4 ms·

This reminds me how SF writers were expecting that people will colonize other planets, 50 years ago. We'll somehow go all the way over there and find a way to

This reminds me how SF writers were expecting that people will colonize other planets, 50 years ago. We'll somehow go all the way over there and find a way to live in those hostile conditions. Guess what, fast forward, people don't just want to stay on Earth, but will also prefer SF proper, Manhattan and/or Paris within 20 arrondissements. Even smaller cities are losing population. I guess that Spengler's narrative lives on.

tlrobinson 9y ago
Took me a second to figure out your first use of "SF" was "science fiction" and the second was "San Francisco"
- aqzman 9y ago
  I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I was very confused for a moment after reading that comment. Never seen the acronym "SF" used for science fiction before.
  - __s 9y ago
    https://google.com/search?q=SF+writer https://google.com/search?q=SF+writer doesn't list writers from San Francico SF straight in the title of https://www.amazon.com/Other-Worlds-SF-Human-Imagination/dp/0307741761 https://www.amazon.com/Other-Worlds-SF-Human-Imagination/dp/... SF also serves to include both 'science fiction' and 'speculative fiction' but that's a whole other debate
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    I've seen it a lot, and the first use of SF was naturally right to me. That's why the second one was so confusing.
- JCharante 9y ago
  It took you for me to realize that op didn't mean San Francisco. It made sense for me either way.
ajmurmann 9y ago
I'm curious how improved telepresence will change the desire/need to live in major metro areas.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  ...or basic income.
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    I could see that that might have an impact as well. It will be interesting to see to what degree people move to metro areas because that's where the jobs are and to what degree they move there because it's a more interesting place to live. While I'd love to have a little more space and pay less for housing I'd get pretty depressed living outside a metro area. If that's what I wanted I could move back to the visit where my parents live, live in their second house or in-law unit and live off a few hours months of remote consulting work. Curious to see how that's the case for others.
brianwawok 9y ago
I think Chicago is the only big city to lose people in the US in the last 10 years.
- goodcanadian 9y ago
  Detroit has lost something like 60% of its population since 1950 . . . though it might be growing again, now.
  - meric 9y ago
    It's not a big city, anymore.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      It's just a ridiculously massive urban area spanning about 1.5 counties. I guess you can say it isn't highly populated anymore.
- adamgray 9y ago
  A lot of Chicago's population loss is on the South Side where violence is high. Also the elimination of the projects has moved a lot of Section 8 housing to the suburbs, as it gives low income families a chance at a better life in a less dire situation. Investment in new infrastructure is at an all time high in the Loop / North / West sides. Young people are moving out the suburbs and into the core. Chicago's population isn't increasing at the rate of places like Houston because of the lack of annexation, the suburbs in Cook County generally don't want to join the city.
pilsetnieks 9y ago
Not all people. No one expects everyone to drop everything and move to Mars but there will be some pioneer types who would probably want that kind of endeavor. If comfort was everything, people would have remained in Africa.
bbcbasic 9y ago
> Guess what, fast forward, people don't just want to stay on Earth, but will also prefer SF proper, Manhattan and/or Paris within 20 arrondissements. Yet people live on the ISS, where there are no fancy cafes. How do you explain that?
- vacri 9y ago
  They return home after a brief period.
Robotbeat 9y ago
A lot of people /don't/ want to stay on Earth. (And people also want to go to Antarctica... There are multiple "colonies" there, by Chile and Argentina, thousands live there in the summer, and about a thousand people winter over there, and tens of thousands of tourists travel there annually... All this in a place that is illegal to mine, illegal to claim nationally, and even illegal to build new permanent structures by international treaty, thus essentially illegal to build a city or anything like a real economy, which would require mining at least for gravel.) The interesting thing about people is that there are many different kinds with many different motivations. Although I do suspect that space settlements will be even more urbanized and centralized than Earth cities. The extra costs associated with living in space are reduced by living in larger settlements/cities (think surface area to volume ratio), and just like on Earth, economic productivity will increase with increasing population density.
- vacri 9y ago
  I think most people who want to live off-planet have a very romanticised notion of what that entails. Mars isn't going to be terraformed within our lifetimes, even if it was possible. Living on Mars = living permanently in a tunnel. And if you don't get along with the small community you'll be living with, you'll be screwed. And if you don't like living a fairly regimented lifestyle, you'll be screwed as well; there'll be no equivalent of "let's see what cafes are down this alleyway!". I think far more people actually want a 'holiday' off-planet, than actually live off-planet.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    As far as the latter point, that's fine & perhaps expected. That's why we need to make transport cheap enough so people can come and go. I know what it's like to live life in a tunnel. That's the Twin Cities in Minnesota during the winter. Minnesota is where the modern indoor shopping mall was invented. The entire downtown of Minneapolis is still walkable in the middle of the winter because all the buildings are connected by temperature controlled skyways and tunnels. No reason you can't see what cafes are in the next building or indoor level.
  - 9y ago
Spooky23 9y ago
I haven't met many people who have knowledge beyond watching Friends reruns who actually want to live in Manhattan. The highest population growth places in the US are places like Dallas, TX and Greenville, SC. That's been the case for a long time. NYC and SFO are treading water and are at risk as their economies have de-diversified over the last 40 years.
ptaipale 9y ago
Or how Asimov's "The Caves of Steel", from 1953, was set on an Earth of 3000 years from now, and that was overpopulated, horribly full of people, living on contiguous, adjoining underground cities covering entire continents. And had 8 billion people (which we are actually about to reach in about 7 years from now, somewhere around 2024).

