What, exactly, is more "efficient" about city life? More efficient production of pollution, vermin, and filth? More efficient at producing gridlock traffic? More efficient at producing dysfunctional families and high criminality? More efficient at isolating people and preventing them from forming normal human connections? More efficient at separating people from nature? Personally, I can't think of a single reason to live in a city. It's small towns for me!
Though Kernion may have been intending to make economic arguments for his beliefs, his tweets had quickly devolved into ad hominem attacks on rural Americans.
It is a pipe dream of many leftists to force everyone to live in cities. I have seen "academic" papers extolling the [subjective] wonders of living in cities. They never rationally explain why they think everyone should live in cities. I think two things drive this: one, they like being close to high density entertainment and shopping, and two, they sense that cities are destructors of civilization and would thus force city living as a way to accelerate the Cloward-Piven strategy of forcing societal collapse.
After facing some backlash, Kernion did seem to apologize for his tone, which he says came across as "way crasser and meaner" than he believes himself to be.
No, he is that crass and mean. Maybe he should try living out in rural America until he develops a sense of normal life and empathy with nature.
The deep, dark secret is that young, academic leftists (like the instructor in the article) love to plan to put everyone in their urban dystopias for the sake of “economy” and “efficiency” when they all live and dream for the day when they can have a home or two waaay outside their beloved metropolis so they can “get away from it all” and get “work done” in “peace and quiet.”