7 ms·

My dream for the United States is that we repopulate everyone to Texas* and let the rest of the country be wild, in varying degrees, and accessible by bullet tr

by Fezzik 7y ago

My dream for the United States is that we repopulate everyone to Texas* and let the rest of the country be wild, in varying degrees, and accessible by bullet train. That’s my stance as an avid outdoorsman. Then we could see all this natural majesty flourish. * I have not looked up the numbers recently, but I recall that we could fit the entire population of the United States in to Texas with a resulting population density less than that of Manhattan. Obviously doing this is not feasible, for a number of reasons.

paulddraper 7y ago
And Texas happens to be a prime location for solar power.
thomasahle 7y ago
Moving everyone in the US to Texas would only result in 0.2% of the population density of Manhattan (just checked with Wolfram alpha which is great for this kind of thing) You might be thinking of moving the entire world's population to Texas, which would result in 56.7% of the Manhattan density (by 2017 estimates). Of course we would still need to grow food in fields, which surely is the most space consumptious part of the population.
- asteli 7y ago
  Apparently 41% of the land in the contiguous US is pasture or grazing land for livestock (548MM acre). Just staggering. To compare, land we use to grow crops that we directly eat account for for ~77MM acres. [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/]
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    It is staggering only until you realize that the majority of land in the US is too arid to grow crops and was once called the Great American Desert -- basically most of the land west of the Mississippi. Such land grows primarily scrub and is ideal for livestock such as Bison and Cattle that are able to eat the vegetation that grows there naturally as a result of the limited rainfall available. That we have water intensive agriculture west of the Mississippi is only because we are depleting aquifers. It's not sustainable, and using this land for livestock is about the best thing that can be done with it. It's also what this land was used for prior to being settled -- large open plains on which Bison roamed.
    - hadlock 7y ago
      Yep. In Texas, we have both FM (farm to market) roads, but also, as you head further west, toward the Mexican border and the landscape turns a beige-tan hue of brown, we also have RM (ranch to market) roads
      - pnutjam 7y ago
        Introduction of horses changed the landscape. They damage the roots when grazing. Bison and cows don't. Many of these desert scrub areas may have had much more grass cover pre-columbus.
        ivanhoe 7y ago
        According to Allan Savory and some other respectable scientists the problem arose because the plants evolved to support huge buffalo populations and depended on them to clean and fertilize the ground. As their population declined, there was no more mega-herds migrating annually through the prairies and smaller groups of animals had different grazing patterns. Plants couldn't adapt to the new situation quick enough and the balance got broken. Less cover meant more evaporation, drier soil, erosion and rain washing off the soil rich in organic matter, and it all spiraled down to the land turning into semi-deserts. Allan Savory thinks (and he proved this method successful in practice) that the solution is to have large flocks of grazing animals moving around periodically, which stimulates grass growth and grass protects the soil and helps other plants to colonize the area.
        ComputerGuru 7y ago
        Theory turning into practice here: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/517779/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/517779/
        pnutjam 7y ago
        There is some evidence that the huge Buffalo herds did not exist until Indians died off after Columbus "discovered" America. Pre-Columbian indigenous societies hunted the Bison enough to keep their population in check. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/american-buffalo-are-not-actually-buffalo/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/american-buf...
  - netcan 7y ago
    One important point to keep in mind is that "land" varies a lot, and "pasture" can mean anything from dense grassy pasture with >1 cow per acre to arid pasture >100. They aren't convertible to cropland in the same way. Even in terms of "rewinding," one acre doesn't equal another, for most interpretations of "wilderness value." This is why the amazon-2-pastureland problem is so serious. Every acre of amazon rainforest reoresents a lot of habitat.
  - wil421 7y ago
    Are they counting BLM (federal) land where they allow cattle to graze? A lot of land is federally owned but the BLM allow ranchers to let cattle graze in the summer/warmer months.
- Fezzik 7y ago
  That makes a lot more sense. It was late and I was tired when I initially commented, so that seemed too far-fetched without fact checking myself.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  Could you share your queries
ptah 7y ago
it wasn't "wild" by the time european colonists arrived. native americans actively managed vast areas with e.g. controlled burning for thousands of years. EDIT: "For 13,000 years, many Indigenous tribes, including the Hupa, Karuk, Miwok, and Yurok lit controlled fires across northern and central California. This created a mosaic of habitats with a high diversity of species that California is known for today. Through multiple progressions of these practices, many species, such as acorns and huckleberries became associated with these deliberate, low-intensity fires. Despite their fire resistance, they are ill-equipped to tolerate the high-intensity nature of modern wildfires in California." https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/10/28/what-california-stands-to-learn-from-indigenous-fire-management-practices/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/10/28/what-cal...
