In developed countries at least many urban features are already in the
countryside. The automobile enables rural dwellers to take advantage of
urban shopping facilities equally with urban dwellers. Rural dwellings
almost all have modern sanitiation and sewage systems albeit
self-contained in the country as contrasted with towns. More and more rural
people are connected to the Internet. Radio and satellite TV connections
plus cell and other phones connect them with the "world" just as much as
urbanites. Except for isolated areas medical care is available within
reasonable distances, at least in Canada. I am sure I have left much out.
Does doing away with this distinction mean locating hog barns and cattle
feed lots in the city? I don't think that will be a big selling point.
Having smaller family-run facilities in itself won't help. A recent study in
Ontario found that the worst culprits for pollution were not the new state
of the art
big facilities but older smaller operations that have been running for years
and that started before there was anything much in the way of controls.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Rod Hay wrote:
> Eliminating the distinction between town and country side is a very
> abstract though admirable goal. But what does it mean concretely. Better
> planning of new housing space? More green space in the city? Better and
> more efficient transportation systems? Or is there something more
> drastic in mind?
>
> Dwelling solely in the world of the abstract is dangerous. Soon all that
> remains is the eternal dance of the categories or meaningless slogans.
>
> Rod
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada
