There are some things that do not seem to require proof, because "everyone knows it." For example, life in a city is a noise, bustle, polluted air, indifference of people, everyday danger. And life in the village is peace, space, healthy food, self-sufficiency, longevity. Only well-known information has the unpleasant property of being partial or complete nonsense.
Walking against the cinema
Almost any city dweller can paint a picture of the pastoral life in the village, especially if he is tired after a long day at work, was almost crushed in public transport, or stood in a traffic jam for a couple of hours. And if his words are not enough, you just have to go to the Internet and look for articles on the topic. Eight out of ten will describe the incredible joys of rural life compared to the dubious achievements of urban life. In the best case, the city's pluses will include access to entertainment such as theater and cinema, at worst, even this will be denied. After all, you can always go to the cinema "by car to the regional center", and in extreme cases - replace the soulless cinema with a walk in the forest or field, it is even more useful. In general, absolutely everything in the village is healthier, and most importantly - safer!
But somewhere here the first paradox arises, since statistics on safety and life expectancy are not at all on the side of the villagers.
If you look closely at the gloomy death toll across the country, cities lead only in car accidents. Yes, on a busy metropolis street the chance of being hit by a car is much higher than in rural areas, and this is a problem. But on the other side of the scale lies domestic violence, injuries and even death from firearms - all this in the villages is incomparably greater. Why? Let's figure it out now.
The illusion of security
Promotional video:
To begin with, it is worth debunking another conviction that has vainly taken its place in public consciousness. They say that the city is more dangerous, because there are fewer connections between people, and the life of a stranger is always valued lower.
But the statistics of murders on domestic grounds also slips a paradox: as a rule, it is familiar people, often even relatives, who become victims. Especially when it comes to murder in a state of alcoholic intoxication, and where do we drink more - in the city or in the countryside? Yes, there may be a reverse moment - if you have good relations with your neighbors, they will rather help you, but in the village everyone knows each other. But it’s not even time to ruin this relationship, since it is much easier to support a stranger than a familiar, but sincerely unloved neighbor.
The second point is physical activity and related problems. In the city, you will only come across it if you work as a loader or a builder, or if you help someone with the move. In the village - every day, if you don't have extra money for hired workers. Even plowing a vegetable garden and chopping wood is a lot of work, what can we say about the construction of fences, outbuildings, caring for large livestock. Of course, moderate physical activity is good for the body, but God forbid you get serious injury, being alone. The possibility of such misfortune in the countryside is much higher than in the city.
The same goes for any other health problem, from accidental poisoning to wind-blown sore throat. Even if you do not live in a godforsaken wilderness, but at least 30 kilometers from the city, the pharmacy will most likely have a very limited set of medicines. If you are lucky, there may be a paramedic in the village, but you still have to go to the nearest town for complex treatment. Bottom line: a full-fledged existence in the village is best enjoyed by a non-drinking, physically developed, non-conflict person, preferably a young person. However, it’s probably not worth citing figures on how many young people prefer such a life …
Survivor's mistake
But if the village is so harmful and dangerous, where do so many enthusiastic words about “fresh milk”, the air “one wants to drink”, the “crystal ringing” of the purest spring and simple, sincere people come from, who will give “the last shirt” to everyone they meet? As a rule, these stories arise according to the principle “it's good where we are not,” that is, they are invented by the tired citizens mentioned above. Some materials about the successful experience of resettlement from city to village are in fact created by successfully adapted people, but this is the so-called survivor's mistake. Positive articles are written by "professionals of rural life" or a few lucky ones, and negative ones, as a rule, are not written at all: people just quietly return to the city, not wanting to admit their shame. What good, they will laugh, because everyone around you knowsthat country life is much better than city life.
74% of Russians live in cities, and this is no coincidence. Even if you look at the statistics of the most prosperous countries in Europe and the states of the United States, the division will be at about the same level. It is problematic to get from a village to a city successfully, but it can be solved. Successfully moving from city to village is a task of a completely different level.
There is more work in the city, more affordable recreation, much higher security (not counting cars), faster Internet. And if at the last point you chuckled, then you never got stuck in a village house without communication for a couple of weeks. There may be romantics who need only the beauties of nature for complete happiness, but for the vast majority of modern people, informational contact with the outside world is required. Without the Internet in the village it becomes monstrously boring very quickly.
Civilization of cities
The last argument that rural happiness advocates use in a dispute is tradition. After all, everyone knows that people originally lived in villages and villages, and only then they built cities, and then all the troubles began. We would live in nature, like ancestors, and would not know troubles! And even if we don’t mind that with such logic we can sink to life in caves and trees, we again run into what? That's right, into the final paradox. The fact is that humanity initially did not move from villages to cities, everything was the other way around.
The earliest known human settlements - Chatal-Huyuk, Jericho, Uruk, Argos - are precisely the cities that accommodated thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of people, which by the standards of some V millennium BC. e. incredibly many. Yes, these cities were strange, even a little crazy, with chaotically stuck houses, often devoid of streets, but almost always they had walls and sanctuaries, and grazing and cultivation of fields took place at a distance. It is still unclear why our ancestors first built cities. There is an assumption that primarily for the sake of security. Together, outside the walls, it was easier to fight off enemies. Like this…
Even millennia ago, people preferred cramped, littered, uncomfortable, noisy cities to “calm and free” villages.
The aforementioned, however, does not aim to return rural residents to megacities. Everyone chooses a way of life for himself. Someone is not afraid of difficulties, someone simply cannot stand the urban atmosphere. For God's sake! You just have to think carefully and study the statistics before thoughtlessly spreading tales about the ideal village life, otherwise the paradoxes will remind of themselves with very specific and very harsh examples.
Sergey Evtushenko