2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Cox
4 years ago

Regarding living in a city: I would have to admit that my considerations and approach to “survival” are what might be described as “sloppy.”

I can say that living in the city allows me to: 1) exist without owning a car (just two bicycles); 2) live two blocks from the school I go to every day; 3) be involved in a variety of community activities that interest me.

However, I recognize that my existence is, today, highly subsidized. Though I worked most of my life, I’m now 65, and I moved here (to a city) so I could go to this nearby school. The trade-off is that my transportation (public transportation) is subsidized, my rent is subsidized, and my income is also subsidized (Social Security). So the social environment is NOT sustainable. I cross my fingers that I can continue to live here long enough to get good benefit from my studies. Then after that, who knows?

I don’t have a garden here so I’m not sustainable that way, either.

What the city does – which I learned from Henry George, who wrote in the late 1800s – is save energy by putting workers and the places they work (and play) closer together. If it doesn’t accomplish that – and since automobiles and suburban sprawl, it often hasn’t – then the city really isn’t doing its job. If the city can’t contribute to the larger community, including energy efficiency, then what is it good for?

Nate
Nate
4 years ago

Don’t take it just from me, but modern canning recommendations are to pressure can tomatoes.  Something about new varieties of tomatoes not having consistent enough acid concentrations.