living will be connected.

This is why suburbs exist. Given that only 3% of the US workforce is involved in agriculture, that's where the average American is likely to stay.

But how would you defend yourself from an alien invasion?

>tfw no gf
>alchemy
>paleo
>hates lifting
so these are the faggots invading my Veeky Forums?

/thread

Because modernity has made urbanisation unavoidable. Even the wildest of countrysides have become mere sattelites of the urban. Just ask any midwestern farmer where his corn ends up (its in NYC and the west coast, feeding the urban masses invertsugars by the bucketload).

More importantly: Romanticism, also the idea that one individual might control enough of his surroundings to be "free" from the "degenerate" by sheer lack of competition.