> The ecological benefits of urban density are much greater than you give it credit for.
And you know this, how? Let me suggest that you probably overstate the costs of suburbia.
> And I think a characterization of "hive-living" doesn't nearly do justice to the cultural, social, and economic benefits of a vibrant city.
You're assuming that everyone values the things that you do in much the same way. That may be true of the other folks in your tribe, but extrapolating universality from that demonstrates my point.
Calling it a "hive" and city dwellers a "tribe" has strong negative connotations you cannot be unaware of. Be open-minded when calling for openmindedness.
As far as "hive" goes, it's apt. It's accurate and the connotations point out the other side of the claimed advantages.
> Be open-minded when calling for openmindedness.
I'm not calling for openmindedness. I'm pointing out cherry-picking, and a couple of other problems.
I don't care where other people choose to live. However, if they're going to argue that their choice is superior, I think that it's fair to see if their argument makes sense. What part of that do you disagree with?
Which reminds me - I'm certain that I'll see you make the same complaints when an urbanist commits my sins, right?
And you know this, how? Let me suggest that you probably overstate the costs of suburbia.
> And I think a characterization of "hive-living" doesn't nearly do justice to the cultural, social, and economic benefits of a vibrant city.
You're assuming that everyone values the things that you do in much the same way. That may be true of the other folks in your tribe, but extrapolating universality from that demonstrates my point.