10 ms·

I wonder if the trend toward remote work is temporary, or if it will continue long-term. The plot in that article shows that the percentage of remote workers e

I wonder if the trend toward remote work is temporary, or if it will continue long-term. The plot in that article shows that the percentage of remote workers employed full time seems to be increasing fairly quickly. If this is a real trend, my second question then is whether it will have an effect on the current migration away from rural communities toward cities. There are many beautiful places around the world that I think people would prefer to live in if they could work remotely. (Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth).

TulliusCicero 7y ago
> (Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth). Nailed it. People often move to rural areas because they love nature, but ironically this is actually a terrible thing for nature. Not saying everyone has to live in skyscrapers, but denser urban living is definitely better for the environment, most of the time, due to both energy efficiency and reduced need for land.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  If they can work remotely, people also move closer to family once they have kids, not everyone moves to Barcelona or Thailand.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment about people moving to rural areas because they love nature.
- roel_v 7y ago
  "People often move to rural areas because they love nature, but ironically this is actually a terrible thing for nature." Oh this is one of my pet peeves. It's usually the people who claim to love nature the most who will go live right in the middle of it, thereby destroying it. It's like saying 'I love animals so much! Bring me another steak!' I eat meat, I'm not making a pro-vegetarian argument here - just pointing out the hypocrisy. If you really love nature (and not 'living in nature', which is different), you buy the smallest apartment in the city that will fit you (and your family where applicable).
- belorn 7y ago
  > denser urban living is definitely better for the environment, most of the time, "Most of the time" is likely the key phrase in that statement. I would say it depend on where and how. Living "in nature" enables partial self sustainability, and far from all land is currently used efficiently. Low yield farm land is perfectly fine for raising a few chicken and supplementing other commonly food product with self grown items, and that reduces strain on high yield farm land. As an example, here in Sweden the urbanization has been identified as a direct cause for lower biodiversity by land being overgrown with mono culture spruce forests. The previous small open plots and fields inside forests allowed for a more diverse environment for animals like birds and insects. People moving to more rural areas would not top my list of terrible things for nature, or at least not around here. I do however agree that if everyone went to live in rural areas we would run out of unused low yield land, so there is definitely a balance to be made.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    > As an example, here in Sweden the urbanization has been identified as a direct cause for lower biodiversity by land being overgrown with mono culture spruce forests. Sorry, I don't see how those things are connected. People moving from rural areas to urban ones caused forests to be dominated by a single species of tree? What?
    - belorn 7y ago
      Some sources in Swedish: https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/igenvaxning-gifter-hot https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/igenvaxning-gifter-hot and https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_ovrigt/ovr3_29.pdf https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/... Biodiversity depend on diversity in environment, and as I understand it, more so in colder climate zones. In the last 100 years the decrease in farm land, grazing areas, and gardens is the primary cause why about 1 300 species is marked as endangered here in Sweden. When small plot of open land in the middle of spruce forest (European spruce) get overgrown here in Sweden, the result is first a stage of small and thick bushes until later the trees reclaim the once open area. Spruce is the dominating tree in the southern part of Sweden. If you are asking why spruce is so dominating you would have to ask a botanist, but I would suspect the temperature, the soil and access to water as being the usual suspects for why one type of tree can dominate an area. I should make it clear that what I describing is the situation in Sweden. Rain forests are unlikely to have the same need for diversity throigh multiple small biomes in the same area. The US is pretty large area so I can't really say if any of its area suffers similar to Sweden, but I would suspect that Canada do. The above linked sources (and references research in those) also point that diversity in how farming is done is also a key part of the decrease biodiversity. High yield farming of the same plant year in and year out is directly harmful to diversity. To enable this kind of farming people adds pesticides and fertilizer, both which links to a decrease in bio diversity through multiple factors. The redirection of water to more concentrated areas also pile on the problems for biodiversity. The more uniform and concentrated the farming become, and the more spill over of pesticides and fertilizer, the more damage we do to nature. Those aspects is true not only for Sweden but globally.
tjr225 7y ago
> Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth I think you'd find the opposite to be true. People would live closer to their families while also tapping job markets that are only available far away. Now that I live closer to family nobody needs to fly to visit each other. It has probably cut down on demand for over 6 cross country flights per year which I would think is very good for the planet.
- asdff 7y ago
  It depends. If living closer to family means living in a development clear cut from the forest, that isn't sustainable. If it means adopting a life of spending 95% of your energy for transportation on moving the vehicle itself, and shipping 1 off goods from far away ports aboard diesel trucks from one side of the continent to where you live, that isn't sustainable either. You just have more options to live sustainably in the footprint of a large city than out in the countryside. For example, you can ride electrified mass transportation for your needs, or find everything you need in daily life on a bike ride or even a walk around the neighborhood, and take up less space on the surface of the earth by utilizing the vertical axis. Plus if everyone worked remote, your whole family can move to your building, as is the case of some of my neighbors in my apartment.
  - tjr225 7y ago
    There are tons of cities near my family. Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids. It's not a dichotomy.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

> (Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth). Nailed it. People often move to rural areas because they love nature, but ironically this is actually a terrible thing for nature. Not saying everyone has to live in skyscrapers, but denser urban living is definitely better for the environment, most of the time, due to both energy efficiency and reduced need for land.

