Someone asked how much it costs to live in the bush. In this day of environmental awareness, that's a question I've pondered: How much does it cost the planet to live a rural/bush lifestyle?
Each of us exacts costs from the planet and the global, economic infrastructure, and each of us puts something back. A person in, say, New York City, I'd guess, is, on average, probably a more productive member of the global system than is a resident of, say, Nome. Moreover, whatever costs a resident of NYC exacts from the planet is amortized in a densely populated area—in terms of economies of scale, his existence costs the planet relatively little.
On the other hand, the very rural or bush dweller is, in terms of the global system, relatively unproductive, and, in some ways, exacts less cost from the system. However, in other ways, the rural/bush dweller in spite of lower contribution, exacts, per capita, greater costs from the system. All his gasoline, flour, sugar, snow machines, chain saws, and much, much more, have to transported over greater distances and at greatly increased cost, especially considered on a per capita basis.
That's all . . just wondering. At one end of the scale we have residents of the world' great population centers. At the other end of the scale we have the bush types, here and elsewhere. Which of the two costs the planet and the global infrastructure the most? Which contributes most?
Any way to measure such things?