| > I think you're actually proving my point. That thought demonstrates that you don't understand him. > Western Germanic society perhaps, but even there there is no shortage of examples of large urban populations What definition of "no shortage" are we using? Yes, London and Berlin existed, but what fraction of the population lived in these areas? How many were there? When >50% of the population is directly involved in producing food (blacksmiths aren't direct), what fraction do you think can live in urban areas? > maintaining a well-manicured lawn is incredibly expensive, No, it isn't. I know poor people with fantastic lawns. As to the rest, you're revealing your Puritanism. You're upset that people aren't doing the things that would make you value them. That's a problem, and it isn't theirs. Where do you get off "suggesting" that they please you instead of folks who they want to please, includiing themselves (a possibility that you don't even consider). > Second homes and front lawns have nothing to do with each other. I'll bite - which of them do you have? (For some folks, they do have a lot to do with one another. For others, not so much.) Which reminds me, your inaccurate usage of potlatch is incredibly insulting on at least a couple of levels. Of course, you know that, and don't care. |