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
If they can work remotely, people also move closer to family once they have kids, not everyone moves to Barcelona or Thailand.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment about people moving to rural areas because they love nature.
roel_v 7y ago
"People often move to rural areas because they love nature, but ironically this is actually a terrible thing for nature." Oh this is one of my pet peeves. It's usually the people who claim to love nature the most who will go live right in the middle of it, thereby destroying it. It's like saying 'I love animals so much! Bring me another steak!' I eat meat, I'm not making a pro-vegetarian argument here - just pointing out the hypocrisy. If you really love nature (and not 'living in nature', which is different), you buy the smallest apartment in the city that will fit you (and your family where applicable).
belorn 7y ago
> denser urban living is definitely better for the environment, most of the time, "Most of the time" is likely the key phrase in that statement. I would say it depend on where and how. Living "in nature" enables partial self sustainability, and far from all land is currently used efficiently. Low yield farm land is perfectly fine for raising a few chicken and supplementing other commonly food product with self grown items, and that reduces strain on high yield farm land. As an example, here in Sweden the urbanization has been identified as a direct cause for lower biodiversity by land being overgrown with mono culture spruce forests. The previous small open plots and fields inside forests allowed for a more diverse environment for animals like birds and insects. People moving to more rural areas would not top my list of terrible things for nature, or at least not around here. I do however agree that if everyone went to live in rural areas we would run out of unused low yield land, so there is definitely a balance to be made.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > As an example, here in Sweden the urbanization has been identified as a direct cause for lower biodiversity by land being overgrown with mono culture spruce forests. Sorry, I don't see how those things are connected. People moving from rural areas to urban ones caused forests to be dominated by a single species of tree? What?
  - belorn 7y ago
    Some sources in Swedish: https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/igenvaxning-gifter-hot https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/igenvaxning-gifter-hot and https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_ovrigt/ovr3_29.pdf https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/... Biodiversity depend on diversity in environment, and as I understand it, more so in colder climate zones. In the last 100 years the decrease in farm land, grazing areas, and gardens is the primary cause why about 1 300 species is marked as endangered here in Sweden. When small plot of open land in the middle of spruce forest (European spruce) get overgrown here in Sweden, the result is first a stage of small and thick bushes until later the trees reclaim the once open area. Spruce is the dominating tree in the southern part of Sweden. If you are asking why spruce is so dominating you would have to ask a botanist, but I would suspect the temperature, the soil and access to water as being the usual suspects for why one type of tree can dominate an area. I should make it clear that what I describing is the situation in Sweden. Rain forests are unlikely to have the same need for diversity throigh multiple small biomes in the same area. The US is pretty large area so I can't really say if any of its area suffers similar to Sweden, but I would suspect that Canada do. The above linked sources (and references research in those) also point that diversity in how farming is done is also a key part of the decrease biodiversity. High yield farming of the same plant year in and year out is directly harmful to diversity. To enable this kind of farming people adds pesticides and fertilizer, both which links to a decrease in bio diversity through multiple factors. The redirection of water to more concentrated areas also pile on the problems for biodiversity. The more uniform and concentrated the farming become, and the more spill over of pesticides and fertilizer, the more damage we do to nature. Those aspects is true not only for Sweden but globally.

tjr225 7y ago

> Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth I think you'd find the opposite to be true. People would live closer to their families while also tapping job markets that are only available far away. Now that I live closer to family nobody needs to fly to visit each other. It has probably cut down on demand for over 6 cross country flights per year which I would think is very good for the planet.

asdff 7y ago
It depends. If living closer to family means living in a development clear cut from the forest, that isn't sustainable. If it means adopting a life of spending 95% of your energy for transportation on moving the vehicle itself, and shipping 1 off goods from far away ports aboard diesel trucks from one side of the continent to where you live, that isn't sustainable either. You just have more options to live sustainably in the footprint of a large city than out in the countryside. For example, you can ride electrified mass transportation for your needs, or find everything you need in daily life on a bike ride or even a walk around the neighborhood, and take up less space on the surface of the earth by utilizing the vertical axis. Plus if everyone worked remote, your whole family can move to your building, as is the case of some of my neighbors in my apartment.
- tjr225 7y ago
  There are tons of cities near my family. Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids. It's not a dichotomy.