4 ms·

> Single family detached homes with garages on quarter acre [...] are not going to happen for all 8B+ people. Why not? There are ~7.7 billion acres of arable l

> Single family detached homes with garages on quarter acre [...] are not going to happen for all 8B+ people. Why not? There are ~7.7 billion acres of arable land on the earth. 0.25 acres per person would leave ~5.7 billion acres of arable land for agriculture.

imgabe 7y ago
The population number grows.
- philwelch 7y ago
  At ever-decreasing rates as standard of living increases.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Hutterites, the Amish. These are all US communities that have had fertility rates well above average for generations. Those are all culture bound groups. Even if they were forcibly assimilated > The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in the foreseeable future https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817302799#bb0180 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Mormons and Catholics still show a pattern of decreasing fertility in recent years; they just had higher fertility before so they are merely around the level that mainline Protestants were once at. I agree that in the long run, the fertility trend will reverse itself. But in the medium term, it’s not an excuse for not fixing global poverty.
bumby 7y ago
Because it’s not just the land but the infrastructure that makes that land “livable”. Installing sewers and electrical grids and internet and roads and grocery stores etc. is more prohibitive than land, even if that land was available for sale
- derrick_jensen 7y ago
  I would argue that more technology is going to make our current use of those resources a lot more efficient going forward. Solar panels can mostly remove the need for an electrical grid for most people. Internet via StarLink (soon) will remove the geographical need for that. Roads are non-negotiable, sure, but they're pretty inconsequential. Things like DoorDash and Amazon are going to drastically reduce the number of grocery stores per capita going forward, or at least curb new construction.
  - bumby 7y ago
    No offense intended but this seems very naive to me. It feels very much like the promise of nuclear energy creating “energy too cheap to meter” from 50 years ago. Technology will definitely help but think about it this way: people who live in those dispersed areas will likely be there out of necessity, not choice. How many people in say, rural Appalachia, are currently using Door Dash to regularly get groceries or can rely on solar to be off the grid? Grocery delivery doesn’t help much when you’re over an hour away because it drives up cost and limits the types of goods available. Those solutions already exist from a technological standpoint but they aren’t causing people to move en masse to these locations despite housing shortages elsewhere.
    - mod 7y ago
      I live in the ozarks, much like Appalachia. So I can answer those questions at least anecdotally. Door dash: none. Nobody is using it, or am incredibly small number. Solar off grid: a decent amount. It’s certainly doable. It’s easier to be on-grid, though.
      - derrick_jensen 7y ago
        Maybe DoorDash wasn't a good analogy. I volunteered on a CSA in high school (Greater STL area, so fairly close to you), and honestly that model is surprisingly feasible. Supply chains produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, and the closer you are to your food production, the better it is for everybody involved.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Because we’re changing our climate at an accelerating pace due to the energy used to move mass further and further distances (caused by less dense living).
- oivey 7y ago
  The problem is much bigger than just transportation. The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution.
jschwartzi 7y ago
There are creatures that already live in that land. Are you seriously suggesting we just overrun the entire planet and turn it into suburbia as a solution to our problems?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Parent posters math is flawed. You can usually fit more than 1 person in a home and besides we can build apartment buildings up for 50 times the density with as nice an environment.

imgabe 7y ago

The population number grows.

philwelch 7y ago
At ever-decreasing rates as standard of living increases.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Hutterites, the Amish. These are all US communities that have had fertility rates well above average for generations. Those are all culture bound groups. Even if they were forcibly assimilated > The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in the foreseeable future https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817302799#bb0180 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Mormons and Catholics still show a pattern of decreasing fertility in recent years; they just had higher fertility before so they are merely around the level that mainline Protestants were once at. I agree that in the long run, the fertility trend will reverse itself. But in the medium term, it’s not an excuse for not fixing global poverty.

bumby 7y ago

Because it’s not just the land but the infrastructure that makes that land “livable”. Installing sewers and electrical grids and internet and roads and grocery stores etc. is more prohibitive than land, even if that land was available for sale

derrick_jensen 7y ago
I would argue that more technology is going to make our current use of those resources a lot more efficient going forward. Solar panels can mostly remove the need for an electrical grid for most people. Internet via StarLink (soon) will remove the geographical need for that. Roads are non-negotiable, sure, but they're pretty inconsequential. Things like DoorDash and Amazon are going to drastically reduce the number of grocery stores per capita going forward, or at least curb new construction.
- bumby 7y ago
  No offense intended but this seems very naive to me. It feels very much like the promise of nuclear energy creating “energy too cheap to meter” from 50 years ago. Technology will definitely help but think about it this way: people who live in those dispersed areas will likely be there out of necessity, not choice. How many people in say, rural Appalachia, are currently using Door Dash to regularly get groceries or can rely on solar to be off the grid? Grocery delivery doesn’t help much when you’re over an hour away because it drives up cost and limits the types of goods available. Those solutions already exist from a technological standpoint but they aren’t causing people to move en masse to these locations despite housing shortages elsewhere.
  - mod 7y ago
    I live in the ozarks, much like Appalachia. So I can answer those questions at least anecdotally. Door dash: none. Nobody is using it, or am incredibly small number. Solar off grid: a decent amount. It’s certainly doable. It’s easier to be on-grid, though.
    - derrick_jensen 7y ago
      Maybe DoorDash wasn't a good analogy. I volunteered on a CSA in high school (Greater STL area, so fairly close to you), and honestly that model is surprisingly feasible. Supply chains produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, and the closer you are to your food production, the better it is for everybody involved.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Because we’re changing our climate at an accelerating pace due to the energy used to move mass further and further distances (caused by less dense living).

oivey 7y ago
The problem is much bigger than just transportation. The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution.

jschwartzi 7y ago

There are creatures that already live in that land. Are you seriously suggesting we just overrun the entire planet and turn it into suburbia as a solution to our problems?

michaelmrose 7y ago
Parent posters math is flawed. You can usually fit more than 1 person in a home and besides we can build apartment buildings up for 50 times the density with as nice an environment.