Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social, lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.
Have you ever lived in an apartment building? Have you ever had noisy neighbors and wished you lived in a detached house with a spacious yard? Have you ever been awakened by a truck's backup beeper at 5 AM? Have you ever thought about what it would be like to live in a city where a riot takes place, or a terrorist attack, or a public health epidemic?
There is a big gap between "living in tune with nature" (whatever that means to whoever reads it) and living in a city. Some people prefer living in less densely populated areas. Some people prefer living in the wilderness. Some people prefer living in skyscrapers, stacked on top of each other like sardines.
Personally, I think that the more people are packed together in small areas, the less happy people are. People are happier when they have space of their own, giving them privacy--not just in terms of being hidden from sight, but in terms of having their space not being intruded upon by noise, pollution, etc.
I'll agree with you on that one; I hope that will change, esp. when easy flight becomes more available.
> Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city.
I disagree. WHAT is it that makes cities currently more efficient? It's proximity to all the things that make it great, which is the innovation. The concentration's utility that you speak of is only proximity. What other purpose does concentration serve? When flight is freely available to all, this will no longer be the case. Any 10-15 minute flight (far less than many city-dwellers' walking/subway commutes) will bring you to pretty much everything a city would offer you, but without the traffic, the noise, and with much more property and privacy. Of course, you will also have easy access to your immediate community around you. It's really the best of both worlds.
Spreading out further and further, eating up arable land with exurban homes, putting more distance between ourselves and others. It seems unhealthy for us and the "nature" you want to be in tune with.
"Across the study period, 66 595 youths died by suicide, and rural suicide rates were nearly double those of urban areas for both males (19.93 and 10.31 per 100 000, respectively) and females (4.40 and 2.39 per 100 000, respectively)." http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21950...
I don't see how it would be any different from living in suburban area (what many would consider the perfect middle ground between the city and rural areas). Most people for at least 5 minutes to get to where they want to go. Flying (in the future at least) can be no different.
I didn't say that cars are going to disappear anyway. You can still live close to your friends and get to each other via car/bike/golf cart/atv/whatever.
I think you missed my point. The idea is that living the rural life will give you the same experience at a suburban one, and I'd argue, similar to the urban one. Most people still walk 15+ minutes to work in the city. 15 minutes of flying will get you much farther, to a multitude more possible destinations.