5 ms·
Seems to me to be the usual un-environment friendly corporate drivel. We don't need more people in San Francisco. They are the 13th ranked city by density in th
by thedaemon 7y ago
Seems to me to be the usual un-environment friendly corporate drivel. We don't need more people in San Francisco. They are the 13th ranked city by density in the USA.
"The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is available at far less impact to people."
- bryanlarsen 7y agoA million dollars will buy a few square feet of land in San Francisco. In the middle of nowhere it can buy a square mile. Humans might prefer the former, but most other species would prefer the latter.
- telharmonium 7y agoUnfortunately habitats are not fungible. A square mile of dry land is unlikely to be suitable for the species which live in the wetlands of a tidal estuary.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoAnd industrial wasteland is suitable for neither.
- whatshisface 7y agoWhy not make some additional wetlands too? Land is so expensive in SF that doubling the construction cost of this project won't really change anything.
- eru 7y agoWe do need more people in San Francisco. It's one of the most productive cities in the world. But there's plenty of space there already: upwards. It's just illegal to use.
- daxorid 7y agoGDP per capita is a poor measure of productivity, and doesn't consider externalities. SF is pretty good at producing emotionally manipulative adtech to opt every Internet and smartphone user into a global panopticon, and also quite prolific at social media that turns our lives into perpetually distracting hedonic treadmills. Time will tell whether the "productivity" of SF was a net benefit to Civilization.
- eru 7y agoI'm just looking at people making good money for themselves (from high wages), and paying taxes for the benefit for the rest of the country.