3 ms·

Concrete usage is sufficient to illustrate the mechanism. - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth http

• lmm 5y ago
  OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive far shorter distances, I would've thought those living outside would end up being responsible for more cement use.
  • rsj_hn 5y ago
    For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods into the city. There is not a single city anywhere that is self-sufficient in any of these areas, but there are rural regions which are self-sufficient in one or two of these categories (but rarely all four). So I very much doubt that road networks linking the cities with each other and with the surrounding rural areas are for the benefit of the rural areas more than for the benefit of the city, although certainly both sides obtain some benefit. This goes all the way back to Rome. Why did all roads lead to Rome? For the benefit of the provinces, as an act of generosity on the part of Rome, or so that a stream of goods can be brought into Rome and consumed there?
    • lmm 5y ago
      > For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?), and rural areas benefit from the things produced there (otherwise why would they buy them?). If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false. You're putting the cart before the horse: why do people go to the city to seek their fortune? Because it's impossible for them to make a living in the country. Why are all the homeless people in the cities? Because in the countryside they'd starve. The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources (land area, water, permitted GHG emissions, ...), how can we support as many people as possible. Having the majority follow efficient urban lifestyles does a lot better on that metric.
      • rsj_hn 5y ago
        > cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?) Let's be careful with our terms. Money is produced in the Bureau of Engraving. What you mean is that people within cities earn a higher income, which is true. Urban populations have higher incomes and consumption. But that means that money is flowing into the city from outside. Every time you swipe your credit card, someone in Manhattan gets a cut. Every time you buy an online ad, someone in Silicon Valley takes a cut. When you buy insurance, someone in Hartford takes a cut. Money from all over the country flows into cities. So why does money flow into the city? For the same reason that a marketplace makes money or a platform makes money. It is a schelling point, helping to bridge the gap between intrinsic worth and market worth. The app you wrote is great but it wont make any money without a platform to run on. The baseball player may be a hall of famer but his pay will be determined by the stadium he plays in. Cities are generally where various professionals, managers, and administrators concentrate, and these earn higher incomes as they provide support services or organizational services to the rest of the economy. > If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false I don't mean parasitical in a moral sense, but in the sense of the flow of real quantities (as we are talking about transportation along roads), because the value add of cities is organizational in nature rather than productive in nature. What we see is that if you create a high population rural area, a bigger city will spring up somewhere in the middle of it, just like if there are more producers, a bigger marketplace will emerge to be the focal point of those producers. > why do people go to the city to seek their fortune? Because that is where higher income/higher consumption opportunities lie. Just like why every company wants to be a platform. Or why ambitious corporate types want to be near the HQ. If you are a budding manager or would-be corporate lawyer, do you set up your shingle in Bullhead City, AZ, or in NYC? You want to be where all the money flows so you can be there to receive a cut. That's not to say you are stealing or being lazy. Obviously the competition to get that cut is fierce. > The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources how can we support as many people as possible. There is not a single pattern. You need a market place and you need producers to meet in that marketplace. Life is heterogeneous.