4 ms·

I respect your heart but there _are_ situations where limiting housing could be in good faith. Overcrowding and resource depletion are such situations that are

I respect your heart but there _are_ situations where limiting housing could be in good faith. Overcrowding and resource depletion are such situations that are currently playing out in the California and several other Western states as water and resources are being stretched to near breaking points. I don't think high density infinite economic growth is green or progressive but I do know it's untenable.

Schiendelman 5y ago
Resource use is still lower at higher density, across all of the axes you’re discussing. Most of the water usage in western states is for farming, not individual use. It is vastly less resource-intensive to get water to someone living in downtown San Francisco in a condo than to get them water in Phoenix in a house - and that’s very commonly the trade here. Overcrowding is a word that doesn’t really mean anything. No Western US city is nearly as dense as most of the major cities in the world. When you say infinite economic growth and density, in the same sentence, I think you are ascribing a bunch of values that aren’t really related to density. To get to a steady state of resource use would require us to live in far higher density than we do today. While all of these seem on their face to be good faith arguments, and you certainly employ them in good faith!, they have relatively easy answers, and yet they are propagating the same way all misinformation does.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  According to UN Habitat, cities consume 78 per cent of the world's energy and produce more than 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Population growth and corresponding high density cities are the driving force behind resource consumption. Those farms only use water so humans can eat. If they just stopped then we'd be starved instead of thirsty. The efficiency of a city is exactly the cause of resource depletion. Land limitations used to be a limiting factor that would put breaks on run away growth. We are not unlike animals in this regard. Higher density is a taller geometry and less stable. Whether other megacities are more dense is moot. I am not saying this because I have some solution. I am not saying this because cities and people are bad. I'm saying as a fact humans and our resource consumption has put the planet on a perilous path that will not end well. Our problem is carrying capacity and if an area is reaching its max stable carrying capacity it may be time to limit housing. If housing is not limited and controlled a population can overshoot because the illusion of a kind climate that is actually only temporary. Perhaps this is not the case for SF but it is and will be the case for many places.
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    If I told you that you were wrong, and I could show you why, would you want to listen? Because it seems like you’re doubling down on a strong opinion you have, and looking for information that could support it.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      "There’s no good faith in limiting housing." Nope. You can not convince me that statement is always true. That's okay though! It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything. Cheers!
      - Schiendelman 5y ago
        All of the things you brought up are better with higher density - they aren't really debatable as much as I think you are misinformed.
        TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        On the contrary. I am familiar with the argument you're making and the flawed government funded research that lead you (and many media) to believe that I am the one that is misinformed. This thread is old but before it closes I'd implore future netizens to check out the work from John W. Day and Charles Hall. The article [1] The Myth of the Sustainable City is a good summary of the work. If I had to summarize it it's a mix of [2] Goodharts Law and the [3] Outsourcing of Pollution. When a state imports energy (or materials) from another state to make its own state's pollution stats look better it's just outsourcing pollution. Not reducing it. And it obscures the region's actual climate impact. It's a shell game but it can't be played much longer. The gig is up. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-sustainable-city/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-s... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law [3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/climate/outsourcing-carbon-emissions.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/clim... [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc...

Schiendelman 5y ago

Resource use is still lower at higher density, across all of the axes you’re discussing. Most of the water usage in western states is for farming, not individual use. It is vastly less resource-intensive to get water to someone living in downtown San Francisco in a condo than to get them water in Phoenix in a house - and that’s very commonly the trade here. Overcrowding is a word that doesn’t really mean anything. No Western US city is nearly as dense as most of the major cities in the world. When you say infinite economic growth and density, in the same sentence, I think you are ascribing a bunch of values that aren’t really related to density. To get to a steady state of resource use would require us to live in far higher density than we do today. While all of these seem on their face to be good faith arguments, and you certainly employ them in good faith!, they have relatively easy answers, and yet they are propagating the same way all misinformation does.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
According to UN Habitat, cities consume 78 per cent of the world's energy and produce more than 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Population growth and corresponding high density cities are the driving force behind resource consumption. Those farms only use water so humans can eat. If they just stopped then we'd be starved instead of thirsty. The efficiency of a city is exactly the cause of resource depletion. Land limitations used to be a limiting factor that would put breaks on run away growth. We are not unlike animals in this regard. Higher density is a taller geometry and less stable. Whether other megacities are more dense is moot. I am not saying this because I have some solution. I am not saying this because cities and people are bad. I'm saying as a fact humans and our resource consumption has put the planet on a perilous path that will not end well. Our problem is carrying capacity and if an area is reaching its max stable carrying capacity it may be time to limit housing. If housing is not limited and controlled a population can overshoot because the illusion of a kind climate that is actually only temporary. Perhaps this is not the case for SF but it is and will be the case for many places.
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  If I told you that you were wrong, and I could show you why, would you want to listen? Because it seems like you’re doubling down on a strong opinion you have, and looking for information that could support it.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    "There’s no good faith in limiting housing." Nope. You can not convince me that statement is always true. That's okay though! It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything. Cheers!
    - Schiendelman 5y ago
      All of the things you brought up are better with higher density - they aren't really debatable as much as I think you are misinformed.
      - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        On the contrary. I am familiar with the argument you're making and the flawed government funded research that lead you (and many media) to believe that I am the one that is misinformed. This thread is old but before it closes I'd implore future netizens to check out the work from John W. Day and Charles Hall. The article [1] The Myth of the Sustainable City is a good summary of the work. If I had to summarize it it's a mix of [2] Goodharts Law and the [3] Outsourcing of Pollution. When a state imports energy (or materials) from another state to make its own state's pollution stats look better it's just outsourcing pollution. Not reducing it. And it obscures the region's actual climate impact. It's a shell game but it can't be played much longer. The gig is up. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-sustainable-city/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-s... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law [3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/climate/outsourcing-carbon-emissions.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/clim... [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc...