3 ms·

> I’m sure they’ve grown, but it’s still a big world out there people. I No, it just isn't. Humans have transformed seventy per cent of the land on Earth[1].

> I’m sure they’ve grown, but it’s still a big world out there people. I No, it just isn't. Humans have transformed seventy per cent of the land on Earth[1]. Including the deserts. Suburbs are the second most land intensive thing we do, after farming, and for almost every other developed-world country, this problem is more acute than in the US. Get some perspective. That is a "wind turbines cause global warming" level of bad take. More succinctly, so close to a lie I no longer have the patience to differentiate them. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 4y ago
The US has nearly 7 acres of land for every man, woman, and child and yet the average lot size is only .2 acres. Since the average household size is 2.5 people, that’s about 0.08 acres used per person. Moreover, that figure ignores apartment, condo, and other multi-family buildings, so the actual land usage per person is quite a lot lower. Of course, we also need farms to support people, but the US produces much more food than it needs. And yes, the population is growing, but that growth is tapering off and anyway we could manipulate our immigration policies as well. At the end of the day, the US is a vast country, but this isn’t immediately obvious to people who have lived their whole lives in a dense urban environment.
- yodelshady 4y ago
  Did you misspell "world" as "US" ? Or are you dishonestly using non-representative figures? The US has a much smaller proportion of the developed world's men, women and children than it does the land, and those men, women and children are extremely carbon-intensive.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Did you misspell "world" as "US" ? No, at no point have I been discussing the whole world. > Or are you dishonestly using non-representative figures? No, but feel free to correct me if I made a mistake in my calculations. > The US has a much smaller proportion of the developed world's men, women and children than it does the land Yes, this is my point. The US has a lot of land per person. > and those men, women and children are extremely carbon-intensive. Yes, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwaway894345 4y ago

The US has nearly 7 acres of land for every man, woman, and child and yet the average lot size is only .2 acres. Since the average household size is 2.5 people, that’s about 0.08 acres used per person. Moreover, that figure ignores apartment, condo, and other multi-family buildings, so the actual land usage per person is quite a lot lower. Of course, we also need farms to support people, but the US produces much more food than it needs. And yes, the population is growing, but that growth is tapering off and anyway we could manipulate our immigration policies as well. At the end of the day, the US is a vast country, but this isn’t immediately obvious to people who have lived their whole lives in a dense urban environment.

yodelshady 4y ago
Did you misspell "world" as "US" ? Or are you dishonestly using non-representative figures? The US has a much smaller proportion of the developed world's men, women and children than it does the land, and those men, women and children are extremely carbon-intensive.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Did you misspell "world" as "US" ? No, at no point have I been discussing the whole world. > Or are you dishonestly using non-representative figures? No, but feel free to correct me if I made a mistake in my calculations. > The US has a much smaller proportion of the developed world's men, women and children than it does the land Yes, this is my point. The US has a lot of land per person. > and those men, women and children are extremely carbon-intensive. Yes, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.