2- Does living in cities, rather than in small towns/communities, make us better human beings or not?

Question

This Q, besides being addressed to sociology participants, is also addressed to philosophy participants with some knowledge from studies on the particular subject. eg Rousseau, Plato, Hobbes, Durkheim, etcetera.

Answer 1

I think it would be too assuming for one to think that he is a better person because he lives in a city. Although it is true that one gets comforts and amenities, easier access to technology, faster way of life brought about by city living, one could not define quality of the development of a person by these alone. And because people are by nature different from each other, it is easy to assume that what develops them are also different. Something that could be good for one person may hardly be tolerable to another.

Answer 2

Not, I guess.

Living in smaller groups and closer to nature, gives you better knowledge of how "mother nature" works, and is probably closer to our genetic heritage.

Still, some people have to live in large cities, but get out on a regular basis.

Answer 3

No, the big cities are urban jungles that nurture selfishness, indifference, violence and other negative attributes, with smaller communities these negative attributes seem to diminish due to the fact that everyone knows everyone. Big cities however are good for opportunities, riches and education.

Answer 4

I'm in a small town, don't know anyone but enjoy the normal pace and friendly people, no great rushing about like in big cities. There's more of Life, God, and Nature in a rural setting. So yes, small is better and makes us more human, I'd say. In cities most things seem too artificial for my liking as if they're trying to compensate for what they don't have.

Just my thoughts.