Is Rural Remote?
As the French July riots unfold, everyone focus on law and order issues. But this is not the first such riot. This suggests that the trouble is more systemic.
Systemic in the sense that the modern city itself, in its current structure, may not be sustainable.
Consider rural areas, in contrast with cities.
We think of a rural area as "remote". But in our connected world, what is remote? Historically, we define “remoteness” by three aspects: infrastructure, geography, economy. This is because of the way we use cities: we congregate there to gather resources, built communities, and find opportunities.
An area is remote depending on whether it is connected to infrastructure. That sounds obvious, till it it isn't. For example, consider spreading "food deserts" in some cities of the United States. When you cannot have a car, but when you no longer have nearby food stores, are those areas really urban, anymore?
This is beyond "affordable and healthy foods", or "inexpensive and wholesome food"; this is about simple grocery shopping, something that rampant lawlessness drove away, leaving (maybe) fast-food joints.
A geographic definition focuses on population density. It looks at "anchor points" such as major population centers. But this is misleading. Consider, for example, Germany under energy shortage; its densely populated areas may move beyond "short showers and limited heating" as more and more people vie for less and less power. While politicians dither, people will be driven to burn anything, even coal, in order to stay warm...
An economic definition of remoteness would be closest to reality. Remote areas would then be those areas where energy services were neither affordable nor cost-effective. This one is closer to reality, but it is not enough; some cities did rather well in spite of how government inefficiency restricted energy services.
A better definition combines a bit of those...
Especially since most rural areas now have enhanced access to markets and much greater economic integration of the economy... and stiffer competition, as even “smallholder producers now compete in markets that are much more demanding in terms of quality and food safety, and more concentrated and integrated than in the past".
For this reason, the OECD/DAC defines five “rural worlds”:
Access to national, regional, or global markets, and made up of either large-scale businesses (Rural World 1) or small-scale operations (Rural World 2);
Areas with limited access to land and resources, and that struggle with food security. Some still have some producing capacity; they may be subsistence farmers with some may have a degree of land ownership (Rural World 3), or are landless labourers (Rural World 4);
Households with little or no ability to produce and thus in need of social assistance (Rural World 5).
...which brings us to modern cities...
Modern cities are "deserts" in waiting. Yes, we still need them to congregate, but...
They are no longer the only way we can gather and concentrate resources. With distributed manufacturing, we may not need too much concentration. With remote connectivity, we can build and maintain communities differently, though it F2F is far better than zooming... As for opportunities, they still serve a role, unless the taxman becomes too familiar.
We see those failures in San-Francisco where human waste piles-up on sidewalks. The city pushed away so many merchants that you might as well be in the middle of the desert; you'll go hungry in that pricey loft of yours, and there's not many opportunities you'd find in the local addict scene. Add to this rising energy costs, and you will see how cities can easily collapse into Rural world 5.
Mega-Cities are now accident away from turning into a cold concrete jungle.