Originally Posted by
ndbiker
Most people lived either in the country or in crowded cities. They could walk everywhere but lived in cramped homes with little light and lots and lots of dirt. The people of these times did not live in these conditions because they wanted to but rather they had to.
I'm a little unclear as to how this is different from current times. Many people who live in suburbs have not "chosen" to do so, but have ended up there as a matter of it being the default place to live. Many of them live in spacious homes that they can't afford to heat or cool (homes far too large for their real needs...). Many of them don't walk because it's genuinely too far to the grocery store (which is probably not that accessible by foot even if it is within a mile.)
It's the same with most second and third world countries today. Given the opportunity they will better their lives and one of the first ways they will do it is to improve their mobility. The idea of choosing to not be mobile when you have the capacity to do so is the "unique viewpoint".
Strangely all of this "first world" mobility of which you speak is probably not what these folks are seeking. They might want a car (perhaps for a trip to a distant relative...) but they would truly not like to be miles and miles away from family and friends. They would certainly think the inability to walk to a grocer or a coffee shop would be an inconvenience.
I'm also confused by what you term "better their lives". For me (and for a lot of people...) my life would be better if I could take a stroll after a meal in a safe neighbourhood where I wasn't always looking out for car traffic.