6 ms·

"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 avail

"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" Perform a thought experiment in which human systems are part of nature, not separate from it; that land isn't set aside for nature, but that nature is everywhere. This frame will encourage systematic thinking of the sort that at least more realistically contextualizes this land-filling exercise, and at most entirely invalidates the ideas underlying the practice. To decimate such productive, sustaining landscapes is reckless, short-sighted, and perhaps even cruel––not only to natural systems which depend on them, but to us, who in turn depend on those systems. Read Wendell Berry's "Wild and Domestic" on this, if you'd like: https://orionmagazine.org/article/wild-and-domestic/ https://orionmagazine.org/article/wild-and-domestic/

carapace 7y ago
Indeed! Combine C. Alexander's Pattern Language and "Living Neighborhoods" with Permaculture. Build arcologies. Use biomimetic technology like the New Alchemy Institute's "Living Machines" bioreactors. https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alchemy_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alchemy_Institute https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-new-alchemy-institute-d0992ce33a68 https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-new-alchemy-institut... http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu16se/uu16se0d.htm http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu16se/uu16se0d.ht...
ergothus 7y ago
I'm not qualified to discuss the details, but I WILL say I moved to Seattle,WA 7ish years ago and was amazed at how green everything is (like, because there are trees everywhere). I've heard Portland, OR is the same. Despite this, travel times to points of interest (theaters, stores, restaurants, etc) are LESS than I've found in other non-major cities in the US, such as Richmond, VA or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, PA. Hard to compare to places like Boston, MA or New York City, NY.
alteria 7y ago
I had the same reaction. Every time I visit/fly over places like New York and SF I'm torn. Waterfront properties are beautiful, but then I think back to the dynamic ecosystem and landscape that was there 300-600 years ago and how different it is now. It's just interesting to think about how the land we live on now was like before us. Are we living somewhere that could have been a beautiful national park?
- mc32 7y ago
  Even pre WWII much of the Bay Area outside the ports was farmland or wilderness (not built-up). So you don’t have to go too far back, well, except for the salt evaporators, those have been around some time.
kelnos 7y ago
Yeah, this was my first objection, and the article addresses it in a way that I find completely misses the point. I think it's a fantastic idea overall, but not at the expense of wetlands preserves. Then again, what would actually be a fantastic idea overall would be increasing density in existing areas, but clearly that's politically fraught right now.
- mc32 7y ago
  I used to think, why not build in desert or unproductive land? Well, you need water and you need jobs. There is a reason very few people want to live in Siberia (south of the tundra). Except for some mineral extraction, fur trappers and some science/military outposts there’s not much to attract people even when Putin promises free land.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    There's plenty of room between "inhospitable desert" and "protected wetlands" where people could live.
    - mc32 7y ago
      Not all deserts are inhospitable. Sure some are ovens or have moving dunes, but many are habitable, if water is available (most iconic example is an oasis). But lots of dry places are inhabited, just look at the Arabian peninsula or the Sonoran desert —and elsewhere. But water tables get exhausted and you do what Israel does or, well, there is no alternative.

carapace 7y ago

Indeed! Combine C. Alexander's Pattern Language and "Living Neighborhoods" with Permaculture. Build arcologies. Use biomimetic technology like the New Alchemy Institute's "Living Machines" bioreactors. https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alchemy_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Alchemy_Institute https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-new-alchemy-institute-d0992ce33a68 https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-new-alchemy-institut... http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu16se/uu16se0d.htm http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu16se/uu16se0d.ht...

ergothus 7y ago

I'm not qualified to discuss the details, but I WILL say I moved to Seattle,WA 7ish years ago and was amazed at how green everything is (like, because there are trees everywhere). I've heard Portland, OR is the same. Despite this, travel times to points of interest (theaters, stores, restaurants, etc) are LESS than I've found in other non-major cities in the US, such as Richmond, VA or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, PA. Hard to compare to places like Boston, MA or New York City, NY.

alteria 7y ago

I had the same reaction. Every time I visit/fly over places like New York and SF I'm torn. Waterfront properties are beautiful, but then I think back to the dynamic ecosystem and landscape that was there 300-600 years ago and how different it is now. It's just interesting to think about how the land we live on now was like before us. Are we living somewhere that could have been a beautiful national park?

mc32 7y ago
Even pre WWII much of the Bay Area outside the ports was farmland or wilderness (not built-up). So you don’t have to go too far back, well, except for the salt evaporators, those have been around some time.

kelnos 7y ago

Yeah, this was my first objection, and the article addresses it in a way that I find completely misses the point. I think it's a fantastic idea overall, but not at the expense of wetlands preserves. Then again, what would actually be a fantastic idea overall would be increasing density in existing areas, but clearly that's politically fraught right now.

mc32 7y ago
I used to think, why not build in desert or unproductive land? Well, you need water and you need jobs. There is a reason very few people want to live in Siberia (south of the tundra). Except for some mineral extraction, fur trappers and some science/military outposts there’s not much to attract people even when Putin promises free land.
- kelnos 7y ago
  There's plenty of room between "inhospitable desert" and "protected wetlands" where people could live.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Not all deserts are inhospitable. Sure some are ovens or have moving dunes, but many are habitable, if water is available (most iconic example is an oasis). But lots of dry places are inhabited, just look at the Arabian peninsula or the Sonoran desert —and elsewhere. But water tables get exhausted and you do what Israel does or, well, there is no alternative.