5 ms·

I think the author does a lot of harm to their argument by cherry picking data and then having to retract the points. Furthermore, I think the author is losing

I think the author does a lot of harm to their argument by cherry picking data and then having to retract the points. Furthermore, I think the author is losing a bit of historical context. For all of human history settlements have grown from a central point outwards. There has been a highly dense core, with decreasing density towards the suburbs. As time progresses the density spreads too to match demand and economic growth. Only in the past century or so have large numbers of people been able to demand that this density spread stop or reverse itself, typically with the application of zoning regulations. This has put undue pressure on the cities where this happens between those trying to continue an ancient growth pattern, and those who are trying to stop it. So from a very large historical view, those living on the outskirts of a city complaining about the spread of density are being unreasonable, because this is exactly what successful cities have done for all of human history.

emodendroket 8y ago
For most of history, people dumped human waste into the street. Appeals to an idyllic past are suspect to me.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It's not an appeal to an idyllic past. It's the recognition that human development seems to follow a pretty consistent pattern, and that fighting it is going to take a lot of energy and have unintended consequences. If you notice that a certain part of a mountain near you has consistent avalanches, then you really shouldn't be surprised if a home built near it gets knocked flat on a regular basis. You can build a giant wall next to it, but at a certain point you should recognize that you ought to build elsewhere. Similarly, if you want to live a low density lifestyle, don't build close to a thriving metropolis. The only time they don't spread is if they start to fail, or if there is some natural barrier stopping growth.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    For most of human history there has not been such a great incentive to live in or near a large city. Because there is such an incentive, you now see people struggling to build enclaves they like living in that are reasonably close to work, rather than going to live in the Great Plains. I don't really see that much about human development is "natural;" humans control the process and are free to make decisions about it.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      That’s not true at all. For most of human history, cities did not actually reproduce enough to maintain their own population. It’s only into the 19th century when cities start to become self sustaining. If there wasn’t pressure to move to the city then they would’ve collapsed millenia ago. It’s not like there’s this permanent cohort of city weirdos living in the great urban areas, those areas continue to draw in people from the surrounding area.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        The modern economy has a much bigger role for cities, and the percentage of the population living in cities or metro areas is historically high. So in fact I do think it is true.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        Yes, urbanization is very high right now, although most people underestimate the degree of urbanization in ancient civilizations. This has less to do with a change in cities than it has to do with the precipitous drop in demand for rural labor of all sorts, imho.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I'm not sure how you tease those two out, as they're kind of mutually reinforcing.

emodendroket 8y ago

For most of history, people dumped human waste into the street. Appeals to an idyllic past are suspect to me.

village-idiot 8y ago
It's not an appeal to an idyllic past. It's the recognition that human development seems to follow a pretty consistent pattern, and that fighting it is going to take a lot of energy and have unintended consequences. If you notice that a certain part of a mountain near you has consistent avalanches, then you really shouldn't be surprised if a home built near it gets knocked flat on a regular basis. You can build a giant wall next to it, but at a certain point you should recognize that you ought to build elsewhere. Similarly, if you want to live a low density lifestyle, don't build close to a thriving metropolis. The only time they don't spread is if they start to fail, or if there is some natural barrier stopping growth.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  For most of human history there has not been such a great incentive to live in or near a large city. Because there is such an incentive, you now see people struggling to build enclaves they like living in that are reasonably close to work, rather than going to live in the Great Plains. I don't really see that much about human development is "natural;" humans control the process and are free to make decisions about it.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    That’s not true at all. For most of human history, cities did not actually reproduce enough to maintain their own population. It’s only into the 19th century when cities start to become self sustaining. If there wasn’t pressure to move to the city then they would’ve collapsed millenia ago. It’s not like there’s this permanent cohort of city weirdos living in the great urban areas, those areas continue to draw in people from the surrounding area.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      The modern economy has a much bigger role for cities, and the percentage of the population living in cities or metro areas is historically high. So in fact I do think it is true.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Yes, urbanization is very high right now, although most people underestimate the degree of urbanization in ancient civilizations. This has less to do with a change in cities than it has to do with the precipitous drop in demand for rural labor of all sorts, imho.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I'm not sure how you tease those two out, as they're kind of mutually reinforcing.