Razengan 7y ago
Arcologies. Think city-sized sci-fi’ish pyramids, containing all the residential and non-polluting commercial and workspace needs of an average human’s entire lifetime. Surrounded by natural wilderness that people can escape to at their leisure. Connected by hyperloops or airships. Food supply (that can’t be grown inside the arcology), energy generation (beyond the arcology’s own renewable capacity) and heavy manufacturing will still have to come from elsewhere though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology
Razengan 7y ago
Arcologies. City-sized sci-fi’ish pyramids, containing all the residential and non-polluting commercial and workspace needs of an average human’s entire lifetime. Surrounded by natural wilderness that people can escape to at their leisure. Food supply (that can’t be grown inside the arcology), energy generation (beyond the arcology’s own renewable capacity) and heavy manufacturing will still have to come from elsewhere though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology
- specialist 7y ago
  I keep expecting to hear about "Biosphere 3", funded by some billionaires wanting an arc to survive the climate collapse. http://biosphere2.org http://biosphere2.org I did see the head line about Gates funding something like Argosanti. https://arcosanti.org https://arcosanti.org https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/13/bill-gates-plans-smart-city-arizona-desert-belmont-partners/ https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/13/bill-gates-plans-smart-cit...
- wincy 7y ago
  Like in that episode of Black Mirror with the bikes and American Idol! Our entire existence can be ad supported with cameras making sure we’re watching.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    How different is that from right now, except for multiple buildings instead of one?
credit_guy 7y ago
I have a different, but related dream: for construction companies to be allowed to build anywhere they please, as long as they meet safety regulations. This way real estate prices in NYC, SF, etc, etc, will descend from the skies, and normal people from all over the country could move in. And move in they would, because that's where the jobs are. Only the damn high rent (and damn high cost of living) keeps them outside of the main metropolitan areas. And then we'd have exactly what you say, natural majesty flourish.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I am in favor of more density in San Francisco, but no matter how negatively we feel about nimbyism we must acknowledge that current blocks are tightly packed with single family homes or at best 2-3 unit buildings, and people live there. This creates an obstacle or delay if we think they should be demolished and replaced with denser housing.
GuiA 7y ago
In addition to all the other great points: Where are the train stations? What services at are there? Who works there? Where do they live? Where do their kids go to school? How do they get their food? Who takes care of them for medical issues? You can recurse a few times on all that, and then you’re just in a similar situation we’re in now, except we’ve got high speed trains going everywhere. That I can agree with, but then let’s save some time and just connect existing cities by bullet train and better preserve the existing nature.
ubermonkey 7y ago
(Not the least of which being how much of Texas is super inhospitable.)
filmgirlcw 7y ago
But see, when you live in Manhattan, as I did for many years, you’re in a dense place, but you’re in Manhattan. If we did it in Texas, we’d all be stuck in Texas. Pass.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  And the humidity and terrible water quality. Super pass.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Yeah, gotta love that New York winter.
lm28469 7y ago
Aren't most of the US already wild ? 50% of the population is on the coasts. Besides the east, as soon as you go inland it's quite literally a desert.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jartelt 7y ago
  The midwest of the US is neither a desert nor wild. It's mostly farm land.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Also, "literally a desert" concerns rainfall, not population density.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert In the not-so-distant past, the term "desert" would have included what is now referred to as grasslands, savanna, or steppe environments.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    Not a native english speaker, "desert" can be used to describe an empty patch of land in my language. Anyway, there are 10 states in the US with a lower pop density than the least densely populated country in Europe (norway, which is already quite empty). Half of the US states have less than 40 inhab per square kilometer. Sure some are farm land but it's far from all of it https://map.onesoil.ai/2018#3.89/38.32/-98.67 https://map.onesoil.ai/2018#3.89/38.32/-98.67
Gravityloss 7y ago
Of course, places like Manhattan require a huge amount of supporting area. People just live there and work office jobs but everything they need is imported, and what they need to get rid of is exported. But you could look at something like Bangladesh that's more of a real country rather than a city and see how they do the density. Extreme fertility for farming and high poverty helps.
mdszy 7y ago
Because fuck anyone who doesn't want to live in the hot, shitty environment of the American south, right?

