Rural Nature Lover Paradox

[urbpan]

People who love Nature (in my most optimistic moments I imagine that this includes a majority of people) of course like to be surrounded by it. Often nature lovers are repelled by cities, and take effort to instead live in the countryside or surrounded by wilderness.

But living outside of the city causes a greater environmental impact: Trees must be cut down, roads must be built, and resources are sent out through diffuse networks. Rural people use more energy heating and cooling their homes, getting to and from work as well as running simple errands. As the population increases, whole non-urban communities are created, paving over wilderness and paving the way for more cars, more houses, more development.

In order to live where you are surrounded by natural beauty, one must participate in a system (development of rural areas) that is slowly and surely destroying that beauty.

Discuss.

Comments

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

I like nature. It's interesting, beautiful, and serves as a reservoir of biodiversity for things that *gasp* just don't get along well with human development.

That being said, I'm content to surround myself with domesticated nature: rose bushes, shade trees, parks, those sorts of things. I'm perfectly happy to travel to visit the wilder version of nature when I become too much of a misanthropist. Though forests or deserts are pretty, in and of themselves they can't meet my desire for convenience food, internet access, and higher education. As you rightly point out, by the time that infrastructure is in place, the forest or desert is no longer the wild and natural place it once was. By keeping Nature at arm's length, we actually value its wildness more because it takes a bit of effort to encounter.

Just because you live in a city doesn't mean you have to sacrifice being surrounded by natural things, it just takes more effort, particularly if you live in an apartment.

Hmm.

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

Yes, we dance on the horns of this dilemma, each and every one of us.

Those of us who do live in rural nature (and that includes me) can do a good deal to offset the impact we have on the local environment. I lived in a city for fourteen years before moving to this pre-existing and historic--albeit overgrown and neglected--farm, but I also did my homework in a big way before making this shift.

Before making the move to the rural life, I made sure that I'd be able to work directly from home, eliminating my commute. We made a point of choosing a pre-owned (used) home so that no new construction (other than replacing the barn that had collapsed) had to happen. We consulted soils maps and topo maps to make sure that the land here could fully sustain us and our livestock (apart from winter hay) and our planned crops. We are working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to plan and implement a sustainable layout for the farm, to eliminate any negative impact on the nearby wetland. We will become a certified organic farm, and the only fertilizer we use comes from our livestock's manure and from our compost heap. We are trying to figure out how we can finance a grid-tied solar array to power the farmhouse and the barn's electrical needs. Next spring we will begin collecting rainwater from the barn roof runoff to use exclusively for irrigating the garden beds. We are even planning on building a root cellar into an embankment where the old barn used to be, for the storage of root crops over winter.

We find that a huge number of wildlife fauna are attracted to and use our open land. Since we've cleared back the tangle, a lot more animals and birds have come to live here and raise their young, and we think that's a good sign. Meadow ecosystems can be particularly rich.

I realize that most folks aren't in my situation, and don't have a farm to provide for their dietary needs or a job that can be done from home. Still, by educating ourselves and actually doing something, ANYTHING, to alleviate the stresses we put on the environment, everyone can actually make a difference.

'Scuse me while I fall off my soapbox now. Time to feed the livestock, anyway . . .

-Diane

Re: Hmm.

[sin-agua.livejournal.com]

I realize you posted this over a year ago, but I'm just now finding it. And I wondered, how are things on your farm, a year later? I really have to admire the thought you've put into it. Do you have anyone besides you and your husband helping you tend the place? How many acres? Just very curious. It is a dilemma, indeed, how to best use nature and live in it, and allow other creatures to share it with us.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm. marmota monax has my dream home!

This post hit me close to home, as our landlord just decided to evict us, primarily due to our more sustainable living practices, including my registered Backyard Wildlife Habitat, that he and the grumpy neighbors don't like (though part of it is just that the landlord is a little crazy). So we have to move. I want to move to the "country" and work at home, like I've been dreaming of for years. David, on the other hand, can't decide what he wants. Originally he was all excited about moving to the wilderness, so I'm not entirely sure why he's postponing it now. He periodically mumbles something about life in the country not being as sustanable as being in the city. I say both can be good, if done thoughtfully. Sustainable transportation is clearly a key element. I like to bike, and we discovered a relatively inexpensive electric scooter than can go almost 20 miles on a charge, and I wouold only want to live somewhere that had at least a rudimentary public transit system. We've already got a very small solar power system (powering my computer right now!), and a windmill would be another good addition. Growing much of our own food is also something that we both want, so I'm looking into learning about permaculture, and David's already an expert when it comes to apple orchards (he lived/worked on one for a couple of years). I think a big stumbling block is that he's worried about what he'll do for work.

As for the ideal situation for the civilized world, I would suggest a design with lots of smaller cities scattered around about 5-15 miles apart (in New England, anyway) with very rural areas in between. The cities would be well connected to eachother with commuter and freight trains, lots of car-free roads, and a few all-vehicle roads. Some parts of the rural areas would be preserved for wildlife, while others would be used for farming and recreational use. This design would allow for some dense development while still letting people be near the wilderness and would be idea for efficient public transit. Suburban sprawl would be nearly eliminated. Oh, and the urban areas would also need to be filled with lots of urban nature!

Nova Scotia seems to be looking to doing some rezoning to encourage this kind of "transit hub" development. This policy was part of what encouraged us to buy land there (in a very rural area that is only about 4-5 miles from a fairly dense college town with plenty of public transportation). The government there seems to be very interested in making the province sustainable, which is cool.

More . . .

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

marmota monax has my dream home!

Believe me, it is a lot of very hard work to do all this on top of having full time careers. Long, leisurely vacations are completely out of the question. Even short, hurried vacations rarely happen. It's a trade-off to the accepted modern lifestyle.

. . .our landlord just decided to evict us, primarily due to our more sustainable living practices, including my registered Backyard Wildlife Habitat, that he and the grumpy neighbors don't like

I don't know 'em, but I HATE your landlord and neighbors. Sound like ChemLawn lovers. Grrrrr.

He periodically mumbles something about life in the country not being as sustanable as being in the city. I say both can be good, if done thoughtfully.

That is correct. Maybe you can do the change in less-overwhelming steps, rather than going cold turkey and whole hog.

a windmill would be another good addition.

We looked into windmills. They only work well in very specific and ideal locations. Ridgelines and hilltops are the best. Northeastern US valleys (like where my farm is located) are poor locations, for the most part. Unfortunately, ridgelines are often some of the last-holdout habitats for endangered/threatened flora and fauna species here in New England, so any kind of construction on ridgelines (including quarrying) has an enormous negative impact on the local ecosystems.

Coastal and off-shore windmills really should not be discounted. But I haven't seen impact studies or data on off-shore windmill construction . . .

I think a big stumbling block is that he's worried about what he'll do for work.

That is a huge issue. And hard to solve, sometimes. You may have to lower your expectations with regard to salary. And your purchasing patterns may have to radically change.

I would suggest a design with lots of smaller cities scattered around about 5-15 miles apart (in New England, anyway) with very rural areas in between. The cities would be well connected to each other with commuter and freight trains . . .

What you describe, with regard to smaller urban centers scattered around with very rural areas in between, is pretty much what the north central and northwest part of Massachusetts is like. The most important thing we lack here is good public transportation. The rail lines are still here and most are still very usable, but states don't like to invest in light commuter rail in the rural areas. One of the nearest exceptions to this is NY, which has/had a plan to expand Metronorth as far up the Hudson valley to Rhinebeck and perhaps even further north. I don't know if that plan ever came to fruition.

Best of luck with your future plans!

-Diane

[vyoma.livejournal.com]

If people were nature lovers who wanted to live surrounded by nature, then "development" wouldn't be necessary. Development is the defeat of nature, not living with it. The problem is not that people want to live with nature, but that people who have spent all their lives living in a big city don't really understand what nature is. When they think of nature, they think of trees and grass and maybe a few fluffy forest animals that don't dig up the yard or make a home in their attic. To live with nature, one must be as willing to live with spiders, scorpions, and mosquitos as one is to live with bunnies and deer. If one is truly at peace with living surrounded by nature, then one must accept that one is going to find the occasional snake in the bathtub and be glad when it happens.

Cities aren't particular bargains. They still require vast amounts of resources, and those resources must come from somewhere. They produce waste, which must go somewhere. That somewhere is inevitably outside of the city. Like every animal on the planet, humans impact the natural world. Unlike other animals, our numbers are not solely controlled by the conditions of nature. We have outsmarted it in many ways. We could change the way we impact it, too, whether we live in a city or in the forest itself. But we will only do that if we are willing to live with nature and to be subject to the same forces as the rest of nature.

[http://users.livejournal.com/purplebunnie_/]

Disagreement on a personal level.

It's nearly impossible to "develop" the lavas in N.Shasta Co. where I grew up. 10 Acres of woods, wood stove, cutting only dead or nearly dead trees with plenty of wood leftover for the winter, raising you own food...

It's possible to live comfortably within nature without making a noticable impact... most people are just flat out too lazy to reap the rewards of such.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_bazilisk_/]

I always think about this paradox, and it has been the basis of many arguments with my city-hating friends. It has gone into my theory that humans should all move to massive skyscrapers in already present cities and leave the country and the suburbs to be overgrown by forests and fields and swamps. In order to be a good environmentalist, one should move to the city.

You gotta eat

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

In order to be a good environmentalist, one should move to the city.

And who, pray tell, is going to grow your food for you in your mega-city?

Re: You gotta eat

[http://users.livejournal.com/_bazilisk_/]

The farmers who live in the country, of course. The majority of people who live in the country aren't actually farmers. Just keeping the existing farmers in the country would be fine, the real problem lies in the people living in brand-spnking new SUBURBAN developments- those people should move to the city. And I never said this was a seriously held plan. Just a little idea.

Re: You gotta eat

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

Farmers don't live in the 'burbs last I checked.

even more parodoxical with limited resources

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

I live in Las Vegas, a wide valley in the Mojave desert which long ago outgrew it's sustainable resources. But for the Hoover/Boulder dam and Lake Mead, we would have run out of water long ago. The valley consists of a seven mile long tourist corridor, occisional clumps of light industry and prefab warehouse with the lion share of the valley filled with suburbia.This may be the least eco friendly city in the country. The water problem is further intensified by large numbers of people from greener places moving out here (seeking the kind of green with etched portraits) and trying to create billiard table lawns. The average annual rainfall here is four inches. Most homeowners trying to sustain a lawn out here water it with the equivalent of nine feet of rainfall, and even then it's a struggle to keep it from turning brown. This is getting better as the water district is encouraging folks to convert to xeriscape, using native species and non natives that are from similar climates. We switched our lawn over within a few years of buying our house. Unfortunately, a lot of little things I could do to ease back on power use are against my neighborhood's cc&r's. Laundry lines, solar power, wind power are among the things that are specifically forbidden. Home owners associations are fairly ubiquitous out here.

This isn't to say that it's impossible to live with nature in the desert, but it does present some unique and serious challenges.

This guy http://www.arcosanti.org/ has an interesting idea for the city of the future (okay, actually the future as viewed from 1970), but it seems unlikely his vision will ever be completed.Probably once he passes on the property will be bought out by some developer who will build sprawling suburbia around what he's built so far. I suspect the completed sections are safe from the bulldozer because someone in the organization will be smart enough to get it on the national historic register.

New Urbanism

[turil.livejournal.com]

The one hope we still have is that the new crop of architects and planners will continue to promote sustainable "new urbanism" which is sort of sweeping the profession these days.

Added to that, homeowners themselves can help, by gently and enthusiastically suggesting more sustainable choices for their neighborhoods. A sustainable community translates directly into a healthier, more self-sufficient, and less expensive community! Who wouldn't want that? Really, I think the only stumbling block out there is our obsession with "normalcy". Many people have a low enough self esteem that they are terrified of being percieved as being abnormal, i.e., weird, hippy, poor, etc. They'll fight for their normalness, because they fear being cast out of society more than anything else. The solution to that is either help them improve their self esteem, or convince them that sustainable living is perfectly "normal"!

Once the planners and the public decide that sustainable is good, then the developers will built it, since they really don't care what they sell, as long as it makes them lots of money.

not to mention...

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

freaking complete ignorance as on the part of our neighbors who objected to a small composter because it would 'attract pests' and 'be smelly.' - obviously more so than the garbage collecting in the trash bins outdoors. Right.

Re: New Urbanism

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

The one hope we still have is that the new crop of architects and planners will continue to promote sustainable "new urbanism" which is sort of sweeping the profession these days.

"Sort of sweeping the profession" is an overstatement. The greater majority of architects, planners, and engineers do not subscribe to sustainable, environmentally-friendly structures, practices, plans or infrastructures. I worked for a large engineering firm for two years and it was an environmentalist's nightmare the discussions that went on in the formal meetings and lunchroom chatter.

Added to that, homeowners themselves can help, by gently and enthusiastically suggesting more sustainable choices for their neighborhoods.

Well, I don't know about your side of the Commonwealth, but that kind of talk around here is in the distinct minority. ConComs are widely disparaged by the general populace, and only a small core group support their efforts to hold off rampant development.

A sustainable community translates directly into a healthier, more self-sufficient, and less expensive community! Who wouldn't want that?

Yeah, well, you know that and I know that, but the majority of the American homeowners don't give a tinker's dam. They want their cheap goods and food from Walmart and their unnaturally green, weed-free lawn. And they don't care what impact it has on our economy or our environment. They really don't care. I talk to a lot of people of all kinds of economic strata, and this is what I am hearing from them.

Really, I think the only stumbling block out there is our obsession with "normalcy" . . . They'll fight for their normalness, because they fear being cast out of society more than anything else.

It's the biggest stumbling block we've got, because it is huge and pervasive and is ingrained into the general populace from early childhood. It will take generations to change perceptions and long-held beliefs; only catastropic events change minds and behaviours quickly.

Once the planners and the public decide that sustainable is good, then the developers will built it, since they really don't care what they sell, as long as it makes them lots of money.

But unless sustainable also becomes cheap (or unless that catastrophic event happens) then the changeover will take a long time. It's like the big promise of solar energy; when I was a kid, we were all promised cheap solar panels "in another ten or twenty years". Well, it's more than twenty years later and solar array installation is still very much out of reach, fiscally, for middle class people like me. Even with the rebates and subsidies, I can't afford a damned grid-tied solar array without some sort of further assistance. I really hope I can somehow find that further assistance.

I know I sound like an old grump, and I am definitely grumpy sometimes, but I'm also a realist. I still do believe in the good fight, though . . .

Re: New Urbanism

[turil.livejournal.com]

It certainly will take a lot of effort, and at least some time. But I don't think it's necessarily as hopeless as you make sound! New urbanism is only just becoming popular, and mostly only with the youngest, hippest folks in the field. Hopefully these kids will go into government first, where they can influence policy. My own city of Somerville has had a couple of great new urbanists in the office for housing and community development, and they have at least turned the otherwise very "old school" city government in a better direction. And the city's Climate Change Committee just helped Somerville build a showpiece LEED certified elementary school in one of the city's poorer neighborhoods. (School Departments are always happy to find new ways to save money for their system, and the people who serve on school committees are often more educated and openminded about new ideas than the general public.)

But yeah it's going to be a while. Recycling took about 25 years to become a relatively common practice. And organic food also took about 30 years to become desirable by the average person. Sustainable development is only in its infancy, but this baby looks like it's going to be a big stong kid! And studies show that, when given the choice, most people will happily choose sustainable living. People really want healthy food, water, efficient transportation, lively communities, etc. It's just a matter of making these things available and "normal".

On a personal note, solar power setups don't have to be expensive. My husband, who's a wiz with the electronic stuff, put a small 80 watt system together or a grand total of about $500. He used closeout stuff, used stuff, and one very inexpensive panel that he finstalled himself (just outside our bedroom window, on and overhang). We didn't get any rebates (I wonder if we could?). It's not at all grid tied, but is that really all that important? Our's powers nearly everything I regularly use electricity for, except a few lights, and the microwave and toaster oven (and I just built a solar oven which works surprisingly well for something made with cardboard boxes, some tin foil, and black paint). The biggest problem with our setup is that our supercheap inverter (an $8 car adaptor) doesn't like compact florescent bulbs, which we use for all our lighting.

Re: New Urbanism

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

It certainly will take a lot of effort, and at least some time. But I don't think it's necessarily as hopeless as you make sound!

I'm listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" talk program right now, and one of the guests is echoing my earlier words about only catastrophe bringing on fast change. He's talking about our national overdependence on oil.

Please remember that we live in the "bluest of the blue" states, so what you may be seeing in your town is not very typical of national trends, I believe I can safely say.

On a personal note, solar power setups don't have to be expensive.

Right. But they are.

My husband, who's a wiz with the electronic stuff, put a small 80 watt system together or a grand total of about $500. . . It's not at all grid tied, but is that really all that important?

Well, I have no skill with electronic stuff, so that's not an option. Grid tied is the best set-up for our needs, as we absolutely do not want to deal with highly toxic storage batteries. And with overflow, we WANT it to go back into the grid so that we can hopefully contribute to the permanent closing of Vermont Yankee Atomic just north of here . . .

Re: New Urbanism

[wakarusa.livejournal.com]

my husband and I go round and round the solar thing. They ARE expensive, and we are not electric geniuses, either. We would definitely like to go grid-tied when we do save up the bucks - but then, another goal is to re-roof with a nice metal roof where we could save the water into a cistern for the garden.

on catastrophe bringing change - pretty wild book by philosopher Norman O Brown titled "apocalypse and/or metamorphosis." don't even really need to read it - title says it all.

Re: even more parodoxical with limited resources

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

The idea that any group would ban solar power in the desert is mind-boggling. The premise of Collapse is that cultures that refuse to change to fit their environments destroy themselves. Sound familiar?

[wakarusa.livejournal.com]

I go offline for only a day or two and you post this!

let's see. No offense, but I think that you might posit a city/ rural dichotomy that I don't really believe in... I don't see it as an either/ or choice. I need the city, the city needs me. Some people can live in cities; I don't happen to be able to. I have a brother who is just the opposite. Just depends on what you like.

Also, in terms of estimating the "greater environmental impact" of living in a rural area, I think your figures leave out the important issue of food miles. we have tried to establish a lifestyle with little or no food miles (fossil fuel costs incurred by eating food grown far away). we don't eat meat that we or our friends haven't met in person, I freeze or can lots of our food, and during winter when I can't make it to town I bake with local flours - and our local bakery uses the same flours as well. Also, since only B works in town - and that, what with shift work, comes out to tweleve days a month - we don;t drive much. Also, I think that we are able to support biodiversity in a way that city dwellers are not able to as much, simply since the urban environment is not as conducive. Also, all winter we (and most of the people around us) burn black walnut, which is local and fairly sustainable, since it grows like mad. Also, most locals fill their freezers with deer and turkey.

That said, development is still an issue - in places. Our development pattern out here revolves around water, which means that people oversettle along riparian areas, which have been conduits for trade for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Huge rural areas out here, though, are experiencing population decreases. The county north of us had a 24% decrease or something like that over a five year period. Lots of these displaced folks move to urban areas - with no urban job skills - and end up in poverty. Which increases urban costs. Several Kansas counties have joined in a Free Land initiative because their population situations have grown so desperate. I think it's called the new homestead act or something.

There are a lot of instances of what folks call ruralites - people who live in the country because it's pretty - but most of these cluster in small areas, not further than ten miles from the city. That leaves hundreds and hundreds of miles of rural areas out here. We have only 2.5 million people in the whole state, and I can't even remember how many square miles.

Also - rural does not mean untouched. Rural usually means industrialized agriculture, which out here has ruled the landscape since the 1880s. The fruits of these fields go to cities. It might look all pastoral and pretty, but every time I look at a corn field, I see the city. We sustain those folks, even if most of them don't remember where their food comes from. It's pretty sad to think that all the soil fertility (and chemical fertilizers) around here go into the corn syrup for the world's soda and candy, but, that is pretty much how it works. And then everyone around here gets cancer from all the residues.

I guess that when I see rural areas, I think of poverty on one hand, and ConAgra and Monsanto on the other. With small farmers caught in between, and most ruralites completely clueless. I do see beauty out here, but I don't think development is the major threat. I think it's our messed up food system, and rural and urban are pretty tightly linked in that dysfunctional relationship. No one has any higher ground on that one.

[wakarusa.livejournal.com]

forgot :) (and hope you are not too hung over from your celebrating last night!) last night I sat up, smacked myself on the forehead, and went DUH. I had been puzzling and puzzling over what you meant about rural development meaning cutting down of trees... of course, you're in massachusetts. Forests there, how could I forget? I'm so used to development here meaning that people stop burning prairie and let the trees grow - which kills our prairie.

completely other way around.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I'm very happy to get the Kansan perspective, and to be reminded that mixed deciduous forest isn't the law across the continent.

[urb-banal.livejournal.com]

Why not time share?

not commuting every day but doing a live at work 3 days, live at home 4 or visa versa and job and dwelling share? Or 6 months city, 6 months country and sharing both spaces with a separate storage for personal touches?

Firemen do it.

Co-ops could include two locations... Condo's come with time share...

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

This is an intriguing idea, but would only work for a slim minority of people. Most jobs are year-round, in one location, and most people have kids that they wouldn't want to shuffle from one school to another every six months.

[urb-banal.livejournal.com]

I know that people don't want to move every six months but what about renting and renting out. Lots of people I know have no choice but to move every other year because of working internationally, and others because of poverty...

The school system and year was established to accomodate kids having to help on the farm for the summer months, this is no longer true but I don't see why it can't change to accomodate the newer restraints on people and earning an income.

Also, the internet should be better used for employment and education.

For location intensive jobs, job sharing just makes so much sense. Longer days, shorter weeks, then fly to the country and kick up for a while or hunker down in a cupboard for a few days of intense city working and living.