this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
123 points (94.2% liked)
Asklemmy
47451 readers
695 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People in micro village should be moved or let to themselves.
It is a pretty violent opinion. But there are too many of these village of 200 people, 180 retired, 10 unemployed and 1 bakers. These area are basically dead, but because a few people absolutely want to stay living there, the state still has to do the whole infrastructure, security, civil servant, healthcare stuff.
This is an incredible waste of ressources that could be used elsewhere.
The natural extension of this is that everyone should live in one big megacity. Is this what you want?
No need to be so extreme. We still need village and middle sized city. But the dead zones ? I think it make no sense for the state to support a full service at the top of its fingers