by Fezzik 7y ago

paulddraper 7y ago

And Texas happens to be a prime location for solar power.

thomasahle 7y ago

Moving everyone in the US to Texas would only result in 0.2% of the population density of Manhattan (just checked with Wolfram alpha which is great for this kind of thing) You might be thinking of moving the entire world's population to Texas, which would result in 56.7% of the Manhattan density (by 2017 estimates). Of course we would still need to grow food in fields, which surely is the most space consumptious part of the population.

asteli 7y ago
Apparently 41% of the land in the contiguous US is pasture or grazing land for livestock (548MM acre). Just staggering. To compare, land we use to grow crops that we directly eat account for for ~77MM acres. [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/]
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  It is staggering only until you realize that the majority of land in the US is too arid to grow crops and was once called the Great American Desert -- basically most of the land west of the Mississippi. Such land grows primarily scrub and is ideal for livestock such as Bison and Cattle that are able to eat the vegetation that grows there naturally as a result of the limited rainfall available. That we have water intensive agriculture west of the Mississippi is only because we are depleting aquifers. It's not sustainable, and using this land for livestock is about the best thing that can be done with it. It's also what this land was used for prior to being settled -- large open plains on which Bison roamed.
  - hadlock 7y ago
    Yep. In Texas, we have both FM (farm to market) roads, but also, as you head further west, toward the Mexican border and the landscape turns a beige-tan hue of brown, we also have RM (ranch to market) roads
    - pnutjam 7y ago
      Introduction of horses changed the landscape. They damage the roots when grazing. Bison and cows don't. Many of these desert scrub areas may have had much more grass cover pre-columbus.
      - ivanhoe 7y ago
        According to Allan Savory and some other respectable scientists the problem arose because the plants evolved to support huge buffalo populations and depended on them to clean and fertilize the ground. As their population declined, there was no more mega-herds migrating annually through the prairies and smaller groups of animals had different grazing patterns. Plants couldn't adapt to the new situation quick enough and the balance got broken. Less cover meant more evaporation, drier soil, erosion and rain washing off the soil rich in organic matter, and it all spiraled down to the land turning into semi-deserts. Allan Savory thinks (and he proved this method successful in practice) that the solution is to have large flocks of grazing animals moving around periodically, which stimulates grass growth and grass protects the soil and helps other plants to colonize the area.
        ComputerGuru 7y ago
        Theory turning into practice here: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/517779/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/517779/
        pnutjam 7y ago
        There is some evidence that the huge Buffalo herds did not exist until Indians died off after Columbus "discovered" America. Pre-Columbian indigenous societies hunted the Bison enough to keep their population in check. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/american-buffalo-are-not-actually-buffalo/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/american-buf...
- netcan 7y ago
  One important point to keep in mind is that "land" varies a lot, and "pasture" can mean anything from dense grassy pasture with >1 cow per acre to arid pasture >100. They aren't convertible to cropland in the same way. Even in terms of "rewinding," one acre doesn't equal another, for most interpretations of "wilderness value." This is why the amazon-2-pastureland problem is so serious. Every acre of amazon rainforest reoresents a lot of habitat.
- wil421 7y ago
  Are they counting BLM (federal) land where they allow cattle to graze? A lot of land is federally owned but the BLM allow ranchers to let cattle graze in the summer/warmer months.
Fezzik 7y ago
That makes a lot more sense. It was late and I was tired when I initially commented, so that seemed too far-fetched without fact checking myself.
ramblerman 7y ago
Could you share your queries

ptah 7y ago

it wasn't "wild" by the time european colonists arrived. native americans actively managed vast areas with e.g. controlled burning for thousands of years. EDIT: "For 13,000 years, many Indigenous tribes, including the Hupa, Karuk, Miwok, and Yurok lit controlled fires across northern and central California. This created a mosaic of habitats with a high diversity of species that California is known for today. Through multiple progressions of these practices, many species, such as acorns and huckleberries became associated with these deliberate, low-intensity fires. Despite their fire resistance, they are ill-equipped to tolerate the high-intensity nature of modern wildfires in California." https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/10/28/what-california-stands-to-learn-from-indigenous-fire-management-practices/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2019/10/28/what-cal...