tlrobinson 9y ago

Took me a second to figure out your first use of "SF" was "science fiction" and the second was "San Francisco"

aqzman 9y ago
I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I was very confused for a moment after reading that comment. Never seen the acronym "SF" used for science fiction before.
- __s 9y ago
  https://google.com/search?q=SF+writer https://google.com/search?q=SF+writer doesn't list writers from San Francico SF straight in the title of https://www.amazon.com/Other-Worlds-SF-Human-Imagination/dp/0307741761 https://www.amazon.com/Other-Worlds-SF-Human-Imagination/dp/... SF also serves to include both 'science fiction' and 'speculative fiction' but that's a whole other debate
- ptaipale 9y ago
  I've seen it a lot, and the first use of SF was naturally right to me. That's why the second one was so confusing.
JCharante 9y ago
It took you for me to realize that op didn't mean San Francisco. It made sense for me either way.

ajmurmann 9y ago

I'm curious how improved telepresence will change the desire/need to live in major metro areas.

thriftwy 9y ago
...or basic income.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  I could see that that might have an impact as well. It will be interesting to see to what degree people move to metro areas because that's where the jobs are and to what degree they move there because it's a more interesting place to live. While I'd love to have a little more space and pay less for housing I'd get pretty depressed living outside a metro area. If that's what I wanted I could move back to the visit where my parents live, live in their second house or in-law unit and live off a few hours months of remote consulting work. Curious to see how that's the case for others.

brianwawok 9y ago

I think Chicago is the only big city to lose people in the US in the last 10 years.

goodcanadian 9y ago
Detroit has lost something like 60% of its population since 1950 . . . though it might be growing again, now.
- meric 9y ago
  It's not a big city, anymore.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    It's just a ridiculously massive urban area spanning about 1.5 counties. I guess you can say it isn't highly populated anymore.
adamgray 9y ago
A lot of Chicago's population loss is on the South Side where violence is high. Also the elimination of the projects has moved a lot of Section 8 housing to the suburbs, as it gives low income families a chance at a better life in a less dire situation. Investment in new infrastructure is at an all time high in the Loop / North / West sides. Young people are moving out the suburbs and into the core. Chicago's population isn't increasing at the rate of places like Houston because of the lack of annexation, the suburbs in Cook County generally don't want to join the city.

pilsetnieks 9y ago

Not all people. No one expects everyone to drop everything and move to Mars but there will be some pioneer types who would probably want that kind of endeavor. If comfort was everything, people would have remained in Africa.

bbcbasic 9y ago

> Guess what, fast forward, people don't just want to stay on Earth, but will also prefer SF proper, Manhattan and/or Paris within 20 arrondissements. Yet people live on the ISS, where there are no fancy cafes. How do you explain that?

vacri 9y ago
They return home after a brief period.

Robotbeat 9y ago

A lot of people /don't/ want to stay on Earth. (And people also want to go to Antarctica... There are multiple "colonies" there, by Chile and Argentina, thousands live there in the summer, and about a thousand people winter over there, and tens of thousands of tourists travel there annually... All this in a place that is illegal to mine, illegal to claim nationally, and even illegal to build new permanent structures by international treaty, thus essentially illegal to build a city or anything like a real economy, which would require mining at least for gravel.) The interesting thing about people is that there are many different kinds with many different motivations. Although I do suspect that space settlements will be even more urbanized and centralized than Earth cities. The extra costs associated with living in space are reduced by living in larger settlements/cities (think surface area to volume ratio), and just like on Earth, economic productivity will increase with increasing population density.

vacri 9y ago
I think most people who want to live off-planet have a very romanticised notion of what that entails. Mars isn't going to be terraformed within our lifetimes, even if it was possible. Living on Mars = living permanently in a tunnel. And if you don't get along with the small community you'll be living with, you'll be screwed. And if you don't like living a fairly regimented lifestyle, you'll be screwed as well; there'll be no equivalent of "let's see what cafes are down this alleyway!". I think far more people actually want a 'holiday' off-planet, than actually live off-planet.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  As far as the latter point, that's fine & perhaps expected. That's why we need to make transport cheap enough so people can come and go. I know what it's like to live life in a tunnel. That's the Twin Cities in Minnesota during the winter. Minnesota is where the modern indoor shopping mall was invented. The entire downtown of Minneapolis is still walkable in the middle of the winter because all the buildings are connected by temperature controlled skyways and tunnels. No reason you can't see what cafes are in the next building or indoor level.
- 9y ago

Spooky23 9y ago

I haven't met many people who have knowledge beyond watching Friends reruns who actually want to live in Manhattan. The highest population growth places in the US are places like Dallas, TX and Greenville, SC. That's been the case for a long time. NYC and SFO are treading water and are at risk as their economies have de-diversified over the last 40 years.

ptaipale 9y ago

Or how Asimov's "The Caves of Steel", from 1953, was set on an Earth of 3000 years from now, and that was overpopulated, horribly full of people, living on contiguous, adjoining underground cities covering entire continents. And had 8 billion people (which we are actually about to reach in about 7 years from now, somewhere around 2024).