Comment by autoexec
3 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with "collectively" deciding that every American citizen should have access to high speed internet access and putting our money where our mouth is. Especially remote areas that are expanding and will become increasingly populated to take advantage of the infrastructure.
For most of us, it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to get access so we can handle the rare costs to build out to remote areas where it's more expensive. That's the benefit of collective money. No one person has to shoulder the burden alone and together we each only chip in a small amount to achieve a massive goal.
America should be heavily investing in building out select remote areas now because we're going to be getting much more crowded in the decades ahead. Climate change is going to force people inland, away from the western US, and cause hundreds of millions of climate refugees from around the planet to seek relocation. The US is going to have to do our part to help take many of them in. MI is a pretty good place to expand.
The United States is not crowded whatsoever. We have no dense cities other than New York. Nobody is forced to live out in such remote areas, not even refugees.
If you choose to live out in the middle of nowhere you’re going to have to pay for all kinds of expensive infrastructure or do without. Why do taxpayers have to cover this particular living expense?
> If you choose to live out in the middle of nowhere you’re going to have to pay for all kinds of expensive infrastructure or do without.
Naturally, people realize that the farther out they get the worse their infrastructure will be. That doesn't mean the US can't or shouldn't set some minimum standards for what's acceptable. Most people think it's pretty reasonable for every American to have access to broadband. Its in everyone's best interest to make sure all Americans can get online. One nice benefit is that people will be able to spread out a little more and still work from home. That means fewer cars on the road, and fewer harmful emissions hurting the environment. Eliminating the need for commutes will be especially helpful in remote areas because their commutes are often longer than average.
I suspect that at a certain point the US will need to start policing where people are allowed to live more aggressively, but rather than trying to get people to move into dense cities to save a little money in the short term I hope it's used to try to limit the number of people living in a given area according to its biocapacity. Encouraging people to leave areas we expect will be hit hardest by frequent flooding, or fires, or droughts would be helpful too. We waste a lot money rebuilding over and over after predictable events. I can't blame the US government for treading lightly though. People aren't used to the idea of being told that they have to leave their homes and move, let alone being told exactly what parts of the country they have to move to. Probably best to start with people legally immigrating. I'm sure a lot of people would jump at the chance to move to the US even if they weren't assigned their preferred location within in.