Razengan 7y ago

Arcologies. Think city-sized sci-fi’ish pyramids, containing all the residential and non-polluting commercial and workspace needs of an average human’s entire lifetime. Surrounded by natural wilderness that people can escape to at their leisure. Connected by hyperloops or airships. Food supply (that can’t be grown inside the arcology), energy generation (beyond the arcology’s own renewable capacity) and heavy manufacturing will still have to come from elsewhere though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

Razengan 7y ago

Arcologies. City-sized sci-fi’ish pyramids, containing all the residential and non-polluting commercial and workspace needs of an average human’s entire lifetime. Surrounded by natural wilderness that people can escape to at their leisure. Food supply (that can’t be grown inside the arcology), energy generation (beyond the arcology’s own renewable capacity) and heavy manufacturing will still have to come from elsewhere though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

specialist 7y ago
I keep expecting to hear about "Biosphere 3", funded by some billionaires wanting an arc to survive the climate collapse. http://biosphere2.org http://biosphere2.org I did see the head line about Gates funding something like Argosanti. https://arcosanti.org https://arcosanti.org https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/13/bill-gates-plans-smart-city-arizona-desert-belmont-partners/ https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/13/bill-gates-plans-smart-cit...
wincy 7y ago
Like in that episode of Black Mirror with the bikes and American Idol! Our entire existence can be ad supported with cameras making sure we’re watching.
- Razengan 7y ago
  How different is that from right now, except for multiple buildings instead of one?

credit_guy 7y ago

I have a different, but related dream: for construction companies to be allowed to build anywhere they please, as long as they meet safety regulations. This way real estate prices in NYC, SF, etc, etc, will descend from the skies, and normal people from all over the country could move in. And move in they would, because that's where the jobs are. Only the damn high rent (and damn high cost of living) keeps them outside of the main metropolitan areas. And then we'd have exactly what you say, natural majesty flourish.

asveikau 7y ago
I am in favor of more density in San Francisco, but no matter how negatively we feel about nimbyism we must acknowledge that current blocks are tightly packed with single family homes or at best 2-3 unit buildings, and people live there. This creates an obstacle or delay if we think they should be demolished and replaced with denser housing.

GuiA 7y ago

In addition to all the other great points: Where are the train stations? What services at are there? Who works there? Where do they live? Where do their kids go to school? How do they get their food? Who takes care of them for medical issues? You can recurse a few times on all that, and then you’re just in a similar situation we’re in now, except we’ve got high speed trains going everywhere. That I can agree with, but then let’s save some time and just connect existing cities by bullet train and better preserve the existing nature.

ubermonkey 7y ago

(Not the least of which being how much of Texas is super inhospitable.)

filmgirlcw 7y ago

But see, when you live in Manhattan, as I did for many years, you’re in a dense place, but you’re in Manhattan. If we did it in Texas, we’d all be stuck in Texas. Pass.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
And the humidity and terrible water quality. Super pass.
paulddraper 7y ago
Yeah, gotta love that New York winter.

lm28469 7y ago

Aren't most of the US already wild ? 50% of the population is on the coasts. Besides the east, as soon as you go inland it's quite literally a desert.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jartelt 7y ago
The midwest of the US is neither a desert nor wild. It's mostly farm land.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Also, "literally a desert" concerns rainfall, not population density.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert In the not-so-distant past, the term "desert" would have included what is now referred to as grasslands, savanna, or steppe environments.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Not a native english speaker, "desert" can be used to describe an empty patch of land in my language. Anyway, there are 10 states in the US with a lower pop density than the least densely populated country in Europe (norway, which is already quite empty). Half of the US states have less than 40 inhab per square kilometer. Sure some are farm land but it's far from all of it https://map.onesoil.ai/2018#3.89/38.32/-98.67 https://map.onesoil.ai/2018#3.89/38.32/-98.67

Gravityloss 7y ago

Of course, places like Manhattan require a huge amount of supporting area. People just live there and work office jobs but everything they need is imported, and what they need to get rid of is exported. But you could look at something like Bangladesh that's more of a real country rather than a city and see how they do the density. Extreme fertility for farming and high poverty helps.

mdszy 7y ago

Because fuck anyone who doesn't want to live in the hot, shitty environment of the American south, right?