The proposition of "I would rather have a bed in a big city" itself reveals a strong emotional tone, which is embodied in "blind worship of urban life and work at no cost". To tell the truth, I was once a "idolize clan", longing for the prosperity of big cities, but I am ashamed that this is just an Ah Q-style spiritual fantasy. The choice of a bed and a room always revolves around the "development prospect", and the other debater has been emphasizing the personal case of struggling through thick and thin in big cities. "Life always has its day", which is the spiritual pillar of most people who struggle with a bed in big cities-we appreciate it.

Appreciation is only one aspect. In the era of materialism, most of us consider how to achieve sustainable development. "A bed" and "a room" are only the concretization of abstract views, which can be approximately understood. A bed represents the basic living conditions, while a room represents the basic living conditions. Look at this scene: the army of ants in the "humble abode" city is busy every day, drinking porridge and rice in the morning, peeling two tea eggs, and the legs of the wind and dust are broken, and the benefits are not caught, so they are named idiots; Going back to the bus, I don't have any money in my pocket, and I'm upset all the time. As long as I take a nap, I'm sure I'll meet a recidivist! Let's take a look at such a scene: village officials in small towns are also busy every day, but their living rooms are not ugly, which is better than shelter. They don't avoid food and drink, and they are willing to be a willing ox, and the people follow; Hard work is hard to avoid, struggling in the field, busy with entrepreneurship in front and behind, and getting rich in urban and rural areas. Who said that there is no rush?

There is no doubt that individual development stresses "the right time, the right place and the right people", and the right place only accounts for one third. Guma, a well-known scholar in China and a professor in Tsinghua, once bluntly said: No matter how high or low the foreign population is, big cities basically absorb it economically and exclude it socially. That is to say, most people in big cities are just "laborers" who simply create economic benefits, rather than "residents" you expect. The most shocking thing is that the situation of "talent surplus" in big cities is getting worse and worse, and the arrival of its "bottleneck period" makes people flinch and shudder. From this point of view, we don't have an advantage in "geographical location", or even some wishful thinking, so more and more people begin to escape from "going north to Guangzhou" and seek their "true love" in small towns.

What's wrong with small towns? At least they have favorable policies, good environment and smooth development potential. Will the mentality of "one bed in a big city" contribute to the balanced development of people's livelihood issues and improve the quality of cities? And have you ever seen a big city like "Beishangguang" shortlisted as the "happiest city"-Li Bai said: since the world can in no way answer our craving, I will loosen my hair tomorrow and take to a fishingboat. If we people don't care in big cities and can't live a happy life, we may really want to jump into the sea in a long hair.

It is rational to prefer "one room in a small town", which is more in line with the sustainable development strategy of urban and rural areas and the concept of "humanism". The success in career and life depends not only on "location advantage", but also on the old adage that "oranges born in Huainan are oranges and those born in Huaibei are oranges". On the contrary, it tells us that wherever we live, we will blossom everywhere! Therefore, we insist on the idea of "one room in a small town". If the other debater is stubborn and still unrequited, he has to go to outer space to seek "true love", while we are "laughing at the sky and going out, are we adults?"