Hacker News Reader

Comment by testing22321 | Hacker News Reader

>In the US, we have had a pretty wide-open nation, for much of our history. Population density was low, and many folks were forced to be extremely self-sufficient. This has resulted in a fiercely independent national zeitgeist.

Australia is much less dense and more remote that the US (I drove 1,050 miles in Australia through the desert without seeing a vehicle or person, in the US you can’t get more than 100 miles from McDonald’s) but Australian’s work together and don’t have this “ fiercely independent “ nonsense that keeps everyone at each others throats.

View on HN

I have no strong opinion on the original thesis but your fact doesn't make the point you think it does; you're right that no one lives in most of Australia, nearly everyone is concentrated together on the coast. Australia is a bit more urban than the USA overall from a population perspective, despite being vastly less dense overall due to the areas that no one lives in. So there would be fewer people to carry the cultural individualism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1nbrov9/australi...

About 9 out of 10 Americans live in cities (incl burbs) and the same holds for Australians. Sure, there's fewer notable population centers in Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and you got nearly everyone), but there's also just 10x fewer people than in the US so that kind of matches too. I think the picture you link to distorts this, it does not account for the fact that there's simply way fewer Australians.

I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.

> I'm not convinced that if there were 300m Australians, that they'd still all live in those 5 cities (with every city being 10x bigger). I think there'd be more of them.

I don't think so either, but because of the climate and geography, I also don't think there'd be 10x more cities, similar populations, I think you might end up with 2-3x more, really, at most.

Fair. It'd turn into a Japan and a half (big one on the right, small one the left)

That's a rather expansive view of cities based on what the US Census categorizes as urban vs. rural. Between myself and a couple neighbors, we're on close to 100 acres, but that's urban according to the census because we're not that far from a major city and fairly close to some smaller ones.

I don’t know.

Most Aussies I’ve known are quite independent.

I really like them; maybe because we share so many traits.

Also, the US was where the British sent their convicts, until we had a big prison riot.

Yes, but Aussies work together for the collective good of society. High taxes. Universal Healthcare. Higher education, etc etc.

Aussies are friendly and kind, not locked in a dog eat dog world.

The USA was founded in rebellion against high taxes and heavy-handed central government. That is still an essential component of our philosophy.

Agree. Which is why I

, at the top of this comment chain, that it can’t work in the US because people don’t work together.

Australia also has many issues the US had. Car dependence. They also don't have high speed rail despite their cities being near perfect for it.

Also in Australia the waste majority of the population arrived much later and most were always attached to coastal cities. These cities were dominated by British aristocrat early on and later the British labor movement and reflects the culture of London. Australia politically was a part of Britain in many ways for 100s of years after the US had gone its own way.

The same is true to a lesser degree for the North East Coast in the US, arguably it works more like Britain/Australia but the South and everything West is quite different.

Australia has higher taxes, universal healthcare, higher education, etc etc.

Aussies work together, not against each other

Reply on news.ycombinator.com