I first heard this objection expressed in Peter's interview with Alex Jones. I'm ambivalent towards AJ, I have to say. On the one hand I have great respect for the information he's put out and hope he's on the level...but on the other hand, I was disgusted with his behavior in that interview.
Anyway, he -and others since- have persisted with this idea that people in an RBE would become detached from nature, forget how to take care of themselves, perhaps be weak and unable to survive if there was a solar flare or something and all the tech were disabled.
...is it just me, or is this notion almost trivially easy to counter?
Is it not true that individuals in an RBE would be specifically oriented towards connection and understanding of nature? I mean, it's true that tech would handle most operations throughout a community/city on the grand scale, but the perpetuation of whole thing would be predicated on people understanding how it all works, up to and including a working knowledge of how a seed gets planted, nourished by water/sunlight, and so on. Comprehensive education programs would most assuredly feature hours and longer of hands-on time spent in the wilderness, physically planting trees and crops etc with one's bare hands. Not as a job like a farmer today, but as part of each individual's thorough education. In other words, individuals would have had their hands in as many aspects of the functioning of practical society as possible by the time they reach "adult" age, meaning that the whole society would have a base foundation of ground-level strength of body, mind, will, and skills, enabling them to be fully capable of adapting and surviving in the case of some temporary tech failure, rather unlike today, where the vast majority of people would indeed be totally lost without GPS etc. Would a temporary lack of tech function be rough? Of course. But the psychological, philosophical and practical experience/knowledge gained would, it seems to me, make such a situation far less severe than detractors purport.